Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 74152-74456 [2010-28120]
Download as PDF
74152
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Proposed rules.
AGENCIES:
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 (CO2)
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 (N2O) and
methane (CH4) emissions standards
would apply to all heavy-duty engines,
pickup trucks, and vans. EPA is also
requesting comment on possible
alternative CO2-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
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. NHTSA–
2010–0079 and/or EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162, by one of the following
methods:
• https://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.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
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 https://
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.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74153
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 CO2-equivalent
approaches for model year 2012–14
light-duty vehicles. Potentially affected
categories and entities include the
following:
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
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.
1 For purposes of NHTSA’s fuel consumption
regulations, non-commercial recreational vehicles
will not be covered, even if they would otherwise
Does this action apply to me?
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fall under these categories. See 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.000
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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74154
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/
reproducible.html. DOT’s guidelines
may be access at https://regs.dot.gov.
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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 https://
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.
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.
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 https://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?
Any CBI submitted to one of the
agencies will also be available to the
other agency.3 However, as with all
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.
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.
(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?
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
How can I read the comments submitted
by other people?
arrangements for copies of a transcript
directly with the court reporter.
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 https://
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.
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 heavyduty 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.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74155
E. Changes in Atmospheric CO2
Concentrations, Global Mean
Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean
pH Associated With the Proposal’s GHG
Emissions Reductions
VII. How would this proposal impact NonGHG 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 CO2 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
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74156
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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. Heavyduty 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
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increased shipping of finished goods to
homes through Internet purchases.
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 ‘‘18wheeler’’ 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.
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
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 mediumand 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).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
observed global warming over the last
50 years.9 The primary GHGs of concern
are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). Mobile sources
emitted 31 percent of all U.S. GHGs in
2007 (transportation sources, which do
not include certain off-highway sources,
account for 28 percent) and have been
the fastest-growing source of U.S. GHGs
since 1990.10 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 CO2, CH4,
N2O, 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, CO2 emissions
represented more than 99 percent of all
GHG emissions (including HFCs).12
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,
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 https://
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
https://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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
which means that they alone account for
about 12 percent of all U.S. oil
consumption.13
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.
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
13 In 2009 Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook
2010 released May 11, 2010.
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 https://www.reg-group.com/library/
DOT2100-2.PDF.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74157
due to the close and direct relationship
between improving the fuel efficiency of
these vehicles and reducing their CO2
tailpipe emissions. For all vehicles that
consume carbon-based fuels, the
amount of CO2 emissions is essentially
constant per gallon for a given type of
fuel that is consumed. The more
efficient a heavy-duty truck is in
completing its work, the lower its
environmental impact will be, because
the less fuel consumed to move cargo a
given distance, the less CO2 emitted into
the air. The technologies available for
improving fuel efficiency, and therefore
for reducing both CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption, are one and the
same.15 Because of this close technical
relationship, NHTSA and EPA have
been able to rely on jointly-developed
assumptions, analyses, and analytical
conclusions to support the standards
and other provisions that NHTSA and
EPA are proposing under our separate
legal authorities.
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
15 However, as discussed below, in addition to
addressing CO2, 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.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74158
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 (NOX). These programs have
successfully achieved significant and
cost-effective reductions in emissions
and associated health and welfare
benefits to the nation. They have been
structured in ways that account for the
varying circumstances of the engine and
truck industries. As required by the
CAA, the emission standards
implemented by these programs include
standards that apply at the time that the
vehicle or engine is sold as well as
standards that apply in actual use. As a
result of these programs, new vehicles
meeting current emission standards will
emit 98% less NOX 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 heavyduty 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
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
• Compliance and enforcement
protocols.
Congress emphasized that the test
methods, measurement metrics,
16 The NAS study is described below, and the
NHTSA study accompanies this NPRM.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standards, and compliance and
enforcement protocols must all be
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for commercial
medium-duty and heavy-duty onhighway 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.
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 mediumduty 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
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.’’
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 https://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed
September 10, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
report are discussed in Section X of this
preamble and in the NHTSA HD study
accompanying this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(4) The Recent NHTSA and EPA LightDuty 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 CO2 by working with
the shipping community and the freight
sector to identify low carbon strategies
and technologies, and by providing
technical information, financial
incentives, and partner recognition to
accelerate the adoption of these
strategies. Through the SmartWay
program, EPA has worked closely with
truck manufacturers and truck fleets to
develop test procedures to evaluate
vehicle and component performance in
reducing fuel consumption and has
conducted testing and has established
test programs to verify technologies that
can achieve these reductions. Over the
last six years, EPA has developed
hands-on experience testing the largest
heavy-duty trucks and evaluating
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
74159
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.
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.
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.
Addressing GHG emissions and fuel
consumption from heavy-duty trucks,
however, requires a different approach.
Reducing GHG emissions and fuel
consumption requires increasing the
(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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
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 lightduty vehicles, which are primarily used
for transporting passengers for personal
travel, heavy-duty vehicles fill much
more diverse operator needs. Heavyduty 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, flatbed 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 tractortrailers—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 tractortrailers used in combination
applications can travel more than
150,000 miles per year.
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.
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.
22 Class 2b vehicles designed as passenger
vehicles (Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(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-
(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, heavyduty pickups and vans, and vocational
vehicles—based on the relative degree
of homogeneity among trucks within
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 lightduty 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
MDPVs) are covered by the light-duty GHG and fuel
economy standards and not addressed in this
rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.001
74160
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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, tonmiles. 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
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
23 The vast majority of combination tractortrailers 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74161
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.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 realworld 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 CO2 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.
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-testbased 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
24Adapted 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.002
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74162
In addition, the agencies are
proposing separate performance
standards for the engines manufactured
for use in these trucks. EPA’s proposed
engine-based CO2 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 N2O and CH4
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 N2O and CH4
emissions are technologically related
solely to the engine, fuel, and emissions
aftertreatment systems, and the agency
is not aware of any influence of vehiclebased 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 CO2 standards and the
proposed NHTSA fuel consumption
standards, as well as the proposed EPA
N2O and CH4 standards, would be
determined using the appropriate EPA
engine test procedure, as discussed in
Section II below.
As with the other categories of heavyduty 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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
CO2 and engine-based standards for
N2O, and CH4 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 CO2 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
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 leakreducing technologies sufficient to
comply with the standard, as opposed to
using a test to measure performance.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74163
However, the proposed heavy-duty
A/C provisions differ in two important
ways from those established in the lightduty rule. First, the light-duty
provisions were established as
voluntary ways to generate credits
towards the CO2 g/mi standard, and
EPA took into account the expected use
of such credits in establishing the CO2
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 CO2
standards. We are taking this approach
here recognizing that while the benefits
of leakage control are almost identical
between light-duty and heavy-duty
vehicles on a per vehicle basis, these
benefits on a per mile basis expressed as
a percentage of overall GHG emissions
are much smaller for heavy-duty
vehicles due to their much higher CO2
emissions rates and higher annual
mileage when compared to light-duty
vehicles. Hence a credit-based approach
as done for light-duty vehicles would
provide less motivation for
manufacturers to install low leakage
systems even though such systems
represent a highly cost effective means
to control GHG emissions. The second
difference relates 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 onesize-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
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.003
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74164
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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
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 lightduty rule. The much larger emissions of
CO2 from a heavy-duty tractor as
compared to those from a light-duty
vehicle mean that the relative amount of
CO2 that could be reduced through A/
C efficiency improvements is very
small. 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 standalone 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.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(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. Heavyduty 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 heavyduty vehicle sector.
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, lowGWP 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 volumeweighted 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 lightduty 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 heavyduty 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.
The agencies are proposing that each
manufacturer’s fleet average standard
would be based on production volumeweighting 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 CO2 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
28 EISA requires CAFE standards for passenger
cars and light trucks to be attribute-based; see 49
U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 CO2
emissions in HD pickups and vans.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 chassisbased HD pickup and van program.
These proposed provisions are
described in Section V.B.
In addition to proposed EPA CO2
emission standards and the proposed
NHTSA fuel consumption standards for
HD pickups and vans, EPA is also
proposing standards for two additional
GHGs, N2O and CH4, as well as
standards for air conditioning-related
HFC emissions. These standards are
discussed in more detail in Section II.E.
Finally, EPA is 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.
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
29 Again, we note that NHTSA’s proposed fuel
consumption standards would not apply to noncommercial vehicles like motor homes.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74165
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 CO2 (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
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74166
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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
CO2 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.
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 compliancemodel 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 vehiclebased 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 N2O and CH4 emissions are
technologically related solely to the
engine, fuel, and emissions
aftertreatment systems, and the agency
is not aware of any influence of vehiclebased 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 N2O and
CH4 standards for manufacturers of the
engines to be used in vocational
vehicles. EPA expects that
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.004
(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
CO2 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 vehiclebased 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.
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 CO2 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
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.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.005
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 CO2 standards and the
proposed NHTSA fuel consumption
standards, as well as the proposed EPA
N2O and CH4 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
74167
74168
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
based on the $22 value. Section VIII.F
presents the four marginal values used
to estimate monetized benefits of CO2
reductions and Section VIII presents the
program benefits using each of the four
marginal values, which represent only a
partial accounting of total benefits due
to omitted climate change impacts and
other factors that are not readily
monetized. The values in the table are
discounted values for each model year
of vehicles throughout their projected
lifetimes. The analysis includes other
economic impacts such as 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 nonGHG 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.
Table I–7 shows the agencies’
estimated lifetime fuel savings, lifetime
CO2 emission reductions, and the
monetized net present values of those
fuel savings and CO2 emission
reductions. The gallons of fuel and CO2
emission reductions are projected
lifetime values for all vehicles sold in
the model years 2014–2018. The
estimated fuel savings in billions of
barrels and the GHG reductions in
million metric tons of CO2 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.008
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
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
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 CO2
reduction ($5, $22, $36, $66), for the
purposes of this overview presentation
of estimated benefits the agencies are
showing the benefits associated with
one of these marginal values, $22 per
ton of CO2, in 2008 dollars and 2010
emissions. Table I–6 presents benefits
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table I–5 shows the estimated
lifetime reductions in CO2 emissions (in
million metric tons (MMT)) and fuel
consumption for all heavy-duty vehicles
sold in the model years 2014–2018. The
values in Table I–5 are projected
lifetime totals for each model year and
are not discounted. The two agencies’
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74169
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.
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.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
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.
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 CO2
emission and fuel consumption levels
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 heavyduty fuel efficiency under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.010
Table I–8 shows the estimated
incremental and total technology
outlays for all heavy-duty vehicles for
EP30NO10.011
Table I–7 reflect both a 3 percent and a
7 percent discount rate as noted.
EP30NO10.009
monetized-CO2 reductions for the five
model years 2014–2018 throughout their
lifetimes. The monetized values in
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74170
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 CO2 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 CO2 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 heavyduty 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 CO2 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 CO2 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 heavyduty 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
31 See
PO 00000
42 U.S.C. 7521(a).
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 technologybased 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 postcertification. 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 CO2 and all other carbon
compounds (e.g., total hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide (CO)), and then,
by mass balance, calculating the amount
of fuel consumed.
(b) EPA Enforcement Authority
Section 207 of the CAA grants EPA
broad authority to require
manufacturers to remedy vehicles if
EPA determines there are a substantial
number of noncomplying vehicles. In
addition, section 205 of the CAA
authorizes EPA to assess penalties of up
to $37,500 per vehicle for violations of
various prohibited acts specified in the
CAA. In determining the appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74171
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.
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 mediumand 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
31 ‘‘Commercial medium- and heavy-duty onhighway vehicles’’ are defined at 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7), and ‘‘work trucks’’ are defined at
(a)(19).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74172
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(b) NHTSA Enforcement Authority
49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) also states that
NHTSA must adopt and implement
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible compliance and
enforcement protocols for the fuel
efficiency improvement program.
In 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), Congress did
not speak directly to the ‘‘compliance
and enforcement protocols’’ it
envisioned. Instead, it left the matter
generally to the Secretary. Congress’
approach is unlike CAFE enforcement
for passenger cars and light trucks,
where Congress specified a program
where a manufacturer either complies
with standards or pays civil penalties.
But Congress did not specify in 49
U.S.C. 32902(k) what it precisely meant
in directing NHTSA to develop
‘‘compliance and enforcement
protocols.’’ It appears, therefore, that
Congress has assigned this matter to the
agency’s discretion.
The statute is silent with respect to
how ‘‘protocol’’ should be interpreted.
The term ‘‘protocol’’ is imprecise. For
example, in a case interpreting section
301(c)(2) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), the DC Circuit noted that the
word ‘‘protocols’’ has many definitions
that are not much help. Kennecott Utah
Copper Corp., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of
Interior, 88 F.3d. 1191, 1216 (DC Cir.
1996). Section 301(c)(2) of CERCLA
prescribed the creation of two types of
procedures for conducting natural
resources damages assessments. The
regulations were to specify (a) ‘‘standard
procedures for simplified assessments
requiring minimal field observation’’
(the ‘‘Type A’’ rules), and (b) ‘‘alternative
protocols for conducting assessments in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
individual cases’’ (the ‘‘Type B’’ rules).33
The court upheld the challenged
provisions, which were a part of a set of
rules establishing a step-by-step
procedure to evaluate options based on
certain criteria, and to make a decision
and document the results.
Taking the considerations above into
account, including Congress’
instructions to adopt and implement
compliance and enforcement protocols,
and the Secretary’s authority to
formulate policy and make rules to fill
gaps left, implicitly or explicitly, by
Congress, the agency interprets
‘‘protocol’’ in the context of EISA as
authorizing the agency to determine
both whether manufacturers have
complied with the standards, and to
establish the enforcement mechanisms
and decision criteria for noncompliance. NHTSA seeks comment on
its interpretation of this statutory
requirement.
G. Future HD GHG and Fuel
Consumption Rulemakings
This proposal represents a first
regulatory step by NHTSA and EPA to
address the multi-faceted challenges of
reducing fuel use and greenhouse gas
emissions from these vehicles. By
focusing on existing technologies and
well-developed regulatory tools, the
agencies are able to propose rules that
we believe will produce real and
important reductions in GHG emissions
and fuel consumption within only a few
years. Within the context of this
regulatory timeframe, our proposal is
very aggressive—with limited lead time
compared to historic heavy-duty
regulations—but pragmatic in the
context of technologies that are
available.
While we are now only proposing this
first step, it is worthwhile to consider
how future regulations that may follow
this step may be constructed.
Technologies such as hybrid drivetrains,
advanced bottoming cycle engines, and
full electric vehicles are promoted in
this first step through incentive
concepts as discussed in Section IV, but
we believe that these advanced
technologies would not be necessary to
meet the proposed standards, which are
premised on the use of existing
technologies. When we begin our future
work to develop a possible next set of
regulatory standards, the agencies
expect these advanced technologies to
be an important part of the regulatory
program and will consider them in
setting the stringency of any standards
beyond the 2018 model year.
33 State of Ohio v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 880 F.2d
432, 439 (DC Cir. 1989).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We will not only consider the
progress of technology in our future
regulatory efforts, but the agencies are
also committed to fully considering a
range of regulatory approaches. To more
completely capture the complex
interactions of the total vehicle and the
potential to reduce fuel consumption
and GHG emissions through the
optimization of those interactions may
require a more sophisticated approach
to vehicle testing than we are proposing
for the largest heavy-duty vehicles. In
future regulations, the agencies expect
to fully evaluate the potential to expand
the use of vehicle compliance models to
reflect engine and drivetrain
performance. Similarly, we intend to
consider the potential for complete
vehicle testing using a chassis
dynamometer, not only as a means for
compliance, but also as a
complementary tool for the
development of more complex vehicle
modeling approaches. In considering
these more comprehensive regulatory
approaches, the agencies will also
reevaluate whether separate regulation
of trucks and engines remains
necessary.
In addition to technology and test
procedures, vehicle and engine drive
cycles are an important part of the
overall approach to evaluating and
improving vehicle performance. EPA,
working through the WP.29 Global
Technical Regulation process, has
actively participated in the development
of a new World Harmonized Duty Cycle
for heavy-duty engines. EPA is
committed to bringing forward these
new procedures as part of our overall
comprehensive approach for controlling
criteria and GHG emissions. However,
we believe the important issues and
technical work related to setting new
criteria emissions standards appropriate
for the World Harmonized Duty Cycle
are significant and beyond the scope of
this rulemaking. Therefore, the agencies
are not proposing to adopt these test
procedures in this proposal, but we are
ready to work with interested
stakeholders to adopt these procedures
in a future action.
As with this proposal, our future
efforts will be based on collaborative
outreach with the stakeholder
community and will be focused on a
program that delivers on our energy
security and environmental goals
without restricting the industry’s ability
to produce a very diverse range of
vehicles serving a wide range of needs.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
II. Proposed GHG and Fuel
Consumption Standards for Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles
This section describes the standards
and implementation dates that the
agencies are proposing for the three
categories of heavy-duty vehicles. The
agencies have performed a technology
analysis to determine the level of
standards that we believe would be
appropriate, cost-effective, and feasible
during the rulemaking timeframe. This
analysis, described in Section III and in
more detail in the draft RIA Chapter 2,
considered:
• The level of technology that is
incorporated in current new trucks,
• The available data on
corresponding CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption for these vehicles,
• Technologies that would reduce
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
and that are judged to be feasible and
appropriate for these vehicles through
2018 model year,
• The effectiveness and cost of these
technologies,
• Projections of future U.S. sales for
trucks, and
• Forecasts of manufacturers’ product
redesign schedules.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. What vehicles would be affected?
EPA and NHTSA are proposing
standards for heavy-duty engines and
also for what we refer to generally as
‘‘heavy-duty trucks.’’ As noted in
Section I, for purposes of this preamble,
the term ‘‘heavy-duty’’ or ‘‘HD’’ is used
to apply to all highway vehicles and
engines that are not regulated by the
light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck and
medium-duty passenger vehicle
greenhouse gas and CAFE standards
issued for MYs 2012–2016. Thus, in this
notice, unless specified otherwise, the
heavy-duty category incorporates all
vehicles rated with GVWR greater than
8,500 pounds, and the engines that
power these vehicles, except for
MDPVs. The CAA defines heavy-duty
vehicles as trucks, buses or other motor
vehicles with GVWR exceeding 6,000
pounds. See CAA section 202(b)(3). In
the context of the CAA, the term HD as
used in these proposed rules thus refers
to a subset of these vehicles and
engines. EISA section 103(a)(3) defines
a ‘commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicle’ as an on-highway
vehicle with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
more.34 EISA section 103(a)(6) defines a
‘work truck’ as a vehicle that is rated at
between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight and is not a medium34 Codified
at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
duty passenger vehicle.35 Therefore, the
term ‘‘heavy-duty trucks’’ in this
proposal refers to both work trucks and
commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles as defined by
EISA. Heavy-duty engines affected by
the proposed standards are those that
are installed in commercial mediumand heavy-duty trucks, except for the
engines installed in vehicles certified to
a complete vehicle emissions standard
based on a chassis test, which would be
addressed as a part of those complete
vehicles, and except for engines used
exclusively for stationary power when
the vehicle is parked. The agencies’
scope is the same with the exception of
recreational vehicles (or motor homes),
as discussed above. EPA is proposing to
include recreational on-highway
vehicles within their rulemaking, while
NHTSA is limiting their scope to
commercial trucks which would not
include these vehicles.
EPA and NHTSA are proposing
standards for each of the following
categories, which together comprise all
heavy-duty vehicles and all engines
used in such vehicles.36 In order to most
appropriately regulate the broad range
of heavy-duty vehicles, the agencies are
proposing to set separate engine and
vehicle standards for the combination
tractors and the Class 2b through 8
vocational vehicles and the engines
installed in them. The engine standards
and test procedures for engines installed
in the tractors and vocational vehicles
are discussed within the applicable
vehicle sections.
• Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors.
• Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and
Vans.
35 EISA Section 103(a)(6) is codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(19). EPA defines medium-duty passenger
vehicles as any complete vehicle between 8,500 and
10,000 pounds GVWR designed primarily for the
transportation of persons which meet the criteria
outlined in 40 CFR 86.1803–01. The definition
specifically excludes any vehicle that (1) Has a
capacity of more than 12 persons total or, (2) is
designed to accommodate more than 9 persons in
seating rearward of the driver’s seat or, (3) has a
cargo box (e.g., pick-up box or bed) of six feet or
more in interior length. (See the Tier 2 final
rulemaking, 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.)
36 Both agencies have authority to develop
separate standards for vehicle and engine
categories, as appropriate. See CAA section
202(a)(1) (authority to establish standards for ‘‘any
class or classes of new motor vehicles or engines’’
and 49 U.S.C 32902(k)(2) (authority to establish
standards for HD vehicles that are ‘‘appropriate,
cost-effective, and technologically feasible’’ that are
designed to achieve the ‘‘maximum feasible
improvement’’ in fuel efficiency; authority to
establish ‘‘separate standards for different classes of
vehicles under this subsection.’’ NHTSA interprets
49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) to include a grant of authority
to establish engines standards pursuant to the
broader statement of authority to establish
standards that achieve the maximum feasible
improvement in fuel efficiency.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74173
• Class 2b through 8 Vocational
Vehicles.
As discussed in Section IX, the
agencies are not proposing GHG
emission and fuel consumption
standards for trailers at this time. In
addition, the agencies are proposing to
not set standards at this time for engine,
chassis, and vehicle manufacturers
which are small businesses (as defined).
More detailed discussion of each
regulatory category is included in the
subsequent sections below.
B. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
EPA is proposing CO2 standards and
NHTSA is proposing fuel consumption
standards for new Class 7 and 8
combination tractors. The standards are
for the tractor cab, with a separate
standard for the engines that are
installed in the tractor. Together these
standards would achieve reductions up
to 20 percent from tractors. As
discussed below, EPA is proposing to
adopt the existing useful life definitions
for heavy-duty engines for the Class 7
and 8 tractors. NHTSA is proposing fuel
consumption standards for tractors, and
engine standards for heavy-duty engines
for Class 7 and 8 tractors. The agencies’
analyses, as discussed briefly below and
in more detail later in this preamble and
in the draft RIA Chapter 2, show that
these standards are appropriate and
feasible under each agency’s respective
statutory authorities.
EPA is also proposing standards to
control N2O, CH4, and HFC emissions
from Class 7 and 8 combination tractors.
The proposed heavy-duty engine
standards for both N2O and CH4 and
details of the standard are included in
the discussion in Section II. The
proposed air conditioning leakage
standards applying to tractor
manufacturers to address HFC
emissions are included in Section II.
The agencies are proposing CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
standards for the combination tractors
that will focus on reductions that can be
achieved through improvements in the
tractor (such as aerodynamics), tires,
and other vehicle systems. The agencies
are also proposing heavy-duty engine
standards for CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption that would focus on
potential technological improvements in
fuel combustion and overall engine
efficiency.
The agencies have analyzed the
feasibility of achieving the CO2 and fuel
consumption standards, based on
projections of what actions
manufacturers are expected to take to
reduce emissions and fuel consumption.
EPA and NHTSA also present the
estimated costs and benefits of the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74174
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
standards in Section III. In developing
the proposed rules, the agencies have
evaluated the kinds of technologies that
could be utilized by engine and tractor
manufacturers, as well as the associated
costs for the industry and fuel savings
for the consumer and the magnitude of
the CO2 and fuel savings that may be
achieved.
EPA and NHTSA are proposing
attribute-based standards for the Class 7
and 8 combination tractors, or, put
another way, we are proposing to set
different standards for different
subcategories of these tractors with the
basis for subcategorization being
particular tractor attributes. Attributebased standards in general recognize the
variety of functions performed by
vehicles and engines, which in turn can
affect the kind of technology that is
available to control emissions and
reduce fuel consumption, or its
effectiveness. Attributes that
characterize differences in the design of
vehicles, as well as differences in how
the vehicles will be employed in-use,
can be key factors in evaluating
technological improvements for
reducing CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption. Developing an
appropriate attribute-based standard can
also avoid interfering with the ability of
the market to offer a variety of products
to meet consumer demand. There are
several examples of where the agencies
have utilized an attribute-based
standard. In addition to the example of
the recent light-duty vehicle fuel
economy and GHG rule, in which the
standards are based on the attribute of
vehicle ‘‘footprint,’’ the existing heavyduty highway engine criteria pollutant
emission standards for many years have
been based on a vehicle weight attribute
(Light Heavy, Medium Heavy, Heavy
Heavy) with different useful life
periods, which is the same approach
proposed for the engine GHG and fuel
consumption standards discussed
below.
Heavy-duty combination tractors are
built to move freight. The ability of a
truck to meet a customer’s freight
transportation requirements depends on
three major characteristics of the tractor:
The gross vehicle weight rating (which
along with gross combined weight rating
(GCWR) establishes the maximum
carrying capacity of the tractor and
trailer), cab type (sleeper cabs provide
overnight accommodations for drivers),
and the tractor roof height (to mate
tractors to trailers for the most fuelefficient configuration). Each of these
attributes impacts the baseline fuel
consumption and GHG emissions, as
well as the effectiveness of possible
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
technologies, like aerodynamics, and is
discussed in more detail below.
The first tractor characteristic to
consider is payload which is
determined by a tractor’s GVWR and
GCWR relative to the weight of the
tractor, trailer, fuel, driver, and
equipment. Class 7 trucks, which have
a GVWR of 26,001–33,000 pounds and
a typical GCWR of 65,000 pounds, have
a lesser payload capacity than Class 8
trucks. Class 8 trucks have a GVWR of
greater than 33,000 pounds and a
typical 80,000 pound GCWR. Consistent
with the recommendation in the
National Academy of Sciences 2010
Report to NHTSA,37 the agencies are
proposing a load-specific fuel
consumption metric (g/ton-mile and gal/
1,000 ton-mile) where the ‘‘ton’’
represents the amount of payload.
Generally, higher payload capacity
trucks have better specific fuel
consumption and GHG emissions than
lower payload capacity trucks.
Therefore, since the amount of payload
that a Class 7 truck can carry is less than
the Class 8 truck’s payload capacity, the
baseline fuel consumption and GHG
emissions performance per ton-mile
differs between the categories. It is
consequently reasonable to distinguish
between these two vehicle categories, so
that the agencies are proposing separate
standards for Class 7 and Class 8
tractors.
The agencies are not proposing to set
a single standard for both Class 7 and
8 tractors based on the payload carrying
capabilities and assumed typical
payload levels of Class 8 tractors alone,
as that would quite likely have the
perverse impact of increasing fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions. Such a single standard
would penalize Class 7 vehicles in favor
of Class 8 vehicles. However, the greater
capabilities of Class 8 tractors and their
related greater efficiency when
measured on a per ton-mile basis is only
relevant in the context of operations
where that greater capacity is needed.
For many applications such as regional
distribution, the trailer payloads
dictated by the goods being carried are
lower than the average Class 8 tractor
payload. In those situations, Class 7
tractors are more efficient than Class 8
tractors when measured by ton-mile of
actual freight carried. This is because
the extra capabilities of Class 8 tractors
add additional weight to vehicle that is
only beneficial in the context of its
higher capabilities. The existing market
already selects for vehicle performance
based on the projected payloads. By
37 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 19,
Recommendation 2–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
setting separate standards the agencies
do not advantage or disadvantage Class
7 or 8 tractors relative to one another
and continue to allow trucking fleets to
purchase the vehicle most appropriate
to their business practices.
The second characteristic that affects
fuel consumption and GHG emissions is
the relationship between the tractor cab
roof height and the type of trailer used
to carry the freight. The primary trailer
types are box, flat bed, tanker, bulk
carrier, chassis, and low boys. Tractor
manufacturers sell tractors in three roof
heights—low, mid, and high. The
manufacturers do this to obtain the best
aerodynamic performance of a tractortrailer combination, resulting in
reductions of GHG emissions and fuel
consumption, because it allows the
frontal area of the tractor to be similar
in size to the frontal area of the trailer.
In other words, high roof tractors are
designed to be paired with a (relatively
tall) box trailer while a low roof tractor
is designed to pull a (relatively low) flat
bed trailer. The baseline performance of
a high roof, mid roof, and low roof
tractor differs due to the variation in
frontal area which determines the
aerodynamic drag. For example, the
frontal area of a low roof tractor is
approximately 6 square meters, while a
high roof tractor has a frontal area of
approximately 9.8 square meters.
Therefore, as explained below, the
agencies are proposing that the roof
height of the tractor determine the
trailer type required to be used to
demonstrate compliance of a truck with
the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions standards. As with vehicle
weight classes, setting separate
standards for each tractor roof height
helps ensure that all tractors are
regulated to achieve appropriate
improvements, without inadvertently
leading to increased emissions and fuel
consumption by shifting the mix of
vehicle roof heights offered in the
market away from a level customarily
tied to the actual trailers vehicles will
haul in-use.
Tractor cabs typically can be divided
into two configurations—day cabs and
sleeper cabs. Line haul operations
typically require overnight
accommodations due to Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration hours of
operation requirements.38 Therefore,
38 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration’s Hours-of-Service regulations put
limits in place for when and how long commercial
motor vehicle drivers may drive. They are based on
an exhaustive scientific review and are designed to
ensure truck drivers get the necessary rest to
perform safe operations. See 49 CFR part 395, and
see also https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregulations/topics/hos/index.htm (last accessed
August 8, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
some truck buyers purchase tractor cabs
with sleeping accommodations, also
known as sleeper cabs, because they do
not return to their home base nightly.
Sleeper cabs tend to have a greater
empty curb weight than day cabs due to
the larger cab volume and
accommodations, which lead to a higher
baseline fuel consumption for sleeper
cabs when compared to day cabs. In
addition, there are specific technologies,
such as extended idle reduction
technologies, which are appropriate
only for tractors which hotel—such as
sleeper cabs. To respect these
differences, the agencies are proposing
to create separate standards for sleeper
cabs and day cabs.
To account for the relevant
combinations of these attributes, the
agencies therefore propose to segment
combination tractors into the following
nine regulatory subcategories:
• Class 7 Day Cab with Low Roof
• Class 7 Day Cab with Mid Roof
• Class 7 Day Cab with High Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab with Low Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab with Mid Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab with High Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab with Low Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab with Mid Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab with High Roof
The agencies have not identified any
Class 7 or Class 8 day cabs with mid
roof heights in the market today but
welcome comments with regard to this
market characterization.
Adjustable roof fairings are used
today on what the agencies consider to
be low roof tractors. The adjustable
fairings allow the operator to change the
fairing height to better match the type of
trailer that is being pulled which can
reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions during operation. The
agencies propose to treat tractors with
adjustable roof fairings as low roof
tractors and test with the fairing down.
The agencies welcome comments on
this approach and data to support
whether to allow additional credits for
their use.
The agencies are proposing to classify
all vehicles with sleeper cabs as tractors.
The proposed rules would not allow
vehicles with sleeper cabs to be
classified as vocational vehicles. This
provision is intended prevent the initial
manufacture of straight truck vocational
vehicles with sleeper cabs that, soon
after introduction into commerce,
would be converted to combination
tractors, as a means to circumvent the
Class 8 sleeper cab regulations. The
agencies welcome comments on the
likelihood of manufacturers using such
an approach to circumvent the
regulations and the appropriate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
regulatory provisions the agencies
should consider to prevent such actions.
(1) What are the proposed Class 7 and
8 tractor and engine CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption standards and their
timing?
In developing the proposed tractor
and engine standards, the agencies have
evaluated the current levels of
emissions and fuel consumption, the
kinds of technologies that could be
utilized by truck and engine
manufacturers to reduce emissions and
fuel consumption from tractors and
engines, the associated lead time, the
associated costs for the industry, fuel
savings for the consumer, and the
magnitude of the CO2 and fuel savings
that may be achieved. The technologies
that the agencies considered while
setting the proposed tractor standards
include improvements in aerodynamic
design, lower rolling resistance tires,
extended idle reduction technologies,
and vehicle empty weight reduction.
The technologies that the agencies
considered while setting the engine
standards include engine friction
reduction, aftertreatment optimization,
and turbocompounding, among others.
The agencies’ evaluation indicates that
these technologies are available today,
but have very low application rates in
the market. The agencies have analyzed
the technical feasibility of achieving the
proposed CO2 and fuel consumption
standards for tractors and engines, based
on projections of what actions
manufacturers would be expected to
take to reduce emissions and fuel
consumption to achieve the standards.
EPA and NHTSA also present the
estimated costs and benefits of the Class
7 and 8 combination tractor and engine
standards in Section III and in draft RIA
Chapter 2.
(a) Tractor Standards
The agencies are proposing the
following standards for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors in Table II–1, using
the subcategorization approach just
explained. As noted, the agencies are
not aware of any mid roof day cab
tractors at this time, but are proposing
that any Class 7 and 8 day cabs with a
mid roof would meet the respective low
roof standards, based on the similarity
in baseline performance and similarity
in expected improvement of mid roof
sleeper cabs relative to low roof sleeper
cabs.
As explained below in Section III,
EPA has determined that there is
sufficient lead time to introduce various
tractor and engine technologies into the
fleet starting in the 2014 model year,
and is proposing standards starting for
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74175
that model year predicated on
performance of those technologies. EPA
is proposing more stringent tractor
standards for the 2017 model year
which reflect the CO2 emissions
reductions required through the 2017
model year engine standards. (As
explained in Section II.B.(2)(h)(v)
below, engine performance is one of the
inputs into the proposed compliance
model, and that input will change in
2017 to reflect the 2017 MY engine
standards.) The 2017 MY vehicle
standards are not premised on tractor
manufacturers installing additional
vehicle technologies. EPA’s proposed
standards apply throughout the useful
life period as described in Section V.
Similar to EPA’s non-GHG standards
approach, manufacturers may generate
and use credits from Class 7 and 8
combination tractors to show
compliance with the standards.
NHTSA is proposing Class 7 and 8
tractor fuel consumption standards that
are voluntary standards in the 2014 and
2015 model years and become
mandatory beginning in the 2016 model
year, as required by the lead time and
stability requirement within EISA.
NHTSA is also proposing new standards
for the 2017 model year which reflect
additional improvements in only the
heavy-duty engines. While NHTSA
proposes to use useful life
considerations for establishing fuel
consumption performance for initial
compliance and for ABT, NHTSA does
not intend to implement an in-use
compliance program for fuel
consumption because it is not currently
anticipated there will be notable
deterioration of fuel consumption over
the useful life. NHTSA believes that the
vehicle and engine standards proposed
for combination tractors are appropriate,
cost-effective, and technologically
feasible in the rulemaking timeframe
based on our analysis detailed below in
Section III and in the Chapter 2 of the
draft RIA.
EPA and NHTSA are not proposing to
make the 2017 vehicle standards more
stringent based on the application of
additional truck technologies because
projected application rates of truck
technologies used in setting the 2014
model year truck standard already
reflect the maximum application rates
we believe appropriate for these
vehicles given their specific use patterns
as described in Section III. We
considered setting more stringent
standards for Class 7 and 8 tractors
based on the application of more
advanced aerodynamic systems, such as
self-compensating side extenders or
other advanced aerodynamic
technologies, but concluded that those
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74176
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
proposing to allow a narrow range of
these de facto off-road trucks to be
excluded from the proposed tractor
standards because the trucks do not
travel at speeds high enough to realize
aerodynamic improvements and require
special off-road tires such as lug tires.
The trucks must still use a certified
engine, which will provide fuel
consumption and CO2 emission
reductions to the truck in all
applications. To ensure the limited use
of these trucks, the agencies are
proposing requirements that the
vehicles have off-road tires, have
limited high speed operation, and are
designed for specific off-road
applications.40 The agencies are
proposing that a truck must meet the
following requirements to qualify for an
exemption from the vehicle standards
for Class 7 and 8 tractors:
• Installed tires which are lug tires or
contain a speed rating of less than or
equal to 60 mph; and
• Include a vehicle speed limiter
governed to 55 mph, and
• Contain Power Take-Off controls, or
have axle configurations other than 4x2,
6x2, or 6x4 and has GVWR greater than
57,000 pounds; and
• Has a frame Resisting Bending
Moment greater than 2,000,000 lb-in.41
EPA and NHTSA have concluded that
the onroad performance losses and
additional costs to develop a truck
which meets these specifications will
limit the exemption to trucks built for
40 For purposes of compliance with NHTSA’s
safety regulations, such as FMVSS Nos. 119 and
121, a manufacturer wishing for their vehicle to
classify as ‘‘off-road’’ would still need to work with
the relevant NHTSA office to declare its vehicle as
‘‘off-road’’ if it uses public roads at any point in its
service.
41 The agencies have found based on standard
truck specifications, that vehicles designed for
significant off-road applications, such as concrete
pumper and logging trucks have resisting bending
moment greater than 2,100,000 lb-in. (ranging up to
3,580,000 lb-in.). The typical on highway tractors
have resisting bending moment of 1,390,000 lb-in.
(i) Off-Road Tractor Standards
In developing the proposal EPA and
NHTSA received comment from
manufacturers and owners that tractors
sometimes have very limited on-road
usage. These trucks are defined to be
motor vehicles under 40 CFR 85.1703,
but they will spend the majority of their
operations off-road. Tractors, such as
those used in oil fields, will experience
little benefit from improved
aerodynamics and low rolling resistance
tires. The agencies are therefore
39 Manufacturers
may voluntarily opt-in to the
NHTSA fuel consumption program in 2014 or 2015.
If a manufacturer opts-in, the program becomes
mandatory. See Section [add cross reference] below
for more information about NHTSA’s voluntary optin program for MYs 2014 and 2015.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.012
We request comment on this decision,
supported by data as appropriate.
Based on our analysis, the 2017 model
year standards represent up to a 20
percent reduction in CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption over a 2010 model
year baseline, as detailed in Section
III.A.2.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
technologies would not be fully
developed in the necessary lead time.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the desired purposes.42 The agencies
welcome comment on the proposed
requirements and exemptions.
(b) Engine Standards
EPA is proposing GHG standards and
NHTSA is proposing fuel consumption
standards for new heavy-duty engines.
The standards will vary depending on
the type of vehicle in which they are
used, as well as whether the engines are
diesel or gasoline powered. This section
discusses the standards for engines used
in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors
and also provides some overall
background information. More
information is also provided in the
discussion of the standards for engines
used in vocational vehicles.
EPA’s existing criteria pollutant
emissions regulations for heavy-duty
highway engines establish four
regulatory categories that represent the
engine’s intended and primary truck
application.43 The Light Heavy-Duty
(LHD) diesel engines are intended for
application in Class 2b through Class 5
trucks (8,501 through 19,500 pounds
GVWR). The Medium Heavy-Duty
(MHD) diesel engines are intended for
Class 6 and Class 7 trucks (19,501
through 33,000 pounds GVWR). The
Heavy Heavy-Duty (HDD) diesel engines
are primarily used in Class 8 trucks
(33,001 pounds and greater GVWR).
Lastly, spark ignition engines (primarily
gasoline-powered engines) installed in
incomplete vehicles less than 14,000
pounds GVWR and spark ignition
engines that are installed in all vehicles
(complete or incomplete) greater than
14,000 pounds GVWR are grouped into
a single engine regulatory subcategory.
The engines in these four regulatory
subcategories range in size between
approximately five liters and sixteen
liters. The agencies welcome comments
on updating the definitions of each
subcategory, such as the typical
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
42 The estimated cost for a lift axle is
approximately $10,000. Axles with weight ratings
greater than a typical on-road axle cost an
additional $3,000.
43 See 40 CFR 1036.140.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
horsepower levels, as described in 40
CFR 1036.140.
For the purposes of the GHG engine
emissions and engine fuel consumption
standards that EPA and NHTSA are
proposing, the agencies intend to
maintain these same four regulatory
subcategories. This class structure
would enable the agencies to set
standards that appropriately reflect the
technology available for engines for use
in each type of vehicle, and that are
therefore technologically feasible for
these engines. This section discusses the
MHD and HHD diesel engines used in
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors.
Additional details regarding the other
heavy-duty engine standards are
included in Section II.D.1.b.
EPA’s proposed heavy-duty CO2
emission standards for diesel engines
installed in combination tractors are
presented in Table II–2. We should note
that this does not cover gasoline or
LHDD engines as they are not used in
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors.
Similar to EPA’s non-GHG standards
approach, manufacturers may generate
and use credits to show compliance
with the standards. EPA is proposing to
adopt the existing useful life definitions
for heavy-duty engines. The EPA
standards would become effective in the
2014 model year, with more stringent
standards becoming effective in model
year 2017. Recently, EPA’s heavy-duty
highway engine program for criteria
pollutants provided new emissions
standards for the industry in three year
increments. Largely, the heavy-duty
engine and truck manufacturer product
plans have fallen into three year cycles
to reflect this regulatory environment.
The proposed two-step CO2 emission
standards recognize the opportunity for
technology improvements over this
timeframe while reflecting the typical
diesel truck manufacturers’ product
plan cycles.
With respect to the lead time and cost
of incorporating technology
improvements that reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption, EPA
and NHTSA place important weight on
the fact that during MYs 2014–2017
engine manufacturers are expected to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74177
redesign and upgrade their products.
Over these four model years there will
be an opportunity for manufacturers to
evaluate almost every one of their
engine models and add technology in a
cost-effective way, consistent with
existing redesign schedules, to control
GHG emissions and reduce fuel
consumption. The time-frame and levels
for the standards, as well as the ability
to average, bank and trade credits and
carry a deficit forward for a limited
time, are expected to provide
manufacturers the time needed to
incorporate technology that will achieve
the proposed GHG and fuel
consumption reductions, and to do this
as part of the normal engine redesign
process. This is an important aspect of
the proposed rules, as it will avoid the
much higher costs that would occur if
manufacturers needed to add or change
technology at times other than these
scheduled redesigns. This time period
will also provide manufacturers the
opportunity to plan for compliance
using a multi-year time frame, again in
accord with their normal business
practice. Further details on lead time,
redesigns and technical feasibility can
be found in Section III.
NHTSA’s fuel consumption
standards, also presented in Table II–2,
would contain voluntary engine
standards starting in 2014 model year,
with mandatory engine standards
starting in 2017 model year, harmonized
with EPA’s 2017 model year standards.
A manufacturer may opt-in to NHTSA’s
voluntary standards in 2014, 2015 or
2016. Once a manufacturer opts-in, the
standards become mandatory for the
opt-in and subsequent model years, and
the manufacturer may not reverse its
decision. To opt into the program, a
manufacturer must declare its intent to
opt in to the program at the same time
it submits the Pre-Certification
Compliance Report. See 49 CFR 535.8
for information related to the PreCertification Compliance Report. A
manufacturer opting into the program
would begin tracking credits and debits
beginning in the model year in which
they opt into the program.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Combination tractors spend the
majority of their operation at steady
state conditions, and will obtain in-use
benefit of technologies such as
turbocompounding and other waste heat
recovery technologies during this kind
of typical engine operation. Therefore,
the engines installed in tractors would
be required to meet the standard based
on the steady-state SET test cycle, as
discussed further in Section II.B(2)(i).
The baseline HHD diesel engine
performance in 2010 model year on the
SET is 490 g CO2/bhp-hr (4.81 gal/100
bhp-hr), as determined from
confidential data provided by
manufacturers and data submitted for
the non-GHG emissions certification
process. Similarly, the baseline MHD
diesel engine performance on the SET
cycle is 518 g CO2/bhp-hr (5.09 gallon/
100-bhp-hr) in the 2010 model year.
Further discussion of the derivation of
the baseline can be found in Section III
The diesel engine standards that EPA is
proposing and the voluntary standards
being proposed by NHTSA for the 2014
model year would require diesel engine
manufacturers to achieve on average a
three percent reduction in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions over
the baseline 2010 model year
performance for the engines. The
agencies’ assessment of the findings of
the 2010 NAS Report and other
literature sources indicates that there
are technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption by this level in the
proposed timeframe. These technologies
include improved turbochargers,
aftertreatment optimization, low
temperature exhaust gas recirculation,
and engine friction reductions.
Additional discussion on technical
feasibility is included in Section III
below and in draft RIA Chapter 2.
Furthermore, the agencies are
proposing that diesel engines further
reduce fuel consumption and CO2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
emissions from the 2010 model year
baseline in 2017 model year. The
proposed reductions represent on
average a six percent reduction for MHD
and HHD diesel engines required to use
the SET-based standard. The additional
reductions could likely be achieved
through the increased refinement of the
technologies projected to be
implemented for 2014, plus the addition
of turbocompounding or other waste
heat recovery systems. The agencies’
analysis indicates that this type of
advanced engine technology would
require a longer development time than
the 2014 model year, and we therefore
are proposing to provide additional lead
time to allow for its introduction.
The agencies are aware that some
truck and engine manufacturers would
prefer to align their product
development plans for these engine
standards with their current plans to
meet Onboard Diagnostic regulations for
EPA and California in 2013 and 2016.
We believe our proposed averaging,
banking and trading provisions already
provide these manufacturers with
considerable flexibility to manage their
GHG compliance plans consistent with
the 2013 model year. Nevertheless, we
are requesting comment on whether
EPA and NHTSA should provide
additional defined phase-in schedules
that would more explicitly
accommodate this request. For example,
we request comment on a phase-in
schedule with a standard of 485 g/bhphr for the model years 2013–2015
followed by a standard of 460 g/bhp-hr
for 2016–18 model years with the
associated fuel consumption values for
the NHTSA program. This phase-in
schedule is just one of many potential
schedules that would provide identical
fuel savings and emissions reductions
for the period from 2013–2018. If
commenters wish to discuss a different
phase-in schedule than the one
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposed by the agencies, we request
that commenters include a description
of their preferred phase-in schedule,
including an analysis showing that it
would be at least as effective (or more)
as the primary program for the period
through the 2018 model year. We also
request comment on whether similar
provisions should be made for the
vocational engine standards discussed
later in this section.
In proposing this standard for heavyduty diesel engines used in Class 7 and
8 combination tractors, the agencies
have examined the current performance
levels of the engines across the fleet.
EPA and NHTSA found that a large
majority of the engines were generally
relatively close to the average baseline,
with some above and some below. We
recognize, however, that when
regulating a category of engines for the
first time, there will be individual
products that may deviate significantly
from this baseline level of performance.
For the current fleet there is a relatively
small group of engines that are
significantly worse than the average
baseline for other engines. In proposing
the standards, the agencies have looked
primarily at the typical performance
levels of the majority of the engines in
the fleet, and the increased performance
that would be achieved through
increased spread of technology. The
agencies also recognize that for the
smaller group of products, the same
reduction from the industry baseline
may experience significant issues of
available lead-time and cost because
these products may require a total
redesign in order to meet the standards.
These are limited instances where
certain engine families have high
atypically high baseline CO2 levels and
limited line of engines across which to
average performance. See 75 FR 25414–
25419, which adopts temporary lead
time allowance alternative standards to
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.013
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74178
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
year for a single engine family with
performance measured in that year as
six percent beyond the engine’s own
2011 baseline level. We also request
comment on the level of reduction
beyond the baseline that is appropriate
in this alternative. The three percent
level reflects the aggregate improvement
beyond the baseline we are requiring of
the entire industry. As this provision is
intended to address potential issues for
legacy products that we would expect to
be replaced or significantly improved at
the manufacturer’s next product
redesign, we request comment if a two
percent reduction would be more
appropriate. We would consider two
percent rather than three percent if we
were convinced that making all of the
changes we have outlined in our
assessment of the technical feasibility of
the standards was not possible for some
engines due to legacy design issues that
will change in the future. We are
proposing that manufacturers making
use of these provisions would need to
exhaust all credits within this
subcategory prior to using this
flexibility and would not be able to
generate emissions credits from other
engines in the same regulatory
subcategory as the engines complying
using this alternate approach.
EPA and NHTSA considered setting
even more stringent engine standards
for the 2017 model year based on the
use of more sophisticated waste heat
recovery technologies such as bottoming
cycle engine designs. We are not
proposing more stringent standards
because we do not believe this
technology can be broadly available by
EPA and NHTSA request comments
on the magnitude and need for an in-use
adjustment factor for the engine
standard and the compliance model
(GEM) based tractor standard.
are all new, while the engine test
procedures build substantially on EPA’s
current non-GHG emissions test
procedures, except as noted. This
section discusses the proposed
simulation model developed for
demonstrating compliance with the
tractor standard and the proposed
engine test procedures.
(2) Test Procedures and Related Issues
The agencies are proposing a
complete set of test procedures to
evaluate fuel consumption and CO2
emissions from Class 7 and 8 tractors
and the engines installed in them. The
test procedures related to the tractors
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(a) Truck Simulation Model
We are proposing to set separate
engine and vehicle-based emission
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2017 model year. We request comment
on the technological feasibility and costeffectiveness of more stringent
standards in the timeframe of the
proposed standards.
(c) In-Use Standards
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies
that EPA is to adopt emissions
standards that are applicable for the
useful life of the vehicle. The in-use
standards that EPA is proposing would
apply to individual vehicles and
engines. NHTSA is not proposing to
adopt in-use.
EPA is proposing that the in-use
standards for heavy-duty engines
installed in tractors be established by
adding an adjustment factor to the full
useful life emissions and fuel
consumption results projected in the
EPA certification process. EPA is
proposing a 2 percent adjustment factor
for the in-use standard to provide a
reasonable margin for production and
test-to-test variability that could result
in differences between the initial
emission test results and emission
results obtained during subsequent inuse testing. Details on the development
of the adjustment factor are included in
draft RIA Chapter 3.
EPA is also proposing that the useful
life for these engine and vehicles with
respect to GHG emissions be set equal
to the respective useful life periods for
criteria pollutants. EPA proposes that
the existing engine useful life periods,
as included in Table II–3:, be broadened
to include CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption for both engines and
tractors (see 40 CFR 86.004–2).
standards to achieve the goal of
reducing emissions and fuel
consumption for both trucks and
engines. For the Class 7 and 8 tractors,
engine manufacturers would be subject
to the engine standards, and Class 7 and
8 tractor manufacturers would be
required to install engines in their
tractors certified for use in the tractor.
The tractor manufacturer would be
subject to a separate vehicle-based
standard that would use a proposed
truck simulation model to evaluate the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.014
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
deal with a similar issue for a subset of
light-duty vehicles. To accommodate
these situations, the agencies are
proposing a regulatory alternative
whereby a manufacturer, for a limited
period, would have the option to
comply with a unique standard based
on a three percent reduction from an
individual engine’s own 2011 model
year baseline level, rather than meeting
the otherwise-applicable standard level.
Our assessment is that this three percent
reduction is appropriate given the
potential for manufacturers to apply
similar technology packages with
similar cost to what we have estimated
for the primary program. We do not
believe this alternative needs to
continue past the 2016 model year since
manufacturers will have had ample
opportunity to benchmark competitive
products during redesign cycles and to
make appropriate changes to bring their
product performance into line with the
rest of the industry. This alternative
would not be available unless and until
a manufacturer had exhausted all
available credits and credit
opportunities, and engines under the
alternative standard could not generate
credits. We are proposing that
manufacturers can select engine families
for this alternative standard without
agency approval, but are proposing to
require that manufacturers notify the
agency of their choice and to include in
that notification a demonstration that it
has exhausted all available credits and
credit opportunities.
The agencies are also requesting
comment on the potential to extend this
regulatory alternative for one additional
74179
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74180
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
impact of the tractor cab design to
determine compliance with the tractor
standard.
A simulation model, in general, uses
various inputs to characterize a
vehicle’s properties (such as weight,
aerodynamics, and rolling resistance)
and predicts how the vehicle would
behave on the road when it follows a
driving cycle (vehicle speed versus
time). On a second-by-second basis, the
model determines how much engine
power needs to be generated for the
vehicle to follow the driving cycle as
closely as possible. The engine power is
then transmitted to the wheels through
transmission, driveline, and axles to
move the vehicle according to the
driving cycle. The second-by-second
fuel consumption of the vehicle, which
corresponds to the engine power
demand to move the vehicle, is then
calculated according to a fuel
consumption map in the model. Similar
to a chassis dynamometer test, the
second-by-second fuel consumption is
aggregated over the complete drive cycle
to determine the fuel consumption of
the vehicle.
NHTSA and EPA are proposing to
evaluate fuel consumption and CO2
emissions respectively through a
simulation of whole-vehicle operation,
consistent with the NAS
recommendation to use a truck model to
evaluate truck performance. The
agencies developed the Greenhouse gas
Emissions Model (GEM) for the specific
purpose of this proposal to evaluate
truck performance. The GEM is similar
in concept to a number of vehicle
simulation tools developed by
commercial and government entities.
The model developed by the agencies
and proposed here was designed for the
express purpose of vehicle compliance
demonstration and is therefore simpler
and less configurable than similar
commercial products. This approach
gives a compact and quicker tool for
vehicle compliance without the
overhead and costs of a more
sophisticated model. Details of the
model are included in Chapter 4 of the
draft RIA. The agencies are aware of
several other simulation tools developed
by universities and private companies.
Tools such as Argonne National
Laboratory’s Autonomie, Gamma
Technologies’ GT–Drive, AVL’s
CRUISE, Ricardo’s VSIM, Dassault’s
DYMOLA, and University of Michigan’s
HE–VESIM codes are publicly available.
In addition, manufacturers of engines,
vehicles, and trucks often have their
own in-house simulation tools. The
agencies welcome comments on other
simulation tools which could be used by
the agencies. The use criteria for this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
model are that it must be able to be
managed by the agencies for compliance
purposes, has no cost to the end-user, is
freely available and distributable as an
executable file, contains open source
code to provide transparency in the
model’s operation yet contains features
which cannot be changed by the user,
and is easy to use by any user with
minimal or no prior experience.
GEM is designed to focus on the
inputs most closely associated with fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions—i.e.,
on those which have the largest impacts
such as aerodynamics, rolling
resistance, weight, and others.
EPA has validated GEM based on the
chassis test results from a SmartWay
certified tractor tested at Southwest
Research Institute. The validation work
conducted on these three vehicles is
representative of the other Class 7 and
8 tractors. Many aspects of one tractor
configuration (such as the engine,
transmission, axle configuration, tire
sizes, and control systems) are similar to
those used on the manufacturer’s sister
models. For example, the powertrain
configuration of a sleeper cab with any
roof height is similar to the one used on
a day cab with any roof height. Overall,
the GEM predicted the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions within
4 percent of the chassis test procedure
results for three test cycles—the
California ARB Transient cycle, 65 mph
cruise cycle, and 55 mph cruise cycle.
These cycles are the ones the agencies
are proposing to utilize in compliance
testing. Test to test variation for heavyduty vehicle chassis testing can be
higher than 4 percent based on driver
variation. The proposed simulation
model is described in greater detail in
Chapter 4 of the draft RIA and is
available for download by interested
parties at (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
climate/regulations.htm). We request
comment on all aspects of this approach
to compliance determination in general
and to the use of the GEM in particular.
The agencies are proposing that for
demonstrating compliance, a Class 7
and 8 tractor manufacturer would
measure the performance of specified
tractor systems (such as aerodynamics
and tire rolling resistance), input the
values into GEM, and compare the
model’s output to the standard. The
agencies propose that a tractor
manufacturer would provide the inputs
for each of following factors for each of
the tractors it wished to certify under
CO2 standards and for establishing fuel
consumption values: Coefficient of Drag,
Tire Rolling Resistance Coefficient,
Weight Reduction, Vehicle Speed
Limiter, and Extended Idle Reduction
Technology. These are the technologies
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on which the agencies’ own feasibility
analysis for these vehicles is predicated.
An example of the GEM input screen is
included in Figure II–3.
The input values for the simulation
model would be derived by the
manufacturer from test procedures
proposed by the agencies in this
proposal. The agencies are proposing
several testing alternatives for
aerodynamic assessment, a single
procedure for tire rolling resistance
coefficient determination, and a
prescribed method to determine tractor
weight reduction. The agencies are
proposing defined model inputs for
determining vehicle speed limiter and
extended idle reduction technology
benefits. The other aspects of vehicle
performance are fixed within the model
as defined by the agencies and are not
varied for the purpose of compliance.
(b) Metric
Test metrics which are quantifiable
and meaningful are critical for a
regulatory program. The CO2 and fuel
consumption metric should reflect what
we wish to control (CO2 or fuel
consumption) relative to the clearest
value of its use: In this case, carrying
freight. It should encourage efficiency
improvements that will lead to
reductions in emissions and fuel
consumption during real world
operation. The agencies are proposing
standards for Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors that would be expressed in
terms of moving a ton (2000 pounds) of
freight over one mile. Thus, NHTSA’s
proposed fuel consumption standards
for these trucks would be represented as
gallons of fuel used to move one ton of
freight 1,000 miles, or gal/1,000 tonmile. EPA’s proposed CO2 vehicle
standards would be represented as
grams of CO2 per ton-mile.
Similarly, the NAS panel concluded,
in their report, that a load-specific fuel
consumption metric is appropriate for
HD trucks. The panel spent considerable
time explaining the advantages of and
recommending a load-specific fuel
consumption approach to regulating the
fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks. See
NAS Report pages 20 through 28. The
panel first points out that the nonlinear
relationship between fuel economy and
fuel consumption has led consumers of
light-duty vehicles to have difficulty in
judging the benefits of replacing the
most inefficient vehicles. The panel
describes an example where a light-duty
vehicle can save the same 107 gallons
per year (assuming 12,000 miles
travelled per year) by improving one
vehicle’s fuel efficiency from 14 to 16
mpg or improving another vehicle’s fuel
efficiency from 35 to 50.8 mpg. The use
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of miles per gallon leads consumers to
undervalue the importance of small mpg
improvements in vehicles with lower
fuel economy. Therefore, the NAS panel
recommends the use of a fuel
consumption metric over a fuel
economy metric. The panel also
describes the primary purpose of most
heavy-duty vehicles as moving freight or
passengers (the payload). Therefore,
they concluded that the most
appropriate way to represent an
attribute-based fuel consumption metric
is to normalize the fuel consumption to
the payload.
With the approach to compliance
NHTSA and EPA are proposing, a
default payload is specified for each of
the tractor categories suggesting that a
gram per mile metric with a specified
payload and a gram per ton-mile metric
would be effectively equivalent. The
primary difference between the metrics
and approaches relates to our treatment
of mass reductions as a means to reduce
fuel consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions. In the case of a gram per mile
metric, mass reductions are reflected
only in the calculation of the work
necessary to move the vehicle mass
through the drive cycle. As such it
directly reduces the gram emissions in
the numerator since a vehicle with less
mass will require less energy to move
through the drive cycle leading to lower
CO2 emissions. In the case of Class 7
and 8 tractors and our proposed gram/
ton-mile metric, reductions in mass are
reflected both in less mass moved
through the drive cycle (the numerator)
and greater payload (the denominator).
We adjust the payload based on vehicle
mass reductions because we estimate
that approximately one third of the time
the amount of freight loaded in a trailer
is limited not by volume in the trailer
but by the total gross vehicle weight
rating of the tractor. By reducing the
mass of the tractor the mass of the
freight loaded in the tractor can go up.
Based on this general approach, it can
be estimated that for every 1,200 pounds
in mass reduction total truck vehicle
miles traveled and therefore trucks on
the road could be reduced by one
percent. Without the use of a per tonmile metric it would not be clear or
straightforward for the agencies to
reflect the benefits of mass reduction
from large freight carrying vehicles that
are often limited in the freight they
carry by the gross vehicle weight rating
of the truck. The agencies seek comment
on the use of a per ton-mile metric and
also whether other metrics such as per
cube-mile should be considered instead.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(c) Truck Aerodynamic Assessment
The aerodynamic drag of a vehicle is
determined by the vehicle’s coefficient
of drag (Cd), frontal area, air density and
speed. The agencies are proposing to
establish and use pre-defined values for
the input parameters to GEM which
represent the frontal area and air
density, while the speed of the vehicle
would be determined in GEM through
the proposed drive cycles. The agencies
are proposing that the manufacturer
would determine a truck’s Cd, a
dimensionless measure of a vehicle’s
aerodynamics, for input into the model
through a combination of vehicle testing
and vehicle design characteristics.
Quantifying truck aerodynamics as an
input to the GEM presents technical
challenges because of the proliferation
of truck configurations, the lack of a
clearly preferable standardized test
method, and subtle variations in
measured Cd values among various test
procedures. Class 7 and 8 tractor
aerodynamics are currently developed
by manufacturers using a range of
techniques, including vehicle
coastdown testing, wind tunnel testing,
computational fluid dynamics, and
constant speed tests as further discussed
below. Reflecting that each of these
approaches has limitations and no one
approach appears to be superior to
others, the agencies are proposing to
allow all three aerodynamic evaluation
methods to be used in demonstrating a
vehicle’s aerodynamic performance. The
agencies welcome comments on each of
these methods.
The agencies are proposing that the
coefficient of drag assessment be a
product of test data and vehicle
characteristics using good engineering
judgment. The primary tool the agencies
expect to use in our own evaluation of
aerodynamic performance is the
coastdown procedure described in SAE
Recommended Practice J2263. Allowing
manufacturers to use multiple test
procedures and modeling coupled with
good engineering judgment to determine
aerodynamic performance is consistent
with the current approach used in
determining representative road load
forces for light-duty vehicle testing (40
CFR 86.129–00(e)(1)). The agencies
anticipate that as we and the industry
gain experience with assessing
aerodynamic performance of HD
vehicles for purposes of compliance a
test-only approach may have
advantages.
We believe this broad approach
allowing manufacturers to use multiple
different test procedures to demonstrate
aerodynamic performance is appropriate
given that no single test procedure is
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74181
superior in all aspects to other
approaches. However, we also recognize
the need for consistency and a level
playing field in evaluating aerodynamic
performance. To accomplish this, the
agencies propose to use a two-part
approach that evaluates aerodynamic
performance not only through testing
but through the application of good
engineering judgment and a technical
description of the vehicles aerodynamic
characteristics. The first part of the
proposed evaluation approach uses a
bin structure characterizing the
expected aerodynamic performance of
tractors based on definable vehicle
attributes. This bin approach is
described further below. The second
proposed evaluation element uses
aerodynamic testing to measure the
vehicle’s aerodynamic performance
under standardized conditions. The
agencies expect that the SAE J2263
coastdown procedures will be the
primary aerodynamic testing tool but
are interested in working with the
regulated industry and other interested
stakeholders to develop a primary test
approach. Additionally, the agencies
propose to have a process that would
allow manufacturers to demonstrate that
another aerodynamic test procedure
should also be allowed for purposes of
generating inputs used in assessing a
truck’s performance. We are requesting
comment on methods that should form
the primary aerodynamic testing tool,
methods that may be appropriate as
alternatives, and the mechanism
(including standards, practices, and
unique criteria) for the agencies to
consider allowing alternative
aerodynamic test methods.
NHTSA and EPA are proposing that
manufacturers use a two part screening
approach for determining the
aerodynamic inputs to the GEM. The
first part would require the
manufacturers to assign each vehicle
aerodynamic configuration to one of five
aerodynamics bins created by EPA and
NHTSA as described below. The
assignment by bin reflects the
aerodynamic characteristics of the
vehicle. For each bin, EPA and NHTSA
have already defined a nominal Cd that
will be used in the GEM and a range of
Cd values that would be expected from
testing of vehicles meeting this bin
description. The second part would
require the manufacturer to then
compare its own test results of
aerodynamic performance (as conducted
in accordance with the agencies’
requirements) for the vehicle to confirm
the actual aerodynamic performance
was consistent with the agencies’
expectations for vehicles within this
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
bin. If the predicted performance and
actual observed performance match, the
Cd value as an input for the GEM is the
nominal Cd value defined for the bin. If,
however, a manufacturer’s test data
demonstrates performance that is better
than projected for the assigned bin a
manufacturer may use the test data and
good engineering judgment to
demonstrate to the agencies that this
particular vehicle’s performance is in
keeping with the performance level of a
more aerodynamic bin and with the
agencies’ permission may use the Cd
value of the more aerodynamic bin.
Conversely, if the test data demonstrates
that the performance is worse than the
projected bin, then the manufacturer
would use the Cd value from the less
aerodynamic bin. Using this approach,
the bin structure can be seen as the
agencies’ first effort to create a common
measure of aerodynamic performance to
benchmark the various test methods
manufacturers may use to demonstrate
aerodynamic performance. For example,
if a manufacturer’s test methods
consistently produce Cd values that are
better than projected by the agencies,
EPA and NHTSA can use this
information to further scrutinize the
manufacturer’s test procedure, helping
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
to ensure that all manufacturers are
competing on a level playing field.
The agencies are proposing
aerodynamic technology bins which
divide the wide spectrum of tractor
aerodynamics into five bins (i.e.,
categories). The first category, ‘‘Classic,’’
represents tractor bodies which
prioritize appearance or special duty
capabilities over aerodynamics. The
Classic trucks incorporate few, if any,
aerodynamic features and may have
several features which detract from
aerodynamics, such as bug deflectors,
custom sunshades, B-pillar exhaust
stacks, and others. The second category
for aerodynamics is the ‘‘Conventional’’
tractor body. The agencies consider
Conventional tractors to be the average
new tractor today which capitalizes on
a generally aerodynamic shape and
avoids classic features which increase
drag. Tractors within the ‘‘SmartWay’’
category build on Conventional tractors
with added components to reduce drag
in the most significant areas on the
tractor, such as fully enclosed roof
fairings, side extending gap reducers,
fuel tank fairings, and streamlined grill/
hood/mirrors/bumpers. The ‘‘Advanced
SmartWay’’ aerodynamic category
builds upon the SmartWay tractor body
with additional aerodynamic treatments
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
such as underbody airflow treatment,
down exhaust, and lowered ride height,
among other technologies. And finally,
‘‘Advanced SmartWay II’’ tractors
incorporate advanced technologies
which are currently in the prototype
stage of development, such as advanced
gap reduction, rearview cameras to
replace mirrors, wheel system
streamlining, and advanced body
designs. The agencies recognize that
these proposed aerodynamic bins are
static and referential and that there may
be other technologies that may provide
similar aerodynamic benefit. In
addition, it is expected that
aerodynamic equipment will advance
over time and the agencies may find it
appropriate and necessary to revise the
bin descriptions.
Under this proposal, the manufacturer
would then input into GEM the Cd
value specified for each bin as also
defined in Table II–4. For example, if a
manufacturer tests a Class 8 sleeper cab
high roof tractor with features which are
similar to a SmartWay tractor and the
test produces a Cd value of 0.59, then
the manufacturer would assign this
tractor to the Class 8 Sleeper Cab High
Roof SmartWay bin. The manufacturer
would then use the Cd value of 0.60 as
the input to GEM.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.015
74182
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Coefficient of drag and frontal area of
the tractor-trailer combination go handin-hand to determine the force required
to overcome aerodynamic drag. As
explained above, the agencies are
proposing that the Cd value is one of the
GEM inputs which will be derived by
the manufacturer. However, the
agencies are proposing to specify the
truck’s frontal area for each regulatory
category (i.e., each of the seven
subcategories which are proposed and
listed in Table II–4 under the
Aerodynamic Input to GEM). The
frontal area of a high roof tractor pulling
a box trailer will be determined
primarily by the box trailer’s
dimensions and the ground clearance of
the tractor. The frontal area of low and
mid roof tractors will be determined by
the tractor itself. An alternate approach
to the proposed frontal area
specification is to create the
aerodynamic input table (as shown in
Table II–4) with values that represent
the Cd multiplied by the frontal area.
This approach will provide the same
aerodynamic load, but it will not allow
the comparison of aerodynamic
efficiency across regulatory categories
that can be done with the Cd values
alone. The agencies are interested in
comments regarding the frontal area of
trucks, specifically whether the
specified frontal areas are appropriate
and whether the use of standard frontal
areas may have unanticipated
consequences.
EPA and NHTSA recognize that wind
conditions, most notably wind
direction, have a greater impact on real
world CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of heavy-duty trucks than
of light-duty vehicles. As noted in the
NAS report,44 the wind average drag
coefficient is about 15 percent higher
than the zero degree coefficient of drag.
The agencies considered proposing the
use of a wind averaged drag coefficient
in this regulatory program, but
ultimately decided to propose using
coefficient of drag values which
represent zero yaw (i.e., representing
wind from directly in front of the
vehicle, not from the side) instead. We
are taking this approach recognizing
that wind tunnels are currently the only
tool to accurately assess the influence of
wind speed and direction on a truck’s
aerodynamic performance. The agencies
recognize, as NAS did, that the results
of using the zero yaw approach may
result in fuel consumption predictions
that are offset slightly from real world
performance levels, not unlike the offset
we see today between fuel economy test
44 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 19, Finding 2–4 on
page 39.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
results in the CAFE program and actual
fuel economy performance observed inuse. We believe this approach will not
impact technology effectiveness or
change the kinds of technology
decisions made by the tractor
manufacturers in developing equipment
to meet our proposed standards.
However, the agencies are interested in
receiving comment on approaches to
develop wind averaged coefficient of
drag values using computational fluid
dynamics, coastdown, and constant
speed test procedures.
The methodologies the agencies are
considering for aerodynamic assessment
include coastdown testing, wind tunnel
testing, computational fluid dynamics,
and constant speed testing. The agencies
welcome information on a constant
speed test procedure and how it could
be applied to determine aerodynamic
drag. In addition, the agencies seek
comment on allowing multiple
aerodynamic assessment methodologies
and the need for comparison of
aerodynamic assessment methods to
determine method precision and
accuracy.
(i) Coastdown Testing
The coastdown test procedure has
been used extensively in the light-duty
industry to capture the road load force
by coasting a vehicle along a flat
straightaway under a set of prescribed
conditions. Coast down testing has been
used less extensively to obtain road load
forces for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles. EPA has conducted a
significant amount of test work to
demonstrate that coastdown testing per
SAE J2263 produces reasonably
repeatable test results for Class 7 and 8
tractor/trailer pairings, as described in
draft RIA Chapter 3. The agencies
propose that a manufacturer which
chooses this method would determine a
tractor’s Cd value through analysis of
the road load force equation derived
from SAE J2263 Revised 2008–12 test
results, as proposed in 40 CFR 1066.210.
(ii) Wind Tunnel Testing
A wind tunnel provides a stable
environment yielding a more repeatable
test than coastdown. This allows the
manufacturer to run multiple baseline
vehicle tests and explore configuration
modifications for nearly the same effort
(e.g., time and cost) as conducting the
coastdown procedure. In addition, wind
tunnels provide testers with the ability
to yaw the vehicle at positive and
negative angles relative to the original
centerline of the vehicle to accurately
capture the influence of non-uniform
wind direction on the Cd (e.g., wind
averaged Cd).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74183
The agencies propose to allow the use
of existing wind tunnel procedures
adopted by SAE International with some
minor modifications as discussed in
Section V of this proposal. The agencies
seek comments on the appropriateness
of using the existing SAE wind tunnel
procedures, and the modifications to
these procedures, for this regulatory
purpose.
(iii) Computational Fluid Dynamics
Computational fluid dynamics, or
CFD, capitalizes on today’s computing
power by modeling a full size vehicle
and simulating the flows around this
model to examine the fluid dynamic
properties, in a virtual environment.
CFD tools are used to solve either the
Navier-Stokes equations that relate the
physical law of conservation of
momentum to the flow relationship
around a body in motion or a static body
with fluid in motion around it, or the
Boltzman equation that examines fluid
mechanics and determines the
characteristics of discreet, individual
particles within a fluid and relates this
behavior to the overall dynamics and
behavior of the fluid. CFD analysis
involves several steps: Defining the
model structure or geometry based on
provided specifications to define the
basic model shape; applying a closed
surface around the structure to define
the external model shape (wrapping or
surface meshing); dividing the control
volume, including the model and the
surrounding environment, up into
smaller, discreet shapes (gridding);
defining the flow conditions in and out
of the control volume and the flow
relationships within the grid (including
eddies and turbulence); and solving the
flow equations based on the prescribed
flow conditions and relationships.
This approach can be beneficial to
manufacturers since they can rapidly
prototype (e.g., design, research, and
model) an entire vehicle without
investing in material costs; they can
modify and investigate changes easily;
and the data files can be re-used and
shared within the company or with
corporate partners.
The accuracy of the outputs from CFD
analysis is highly dependent on the
inputs. The CFD modeler decides what
method to use for wrapping, how fine
the mesh cell and grid size should be,
and the physical and flow relationships
within the environment. A balance must
be achieved between the number of
cells, which defines how fine the mesh
is, and the computational times for a
result (i.e., solution-time-efficiency). All
of these decisions affect the results of
the CFD aerodynamic assessment.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74184
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(d) Tire Rolling Resistance Assessment
NHTSA and EPA are proposing that
the tractor’s tire rolling resistance input
to the GEM be determined by either the
tire manufacturer or tractor
manufacturer using the test method
adopted by the International
Organization for Standardization, ISO
28580:2009.45 The agencies believe the
ISO test procedure is appropriate to
propose for this program because the
procedure is the same one used by
NHTSA in its fuel efficiency tire
labeling program 46 and is consistent
with the direction being taken by the
tire industry both in the United States
and Europe. The rolling resistance from
this test would be used to specify the
rolling resistance of each tire on the
steer and drive axle of the vehicle. The
results would be expressed as a rolling
resistance coefficient and measured as
kilogram per metric ton (kg/metric ton).
The agencies are proposing that three
tire samples within each tire model be
tested three times each to account for
some of the production variability and
the average of the nine tests would be
the rolling resistance coefficient for the
tire. The GEM would use a combined
tire rolling resistance, where 15 percent
of the gross weight of the truck and
trailer would be distributed to the steer
axle, 42.5 percent to the drive axles, and
42.5 percent to the trailer axles.47 The
trailer tires’ rolling resistance would be
prescribed by the agencies as part of the
standardized trailer used for
demonstrating compliance at 6 kg/
metric ton, which was the average
trailer tire rolling resistance measured
during the SmartWay tire testing.48
We acknowledge that the useful life of
original equipment tires used on tractors
is shorter than the tractor’s useful life.
In this proposal, we are treating the tires
as if the owner replaces the tire with
tires that match the original equipment.
Some owners opt for the original tires
(e) Weight Reduction Assessment
EPA and NHTSA are seeking to
account for the emissions and fuel
consumption benefits of weight
reduction as a control technology in
heavy-duty trucks. Weight reduction
impacts the emissions and fuel
consumption performance of tractors in
different ways depending on the truck’s
operation. For trucks that cube-out, the
weight reduction will show a small
reduction in grams of CO2 emitted or
fuel consumed per mile travelled. The
benefit is small because the weight
reduction is minor compared to the
overall weight of the combination
tractor and payload. However, a weight
reduction in tractors which operate at
maximum gross vehicle weight rating
would result in an increase in payload
capacity. Increased vehicle payload
without increased GVWR significantly
reduces fuel consumption and CO2
emissions per ton mile of freight
delivered. It also leads to fewer vehicle
miles driven with a proportional
reduction in traffic accidents.
The empty curb weight of tractors
varies significantly today. Items as
common as fuel tanks can vary between
50 and 300 gallons each for a given
truck model. Information provided by
truck manufacturers indicates that there
may be as much as a 5,000 to 17,000
pound difference in curb weight
between the lightest and heaviest
tractors within a regulatory subcategory
(such as Class 8 sleeper cab with a high
roof). Because there is such a large
variation in the baseline weight among
trucks that perform roughly similar
functions with roughly similar
configurations, there is not an effective
way to quantify the exact CO2 and fuel
consumption benefit of mass reduction
using GEM because of the difficulty in
establishing a baseline. However, if the
weight reduction is limited to tires and
wheels, then both the baseline and
weight differentials for these are readily
quantifiable and well-understood.
Therefore, the agencies are proposing
that the mass reduction that would be
simulated be limited only to reductions
in wheel and tire weight. In the context
of this heavy-duty vehicle program with
only changes to tires and wheels, the
agencies do not foresee any related
impact on safety.49 The agencies
welcome comments regarding this
approach and detailed data to further
improve the robustness of the agencies’
assumed baseline truck tare/curb
weights for each regulatory category
used within the model, as outlined in
draft RIA Chapter 3.5.
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to
specify the baseline vehicle weight for
each regulatory category (including the
tires and wheels), but allow
manufacturers to quantify weight
reductions based on the wheel material
selection and single wide versus dual
tires per Table II–5. The agencies
assume the baseline wheel and tire
configuration contains dual tires with
steel wheels because these represent the
vast majority of new vehicle
configurations today. The proposed
weight reduction due to the wheels and
tires would be reflected in the payload
tons by increasing the specified payload
by the weight reduction amount
discounted by two thirds to recognize
that approximately one third of the
truck miles are travelled at maximum
payload, as discussed below in the
payload discussion.
45 ISO, 2009, Passenger Car, Truck, and Bus
Tyres—Methods of Measuring Rolling Resistance—
Single Point Test and Correlation of Measurement
Results: ISO 28580:2009(E), First Edition, 2009–07–
01.
46 NHTSA, 2009. ‘‘NHTSA Tire Fuel Efficiency
Consumer Information Program Development:
Phase 1—Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols.’’
DOT HS 811 119. June. (https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID: NHTSA–2008–0121–0019).
47 This distribution is equivalent to the Federal
over-axle weight limits for an 80,000 GVWR 5-axle
tractor-trailer: 12,000 Pounds over the steer axle,
34,000 pounds over the tandem drive axles (17,000
pounds per axle) and 34,000 pounds over the
tandem trailer axles (17,000 pounds per axle).
48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
SmartWay Transport Partnership July 2010 eupdate accessed July 16, 2010, from https://
www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/
documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.
49 For more information on the estimated safety
effects of this proposed rule, see Chapter 9 of the
draft RIA.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Because CFD modeling is dependent
on the quality of the data input and the
design of the model, the agencies
propose and seek comment on a
minimum set of criteria applicable to
using CFD for aerodynamic assessment
in Section V.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
under the assumption that this is the
best product. However, tractor tires are
often retreaded or replaced. Steer tires
on a highway tractor might need
replacement after 75,000 to 150,000
miles. Drive tires might need retreading
or replacement after 150,000 to 300,000
miles. Of course, tire removal miles can
be much higher or lower, depending
upon a number of factors that affect tire
removal miles. These include the
original tread depth; desired tread depth
at removal to maintain casing integrity;
tire material and construction; typical
load; tire ‘‘scrub’’ due to urban driving
and set back axles; and, tire underinflation. Since it is common for both
medium- and heavy-duty truck tires to
be replaced and retreaded, we welcome
comments in this area. We are
specifically seeking data for the rolling
resistance of retread and replacement
heavy-duty tires and the typical useful
life of tractor tires.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Extended idling from Class 8 heavyduty long haul combination tractors
contributes to significant CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption in the United
States. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration regulations require a
certain amount of driver rest for a
corresponding period of driving
hours.50 Extended idle occurs when
Class 8 long haul drivers rest in the
sleeper cab compartment during rest
periods as drivers find it both
convenient and less expensive to rest in
the truck cab itself than to pull off the
road and find accommodations. During
this rest period a driver will idle the
truck in order to provide heating or
cooling or run on-board appliances. In
some cases the engine can idle in excess
of 10 hours. During this period, the
truck will consume approximately 0.8
gallons of fuel and emit over 8,000
grams of CO2 per hour. An average truck
can consume 8 gallons of fuel and emit
over 80,000 grams of CO2 during
overnight idling in such a case.
Idling reduction technologies are
available to allow for driver comfort
while reducing fuel consumptions and
CO2 emissions. Auxiliary power units,
fuel operated heaters, battery supplied
air conditioning, and thermal storage
systems are among the technologies
available today. The agencies are
proposing to include extended idle
reduction technology as an input to the
GEM for Class 8 sleeper cabs. The
manufacturer would input the value
based on the idle reduction technology
installed on the truck. As discussed
further in Section III, if a manufacturer
chooses to use idle reduction
technology to meet the standard, then it
would require an automatic main engine
shutoff after 5 minutes to help ensure
the idle reductions are realized in-use.
50 Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Hours of Service Regulations. Last accessed on
August 2, 2010 at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregulations/topics/hos/.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
As with all of the technology inputs
discussed in this section, the agencies
are not mandating the use of idle
reductions or idle shutdown, but rather
allowing their use as one part of a suite
of technologies feasible for reducing fuel
consumption and meeting the proposed
standards. The proposed value (5 g CO2/
ton-mile or 0.5 gal/1,000 ton-mile) for
the idle reduction technologies was
determined using an assumption of
1,800 idling hours per year, 125,000
miles travelled, and a baseline idle fuel
consumption of 0.8 gallons per hour.
Additional detail on the emission and
fuel consumption reduction values are
included in draft RIA Chapter 2.
(g) Vehicle Speed Limiters
Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
increase proportional to the square of
vehicle speed.51 Therefore, lowering
vehicle speeds can significantly reduce
fuel consumption and GHG emissions.
A vehicle speed limiter (VSL), which
limits the vehicle’s maximum speed, is
a simple technology that is utilized
today. The feature is electronically
programmed and controlled.
Manufacturers today sell trucks with
vehicle speed limiters and allow the
customers to set the limit. However, as
proposed the GEM will not provide a
fuel consumption reduction for a limiter
that can be overridden. In order to
obtain a benefit for the program, the
manufacturer must preset the limiter in
such a way that the setting will not be
capable of being easily overridden by
the fleet or the owner. As with other
engine calibration aspects of emission
controls, tampering with a calibration
would be considered unlawful by EPA.
If the manufacturer installs a vehicle
speed limiter into a truck that is not
easily overridden, then the
51 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 19, Page 28. Road
Load Force Equation defines the aerodynamic
portion of the road load as 1⁄2 * Coefficient of Drag
* Frontal Area * air density * vehicle speed
squared.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
manufacturer would input the vehicle
speed limit setpoint into GEM.
(h) Defined Vehicle Configurations in
the GEM
As discussed above, the agencies are
proposing methodologies that
manufacturers would use to quantify the
values to be input into the GEM for
these factors affecting truck efficiency:
Coefficient of Drag, Tire Rolling
Resistance Coefficient, Weight
Reduction, Vehicle Speed Limiter, and
Extended Idle Reduction Technology.
The other aspects of vehicle
performance are fixed within the model
and are not varied for the purpose of
compliance. The defined inputs being
proposed include the drive cycle,
tractor-trailer combination curb weight,
payload, engine characteristics, and
drivetrain for each vehicle type, and
others. We are seeking comments
accompanied with data on the defined
model inputs as described in draft RIA
Chapter 4.
(i) Vehicle Drive Cycles
As noted by the 2010 NAS Report,52
the choice of a drive cycle used in
compliance testing has significant
consequences on the technology that
will be employed to achieve a standard
as well as the ability of the technology
to achieve real world reductions in
emissions and improvements in fuel
consumption. Manufacturers naturally
will design vehicles to ensure they
satisfy regulatory standards. If the
agencies propose an ill-suited drive
cycle for a regulatory category, it may
encourage GHG emissions and fuel
consumption technologies which satisfy
the test but do not achieve the same
benefits in use. For example, requiring
all trucks to use a constant speed
highway drive cycle will drive
significant aerodynamic improvements.
However, in the real world a
combination tractor used for local
52 See
2010 NAS Report, Note 19, Chapters 4 and
8.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.016
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(f) Extended Idle Reduction Technology
Assessment
74185
74186
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the modes appear to be needed to allow
sufficient flexibility in weightings. The
agencies are proposing the use of the
Transient mode, as defined by
California ARB, because it broadly
covers urban driving. The agencies are
also proposing altered versions of the
High Speed Cruise and Low Speed
Cruise modes which would reflect only
constant speed cycles at 65 mph and 55
mph respectively. EPA and NHTSA
relied on the EPA MOVES analysis of
Federal Highway Administration data to
develop the proposed mode weightings
to characterize typical operations of
heavy-duty trucks, per Table II–6
below.56 A detailed discussion of drive
cycles is included in draft RIA Chapter
3.57
The total weight of the tractor-trailer
combination is the sum of the tractor
curb weight, the trailer curb weight, and
the payload. The total weight of a truck
is important because it in part
determines the impact of technologies,
such as rolling resistance, on GHG
emissions and fuel consumption. The
agencies are proposing to specify each
of these aspects of the vehicle.
The agencies developed the proposed
tractor curb weight inputs from actual
tractor weights measured in two of
EPA’s test programs and based on
information from the manufacturers.
The proposed trailer curb weight inputs
were derived from actual trailer weight
measurements conducted by EPA and
weight data provided to ICF
International by the trailer
manufacturers.58 Details of the
individual weight inputs by regulatory
category are included in draft RIA
Chapter 3.
There are several methods that the
agencies have considered for evaluating
the GHG emissions and fuel
consumption of tractors used to carry
freight. A key factor in these methods is
the weight of the truck that is assumed
for purposes of the evaluation. In use,
trucks operate at different weights at
different times during their operations.
The greatest freight transport efficiency
(the amount of fuel required to move a
ton of payload) would be achieved by
operating trucks at the maximum load
for which they are designed all of the
time. However, logistics such as
delivery demands which require that
trucks travel without full loads, the
density of payload, and the availability
of full loads of freight limit the ability
of trucks to operate at their highest
efficiency all the time. M.J. Bradley
analyzed the Truck Inventory and Use
Survey and found that approximately 9
percent of combination tractor miles
travelled empty, 61 percent are ‘‘cubedout’’ (the trailer is full before the weight
limit is reached), and 30 percent are
‘‘weighed out’’ (operating weight equal
80,000 pounds which is the gross
vehicle weight limit on the Federal
Interstate Highway System or greater
than 80,000 pounds for vehicles
traveling on roads outside of the
interstate system).59
As described above, the amount of
payload that a tractor can carry depends
on the category (or GVWR) of the
vehicle. For example, a typical Class 7
tractor can carry less payload than a
Class 8 tractor. The Federal Highway
Administration developed Truck
Payload Equivalent Factors to inform
the development of highway system
strategies using Vehicle Inventory and
Use Survey (VIUS) and Vehicle Travel
Information System data. Their results
53 This situation does not typically occur for
heavy-duty emission control technology designed to
control criteria pollutants such as PM and NOX.
54 California Air Resources Board. Heavy Heavyduty Diesel Truck chassis dynamometer schedule,
Transient Mode. Last accessed on August 2, 2010
at https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/
hhddt.html.
55 EPA’s MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator). See https://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/
moves/index.htm for additional information.
56 The Environmental Protection Agency. Draft
MOVES2009 Highway Vehicle Population and
Activity Data. EPA–420–P–09–001, August 2009
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/techdocs/
420p09001.pdf.
57 In the light-duty vehicle rule, EPA and NHTSA
based compliance with tailpipe standards on use of
the FTP and HFET, and declined to use alternative
tests. See 75 FR 25407. NHTSA is mandated to use
the FTP and HFET tests for CAFE standards, and
all relevant data was obtained by FTP and HFET
testing in any case. Id. Neither of these constraints
exists for Class 7–8 tractors. The little data which
exist on current performance are principally
measured by the ARB Heavy Heavy-duty Truck 5
Mode Cycle testing, and NHTSA is not mandated
to use the FTP to establish heavy-duty fuel
economy standards. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2)
authorizing NHTSA, among other things, to adopt
and implement appropriate ‘‘test methods,
measurement metrics, * * * and compliance
protocols’’.
58 ICF International. Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-road Vehicles. July 2010. Pages 4–
15. Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–
0044.
59 M.J. Bradley & Associates. Setting the Stage for
Regulation of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy
and GHG Emissions: Issues and Opportunities.
February 2009. Page 35. Analysis based on 1992
Truck Inventory and Use Survey data, where the
survey data allowed developing the distribution of
loads instead of merely the average loads.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.017
the application. Consequently, drive
cycles used in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption compliance testing should
reasonably represent the primary actual
use, notwithstanding that every truck
has a different drive cycle in-use.
The agencies are proposing a
modified version of the California ARB
Heavy Heavy-duty Truck 5 Mode
Cycle,54 using the basis of three of the
cycles which best mirror Class 7 and 8
combination tractor driving patterns,
based on information from EPA’s
MOVES model.55 The key advantage of
the California ARB 5 mode cycle is that
it provides the flexibility to use several
different modes and weight the modes
to fit specific truck application usage
patterns. EPA analyzed the five cycles
and found that some modifications to
(ii) Empty Weight and Payload
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
delivery may spend little time on the
highway, reducing the benefits that
would be achieved by this technology.
In addition, the extra weight of the
aerodynamic fairings will actually
penalize the GHG and fuel consumption
performance in urban driving and may
reduce the freight carrying capability.
The unique nature of the kinds of CO2
emissions control and fuel consumption
technology means that the same
technology can be of benefit during
some operation but cause a reduced
benefit under other operation.53 To
maximize the GHG emissions and fuel
consumption benefits and avoid
unintended reductions in benefits, the
drive cycle should focus on promoting
technology that produces benefits
during the primary operation modes of
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
found that the average payload of a
Class 8 truck ranged from 36,247 to
40,089 pounds, depending on the
average distance travelled per day.60
The same results found that Class 7
trucks carried between 18,674 and
34,210 pounds of payload also
depending on average distance travelled
per day. Based on this data, the agencies
are proposing to prescribe a fixed
payload of 25,000 pounds for Class 7
tractors and 38,000 pounds for Class 8
tractors for their respective test
procedures. The agencies are proposing
a common payload for Class 8 day cabs
and sleeper cabs because the data
available does not distinguish based on
type of Class 8 tractor. These payload
values represent a heavily loaded trailer,
but not maximum GVWR, since as
described above the majority of tractors
‘‘cube-out’’ rather than ‘‘weigh-out.’’
Additional details on proposed
payloads are included in draft RIA
Chapter 3.
(iii) Standardized Trailers
NHTSA and EPA are proposing that
the tractor performance in the GEM
would be judged by assuming it is
pulling a standardized trailer. The
agencies believe that an assessment of
the tractor aerodynamics should be
conducted using a tractor-trailer
combination to reflect the impact of
aerodynamic technologies in actual use,
where tractors are designed and used
with a trailer. Assessing the tractor
aerodynamics using only the tractor
would not be a reasonable way to assess
in-use impacts. For example, the in-use
aerodynamic drag while pulling a trailer
is different than without the trailer and
the full impact of an aerodynamic
technology on reducing emissions and
fuel consumption would not be
reflected if the assessment is performed
on a tractor without a trailer.
In addition to assessing the tractor
with a trailer, it is appropriate to adopt
a standardized trailer used for testing,
and to vary the standardized trailer by
the regulatory category. This is similar
to the standardization of payload
discussed above, as a way to reasonably
reflect in-use operating conditions. High
roof tractors are optimally designed to
pull box trailers. The roof fairing on a
tractor is the feature designed to
minimize the height differential
between the tractor and typical trailer to
reduce the air flow disruption. Low roof
tractors are designed to carry flat bed or
low-boy trailers. Mid roof tractors are
60 The
U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
Development of Truck Payload Equivalent Factor.
Table 11. Last viewed on March 9, 2010 at https://
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/
faf2_reports/reports9/s510_11_12_tables.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
designed to carry tanker and bulk carrier
trailers. The agencies conducted a
survey of tractor-trailer pairing in-use to
evaluate the representativeness of this
premise. The survey of over 3,000
tractor-trailer combinations found that
in 95 percent of the combination
tractors the tractor’s roof height was
paired appropriately for the type of
trailer that it was pulling.61 The
agencies also have evaluated the impact
of pairing a low roof tractor with a box
trailer in coastdown testing and found
that the aerodynamic force increases by
20 percent over a high roof tractor
pulling the same box trailer.62
Therefore, drivers have a large incentive
to use the appropriate matching to
reduce their fuel costs. However, the
agencies recognize that in operation
tractors sometimes pull trailers other
than the type that it was designed to
carry. The agencies are proposing the
matching of trailers to roof height for the
test procedure. To do otherwise would
necessarily result in a standard
reflecting substandard aerodynamic
performance, and thereby result in
standards which are less stringent than
would be appropriate based on the
reasonable assumption that tractors will
generally pair with trailer of appropriate
roof height. The other aspects of the test
procedure such as empty trailer weight,
location of payload, and tractor-trailer
gap are being proposed for each
regulatory category to provide
consistent test procedures.
(iv) Standardized Drivetrain
The agencies’ assessment of the
current vehicle configuration process at
the truck dealer’s level is that the truck
companies provide tools to specify the
proper drivetrain matched to the buyer’s
specific circumstances. These dealer
tools allow a significant amount of
customization for drive cycle and
payload to provide the best specification
for the customer. The agencies are not
seeking to disrupt this process. Optimal
drivetrain selection is dependent on the
engine, drive cycle (including vehicle
speed and road grade), and payload.
Each combination of engine, drive cycle,
and payload has a single optimal
transmission and final drive ratio. The
agencies are proposing to specify the
engine’s fuel consumption map, drive
cycle, and payload; therefore, it makes
sense to also specify the drivetrain that
matches.
61 U.S. EPA. Truck and Trailer Roof Height Match
Analysis Memorandum from Amy Kopin to the
Docket, August 9, 2010. Docket Identification
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0045.
62 See the draft RIA Chapter 2 for additional
detail.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74187
(v) Engine Input to GEM
As the agencies are proposing
separate engine and tractor standards,
the GEM will be used to assess the
compliance of the tractor with the
tractor standard. To maintain the
separate assessments, the agencies are
proposing to define the engine
characteristics used in GEM, including
the fuel consumption map which
provides the fuel consumption at
hundreds of engine speed and torque
points. If the agencies did not
standardize the fuel map, then a tractor
that uses an engine with emissions and
fuel consumption better than the
standards would require fewer vehicle
reductions than those technically
feasible reductions being proposed. The
agencies are proposing two distinct fuel
consumption maps for use in GEM. EPA
proposes the first fuel consumption map
would be used in GEM for the 2014
through 2016 model years and
represents an average engine which
meets the 2014 model year engine CO2
emissions standards being proposed.
NHTSA proposes to use the same fuel
map for its voluntary standards in the
2014 and 2015 model years, as well as
its mandatory program in the 2016
model year. A second fuel consumption
map would be used beginning in 2017
model year and represents an engine
which meets the 2017 model year CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
standards and accounts for the
increased stringency in the proposed
MY 2017 standard. Effectively there is
no change in stringency of the tractor
vehicle (not including the engine) and
there is stability in the tractor vehicle
(not including engine) standards for the
full rulemaking period.63 These inputs
are appropriate given the separate
proposed regulatory requirement that
Class 7 and 8 combination tractor
manufacturers use only certified
engines.
(i) Engine Test Procedure
The NAS panel did not specifically
discuss or recommend a metric to
evaluate the fuel consumption of heavyduty engines. However, as noted above
they did recommend the use of a loadspecific fuel consumption metric for the
evaluation of vehicles.64 An analogous
metric for engines would be the amount
of fuel consumed per unit of work.
Thus, EPA is proposing that GHG
emission standards for engines under
the CAA would be expressed as g/bhp63 As noted earlier, use of the 2017 model year
fuel consumption map as a GEM input results in
numerically more stringent proposed vehicle
standards for MY 2017.
64 See NAS Report, Note 19, at page 39.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74188
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
hr; NHTSA’s proposed fuel
consumption standards under EISA, in
turn, would be represented as gal/100
bhp-hr. This metric is also consistent
with EPA’s current standards for nonGHG emissions for these engines.
EPA’s criteria pollutant standards for
engines require that manufacturers
demonstrate compliance over the
transient Heavy-duty FTP test cycle; the
steady-state SET test cycle; and the notto-exceed test (NTE test). EPA created
this multi-layered approach to criteria
emissions control in response to engine
designs that optimized operation for
lowest fuel consumption at the expense
of very high criteria emissions when
operated off the regulatory cycle. EPA’s
use of multiple test procedures for
criteria pollutants helps to ensure that
manufacturers calibrate engine systems
for compliance under all operating
conditions. With regard to GHG and fuel
consumption control, the agencies
believe it is more appropriate to set
standards based on a single test
procedure, either the Heavy-duty FTP or
SET, depending on the primary
expected use of the engine. For engines
used primarily in line-haul combination
tractor trailer operations, we believe the
steady-state SET procedure more
appropriately reflects in-use engine
operation. By setting standards based on
the most representative test cycle, we
can have confidence that engine
manufacturers will design engines for
the best GHG and fuel consumption
performance relative to the most
common type of expected engine
operation. There is no incentive to
design the engines to give worse fuel
consumption under other types of
operation, relative to the most common
type of operation, and we are not
concerned if manufacturers further
calibrate these designs to give better inuse fuel consumption during other
operation, while maintaining
compliance with the criteria emissions
standards as such calibration is entirely
consistent with the goals of our joint
program.
Further, we are concerned that setting
standards based on both transient and
steady-state operating conditions for all
engines could lead to undesirable
outcomes. For example,
turbocompounding is one technology
that the agencies have identified as a
likely approach for compliance against
our proposed HHD SET standard
described below. Turbocompounding is
a very effective approach to lower fuel
consumption under steady driving
conditions typified by combination
tractor trailer operation and is well
reflected in testing over the SET test
procedure. However, when used in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
driving typified by transient operation
as we expect for vocational vehicles and
as is represented by the Heavy-duty
FTP, turbocompounding shows very
little benefit. Setting an emission
standard based on the Heavy-duty FTP
only for engines intended for use in
combination tractor trailers could lead
manufacturers to not apply
turbocompounding because the full
benefits are not demonstrated on the
Heavy-duty FTP even though it can be
a highly cost-effective means to reduce
GHG emissions and lower fuel
consumption in more steady state
applications.
The current non-GHG emissions
engine test procedures also require the
development of regeneration emission
rates and frequency factors to account
for the emission changes during a
regeneration event (40 CFR 86.004–28).
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to
exclude the CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption increases due to
regeneration from the calculation of the
compliance levels over the defined test
procedures. We considered including
regeneration in the estimate of fuel
consumption and GHG emissions and
have decided not to do so for two
reasons. First, EPA’s existing criteria
emission regulations already provide a
strong motivation to engine
manufacturers to reduce the frequency
and duration of infrequent regeneration
events. The very stringent 2010 NOX
emission standards cannot be met by
engine designs that lead to frequent and
extend regeneration events. Hence, we
believe engine manufacturers are
already reducing regeneration emissions
to the greatest degree possible.
In addition to believing that
regenerations are already controlled to
the extent technologically possible, we
believe that attempting to include
regeneration emissions in the standard
setting could lead to an inadvertently
lax emissions standard. In order to
include regeneration and set appropriate
standards, EPA and NHTSA would have
needed to project the regeneration
frequency and duration of future engine
designs in the timeframe of this
proposal. Such a projection would be
inherently difficult to make and quite
likely would underestimate the progress
engine manufacturers will make in
reducing infrequent regenerations. If we
underestimated that progress, we would
effectively be setting a more lax set of
standards than otherwise would be
expected. Hence in setting a standard
including regeneration emissions we
faced the real possibility that we would
achieve less effective CO2 emissions
control and fuel consumption
reductions than we will achieve by not
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
including regeneration emissions. We
are seeking comments regarding
regeneration emissions and what
approach if any the agencies should use
in reflecting regeneration emissions in
this program.
In conclusion, for Class 7 and 8
tractors, compliance with the vehicle
standard would be determined by
establishing values for the variable
inputs and using the prescribed inputs
in GEM and compliance against the
engine standard using the SET engine
cycle. The model would produce CO2
and fuel consumption results that
would be compared against EPA’s and
NHTSA’s respective standards.
(j) Chassis-Based Test Procedure
The agencies also considered
proposing a chassis-based vehicle test to
evaluate Class 7 and 8 tractors based on
a laboratory test of the engine and
vehicle together. A ‘‘chassis
dynamometer test’’ for heavy-duty
vehicles would be similar to the Federal
Test Procedure used today for light-duty
vehicles.
However, the agencies decided not to
propose the use of a chassis test
procedure to demonstrate compliance
for tractor standards due to the
significant technical hurdles to
implementing such a program by the
2014 model year. The agencies
recognize that such testing requires
expensive, specialized equipment that is
not yet widespread within the industry.
The agencies have only identified
approximately 11 heavy-duty chassis
sites in the United States today and
rapid installation of new facilities to
comply with model year 2014 is not
possible.65
In addition, and of equal if not greater
importance, because of the enormous
numbers of truck configurations that
have an impact on fuel consumption,
we do not believe that it would be
reasonable to require testing of many
combinations of tractor model
configurations on a chassis
dynamometer. The agencies evaluated
the options available for one tractor
model (provided as confidential
business information from a truck
manufacturer) and found that the
company offered three cab
configurations, six axle configurations,
five front axles, 12 rear axles, 19 axle
ratios, eight engines, 17 transmissions,
and six tire sizes—where each of these
options could impact the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of the
65 For comparison, engine manufacturers
typically own a large number of engine
dynamometer test cells for engine development and
durability (up to 100 engine dynamometers per
manufacturer).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
tractor. Even using representative
grouping of tractors for purposes of
certification, this presents the potential
for many different combinations that
would need to be tested if a standard
was adopted based on a chassis test
procedure.
Although the agencies are not
proposing the use of a complete chassis
based test procedure for Class 7 and 8
tractors, we believe such an approach
could be appropriate in the future, if
more testing facilities become available
and if the agencies are able to address
the complexity of tractor configurations
issue described above. We request
comments on the potential use of
chassis based test procedures in the
future to augment or replace the model
based approach we are proposing.
(3) Summary of Proposed Flexibility
and Credit Provisions
EPA and NHTSA are proposing four
flexibility provisions specifically for
heavy-duty tractor and engine
manufacturers, as discussed in Section
IV below. These are an averaging,
banking and trading program for
emissions and fuel consumption credits,
as well as provisions for early credits,
advanced technology credits, and
credits for innovative vehicle or engine
technologies which are not included as
inputs to the GEM or are not
demonstrated on the engine SET test
cycle.
The agencies are proposing that
credits earned by manufacturers under
this ABT program be restricted for use
to only within the same regulatory
subcategory for two reasons. First,
relating credits between categories is
tenuous because of the differences in
regulatory useful lives. We want to
avoid having credits from longer useful
life categories flooding shorter useful
life categories, adversely impacting
compliance with CO2 or fuel
consumption standards in the shorter
useful life category, and we have not
based the level of the standard on such
impact on compliance. In addition,
extending the use of credits beyond
these designated categories could
inadvertently have major impacts on the
competitive market place, and we want
to avoid such results. For example, a
manufacturer which has multiple
engine offerings over several regulatory
categories could mix credits across
engine categories and shift the burden
between them, possibly impacting the
competitive market place. Similarly,
integrated manufacturers which
produce both engines and trucks could
shift credits between engines and trucks
and have a similar effect. We would like
to ensure that this proposal reduces the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
but does not inadvertently have such
impacts on the market place. However,
we welcome comments on the extension
of credits beyond the limitations we are
proposing.
The agencies are also proposing to
provide provisions to manufacturers for
early credits, the use of advanced
technologies and innovative
technologies which are described in
greater detail in Section IV.
(4) Deferral of Standards for Tractor and
Engine Manufacturing Companies That
Are Small Businesses
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to
defer greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption standards for small tractor
or engine manufacturers meeting the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
size criteria of a small business as
described in 13 CFR 121.201.66 The
agencies will instead consider
appropriate GHG and fuel consumption
standards for these entities as part of a
future regulatory action. This includes
both U.S.-based and foreign small
volume heavy-duty tractor or engine
manufacturers.
The agencies have identified two
entities that fit the SBA size criterion of
a small business.67 The agencies
estimate that these small entities
comprise less than 0.5 percent of the
total heavy-duty combination tractors in
the United States based on Polk
Registration Data from 2003 through
2007,68 and therefore that the exemption
will have a negligible impact on the
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
improvements from the proposed
standards.
To ensure that the agencies are aware
of which companies would be exempt,
we propose to require that such entities
submit a declaration to EPA and
NHTSA containing a detailed written
description of how that manufacturer
qualifies as a small entity under the
provisions of 13 CFR 121.201.
C. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
The primary elements of the EPA and
NHTSA programs being proposed for
complete HD pickups and vans are
presented in this section. These
provisions also cover incomplete HD
pickups and vans that are sold by
vehicle manufacturers as cab-chassis
(chassis-cab, box-delete, bed-delete, cutaway van) vehicles, as discussed in
detail in Section V.B(1)(e). Section
66 See
§ 1036.150 and § 1037.150.
agencies have identified Ottawa Truck, Inc.
and Kalmar Industries USA as two potential small
tractor manufacturers.
68 M.J. Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market
Analysis. May 2009.
67 The
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74189
II.C(1) explains the proposed form of the
CO2 and fuel consumption standards,
the proposed numerical levels for those
standards, and the proposed approach
to phasing in the standards over time.
The proposed measurement procedure
for determining compliance is discussed
in Section II.C(2), and the proposed EPA
and NHTSA compliance programs are
discussed in Section II.C(3). Sections
II.C(4) discusses proposed
implementation flexibility provisions.
Section II.E discusses additional
standards and provisions for N2O and
CH4 emissions, for impacts from vehicle
air conditioning, and for ethanol-fueled
and electric vehicles.
(1) What Are the Proposed Levels and
Timing of HD Pickup and Van
Standards?
(a) Vehicle-Based Standards
About 90 percent of Class 2b and 3
vehicles are pickup trucks, passenger
vans, and work vans that are sold by the
vehicle manufacturers as complete
vehicles, ready for use on the road. In
addition, most of these complete HD
pickups and vans are covered by CAA
vehicle emissions standards for criteria
pollutants today (i.e., they are chassis
tested similar to light-duty), expressed
in grams per mile. This distinguishes
this category from other, larger heavyduty vehicles that typically have only
the engines covered by CAA engine
emission standards, expressed in grams
per brake horsepower-hour.69 As a
result, Class 2b and 3 complete vehicles
share much more in common with lightduty trucks than with other heavy-duty
vehicles.
Three of these commonalities are
especially significant: (1) Over 95
percent of the HD pickups and vans sold
in the United States are produced by
Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler—
three companies with large light-duty
vehicle and light-duty truck sales in the
United States, (2) these companies
typically base their HD pickup and van
designs on higher sales volume lightduty truck platforms and technologies,
often incorporating new light-duty truck
design features into HD pickups and
vans at their next design cycle, and (3)
at this time most complete HD pickups
and vans are certified to vehicle-based
rather than engine-based EPA standards.
There is also the potential for
substantial GHG and fuel consumption
reductions from vehicle design
improvements beyond engine changes
(such as through optimizing
aerodynamics, weight, tires, and
69 As discussed briefly in Section I and in more
detail in Section V, this regulatory category also
covers some incomplete Class 2b/3 vehicles.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74190
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
brakes), and the manufacturer is
generally responsible for both engine
and vehicle design. All of these factors
together suggest that it is appropriate
and reasonable to set standards for the
vehicle as a whole, rather than to
establish separate engine and vehicle
GHG and fuel consumption standards,
as is proposed for the other heavy-duty
categories. This approach for complete
vehicles is consistent with
Recommendation 8–1 of the NAS
Report, which encourages the regulation
of ‘‘the final stage vehicle manufacturers
since they have the greatest control over
the design of the vehicle and its major
subsystems that affect fuel
consumption.’’
(b) Weight-Based Attributes
In setting heavy-duty vehicle
standards it is important to take into
account the great diversity of vehicle
sizes, applications, and features. That
diversity reflects the variety of functions
performed by heavy-duty vehicles, and
this in turn can affect the kind of
technology that is available to control
emissions and reduce fuel consumption,
and its effectiveness. EPA has dealt with
this diversity in the past by making
weight-based distinctions where
necessary, for example in setting HD
vehicle standards that are different for
vehicles above and below 10,000 lb
GVWR, and in defining different
standards and useful life requirements
for light-, medium-, and heavy-heavyduty engines. Where appropriate,
distinctions based on fuel type have also
been made, though with an overall goal
of remaining fuel-neutral.
The joint EPA GHG and NHTSA fuel
economy rules for light-duty vehicles
accounted for vehicle diversity in that
segment by basing standards on vehicle
footprint (the wheelbase times the
average track width). Passenger cars and
light trucks with larger footprints are
assigned numerically higher target
levels for GHGs and numerically lower
target levels for fuel economy in
acknowledgement of the differences in
technology as footprint gets larger, such
that vehicles with larger footprints have
an inherent tendency to burn more fuel
and emit more GHGs per mile of travel.
Using a footprint-based attribute to
assign targets also avoids interfering
with the ability of the market to offer a
variety of products to maintain
consumer choice.
In developing this proposal, the
agencies emphasized creating a program
structure that would achieve reductions
in fuel consumption and GHGs based on
how vehicles are used and on the work
they perform in the real world,
consistent with the NAS report
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
recommendations to be mindful of HD
vehicles’ unique purposes. Despite the
HD pickup and van similarities to lightduty vehicles, we believe that the past
practice in EPA’s heavy-duty program of
using weight-based distinctions in
dealing with the diversity of HD pickup
and van products is more appropriate
than using vehicle footprint. Weightbased measures such as payload and
towing capability are key among the
things that characterize differences in
the design of vehicles, as well as
differences in how the vehicles will be
used. Vehicles in this category have a
wide range of payload and towing
capacities. These weight-based
differences in design and in-use
operation are the key factors in
evaluating technological improvements
for reducing CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption. Payload has a particularly
important impact on the test results for
HD pickup and van emissions and fuel
consumption, because testing under
existing EPA procedures for criteria
pollutants is conducted with the vehicle
loaded to half of its payload capacity
(rather than to a flat 300 lb as in the
light-duty program), and the correlation
between test weight and fuel use is
strong.70
Towing, on the other hand, does not
directly factor into test weight as
nothing is towed during the test. Hence
only the higher curb weight caused by
heavier truck components would play a
role in affecting measured test results.
However towing capacity can be a
significant factor to consider because
HD pickup truck towing capacities can
be quite large, with a correspondingly
large effect on design.
We note too that, from a purchaser
perspective, payload and towing
capability typically play a greater role
than physical dimensions in influencing
purchaser decisions on which heavyduty vehicle to buy. For passenger vans,
seating capacity is of course a major
consideration, but this correlates closely
with payload weight.
Although heavy-duty vehicles are
traditionally classified by their GVWR,
we do not believe that GVWR is the best
weight-based attribute on which to base
GHG and fuel consumption standards
for this group of vehicles. GVWR is a
function of not only payload capacity
but of vehicle curb weight as well; in
fact, it is the simple sum of the two.
Allowing more GHG emissions from
vehicles with higher curb weight tends
to penalize lightweighted vehicles with
70 Section II.C(2) discusses our decision to
propose that GHGs and fuel consumption for HD
pickups and vans be measured using the same test
conditions as in the existing EPA program for
criteria pollutants.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comparable payload capabilities by
making them meet more stringent
standards than they would have had to
meet without the weight reduction. The
same would be true for another common
weight-based measure, the gross vehicle
combined weight, which adds the
maximum combined towing and
payload weight to the curb weight.
Similar concerns about using weightbased attributes that include vehicle
curb weight were raised in the EPA/
NHTSA proposal for light-duty GHG
and fuel economy standards: ‘‘Footprintbased standards provide an incentive to
use advanced lightweight materials and
structures that would be discouraged by
weight-based standards’’, and ‘‘there is
less risk of ‘gaming’ (artificial
manipulation of the attribute(s) to
achieve a more favorable target) by
increasing footprint under footprintbased standards than by increasing
vehicle mass under weight-based
standards—it is relatively easy for a
manufacturer to add enough weight to a
vehicle to decrease its applicable fuel
economy target a significant amount, as
compared to increasing vehicle
footprint’’ (74 FR 49685, September 28,
2009). The agencies believe that using
payload and towing capacities as the
weight-based attributes would avoid the
above-mentioned disincentive for the
use of lightweighting technology by
taking vehicle curb weight out of the
standards determination.
After taking these considerations into
account, EPA and NHTSA have decided
to propose standards for HD pickups
and vans based on a ‘‘work factor’’
attribute that combines vehicle payload
capacity and vehicle towing capacity, in
pounds, with an additional fixed
adjustment for four-wheel drive (4wd)
vehicles. This adjustment would
account for the fact that 4wd, critical to
enabling the many off-road heavy-duty
work applications, adds roughly 500 lb
to the vehicle weight. Under our
proposal, target GHG and fuel
consumption standards would be
determined for each vehicle with a
unique work factor. These targets would
then be production weighted and
summed to derive a manufacturer’s
annual fleet average standards.
To ensure consistency and help
preclude gaming, we are proposing that
payload capacity be defined as GVWR
minus curb weight, and towing capacity
as GCWR minus GVWR. We are
proposing that, for purposes of
determining the work factor, GCWR be
defined according to SAE
Recommended Practice J2807 APR2008,
GVWR be defined consistent with EPA’s
criteria pollutants program, and curb
weight be defined as in 40 CFR
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
86.1803–01. We request comment on the
need to establish additional regulations
or guidance to ensure that these terms
are determined and applied consistently
across the HD pickup and van industry
for the purpose of determining
standards.
Based on analysis of how CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
correlate to work factor, we believe that
a straight line correlation is appropriate
across the spectrum of possible HD
pickups and vans, and that vehicle
distinctions such as Class 2b versus
Class 3 need not be made in setting
standards levels for these vehicles.71 We
request comment on this proposed
approach.
We note that payload/towingdependent gram per mile and gallon per
100 mile standards for HD pickups and
vans parallel the gram per ton-mile and
gallon per 1,000 ton-mile standards
being proposed for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors and for vocational
vehicles. Both approaches account for
the fact that more work is done, more
fuel is burned, and more CO2 is emitted
in moving heavier loads than in moving
lighter loads. Both of these load-based
approaches avoid penalizing truck
designers wishing to reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption by
reducing the weight of their trucks.
However, the sizeable diversity in HD
work truck and van applications, which
go well beyond simply transporting
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71 Memorandum from Anthony Neam and Jeff
Cherry, U.S.EPA, to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162, October 18, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
freight, and the fact that the curb
weights of these vehicles are on the
order of their payload capacities,
suggest that setting simple gram/tonmile and gallon/ton-mile standards for
them is not appropriate. Even so, we
believe that our proposal of payloadbased standards for HD pickups and
vans is consistent with the NAS
Report’s recommendation in favor of
load-specific fuel consumption
standards.
These attribute-based CO2 and fuel
consumption standards are meant to be
relatively consistent from a stringency
perspective. Vehicles across the entire
range of the HD pickup and van segment
have their respective target values for
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption,
and therefore all HD pickups and vans
would be affected by the standard. With
the proposed attribute-based standards
approach, EPA and NHTSA believe
there should be no significant effect on
the relative distribution of vehicles with
differing capabilities in the fleet, which
means that buyers should still be able to
purchase the vehicle that meets their
needs.
(c) Proposed Standards
The agencies are proposing standards
based on a technology analysis
performed by EPA to determine the
appropriate HD pickup and van
standards. This analysis, described in
detail in draft RIA Chapter 2,
considered:
• The level of technology that is
incorporated in current new HD pickups
and vans,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74191
• The available data on
corresponding CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption for these vehicles,
• Technologies that would reduce
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
and that are judged to be feasible and
appropriate for these vehicles through
the 2018 model year,
• The effectiveness and cost of these
technologies for HD pickup and vans,
• Projections of future U.S. sales for
HD pickup and vans, and
• Forecasts of manufacturers’ product
redesign schedules.
Based on this analysis, EPA is
proposing the CO2 attribute-based target
standards shown in Figure II–1 and II–
2, and NHTSA is proposing the
equivalent attribute-based fuel
consumption target standards, also
shown in Figure II–1 and II–2,
applicable in model year 2018. These
figures also shows phase-in standards
for model years before 2018, and their
derivation is explained below, along
with alternative implementation
schedules to ensure equivalency
between the EPA and NHTSA programs
while meeting statutory obligations.
Also, for reasons discussed below,
separate targets are being established for
gasoline-fueled (and any other Ottocycle) vehicles and diesel-fueled (and
any other Diesel-cycle) vehicles. The
targets would be used to determine the
production-weighted standards that
apply to the combined diesel and
gasoline fleet of HD pickups and vans
produced by a manufacturer in each
model year.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
72 The NHTSA proposal provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. Target
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
line functions for 2016–2018 are for the second
NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.018
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74192
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
NHTSA Fuel Consumption Target
(gallons/100 miles) = [c × WF] + d
Where:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
EPA CO2 Target (g/mile) = [a × WF]
+b
WF = Work Factor = [0.75 × (Payload
Capacity + xwd)] + [0.25 × Towing
Capacity]
73 The NHTSA proposal provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. Target
line functions for 2016–2018 are for the second
NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).
Payload Capacity = GVWR (lb)¥Curb Weight
(lb)
xwd = 500 lb if the vehicle is equipped with
4wd, otherwise equals 0 lb
Towing Capacity = GCWR (lb)¥GVWR (lb)
Coefficients a, b, c, and d are taken from
Table II–7 or Table II–8.74
74 The NHTSA proposal provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. Target
line functions for 2016–2018 are for the second
NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.019
Described 73 mathematically, EPA’s
and NHTSA’s proposed functions are
defined by the following formulae:
74193
These targets are based on a set of
vehicle, engine, and transmission
technologies assessed by the agencies
and determined to be feasible and
appropriate for HD pickups and vans in
the 2014–2018 timeframe. Much of the
information used to make this
technology assessment was developed
for the recent 2012–2016 MY light-duty
vehicle rule. See Section III.B for a
detailed analysis of these vehicle,
engine and transmission technologies,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
including their feasibility, costs, and
effectiveness in HD pickups and vans.
To calculate a manufacturer’s HD
pickup and van fleet average standard,
the agencies are proposing that separate
target curves be used for gasoline and
diesel vehicles. The agencies estimate
that in 2018 the target curves will
achieve 15 and 10 percent reductions in
CO2 and fuel consumption for diesel
and gasoline vehicles, respectively,
relative to a common baseline for
current (model year 2010) vehicles. An
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
additional two percent reduction in
GHGs would be achieved by the EPA
program from a proposed direct air
conditioning leakage standard. These
reductions are based on the agencies’
assessment of the feasibility of
incorporating technologies (which differ
significantly for gasoline and diesel
powertrains) in the 2014–2018 model
years, and on the differences in relative
efficiency in the current gasoline and
diesel vehicles. The resulting reductions
represent roughly equivalent stringency
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.021
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EP30NO10.020
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74194
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
levels for gasoline and diesel vehicles,
which is important in ensuring our
proposed program maintains product
choices available to vehicle buyers.
The NHTSA fuel consumption target
curves and the EPA GHG target curves
are equivalent. The agencies established
the target curves using the direct
relationship between fuel consumption
and CO2 using conversion factors of
8,887 g CO2/gallon for gasoline and
10,180 g CO2/gallon for diesel fuel.
It is expected that measured
performance values for CO2 would
generally be equivalent to fuel
consumption. However, as explained
below in Section II. E. (3), EPA is
proposing an alternative for
manufacturers to demonstrate
compliance with N2O and CH4
emissions standards through the
calculation of a CO2-equivalent (CO2eq)
emissions level that would be compared
to the CO2-based standards, similar to
the recently promulgated light-duty
GHG standards for model years 2012–
2016. For test families that do not use
this compliance alternative, the
measured performance values for CO2
and fuel consumption would be
equivalent because the same test runs
and measurement data would be used to
determine both values, and calculated
fuel consumption would be based on
the same conversion factors that are
used to establish the relationship
between the CO2 and fuel consumption
target curves (8887 g CO2/gallon for
gasoline and 10,180 g CO2/gallon for
diesel fuel). In this case, for example, if
a manufacturer’s fleet average measured
compliance value exactly meets the fleet
average CO2 standard, it will also
exactly meet the fuel consumption
standard. The proposed NHTSA fuel
consumption program will not use a
CO2eq metric. Measured performance to
standards would be based on the
measurement of CO2 with no adjustment
for N2O and CH4. For manufacturers that
choose to use the EPA CO2eq approach,
compliance with the CO2 standard
would not be directly equivalent to
compliance with the NHTSA fuel
consumption standard.
(d) Proposed Implementation Plan
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) EPA Program Phase-In MY 2014–
2018
EPA is proposing that the GHG
standards be phased in gradually over
the 2014–2018 model years, with full
implementation effective in the 2018
model year. Therefore, 100 percent of a
manufacturer’s vehicle fleet would need
to meet a fleet-average standard that
would become increasingly more
stringent each year of the phase-in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
period. For both gasoline and diesel
vehicles, this phase-in would be 15–20–
40–60–100 percent in model years
2014–2015–2016–2017–2018,
respectively. These percentages reflect
stringency increases from a baseline
performance level for model year 2010,
determined by the agencies based on
EPA and manufacturer data. Because
these vehicles are not currently
regulated for GHG emissions, this
phase-in takes the form of target line
functions for gasoline and diesel
vehicles that become increasingly
stringent over the phase-in model years.
These year-by-year functions have been
derived in the same way as the 2018
function, by taking a percent reduction
in CO2 from a common unregulated
baseline. For example, in 2014 the
reduction for both diesel and gasoline
vehicles would be 15% of the fullyphased-in reductions. Figures II–1 and
II–2, and Table II–7, reflect this phasein approach.
EPA is also proposing to provide
manufacturers with an optional
alternative implementation schedule in
model years 2016 through 2018,
equivalent to NHTSA’s proposed first
alternative for standards that do not
change over these model years,
described below. Under this option the
phase-in would be 15–20–67–67–67–
100 percent in model years 2014–2015–
2016–2017–2018–2019, respectively.
Table II–8, above, provides the
coefficients ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’ for this
manufacturer’s alternative. As explained
below, the stringency of this alternative
was established by NHTSA such that a
manufacturer with a stable production
volume and mix over the model year
2016–2018 period could use Averaging,
Banking and Trading to comply with
either alternative and have a similar
credit balance at the end of model year
2018.
Under the above-described
alternatives, each manufacturer would
need to demonstrate compliance with
the applicable fleet average standard
using that year’s target function over all
of its HD pickups and vans starting in
2014. EPA also requests comment on a
different regulatory approach to the
phase-in, intended to reduce the testing
and certification burden on
manufacturers during the 2014–2017
phase-in years, while achieving GHG
reductions on the same schedule as the
proposed phase-in. In this alternative
approach, each manufacturer would be
required to demonstrate compliance
with the final 2018 targets, but only over
a predefined percentage of its HD
pickup and van production. The
remaining vehicles produced each year
would not be regulated for GHGs. Thus
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74195
this approach would have the effect of
setting final standards in 2014 that do
not vary over time, but with an annually
increasing set of regulated vehicles. The
percentage of regulated vehicles would
increase each year, to 100 percent in
2018. We think it likely that
manufacturers would leave the highest
emitting vehicles unregulated for as
long as possible under this approach,
because these vehicles would tend to be
the costliest to redesign or may simply
be phased out of production. We
therefore expect that, to be equivalent,
the percentage penetration each year
would be higher than the 15–20–40–60
percent penetrations required under the
proposed approach. EPA requests
comment on this regulatory alternative,
and on what percentage penetrations are
appropriate to achieve equivalent
program benefits.
(ii) NHTSA Program Phase-In 2016 and
Later
NHTSA is proposing to allow
manufacturers to select one of two fuel
consumption standard alternatives for
model years 2016 and later.
Manufacturers would select an
alternative at the same time they submit
the model year 2016 Pre-Certification
Compliance Report; and, once selected,
the alternative would apply for model
years 2016 and later, and could not be
reversed. To meet the EISA statutory
requirement for three years of regulatory
stability, the first alternative would
define a fuel consumption target line
function for gasoline vehicles and a
target line function for diesel vehicles
that would not change for model years
2016 and later. The proposed target line
function coefficients are provided in
Table II–8.
The second alternative would be
equivalent to the EPA target line
functions in each model year starting in
2016 and continuing afterwards.
Stringency of fuel consumption
standards would increase gradually for
the 2016 and later model years. Relative
to a model year 2010 unregulated
baseline, for both gasoline and diesel
vehicles, stringency would be 40, 60,
and 100 percent of the 2018 target line
function in model years 2016, 2017, and
2018, respectively.
The stringency of the target line
functions in the first alternative for
model years 2016–2017–2018–2019 is
67–67–67–100 percent, respectively, of
the 2018 stringency in the second
alternative. The stringency of the first
alternative was established so that a
manufacturer with a stable production
volume and mix over the model year
2016–2018 period, could use Averaging,
Banking and Trading to comply with
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74196
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
either alternative and have a similar
credit balance at the end of model year
2018 under the EPA and NHTSA
programs.
NHTSA also requests comment on a
different regulatory approach that
would parallel the above-described EPA
regulatory alternative involving
certification of a pre-defined percentage
of a manufacturer’s HD pickup and van
production.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iii) NHTSA Voluntary Standards Period
NHTSA is proposing that
manufacturers may voluntarily opt into
the NHTSA HD pickup and van program
in model years 2014 or 2015. If a
manufacturer elects to opt into the
program, the program would become
mandatory and the manufacturer would
not be allowed to reverse this decision.
To opt into the program, a manufacturer
must declare its intent to opt in to the
program at the same time it submits the
Pre-Certification Compliance Report.
See proposed regulatory text for 49 CFR
535.8 for information related to the PreCertification Compliance Report. If a
manufacturer elects to opt into the
program in 2014, the program would be
mandatory for 2014 and 2015. A
manufacturer would begin tracking
credits and debits beginning in the
model year in which they opt into the
program. The handling of credits and
debits would be the same as for the
mandatory program.
For manufacturers that opt into
NHTSA’s HD pickup and van fuel
consumption program in 2014 or 2015,
the stringency would increase gradually
each model year. Relative to a model
year 2010 unregulated baseline, for both
gasoline and diesel vehicles, stringency
would be 15–20 percent of the model
year 2018 target line function (under the
NHTSA second alternative) in model
years 2014–2015, respectively. The
corresponding absolute standards
targets levels are provided in Figure
II–1 and II–2, and the accompanying
equations.
NHTSA also requests comment on a
different regulatory approach that
would parallel the above-described EPA
regulatory alternative involving
certification of a pre-defined percentage
of a manufacturer’s HD pickup and van
production.
(2) What are the proposed HD pickup
and van test cycles and procedures?
EPA and NHTSA are proposing that
HD pickup and van testing be
conducted using the same heavy-duty
chassis test procedures currently used
by EPA for measuring criteria pollutant
emissions from these vehicles, but with
the addition of the highway fuel
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
economy test cycle (HFET) currently
required only for light-duty vehicle
GHG emissions and fuel economy
testing. Although the highway cycle
driving pattern would be identical to
that of the light-duty test, other test
parameters for running the HFET, such
as test vehicle loaded weight, would be
identical to those used in running the
current EPA Federal Test Procedure for
complete heavy-duty vehicles.
The GHG and fuel consumption
results from vehicle testing on the Lightduty FTP and the HFET would be
weighted by 55 percent and 45 percent,
respectively, and then averaged in
calculating a combined cycle result.
This result corresponds with the data
used to develop the proposed work
factor-based CO2 and fuel consumption
standards, since the data on the baseline
and technology efficiency was also
developed in the context of these test
procedures. The addition of the HFET
and the 55/45 cycle weightings are the
same as for the light-duty CO2 and
CAFE programs, as we believe the real
world driving patterns for HD pickups
and vans are not too unlike those of
light-duty trucks, and we are not aware
of data specifically on these patterns
that would lead to a different choice of
cycles and weightings. More
importantly, we believe that the 55/45
weightings will provide for effective
reductions of GHG emissions and fuel
consumption from these vehicles, and
that other weightings, even if they were
to more precisely match real world
patterns, are not likely to significantly
improve the program results.
Another important parameter in
ensuring a robust test program is vehicle
test weight. Current EPA testing for HD
pickup and van criteria pollutants is
conducted with the vehicle loaded to its
Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight
(ALVW), that is, its curb weight plus 1⁄2
of the payload capacity. This is
substantially more challenging than
loading to the light-duty vehicle test
condition of curb weight plus 300
pounds, but we believe that this loading
for HD pickups and vans to 1⁄2 payload
better fits their usage in the real world
and would help ensure that
technologies meeting the standards do
in fact provide real world reductions.
The choice is likewise consistent with
use of an attribute based in considerable
part on payload for the standard. We see
no reason to set test load conditions
differently for GHGs and fuel
consumption than for criteria
pollutants, and we are not aware of any
new information (such as real world
load patterns) since the ALVW was
originally set this way that would
support a change in test loading
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
conditions. We are therefore proposing
to use ALVW for test vehicle loading in
GHG and fuel consumption testing.
EPA and NHTSA request comment on
the proposed test cycles, weighting
factors, test loading conditions, and
other factors that are important for
establishing an effective GHG and fuel
consumption test program. Additional
provisions for our proposed testing and
compliance program are provided in
Section V.B.
(3) How are the HD pickup and van
standards structured?
EPA and NHTSA are proposing fleet
average standards for new HD pickups
and vans, based on a manufacturer’s
new vehicle fleet makeup. In addition,
EPA is proposing in-use standards that
would apply to the individual vehicles
in this fleet over their useful lives. The
compliance provisions for these
proposed fleet average and in-use
standards for HD pickups and vans are
largely based on the recently
promulgated light-duty GHG and fuel
economy program, as described below
and in greater detail in Section V.B. We
request comment on any compliance
provisions we have taken from the lightduty program that commenters feel
would not be appropriate for HD
pickups and vans or that should be
adjusted in some way to better regulate
HD GHGs and fuel consumption costeffectively.
(a) Fleet Average Standards
In this proposal we outline how each
manufacturer would have a GHG
standard and a fuel consumption
standard unique to its new HD pickup
and van fleet in each model year,
depending on the load capacities of the
vehicle models produced by that
manufacturer, and on the U.S.-directed
production volume of each of those
models in that model year. Vehicle
models with larger payload/towing
capacities would have individual targets
at numerically higher CO2 and fuel
consumption levels than lower payload/
towing vehicles would, as discussed in
Section II.C(1). The fleet average
standard for a manufacturer would be a
production-weighted average of the
work factor-based targets assigned to
unique vehicle configurations within
each model type produced by the
manufacturer in a model year.
The fleet average standard with which
the manufacturer must comply would
be based on its final production figures
for the model year, and thus a final
assessment of compliance would occur
after production for the model year
ended. Because compliance with the
fleet average standards depends on
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
actual test group production volumes, it
is not possible to determine compliance
at the time the manufacturer applies for
and receives an EPA certificate of
conformity for a test group. Instead, at
certification the manufacturer would
demonstrate a level of performance for
vehicles in the test group, and make a
good faith demonstration that its fleet,
regrouped by unique vehicle
configurations within each model type,
is expected to comply with its fleet
average standard when the model year
is over. EPA would issue a certificate for
the vehicles covered by the test group
based on this demonstration, and would
include a condition in the certificate
that if the manufacturer does not
comply with the fleet average, then
production vehicles from that test group
will be treated as not covered by the
certificate to the extent needed to bring
the manufacturer’s fleet average into
compliance. As in the light-duty
program, additional ‘‘model type’’
testing would be conducted by the
manufacturer over the course of the
model year to supplement the initial test
group data. The emissions and fuel
consumption levels of the test vehicles
would be used to calculate the
production-weighted fleet averages for
the manufacturer, after application of
the appropriate deterioration factor to
each result to obtain a full useful life
value. See generally 75 FR 25470–
25472.
EPA and NHTSA do not currently
anticipate notable deterioration of CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
performance, and are therefore
proposing that an assigned deterioration
factor be applied at the time of
certification: an additive assigned
deterioration factor of zero, or a
multiplicative factor of one would be
used. EPA and NHTSA anticipate that
the deterioration factor would be
updated from time to time, as new data
regarding emissions deterioration for
CO2 are obtained and analyzed.
Additionally, EPA and NHTSA may
consider technology-specific
deterioration factors, should data
indicate that certain control
technologies deteriorate differently than
others. See also 75 FR 25474.
(b) In-Use Standards
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies
that EPA set emissions standards that
are applicable for the useful life of the
vehicle. The in-use standards that EPA
is proposing would apply to individual
vehicles. NHTSA is not proposing to
adopt in-use standards because it is not
required under EISA, and because it is
not currently anticipated that there will
be any notable deterioration of fuel
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
consumption. For the EPA proposal,
compliance with the in-use standard for
individual vehicles and vehicle models
will not impact compliance with the
fleet average standard, which will be
based on the production weighted
average of the new vehicles.
EPA is proposing that the in-use
standards for HD pickups and vans be
established by adding an adjustment
factor to the full useful life emissions
and fuel consumption results used to
calculate the fleet average. EPA is also
proposing that the useful life for these
vehicles with respect to GHG emissions
be set equal to their useful life for
criteria pollutants: 11 years or 120,000
miles, whichever occurs first (40 CFR
86.1805–04(a)).
As discussed above, we are proposing
that certification test results obtained
before and during the model year be
used directly to calculate the fleet
average emissions for assessing
compliance with the fleet average
standard. Therefore, this assessment and
the fleet average standard itself do not
take into account test-to-test variability
and production variability that can
affect measured in-use levels. For this
reason, EPA is proposing an adjustment
factor for the in-use standard to provide
some margin for production and test-totest variability that could result in
differences between the initial emission
test results used to calculate the fleet
average and emission results obtained
during subsequent in-use testing. EPA is
proposing that each model’s in-use CO2
standard would be the model-specific
level used in calculating the fleet
average, plus 10 percent. This is the
same as the approach taken for lightduty vehicle GHG in-use standards (See
75 FR 25473–25474).
As it does now for heavy-duty vehicle
criteria pollutants, EPA would use a
variety of mechanisms to conduct
assessments of compliance with the
proposed in-use standards, including
pre-production certification and in-use
monitoring once vehicles enter
customer service. The full useful life inuse standards would apply to vehicles
that had entered customer service. The
same standards would apply to vehicles
used in pre-production and production
line testing, except that deterioration
factors would not be applied.
(4) What HD pickup and van flexibility
provisions are being proposed?
This proposal contains substantial
flexibility in how manufacturers can
choose to implement the EPA and
NHTSA standards while preserving
their timely benefits for the
environment and energy security.
Primary among these flexibilities are the
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74197
gradual phase-in schedule, alternative
compliance paths, and corporate fleet
average approach described above.
Additional flexibility provisions are
described briefly here and in more
detail in Section IV.
As explained in Section II.C(3), we are
proposing that at the end of each model
year, when production for the model
year is complete, a manufacturer
calculate its production-weighted fleet
average CO2 and fuel consumption.
Under this proposed approach, a
manufacturer’s HD pickup and van fleet
that achieves a fleet average CO2 or fuel
consumption level better than its
standard would be allowed to generate
credits. Conversely, if the fleet average
CO2 or fuel consumption level does not
meet its standard, the fleet would incur
debits (also referred to as a shortfall).
A manufacturer whose fleet generates
credits in a given model year would
have several options for using those
credits to offset emissions from other
HD pickups and vans. These options
include credit carry-back, credit carryforward, and credit trading. These
provisions exist in the 2012–2016 MY
light-duty vehicle National Program,
and similar provisions are part of EPA’s
Tier 2 program for light-duty vehicle
criteria pollutant emissions, as well as
many other mobile source standards
issued by EPA under the CAA. The
manufacturer would be able to carry
back credits to offset a deficit that had
accrued in a prior model year and was
subsequently carried over to the current
model year, with a limitation on the
carry-back of credits to three years,
consistent with the light-duty program.
We are proposing that, after satisfying
any need to offset pre-existing deficits,
a manufacturer may bank remaining
credits for use in future years. We are
also proposing that manufacturers may
certify their HD pickup and van fleet a
year early, in MY 2013, to generate
credits against the MY 2014 standards.
This averaging, banking, and trading
program for HD pickups and vans is
discussed in more detail in Section
IV.A. For reasons discussed in detail in
that section, we are not proposing any
credit transferability to or from other
credit programs, such as the light-duty
GHG and fuel consumption programs or
the proposed heavy-duty engine ABT
program.
Consistent with the President’s May
21, 2010 directive to promote advanced
technology vehicles, we are proposing
and seeking comment on flexibility
provisions that would parallel similar
provisions adopted in the light-duty
program. These include credits for
advance technology vehicles such as
electric vehicles, and credits for
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74198
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
innovative technologies that are shown
by the manufacturer to provide GHG
and fuel consumption reductions in real
world driving, but not on the test cycle.
See Section IV.B.
We believe that it may also be
appropriate to take steps to recognize
the benefits of flexible-fueled vehicles
(FFVs) and dedicated alternative-fueled
vehicles based on the approach taken by
EPA in the light-duty vehicle rule for
later models years (2016 and later).
However, unlike in that rule, we do not
believe it is appropriate to create a
provision for additional credits similar
to the 2012–2015 light-duty program
because the HD sector does not have the
incentives mandated in EISA for lightduty vehicles. In fact, since heavy-duty
vehicles were not included in the EISA
incentives for FFVs, manufacturers have
not in the past produced FFV heavyduty vehicles. On the other hand, we do
seek comment on how to properly
recognize the impact of the use of
alternative fuels, and E85 in particular,
in HD pickups and vans, including the
proper accounting for alternative fuel
use in FFVs in the real world.75 As
proposed, FFV performance would be
determined in the same way as for lightduty vehicles, with a 50–50 weighting of
alternative and conventional fuel test
results through MY 2015, and a
manufacturer-determined weighting
based on demonstrated fuel use in the
real world after MY 2015 (defaulting to
an assumption of 100 percent
conventional fuel use). For dedicated
alternative fueled vehicles, NHTSA
proposes that vehicles be tested with the
alternative fuel, and a petroleum
equivalent fuel consumption level be
calculated based on the Petroleum
Equivalency Factor (PEF) that is
determined by the Department of
Energy. However, we are accepting
comment on whether to provide a
flexibility program similar to the
program we currently offer for lightduty FFV vehicles.
D. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles consist
of a very wide variety of configurations
including delivery, refuse, utility,
dump, cement, transit bus, shuttle bus,
school bus, emergency vehicle, motor
homes,76 and tow trucks, among others.
The agencies are defining that Class 2b–
8 vocational vehicles are all heavy-duty
vehicles which are not included in the
Heavy-duty Pickup Truck and Van or
the Class 7 and 8 Tractor categories,
75 E85 is a blended fuel consisting of nominally
15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol.
76 See above for discussion of applicability of
NHTSA’s standards to non-commercial vehicles.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
with the exception of vehicles for which
the agencies are deferring setting of
standards, such as small business
manufacturers. In addition, recreational
vehicles are included under EPA’s
proposed standards but are not included
under NHTSA’s proposed standards.
As mentioned in Section I, vocational
vehicles undergo a complex build
process. Often an incomplete chassis is
built by a chassis manufacturer with an
engine purchased from an engine
manufacturer and a transmission
purchased from another manufacturer.
A body manufacturer purchases an
incomplete chassis which is then
completed by attaching the appropriate
features to the chassis.
The agencies face difficulties in
establishing the baseline CO2 and fuel
consumption performance for the wide
variety of vocational vehicles which
makes it difficult to try and set different
standards for a large number of potential
regulatory categories. The diversity in
the vocational vehicle segment can be
primarily attributed to the variety of
vehicle bodies rather than to the chassis.
For example, a body builder can build
either a Class 6 bucket truck or a Class
6 delivery truck from the same Class 6
chassis. The aerodynamic difference
between these two vehicles due to their
bodies will lead to different baseline
fuel consumption and GHG emissions.
However, the baseline fuel consumption
and emissions due to the components
included in the common chassis (such
as the engine, drivetrain, frame, and
tires) will be the same between these
two types of complete vehicles.
Furthermore, the agencies evaluated the
aerodynamic improvement
opportunities for vocational vehicles.
For example, the aerodynamics of a fire
truck are impacted significantly by the
equipment such as ladders located on
the exterior of the truck. The agencies
found little opportunity to improve the
aerodynamics of the equipment on the
truck. The agencies also evaluated the
aerodynamic opportunities discussed in
the NAS report. The panel found that
there was no fuel consumption
reduction opportunity through
aerodynamic technologies for bucket
trucks, transit buses, and refuse trucks 77
primarily due to the low vehicle speed
in normal operation. The panel did
report that there are opportunities to
reduce the fuel consumption of straight
trucks by approximately 1 percent for
trucks which operate at the average
speed typical of a pickup and delivery
truck (30 mph), although the
opportunity is greater for trucks which
77 See
PO 00000
2010 NAS Report, Note 19, page 133.
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
operate at higher speeds.78 To overcome
the lack of baseline information from
the different vehicle applications
without sacrificing much fuel
consumption or GHG emission
reduction potential, the agencies
propose to set standards for the chassis
manufacturers of vocational vehicles
(instead of the body builders) and the
engine manufacturers.
EPA is proposing CO2 standards and
NHTSA is proposing fuel consumption
standards for manufacturers of chassis
for new vocational vehicles and for
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines
installed in these vehicles. The
proposed heavy-duty engine standards
for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
would focus on potential technological
improvements in fuel combustion and
overall engine efficiency and those
proposed controls would achieve most
of the emission reductions. Further
reductions from the Class 2b–8
vocational vehicle itself are possible
within the timeframe of these proposed
regulations. Therefore, the agencies are
also proposing separate standards for
vocational vehicles that will focus on
additional reductions that can be
achieved through improvements in
vehicle tires. The agencies’ analyses, as
discussed briefly below and in more
detail later in this preamble and in the
draft RIA Chapter 2, show that these
proposed standards appear appropriate
under each agency’s respective statutory
authorities. Together these standards are
estimated to achieve reductions of up to
11 percent from vocational vehicles.
EPA is also proposing standards to
control N2O and CH4 emissions from
Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles. The
proposed heavy-duty engine standards
for both N2O and CH4 and details of the
standard are included in the discussion
in Section II. EPA is not proposing air
conditioning leakage standards applying
to chassis manufacturers to address HFC
emissions.
As discussed further below, the
agencies propose to set CO2 and fuel
consumption standards for these chassis
based on tire rolling resistance
improvements and for the engines based
on engine technologies. The fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
impact of tire rolling resistance is
impacted by the mass of the vehicle.
However the impact of mass on rolling
resistance is relatively small so the
agencies propose to aggregate several
vehicle weight categories under a single
category for setting the standards. The
agencies propose to divide the
vocational vehicle segment into three
broad regulatory categories—Light
78 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
2010 NAS Report, Note 19, page 110.
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) What are the proposed CO2 and fuel
consumption standards and their
timing?
In developing the proposed standards,
the agencies have evaluated the current
levels of emissions and fuel
consumption, the kinds of technologies
that could be utilized by manufacturers
to reduce emissions and fuel
consumption and the associated lead
time, the associated costs for the
industry, fuel savings for the consumer,
(i) Off-Road Vocational Vehicle
Standards
In developing the proposal EPA and
NHSTA received comment from
79 Manufacturers may voluntarily opt-in to the
NHTSA fuel consumption program in 2014 or 2015.
If a manufacturer opts-in, the program becomes
mandatory.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
and the magnitude of the CO2 and fuel
savings that may be achieved. The
technologies that the agencies
considered while setting the proposed
vehicle-level standards include
improvements in lower rolling
resistance tires. The technologies that
the agencies considered while setting
the engine standards include engine
friction reduction, aftertreatment
optimization, among others. The
agencies’ evaluation indicates that these
technologies are available today in the
heavy-duty tractor and light-duty
vehicle markets, but have very low
application rates in the vocational
market. The agencies have analyzed the
technical feasibility of achieving the
proposed CO2 and fuel consumption
standards, based on projections of what
actions manufacturers would be
expected to take to reduce emissions
and fuel consumption to achieve the
standards, and believe that the proposed
standards are cost-effective and
technologically feasible and appropriate
within the rulemaking time frame. EPA
and NHTSA also present the estimated
costs and benefits of the proposed
As shown in Table II–9, EPA is
proposing the following CO2 standards
for the 2014 model year for the Class 2b
through Class 8 vocational vehicle
chassis. Similarly, NHTSA is proposing
the following fuel consumption
standards for the 2016 model year, with
voluntary standards beginning in the
2014 model year. For the EPA GHG
program, the proposed standard applies
throughout the useful life of the vehicle.
EPA and NHTSA are proposing more
stringent vehicle standards for the 2017
model year which reflect the CO2
emissions reductions required through
the 2017 model year engine standards.
As explained in Section II. D. (2)(c)(iv)
below, engine performance is one of the
inputs into the compliance model, and
that input will change in 2017 to reflect
the 2017 MY engine standards. The
2017 MY vehicle standards are not
premised on manufacturers installing
additional vehicle technologies.
manufacturers and owners that certain
vocational vehicles sometimes have
very limited on-road usage. These trucks
are defined to be motor vehicles under
40 CFR 85.1703, but they will spend the
majority of their operations off-road.
Trucks, such as those used in oil fields,
will experience little benefit from low
rolling resistance tires. The agencies are
therefore proposing to allow a narrow
range of these de facto off-road trucks to
be excluded from the proposed
vocational vehicle standards because
the trucks require special off-road tires
such as lug tires. The trucks must still
use a certified engine, which will
provide fuel consumption and CO2
emission reductions to the truck in all
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
vocational vehicle standards in Section
III.
(a) Proposed Chassis Standards
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.022
Heavy-Duty (Class 2b through 5),
Medium Heavy-Duty (Class 6 and 7),
and Heavy Heavy-Duty (Class 8) which
is consistent with the nomenclature
used in the diesel engine classification.
The agencies are interested in comment
on this segmentation strategy
(subcategorization). As the agencies
move towards future heavy-duty fuel
consumption and GHG regulations for
post-2017 model years, we intend to
gather GHG and fuel consumption data
for specific vocational applications
which could be used to establish
application-specific standards in the
future.
74199
74200
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
carry a deficit forward for a limited
time, are expected to provide
manufacturers the time needed to
incorporate technology that will achieve
the proposed GHG and fuel
consumption reductions, and to do this
as part of the normal engine redesign
process. This is an important aspect of
the proposed rules, as it will avoid the
much higher costs that would occur if
manufacturers needed to add or change
technology at times other than these
scheduled redesigns. This time period
will also provide manufacturers the
opportunity to plan for compliance
using a multi-year time frame, again in
accord with their normal business
practice. Further details on lead time,
redesigns and technical feasibility can
be found in Section III.
EPA’s existing criteria pollutant
emissions regulations for heavy-duty
highway engines establish four
regulatory categories (three for
compression-ignition or diesel engines
and one for spark ignition or gasoline
engines) that represent the engine’s
intended and primary truck application,
as shown in Table II–10 (40 CFR
1036.140). The agencies welcome
comments on the existing definition of
the regulatory categories (such as typical
horsepower levels) as described in 40
CFR 1036.140. All heavy-duty engines
are covered either under the heavy-duty
pickup truck and van category or under
the heavy-duty engine standards.
For the purposes of the GHG engine
emissions and engine fuel consumption
standards that EPA and NHTSA are
proposing, the agencies intend to
maintain these same four regulatory
subcategories for GHG engine emissions
standards and fuel consumption
standards. This category structure
would enable the agencies to set
standards that appropriately reflect the
technology available for engines for use
in each type of vehicle.
presented in Table II–11. Similar to
EPA’s non-GHG standards approach,
manufacturers may generate and use
credits to show compliance with the
standards. The EPA standards become
effective in 2014 model year, with more
stringent standards becoming effective
in model year 2017. Recently, EPA’s
80 Specifically, EPA is proposing CO , N O, and
2
2
CH4 emissions standards for new heavy-duty
engines over an EPA specified useful life period
(see Section II. E. for the N2O and CH4 standards).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(b) Proposed Heavy-duty Engine
Standards
EPA is proposing GHG standards 80
and NHTSA is proposing fuel
consumption standards for new heavyduty engines installed in vocational
vehicles. The standards will vary
depending on whether the engines are
diesel or gasoline powered. The
agencies’ analyses, as discussed briefly
below and in more detail later in this
preamble and in the draft RIA Chapter
2, show that these standards are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(i) Diesel Engine Standards
EPA’s proposed heavy-duty diesel
engine CO2 emission standards are
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.023
appropriate and feasible under each
agency’s respective statutory authorities.
The agencies have analyzed the
feasibility of achieving the GHG and
fuel consumption standards, based on
projections of what actions
manufacturers are expected to take to
reduce emissions and fuel consumption.
EPA and NHTSA also present the
estimated costs and benefits of the
heavy-duty engine standards in Section
III. In developing the proposed rules,
the agencies have evaluated the kinds of
technologies that could be utilized by
engine manufacturers compared to a
baseline engine, as well as the
associated costs for the industry and
fuel savings for the consumer and the
magnitude of the GHG and fuel
consumption savings that may be
achieved.
With respect to the lead time and cost
of incorporating technology
improvements that reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption, the
agencies place important weight on the
fact that during MYs 2014–2017, engine
manufacturers are expected to redesign
and upgrade their products only once.
Over these four model years there will
be an opportunity for manufacturers to
evaluate almost every one of their
engine models and add technology in a
cost-effective way to control GHG
emissions and reduce fuel consumption.
The time-frame and levels for the
standards, as well as the ability to
average, bank and trade credits and
applications. To insure that these trucks
are in fact used chiefly off-road, the
agencies are proposing requirements
that the vehicles have off-road tires,
have limited high speed operation, and
are designed for specific off-road
applications. The agencies are
specifically proposing that a truck must
meet the following requirements to
qualify for an exemption from the
vocational vehicle standards:
• Installed tires which are lug tires or
contain a speed rating of less than or
equal to 60 mph; and
• Include a vehicle speed limiter
governed to 55 mph.
EPA and NHTSA have concluded that
the on-road performance losses and
additional costs to develop a truck
which meets these specifications will
limit the exemption to trucks built for
the desired purposes. The agencies
welcome comment on the proposed
requirements and exemptions.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
non-GHG heavy-duty engine program
provided new emissions standards for
the industry in three year increments.
Largely, the heavy-duty engine and
truck manufacturer product plans have
fallen into three year cycles to reflect
this environment. The proposed twostep CO2 emission standards recognize
the opportunity for technology
improvements over this timeframe
while reflecting the typical diesel truck
manufacturer product plan cycles.
NHTSA’s fuel consumption
standards, also presented in Table II–11,
would contain voluntary engine
standards starting in 2014 model year,
with mandatory engine standards
starting in 2017 model year,
synchronizing with EPA’s 2017 model
year standards. A manufacturer may
opt-in to NHTSA’s voluntary standards
in 2014, 2015 or 2016. Once a
manufacturer opts-in, the standards
become mandatory for the opt-in and
subsequent model years, and the
manufacturer may not reverse its
decision. To opt into the program, a
manufacture must declare its intent to
opt in to the program with documented
communication of the intent, at the
same time it submits the PreCertification Compliance Report. See 49
CFR 535.8 for information related to the
Pre-Certification Compliance Report. A
manufacturer opting into the program
would begin tracking credits and debits
beginning in the model year in which
they opt into the program.
The agencies are proposing the same
standard level for the Light Heavy and
Medium Heavy diesel engine categories.
The agencies found that there is an
overlap in the displacement of engines
which are currently certified as LHDD
or MHDD. The agencies developed the
baseline 2010 model year CO2 emissions
from data provided to EPA by the
manufacturers during the non-GHG
certification process. Analysis of CO2
emissions from 2010 model year LHD
and MHDD diesel engines showed little
difference between LHD and MHD
diesel engine baseline CO2 performance,
which overall averaged 630 g CO2/bhphr (6.19 gal/100 bhp-hr),81 in the 2010
model year. Furthermore, the
technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from
these two categories of engines are
similar. The agencies are proposing to
maintain these two separate engine
categories with the same standard level
(instead of combining them into a single
category) to respect the different useful
life periods associated with each
category. The agencies are proposing to
evaluate compliance with the LHD/
MHD diesel engine standards based on
the Heavy-duty FTP cycle.
The agencies found a difference in the
baseline 2010 model year CO2 and fuel
consumption performance between the
LHD/MHD diesel engines, which
averaged 630 g CO2/bhp-hr (6.19 gal/100
bhp-hr),82 and the HHD diesel engines,
which averaged 584 g CO2/bhp-hr (5.74
gal/100 bhp-hr). The HHD diesel engine
data is also based on manufacturer
submitted CO2 data for non-GHG
emissions certification process. In
addition, the agencies believe that there
may be some technologies available to
reduce fuel consumption and CO2
emissions that may not be appropriate
for both the LHD/MHD diesel and the
HHD diesel engines, such as
turbocompounding. Therefore, the
agencies are proposing a standard level
for HHD diesel engines which differs
from the LHD/MHD diesel engine
standard level likewise to be evaluated
on the Heavy-duty FTP cycle.
We are proposing standards based on
the Heavy-duty FTP cycle for engines
used in vocational vehicles reflecting
their primary use in transient operating
conditions typified by both frequent
accelerations and decelerations as well
as some steady cruise conditions as
represented on the Heavy-duty FTP. The
primary reason the agencies are
proposing to set two separate HHD
diesel engine standards—one for HHD
diesel engines used in tractors and the
other for HHD diesel engines used in
vocational vehicles—is to encourage
engine manufacturers to install
technologies appropriate to the intended
use of the engine with the vehicle.
Tractors spend the majority of their
operation at steady state conditions, and
will obtain in-use benefit of
technologies such as turbocompounding
and other waste heat recovery
technologies during this kind of typical
engine operation. Therefore, the engines
installed in line haul tractors would be
required to meet the standard based on
the SET, which is a steady state test
cycle. On the other hand, vocational
vehicles such as urban delivery trucks
spend more time operating in transient
conditions and may not realize the
benefit of this type of technology in-use.
The use of the Heavy-duty FTP for these
engines would focus engine design on
technologies that realize in-use benefits
during the kind of operation typical for
81 Calculated using the conversion 10,180 g CO /
2
gallon for diesel fuel.
these engines. Therefore, we are
proposing that engines installed in
vocational vehicles be required to meet
the standard and demonstrate
compliance over the transient Heavyduty FTP cycle. The levels of the
standards reflect the difference in
baseline emissions for the different test
procedures.
As noted in Section II.B above, the
engine standards that EPA is proposing
and the voluntary standards being
proposed by NHTSA for the 2014 model
year would require diesel engine
manufacturers to achieve on average a
three percent reduction in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions over
the baseline 2010 model year
performance for the HHD diesel engines
and a five percent reduction for the LHD
and MHD diesel engines. The agencies’
assessment of the NAS report and other
literature sources indicates that there
are technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption by this level in the
proposed timeframe in a cost-effective
manner. These technologies include
improved turbochargers, aftertreatment
optimization, low temperature exhaust
gas recirculation, and engine friction
reductions. Additional discussion on
technical feasibility is included in
Section III below and in draft RIA
Chapter 2.
Additionally, the agencies are
proposing that diesel engines further
reduce fuel consumption and CO2
emissions in the 2017 model year. The
proposed 2017 model year standards for
the LHD and MHD diesel engines
represent a 9 percent reduction from the
2010 model year. The proposed
reductions represent on average a five
percent decrease over the 2010 baseline
for HHD diesel engines required to test
compliance using the Heavy-duty FTP
test cycle. The additional reductions
may be achieved through the increased
development of the technologies
evaluated for the 2014 model year
standard. See draft RIA Chapter 2. The
agencies’ analysis indicates that this
type of advanced engine development
will require a longer development time
than the 2014 model year and therefore
are proposing to provide additional lead
time to allow for its introduction.
Similar to EPA’s non-GHG standards
approach, manufacturers may generate
and use credits by the same engine
subcategory to show compliance with
both agencies’ standards.
82 Calculated using the conversion 10,180 g CO /
2
gallon for diesel fuel.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74201
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
In proposing these standards for
diesel engines used in vocational
vehicles, the agencies have looked
primarily at the typical performance
levels of the majority of engines in the
fleet. As explained above in Section II.B,
we also recognize that when regulating
a category of products for the first time,
there will be individual products that
may deviate from this baseline level of
performance. Recognizing that for these
products a reduction from the industry
baseline may be more costly than the
agencies have assumed or perhaps even
not feasible in the lead time available
for these standards, EPA and NHTSA
are proposing a regulatory alternative
whereby a manufacturer could comply
with a unique standard based on a five
percent reduction from the products
own 2011 baseline level. Our
assessment is that this five percent
reduction is appropriate and
technologically feasible given the
manufacturers’ ability to apply similar
technology packages with similar cost to
what we have estimated for the primary
program. For this purpose, the agencies
do not see that potential obstacles are
greater or lesser for engine standards
which are based on the SET procedure
or Heavy-duty FTP cycle. We do not
believe this alternative needs to
continue past 2016 since manufacturers
will have had ample opportunity to
benchmark competitive products and
make appropriate changes to bring their
product performance into line with the
rest of the industry.
However, we are requesting comment
on the potential to extend this
regulatory alternative for one additional
year for a single engine family with
performance measured in that year as
nine percent beyond the engine’s own
2011 model year baseline level. We also
request comment on the level of
reduction beyond the baseline that is
appropriate in this alternative. The five
percent level reflects the aggregate
improvement beyond the baseline we
are requiring of the entire industry. As
this provision is intended to address
potential issues for legacy products that
we would expect to be replaced or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
significantly improved at the
manufacturer’s next product change, we
request comment if a two percent
reduction would be more appropriate.
We would consider two percent rather
than five percent if we were convinced
that making all of the changes we have
outlined in our assessment of the
technical feasibility of the standards
was not possible for some engines due
to legacy design issues that will change
in the next design cycle. We are
proposing that manufacturers making
use of these provisions would need to
exhaust all credits within this
subcategory prior to using this
flexibility and would not be able to
generate emissions credits from other
engines in the same regulatory
subcategory as the engines complying
using this alternate approach.
(ii) Gasoline Engine Standard
Heavy-duty gasoline engines are also
used in vocational vehicle applications.
The number of engines certified in the
past for this segment of vehicles is very
limited and has ranged between three
and five engine models. Unlike the
purpose-built heavy-duty diesel engines
typical of this segment, these gasoline
engines are developed for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans primarily, but
are also sold as loose engines to
vocational vehicle manufacturers.
Therefore, the agencies evaluated these
engines in parallel with the heavy-duty
pickup truck and van standard
development. As with the pickup truck
and van segment, the agencies
anticipate that the manufacturers will
have only one engine re-design within
the 2014–18 model years under
consideration within this proposal. In
our meetings with all three of the major
manufacturers in this segment,
confidential future product plans were
shared with the agencies. Reflecting
those plans and our estimates for when
engine changes will be made in
alignment with those product plans, we
have concluded that the 2016 model
year reflects the most logical model year
start date for the heavy-duty gasoline
engine standards. In order to meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standards we are proposing for heavyduty pickups and vans, we project that
all manufacturers will have redesigned
their gasoline engine offerings by the
start of the 2016 model year. Given the
small volume of loose gasoline engine
sales relative to complete heavy-duty
pickup sales, we think it is appropriate
to set the timing for the heavy-duty
gasoline engine standard in line with
our projections for engine redesigns to
meet the heavy-duty pickup truck
standards. Therefore, NHTSA’s
proposed fuel consumption standard
and EPA’s proposed CO2 standard for
heavy-duty gasoline engines are first
effective in the 2016 model year.
The baseline 2010 model year CO2
performance of these heavy-duty
gasoline engines over the Heavy-duty
FTP cycle is 660 g CO2/bhp-hr (6.48 gal/
100 bhp-hr) in 2010 based on non-GHG
certification data provided to EPA by
the manufacturers. The agencies
propose that manufacturers achieve a
five percent reduction in CO2 in the
2016 model year over the 2010 MY
baseline through use of technologies
such as coupled cam phasing, engine
friction reduction, and stoichiometric
gasoline direct injection. Additional
detail on technology feasibility is
included in Section III and in the draft
RIA Chapter 2.
NHTSA is proposing a 7.05 gallon/
100 bhp-hr standard for fuel
consumption while EPA is proposing a
627 g CO2/bhp-hr standard tested over
the Heavy-duty FTP, effective in the
2016 model year. Similar to EPA’s nonGHG standards approach, manufacturers
may generate and use credits by the
same engine subcategory to show
compliance with both agencies’
standards.
In the preceding section on diesel
engines, we describe an alternative
compliance approach for diesel engines
based on improvements from an
engine’s own baseline of performance.
We are not making a similar proposal
for gasoline engines, but we request
comment on the need for and
appropriateness of such an approach.
Comments suggesting the need for a
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.024
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74202
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(c) In-Use Standards
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies
that emissions standards are to be
applicable for the useful life of the
vehicle. The in-use standards that EPA
is proposing would apply to individual
vehicles and engines. NHTSA is not
proposing to adopt in-use standards that
would apply to the vehicles and engines
in a similar fashion.
EPA requests comments on the
magnitude and need for an in-use
adjustment factor for the engine
standard and the compliance model
GEM, based chassis standard.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(2) Test Procedures and Related Issues
The agencies are proposing test
procedures to evaluate fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of
vocational vehicles in a manner very
similar to Class 7 and Class 8
combination tractors. This section
describes a simulation model for
demonstrating compliance, engine test
procedures, and a test procedure for
evaluating hybrid powertrains (a
potential means of generating credits,
although not part of the technology on
which the proposed standard is
premised).
(a) Computer Simulation Model
As previously mentioned, to achieve
the goal of reducing emissions and fuel
consumption for both trucks and
engines, we are proposing to set
separate engine and vehicle-based
emission standards. For the vocational
vehicles, engine manufacturers would
be subject to the engine standards, and
chassis manufacturers would be
required to install certified engines in
their chassis. The chassis manufacturer
would be subject to a separate vehicle-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
EPA is proposing that the in-use
standards for heavy-duty engines
installed in vocational vehicles be
established by adding an adjustment
factor to the full useful life emissions
and fuel consumption results. EPA is
proposing a 2 percent adjustment factor
for the in-use standard to provide some
margin for production and test-to-test
variability that could result in
differences between the initial emission
test results and emission results
obtained during subsequent in-use
testing.
EPA is proposing that the useful life
for these engine and vehicles with
respect to GHG emissions be set equal
to the respective useful life periods for
criteria pollutants. EPA proposes that
the existing engine useful life periods,
as included in Table II–12, be
broadened to include CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption for both engines
and tractors (see 40 CFR 86.004–2).
While NHTSA proposes to use useful
life considerations for establishing fuel
consumption performance for initial
compliance and for ABT, NHTSA does
not intend to implement an in-use
compliance program for fuel
consumption, because it is not required
under EISA and because it is not
currently anticipated there will be
notable deterioration of fuel
consumption over the engines’ useful
life.
based standard that would use the
proposed truck simulation model to
evaluate the impact of the tire design to
determine compliance with the truck
standard.
A simulation model, in general, uses
various inputs to characterize a
vehicle’s properties (such as weight,
aerodynamics, and rolling resistance)
and predicts how the vehicle would
behave on the road when it follows a
driving cycle (vehicle speed versus
time). On a second-by-second basis, the
model determines how much engine
power needs to be generated for the
vehicle to follow the driving cycle as
closely as possible. The engine power is
then transmitted to the wheels through
transmission, driveline, and axles to
move the vehicle according to the
driving cycle. The second-by-second
fuel consumption of the vehicle, which
corresponds to the engine power
demand to move the vehicle, is then
calculated according to the fuel
consumption map embedded in the
compliance model. Similar to a chassis
dynamometer test, the second-bysecond fuel consumption is aggregated
over the complete drive cycle to
determine the fuel consumption of the
vehicle.
NHTSA and EPA are proposing to
evaluate fuel consumption and CO2
emissions respectively through a
simulation of whole-vehicle operation,
consistent with the NAS
recommendation to use a truck model to
evaluate truck performance. The
agencies developed the GEM for the
specific purpose of this proposal to
evaluate truck performance. The GEM is
similar in concept to a number of
vehicle simulation tools developed by
commercial and government entities.
The model developed by the agencies
and proposed here was designed for the
express purpose of vehicle compliance
demonstration and is therefore simpler
and less configurable than similar
commercial products. This approach
gives a compact and quicker tool for
evaluating vehicle compliance without
the overhead and costs of a more
complicated model. Details of the model
are included in Chapter 4 of the draft
RIA.
GEM is designed to focus on the
inputs most closely associated with fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions—i.e.,
on those which have the largest impacts
such as aerodynamics, rolling
resistance, weight, and others.
EPA and NHTSA have validated GEM
based on the chassis test results from
three SmartWay certified tractors tested
at Southwest Research Institute. The
validation work conducted on these
three vehicles is representative of the
other Class 7 and 8 tractors. Many
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.025
similar approach should include
specific recommendations on how the
approach would work and the technical
reasons why such an approach would be
necessary in order to make the gasoline
engine standards feasible.
74203
74204
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Speed Cruise cycle. These cycles are
very similar to the ones the agencies are
proposing to utilize in compliance
testing. Test to test variation for heavyduty vehicle chassis testing can be
higher than 4 percent based on driver
variation. The proposed simulation
model is described in greater detail in
draft RIA Chapter 4 and is available for
download by interested parties at
(https://www.epa.gov/otaq/). We request
comment on all aspects of this approach
to compliance determination in general
and to the use of the GEM in particular.
The agencies are proposing that for
demonstrating compliance, a chassis
manufacturer would measure the
performance of tires, input the values
into GEM, and compare the model’s
output to the standard. Tires are the
only technology on which the agencies’
own feasibility analysis for these
vehicles is predicated. An example of
the GEM input screen is included in
Figure II–3. The input values for the
simulation model would be derived by
the manufacturer from tire test
procedure proposed by the agencies in
this proposal. The agencies are
proposing that the remaining model
inputs would be fixed values that are
pre-defined by the agencies and are
detailed in the draft RIA Chapter 4,
including the engine fuel consumption
map to be used in the simulation.
(b)Tire Rolling Resistance Assessment
As with the Class 7 and 8
combination tractors, NHTSA and EPA
are proposing that the vocational
vehicle’s tire rolling resistance input to
the GEM be determined using the ISO
28580:2009 test method.83 The agencies
believe the ISO test procedure is
appropriate to propose for this program
because the procedure is the same one
used by the NHTSA tire fuel efficiency
labeling program 84 and is consistent
with the direction being taken by the
tire industry both in the United States
and Europe, and with the EPA
SmartWay program. The rolling
resistance from this test would be used
to specify the rolling resistance of each
tire on the steer and drive axle of the
vehicle. The results would be expressed
as a rolling resistance coefficient and
measured as kilogram per ton (kg/metric
ton). The agencies are proposing that
three tire samples within each tire
model be tested three times each to
account for some of the production
variability and the average of the three
tests would be the rolling resistance
coefficient for the tire.
83 ISO, 2009, Passenger Car, Truck, and Bus
Tyres—Methods of Measuring Rolling Resistance—
Single Point Test and Correlation of Measurement
Results: ISO 28580:2009(E), First Edition, 2009–07–
01.
84 NHTSA, 2009. ‘‘NHTSA Tire Fuel Efficiency
Consumer Information Program Development:
Phase 1—Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols.’’
DOT HS 811 119. June. (https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID: NHTSA–2008–0121–0019).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(c)Defined Vehicle Configurations in the
GEM
As discussed above, the agencies are
proposing a methodology that chassis
manufacturers would use to quantify the
tire rolling resistance values to be input
into the GEM. Moreover, the agencies
are proposing to define the remaining
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.026
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
aspects of one tractor configuration
(such as the engine, transmission, axle
configuration, tire sizes, and control
systems) are similar to those used on the
manufacturer’s sister models. For
example, the powertrain configuration
of a sleeper cab is similar to the one
used on a straight truck. Details of the
validation testing and its
representativeness are included in draft
RIA Chapter 4. Overall, the GEM
predicted the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions within 4 percent of the
chassis test procedure results for three
test cycles—the California ARB
Transient cycle, the California ARB
High Speed Cruise cycle, and the Low
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
GEM inputs (i.e., specify them by rule),
which may differ by the regulatory
subcategory (for reasons described in
the draft RIA). The defined inputs being
proposed include the drive cycle,
aerodynamics, truck curb weight,
payload, engine characteristics, and
drivetrain for each vehicle type, among
others.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) Metric
Based on NAS’s recommendation and
feedback from the heavy-duty truck
industry, NHTSA and EPA are
proposing standards for vocational
vehicles that would be expressed in
terms of moving a ton of payload over
one mile. Thus, NHTSA’s proposed fuel
consumption standards for these trucks
would be represented as gallons of fuel
used to move one ton of payload one
thousand miles, or gal/1,000 ton-mile.
EPA’s proposed CO2 vehicle standards
would be represented as grams of CO2
per ton-mile.
(ii) Drive cycle
The drive cycle being proposed for
the vocational vehicles consists of the
same three modes proposed for the
Class 7–8 combination tractors. The
agencies are thus proposing the use of
the Transient mode, as defined by
California ARB in the HHDDT cycle, a
constant speed cycle at 65 mph and a 55
mph constant speed mode. However, we
are proposing different weightings for
each mode than proposed for Class 7
and 87 and 8 combination tractors,
given the known difference in driving
patterns between these two categories of
vehicles. (The same reasoning underlies
the agencies’ proposal to use the Heavyduty FTP cycle to evaluate compliance
with the standards for diesel engines
used in vocational vehicles.)
The variety of vocational vehicle
applications makes it challenging to
establish a single cycle which is
representative of all such trucks.
However, in aggregate, the vocational
vehicles typically operate over shorter
distances and spend less time cruising
at highway speeds than combination
tractors. The agencies evaluated two
sources for mode weightings, as detailed
in draft RIA Chapter 3. The agencies are
proposing the mode weightings based
on the vehicle speed characteristics of
single unit trucks used in EPA’s MOVES
model which were developed using
Federal Highway Administration data to
distribute vehicle miles traveled by road
type.85 The proposed weighted CO2 and
85 The Environmental Protection Agency. Draft
MOVES2009 Highway Vehicle Population and
Activity Data. EPA–420–P–09–001, August 2009
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/techdocs/
420p09001.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
fuel consumption value consists of 37
percent of 65 mph Cruise, 21 percent of
55 mph Cruise, and 42 percent of
Transient performance, which are
reflected in the GEM.
(iii) Empty Weight and Payload
The total weight of the vehicle is the
sum of the tractor curb weight and the
payload. The agencies are proposing to
specify each of these aspects of the
vehicle. The agencies developed the
truck curb weight inputs based on
industry information developed by
ICF.86 The proposed curb weights are
10,300 pounds for the LH trucks, 13,950
pounds for the MH trucks, and 29,000
pounds for the HH trucks.
NHTSA and EPA are also proposing
the following payload requirement for
each regulatory category. The payloads
were developed from Federal Highway
statistics based on averaging the
payloads for the weight categories
represented within each vehicle
subcategory.87 The proposed payload
requirement is 5,700 pounds for the
Light Heavy-Duty trucks, 11,200 pounds
for Medium Heavy-Duty trucks, and
38,000 pounds for Heavy Heavy-Duty
trucks. Additional information is
available in draft RIA Chapter 3.
(iv) Engine
As the agencies are proposing
separate engine and truck standards, the
GEM will be used to assess the
compliance of the chassis with the
vehicle standard. To maintain the
separate assessments, the agencies are
proposing to use fixed values that are
pre-defined by the agencies for the
engine characteristics used in GEM,
including the fuel consumption map
which provides the fuel consumption at
hundreds of engine speed and torque
points. If the agencies did not
standardize the fuel map, then a truck
that uses an engine with emissions and
fuel consumption better than the
standards would require fewer vehicle
reductions than those being proposed.
The agencies are proposing that the
engine characteristics used in GEM be
representative of a diesel engine,
because it represents the largest fraction
of engines in this market.
The agencies are proposing two
distinct sets of fuel consumption maps
for use in GEM. The first fuel
86 ICF International. ‘‘Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010. Pages
16–20. Docket ID# EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–
0044.
87 The U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
Development of Truck Payload Equivalent Factor.
Table 11. Last viewed on March 9, 2010 at
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/
faf2_reports/reports9/s510_11_12_tables.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74205
consumption map would be used in
GEM for the 2014 through 2016 model
years and represent a diesel engine
which meets the 2014 model year
engine CO2 emissions standards. A
second fuel consumption map would be
used beginning in the 2017 model year
and represents a diesel engine which
meets the 2017 model year CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
standards and accounts for the
increased stringency in the proposed
MY 2017 standard). Effectively there is
no change in stringency of the
vocational vehicle standard (not
including the engine) so that there is
stability in the vocational vehicle (not
including engine) standards for the full
rulemaking period. These inputs are
reasonable (indeed, seemingly
necessitated) given the separate
proposed regulatory requirement that
vocational vehicle chassis
manufacturers use only certified
engines.
(v) Drivetrain
The agencies’ assessment of the
current vehicle configuration process at
the truck dealer’s level is that the truck
companies provide software tools to
specify the proper drivetrain matched to
the buyer’s specific circumstances.
These dealer tools allow a significant
amount of customization for drive cycle
and payload to provide the best
specification for the customer. The
agencies are not seeking to disrupt this
process. Optimal drivetrain selection is
dependent on the engine, drive cycle
(including vehicle speed and road
grade), and payload. Each combination
of engine, drive cycle, and payload has
a single optimal transmission and final
drive ratio. The agencies are proposing
to specify the engine’s fuel consumption
map, drive cycle, and payload;
therefore, it makes sense to specify the
drivetrain that matches.
In conclusion, for vocational vehicles,
compliance would be determined by
establishing values for the tire rolling
resistance and using the prescribed
inputs in GEM. The model would
produce CO2 and fuel consumption
results that would be compared against
EPA’s and NHTSA’s respective
standards.
(d) Engine Test Procedures
The NAS panel did not specifically
discuss or recommend a metric to
evaluate the fuel consumption of heavyduty engines. However, as noted above
they did recommend the use of a loadspecific fuel consumption metric for the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74206
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
evaluation of vehicles.88 An analogous
metric for engines would be the amount
of fuel consumed per unit of work.
Thus, EPA is proposing that GHG
emission standards for engines under
the CAA would be expressed as g/bhphr: similarly, NHTSA’s proposed fuel
consumption standards under EISA
would be represented as gallons of fuel
per 100 horsepower-hour (gal/100 bhphr). EPA’s metric is also consistent with
EPA’s current standards for non-GHG
emissions for these engines.
EPA’s criteria pollutant standards for
engines currently require that
manufacturers demonstrate compliance
over the transient FTP cycle; over the
steady-state SET procedure; and during
not-to-exceed testing. EPA created this
multi-layered approach to criteria
emissions control in response to engine
designs that optimized operation for
lowest fuel consumption at the expense
of very high criteria emissions when
operated off the regulatory cycle. EPA’s
use of multiple test procedures for
criteria pollutants helps to ensure that
manufacturers calibrate engine systems
for compliance under all operating
conditions. With regard to GHG and fuel
consumption control, the agencies
believe it is more appropriate to set
standards based on a single test
procedure, either the Heavy-duty FTP or
SET, depending on the primary
expected use of the engine.
As discussed above, it is critical to set
standards based on the most
representative test cycles in order for
performance in-use to obtain the
intended (and feasible) air quality
benefits. We further explained why the
Heavy-duty FTP is the appropriate test
cycle for engines used in vocational
vehicles, and the steady-state SET
procedure the most appropriate for
engines used in combination tractors.
We are not concerned if off-cycle
manufacturers further calibrate these
designs to give better in-use fuel
consumption while maintaining
compliance with the criteria emissions
standards as such calibration is entirely
consistent with the goals of our joint
program. Further, we believe that setting
standards based on both transient and
steady-state operating conditions for all
engines could lead to undesirable
outcomes. For example, as noted earlier,
turbocompounding is one technology
that the agencies have identified as a
likely approach for compliance with our
proposed HHD SET standard described
below. Turbocompounding is a very
effective approach to lower fuel
consumption under steady driving
conditions typified by combination
88 See
2010 NAS Report, Note 19, page 39.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
tractor trailer operation and is well
reflected in testing over the SET test
procedure. However, when used in
driving typified by transient operation
as we expect for vocational vehicles and
as is represented by the Heavy-duty
FTP, turbocompounding shows very
little benefit. Setting an emission
standard based on the Heavy-duty FTP
for engines intended for use in
combination tractor trailers could lead
manufacturers to not apply
turbocompounding even though it can
be a highly cost effective means to
reduce GHG emissions and lower fuel
consumption.
The current non-GHG emissions
engine test procedures also require the
development of regeneration emission
rates and frequency factors to account
for the emission changes during a
regeneration event (40 CFR 86.004–28).
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to
exclude the CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption increases due to
regeneration from the calculation of the
compliance levels over the defined test
procedures. We considered including
regeneration in the estimate of fuel
consumption and GHG emissions and
have decided not to do so for two
reasons. First, EPA’s existing criteria
emission regulations already provide a
strong motivation to engine
manufacturers to reduce the frequency
and duration of infrequent regeneration
events. The very stringent 2010 NOX
emission standards cannot be met by
engine designs that lead to frequent and
extended regeneration events. Hence,
we believe engine manufacturers are
already reducing regeneration emissions
to the greatest degree possible. In
addition to believing that regenerations
are already controlled to the extent
technologically possible, we believe that
attempting to include regeneration
emissions in the standard setting could
lead to an inadvertently lax emissions
standard. In order to include
regeneration and set appropriate
standards, EPA and NHTSA would have
needed to project the regeneration
frequency and duration of future engine
designs in the timeframe of this
proposal. Such a projection would be
inherently difficult to make and quite
likely would underestimate the progress
engine manufacturers will make in
reducing infrequent regenerations. If we
underestimated that progress, we would
effectively be setting a more lax set of
standards than otherwise would be
expected. Hence in setting a standard
including regeneration emissions we
faced the real possibility that we would
achieve less effective CO2 emissions
control and fuel consumption
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reductions than we will achieve by not
including regeneration emissions. We
are seeking comments regarding
regeneration emissions and what
approach if any the agencies should use
in reflecting regeneration emissions in
this program.
(e) Hybrid Powertrain Technology
Although the proposed vocational
vehicle standards are not premised on
use of hybrid powertrains, certain
vocational vehicle applications may be
suitable candidates for use of hybrids
due to the greater frequency of stop-andgo urban operation and their use of
power take-off (PTO) systems. Examples
are vocational vehicles used
predominantly in stop-start urban
driving (e.g., delivery trucks). As an
incentive, the agencies are proposing to
provide credits for the use of hybrid
powertrain technology as described in
Section IV. The agencies are proposing
that any credits generated using such
technologies could be applied to any
heavy-duty vehicle or engine, and not
be limited to the vehicle category
generating the credit. Section IV below
also details the proposed approach to
account for the use of a hybrid
powertrain when evaluating compliance
with the truck standard. In general,
manufacturers can derive the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions
reductions based on comparative test
results using the proposed chassis
testing procedures. We are proposing
the same three drive cycles and cycle
weightings discussed for the vocational
vehicles to evaluate trucks that use
hybrid powertrains to power the vehicle
during motive operation (such as pickup
and delivery trucks and transit buses).
However, we are proposing an
additional PTO test cycle for trucks
which use a PTO to power equipment
while the vehicle is either idling or
moving (such as bucket or refuse
trucks). The reductions due to the
hybrid technology would be calculated
relative to the same type of vehicle with
a conventional powertrain tested using
the same protocol.
(3) Summary of Proposed Flexibility
and Credit Provisions
EPA and NHTSA are proposing a
number of flexibility provisions for
vocational vehicle chassis
manufacturers and engine
manufacturers, as discussed in Section
IV below. These provisions are all based
on an averaging, banking and trading
program for emissions and fuel
consumption credits. They include
provisions to encourage the
introduction of advanced technologies
such as hybrid drivetrains, provisions to
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
incentivize early compliance with the
proposed standards, and provisions to
allow compliance using innovative
technologies unanticipated by the
agencies in developing this proposal.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(4) Deferral of Standards for Small
Chassis Manufacturing and Small
Engine Companies
EPA and NHTSA are proposing to
defer greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption standards from small
vocational vehicle chassis
manufacturers meeting the SBA size
criteria of a small business as described
in 13 CFR 121.201 (see 40 CFR 1036.150
and 1037.150). The agencies will
instead consider appropriate GHG and
fuel consumption standards for these
entities as part of a future regulatory
action. This includes both U.S.-based
and foreign small volume heavy-duty
truck and engine manufacturers.
The agencies have identified ten
chassis entities that appear to fit the
SBA size criterion of a small business.89
The agencies estimate that these small
entities comprise less than 0.5 percent
of the total heavy-duty vocational
vehicle market in the United States
based on Polk Registration Data from
2003 through 2007,90 and therefore that
the exemption will have a negligible
impact on the GHG emissions and fuel
consumption improvements from the
proposed standards.
EPA and NHTSA have also identified
three engine manufacturing entities that
appear to fit the SBA size criteria of a
small business based on company
information included in Hoover’s.91
Based on 2008 and 2009 model year
engine certification data submitted to
EPA for non-GHG emissions standards,
the agencies estimate that these small
entities comprise less than 0.1 percent
of the total heavy-duty engine sales in
the United States. The proposed
exemption from the standards
established under this proposal would
have a negligible impact on the GHG
emissions and fuel consumption
reductions otherwise due to the
standards.
To ensure that the agencies are aware
of which companies would be exempt,
we propose to require that such entities
submit a declaration to EPA and
NHTSA containing a detailed written
89 The agencies have identified Lodal, Indiana
Phoenix, Autocar LLC, HME, Giradin, Azure
Dynamics, DesignLine International, Ebus, Krystal
Koach, and Millenium Transit Services LLC as
potential small business chassis manufacturers.
90 M.J. Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market
Analysis. May 2009.
91 The agencies have identified Baytech
Corporation, Clean Fuels USA, and BAF
Technologies, Inc. as three potential small
businesses.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
description of how that manufacturer
qualifies as a small entity under the
provisions of 13 CFR 121.201.
E. Other Standards Provisions
In addition to proposing CO2 emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles and
engines, EPA is also proposing separate
standards for N2O and CH4 emissions.92
NHTSA is not proposing comparable
separate standards for these GHGs
because they are not directly related to
fuel consumption in the same way that
CO2 is, and NHTSA’s authority under
EISA exclusively relates to fuel
efficiency. N2O and CH4 are important
GHGs that contribute to global warming,
more so than CO2 for the same amount
of emissions due to their high Global
Warming Potential (GWP).93 EPA is
proposing N2O and CH4 standards
which apply to HD pickup trucks and
vans as well as to all heavy-duty
engines. EPA is not proposing N2O and
CH4 standards for the Class 7 and 8
tractor or Class 2b–8 chassis
manufacturers because these emissions
would be controlled through the engine
program.
EPA is requesting comment in Section
II.E.4 below on possible alternative CO2
equivalent approaches to provide nearterm flexibility for 2012–14 MY lightduty vehicles.
Almost universally across current
engine designs, both gasoline- and
diesel-fueled, N2O and CH4 emissions
are relatively low today and EPA does
not believe it would be appropriate or
feasible to require reductions from the
levels of current gasoline and diesel
engines. This is because for the most
part, the same hardware and controls
used by heavy-duty engines and
vehicles that have been optimized for
nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and
NOX control indirectly result in highly
effective control of N2O and CH4.
Additionally, unlike criteria pollutants,
specific technologies beyond those
presently implemented in heavy-duty
vehicles to meet existing emission
requirements have not surfaced that
specifically target reductions in N2O or
CH4. Because of this, reductions in N2O
or CH4 beyond current levels in most
heavy-duty applications would occur
through the same mechanisms that
result in NMHC and NOX reductions
and would likely result in an increase
in the overall stringency of the criteria
pollutant emission standards.
Nevertheless, it is important that future
92 NHTSA’s statutory responsibilities relating to
reducing fuel consumption are directly related to
reducing CO2 emissions, but not to the control of
other GHGs.
93 N O has a GWP of 298 and CH has a GWP of
2
4
25 according to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74207
engine technologies or fuels not
currently researched do not result in
increases in these emissions, and this is
the intent of the proposed ‘‘cap’’
standards. The proposed standards
would act to cap emissions at today’s
levels to ensure that manufacturers
maintain effective N2O and CH4
emissions controls currently used
should they choose a different
technology path from what is currently
used to control NMHC and NOX but also
largely successful methods for
controlling N2O and CH4. As discussed
below, some technologies that
manufacturers may adopt for reasons
other than reducing fuel consumption or
GHG emissions could increase N2O and
CH4 emissions if manufacturers do not
address these emissions in their overall
engine and aftertreatment design and
development plans. Manufacturers will
be able to design and develop the
engines and aftertreatment to avoid such
emissions increases through appropriate
emission control technology selections
like those already used and available
today. Because EPA believes that these
standards can be capped at the same
level, regardless of type of HD engine
involved, the following discussion
relates to all types of HD engines
regardless of the vehicles in which such
engines are ultimately used. In addition,
since these standards are designed to
cap current emissions, EPA is proposing
the same standards for all of the model
years to which the rules apply.
EPA believes that the proposed N2O
and CH4 cap standards would
accomplish the primary goal of
deterring increases in these emissions as
engine and aftertreatment technologies
evolve because manufacturers will
continue to target current or lower N2O
and CH4 levels in order to maintain
typical compliance margins. While the
cap standards are set at levels that are
higher than current average emission
levels, the control technologies used
today are highly effective and there is
no reason to believe that emissions will
slip to levels close to the cap,
particularly considering compliance
margin targets. The caps will protect
against significant increases in
emissions due to new or poorly
implemented technologies. However,
we also believe that an alternative
compliance approach that allows
manufacturers to convert these
emissions to CO2eq emission values and
combine them with CO2 into a single
compliance value would also be
appropriate, so long as it did not
undermine the stringency of the CO2
standard. As described below, EPA is
proposing that such an alternative
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74208
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
compliance approach be available to
manufacturers to provide certain
flexibilities for different technologies.
EPA requests comments on the
approach to regulating N2O and CH4
emissions including the appropriateness
of ‘‘cap’’ standards, the technical bases
for the levels of the proposed N2O and
CH4 standards, the proposed test
procedures, and the proposed timing for
the standards. In addition, EPA seeks
any additional emissions data on N2O
and CH4 from current technology
engines.
EPA is basing its proposed N2O and
CH4 standards on available test data. We
are soliciting additional data, and
especially data for in-use vehicles and
engines that would help to better
characterize changes in emissions of
these pollutants throughout their useful
lives, for both gasoline and diesel
applications. As is typical for EPA
emissions standards, we are proposing
that manufacturers should establish
deterioration factors to ensure
compliance throughout the useful life.
We are not at this time aware of
deterioration mechanisms for N2O and
CH4 that would result in large
deterioration factors, but neither do we
believe enough is known about these
mechanisms to justify proposing
assigned factors corresponding to no
deterioration, as we are proposing for
CO2, or for that matter to any
predetermined level. We are therefore
asking for comment on this subject.
In addition to N2O and CH4 standards,
this section also discusses air
conditioning-related provisions and
EPA’s proposal to extend certification
requirements to all-electric HD vehicles
and vehicles and engines designed to
run on ethanol fuel.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) What is EPA’s proposed approach to
controlling N2O?
N2O is a global warming gas with a
GWP of 298. It accounts for about 0.3%
of the current greenhouse gas emissions
from heavy-duty trucks.94
N2O is emitted from gasoline and
diesel vehicles mainly during specific
catalyst temperature conditions
conducive to N2O formation.
Specifically, N2O can be generated
during periods of emission hardware
warm-up when rising catalyst
temperatures pass through the
temperature window when N2O
formation potential is possible. For
current heavy-duty gasoline engines
with conventional three-way catalyst
technology, N2O is not generally
94 Value adapted from ‘‘Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007.
April 2009.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
produced in significant amounts
because the time the catalyst spends at
the critical temperatures during warmup is short. This is largely due to the
need to quickly reach the higher
temperatures necessary for high catalyst
efficiency to achieve emission
compliance of criteria pollutants. N2O
formation is generally only a concern
with diesel and potentially with future
gasoline lean-burn engines with
compromised NOX emissions control
systems. If the risk for N2O formation is
not factored into the design of the
controls, these systems can but need not
be designed in a way that emphasizes
efficient NOX control while allowing the
formation of significant quantities of
N2O. However, these future advanced
gasoline and diesel technologies do not
inherently require N2O formation to
properly control NOX. Pathways exist
today that meet criteria emission
standards that would not compromise
N2O emissions in future systems as
observed in current production engine
and vehicle testing 95 which would also
work for future diesel and gasoline
technologies. Manufacturers would
need to use appropriate technologies
and temperature controls during future
development programs with the
objective to optimize for both NOX and
N2O control. Therefore, future designs
and controls at reducing criteria
emissions would need to take into
account the balance of reducing these
emissions with the different control
approaches while also preventing
inadvertent N2O formation, much like
the path taken in current heavy-duty
compliant engines and vehicles.
Alternatively, manufacturers who find
technologies that reduce criteria or CO2
emissions but see increases N2O
emissions beyond the cap could choose
to offset N2O emissions with reduction
in CO2 as allowed in the proposed
CO2eq option discussed in Section
II.E.3.
EPA is proposing an N2O emission
standard that we believe would be met
by current-technology gasoline and
diesel vehicles at essentially no cost.
EPA believes that heavy-duty emission
standards since 2008 model year,
specifically the very stringent NOX
standards for both engine and chassis
certified engines, directly result in
stringent N2O control. It is believed that
the current emission control
technologies used to meet the stringent
NOX standards achieve the maximum
feasible reductions and that no
additional technologies are recognized
that would result in additional N2O
reductions. As noted, N2O formation in
current catalyst systems occurs, but
their emission levels are inherently low,
because the time the catalyst spends at
the critical temperatures during warmup when N2O can form is short. At the
same time, we believe that the proposed
standard would ensure that the design
of advanced NOX control systems for
future diesel and lean-burn gasoline
vehicles would control N2O emission
levels. While current NOX control
approaches used on current heavy-duty
diesel vehicles do not compromise N2O
emissions and actually result in N2O
control, we believe that the proposed
standards would discourage any new
emission control designs for diesels or
lean-burn gasoline vehicles that achieve
criteria emissions compliance at the cost
of increased N2O emissions. Thus, the
proposed standard would cap N2O
emission levels, with the expectation
that current gasoline and diesel vehicle
control approaches that comply with
heavy-duty vehicle emission standards
for NOX would not increase their
emission levels, and that the cap would
ensure that future diesel and lean-burn
gasoline vehicles with advanced NOX
controls would appropriately control
their emissions of N2O.
95 Memorandum ‘‘N O Data from EPA Heavy-Duty
2
Testing’’.
96 Memorandum ‘‘N O Data from EPA Heavy-Duty
2
Testing’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van
N2O Exhaust Emission Standard
EPA is proposing a per-vehicle N2O
emission standard of 0.05 g/mi,
measured over the Light-duty FTP and
HFET drive cycles. Similar to the CO2
standard approach, the N2O emission
level of a vehicle would be a composite
of the Light-duty FTP and HFET cycles
with the same 55 percent city weighting
and 45 percent highway weighting. The
standard would become effective in
model year 2014 for all HD pickups and
vans that are subject to the proposed
CO2 emission requirements. Averaging
between vehicles would not be allowed.
The standard is designed to prevent
increases in N2O emissions from current
levels, i.e., a no-backsliding standard.
The proposed N2O level is
approximately two times the average
N2O level of current gasoline and diesel
heavy-duty trucks that meet the NOX
standards effective since 2008 model
year.96 Manufacturers typically use
design targets for NOX emission levels at
approximately 50% of the standard, to
account for in-use emissions
deterioration and normal testing and
production variability, and we expect
manufacturers to utilize a similar
approach for N2O emission compliance.
We are not proposing a more stringent
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
standard for current gasoline and diesel
vehicles because the stringent heavyduty NOX standards already result in
significant N2O control, and we do not
expect current N2O levels to rise for
these vehicles particularly with
expected manufacturer compliance
margins.
Diesel heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans with advanced emission control
technology are in the early stages of
development and commercialization. As
this segment of the vehicle market
develops, the proposed N2O standard
would require manufacturers to
incorporate control strategies that
minimize N2O formation. Available
approaches include using electronic
controls to limit catalyst conditions that
might favor N2O formation and
considering different catalyst
formulations. While some of these
approaches may have associated costs,
EPA believes that they will be small
compared to the overall costs of the
advanced NOX control technologies
already required to meet heavy-duty
standards.
The light-duty GHG rule requires that
manufacturers begin testing for N2O by
2015 model year. The manufacturers of
complete pickup trucks and vans (Ford,
General Motors, and Chrysler) are
already impacted by the light-duty GHG
rule and will therefore have this
equipment and capability in place for
the timing of this proposal.
Overall, we believe that
manufacturers of HD pickups and vans
(both gasoline and diesel) would meet
the proposed standard without
implementing any significantly new
technologies, only further refinement of
their existing controls, and we do not
expect there to be any significant costs
associated with this standard.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine N2O Exhaust
Emission Standard
EPA is also proposing a per engine
N2O emissions standard of 0.05 g/bhphr for heavy-duty engines which
become effective in 2014 model year.
These standards remain the same over
the useful life of the engine. The N2O
emissions would be measured over the
Heavy-duty FTP cycle because it is
believed that this cycle poses the
highest risk for N2O formation versus
the additional heavy-duty compliance
cycles. Averaging between vehicles
would not be allowed. The standard is
designed to prevent increases in N2O
emissions from current levels, i.e., a nobacksliding standard.
The proposed N2O level is twice the
average N2O level of current diesel
engines as demonstrated in the ACES
Study and in EPA’s testing of two
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
additional engines with selective
catalytic reduction aftertreatement
systems.97 Manufacturers typically use
design targets for NOX emission levels
of about 50% of the standard, to account
for in-use emissions deterioration and
normal testing and production
variability, and manufacturers are
expected to utilize a similar approach
for N2O emission compliance. EPA
requests comment on the agency’s
technical assessment of current and
potential future N2O formation in
heavy-duty engines, as presented here.
Engine emissions regulations do not
currently require testing for N2O. The
Mandatory GHG Reporting final rule
requires reporting of N2O and requires
that manufacturers either measure N2O
or use a compliance statement based on
good engineering judgment in lieu of
direct N2O measurement (74 FR 56260,
October 30, 2009). The light-duty GHG
final rule allows manufacturers to
provide a compliance statement based
on good engineering judgment through
the 2014 model year, but requires
measurement beginning in 2015 model
year (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010). EPA
is proposing a consistent approach for
heavy-duty engine manufacturers which
allows them to delay direct
measurement of N2O until the 2015
model year. EPA welcomes comments
on whether there are differences in the
heavy-duty market which would
warrant a different approach.
Manufacturers without the capability
to measure N2O by the 2015 model year
would need to acquire and install
appropriate measurement equipment in
response to this proposed program. EPA
has established four separate N2O
measurement methods, all of which are
commercially available today. EPA
expects that most manufacturers would
use photo-acoustic measurement
equipment, which EPA estimates would
result in a one-time cost of about
$50,000 for each test cell that would
need to be upgraded.
Overall, EPA believes that
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines,
both gasoline and diesel, would meet
the proposed standard without
implementing any new technologies,
and beyond relatively small facilities
costs for any companies that still need
to acquire and install N2O measurement
equipment, EPA does not project that
manufacturers would incur significant
costs associated with this proposed N2O
standard.
97 Coordinating Research Council Report: ACES
Phase 1 of the Advanced Collaborative Emissions
Study, 2009. (This study included detailed
chemical characterization of exhaust species
emitted from four 2007 model year heavy heavy
diesel engines.)
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74209
EPA is not proposing any vehiclelevel N2O standards for heavy-duty
trucks (combination and vocational) in
this proposal. The N2O emissions would
be controlled through the heavy-duty
engine portion of the program. The only
requirement of those truck
manufacturers to comply with the N2O
requirements is to install a certified
engine.
(2) What is EPA’s proposed approach to
controlling CH4?
CH4 is greenhouse gas with a GWP of
25. It accounts for about 0.03% of the
greenhouse gases from heavy-duty
trucks.98
EPA is proposing a standard that
would cap CH4 emission levels, with the
expectation that current heavy-duty
vehicles and engines meeting the heavyduty emission standards would not
increase their levels as explained earlier
due to robust current controls and
manufacturer compliance margin
targets. It would ensure that emissions
would be addressed if in the future
there are increases in the use of natural
gas or any other alternative fuel. EPA
believes that current heavy-duty
emission standards, specifically the
NMHC standards for both engine and
chassis certified engines directly result
in stringent CH4 control. It is believed
that the current emission control
technologies used to meet the stringent
NMHC standards achieve the maximum
feasible reductions and that no
additional technologies are recognized
that would result in additional CH4
reductions. The level of the standard
would generally be achievable through
normal emission control methods
already required to meet heavy-duty
emission standards for hydrocarbons
and EPA is therefore not attributing any
cost to this part of the proposal. Since
CH4 is produced in gasoline and diesel
engines similar to other hydrocarbon
components, controls targeted at
reducing overall NMHC levels generally
also work at reducing CH4 emissions.
Therefore, for gasoline and diesel
vehicles, the heavy-duty hydrocarbon
standards will generally prevent
increases in CH4 emissions levels. CH4
from heavy-duty vehicles is relatively
low compared to other GHGs largely
due to the high effectiveness of the
current heavy-duty standards in
controlling overall HC emissions.
EPA believes that this level for the
standard would be met by current
gasoline and diesel trucks and vans, and
would prevent increases in future CH4
98 Value adapted from ‘‘Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007.
April 2009.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74210
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emissions in the event that alternative
fueled vehicles with high methane
emissions, like some past dedicated
compressed natural gas vehicles,
become a significant part of the vehicle
fleet. Currently EPA does not have
separate CH4 standards because, unlike
other hydrocarbons, CH4 does not
contribute significantly to ozone
formation.99 However, CH4 emissions
levels in the gasoline and diesel heavyduty truck fleet have nevertheless
generally been controlled by the heavyduty HC emission standards. Even so,
without an emission standard for CH4,
future emission levels of CH4 cannot be
guaranteed to remain at current levels as
vehicle technologies and fuels evolve.
In recent model years, a small number
of heavy-duty trucks and engines were
sold that were designed for dedicated
use of natural gas. While emission
control designs on these recent
dedicated natural gas-fueled vehicles
demonstrate CH4 control can be as
effective as gasoline or diesel equivalent
vehicles, natural gas-fueled vehicles
have historically produced significantly
higher CH4 emissions than gasoline or
diesel vehicles. This is because the fuel
is predominantly methane, and most of
the unburned fuel that escapes
combustion without being oxidized by
the catalyst is emitted as methane.
However, even if these vehicles meet
the heavy-duty hydrocarbon standard
and appear to have effective CH4 control
by nature of the hydrocarbon controls,
the heavy-duty standards do not require
CH4 control and therefore some natural
gas vehicle manufacturers have invested
very little effort into methane control.
While the proposed CH4 cap standard
should not require any different
emission control designs beyond what is
already required to meet heavy-duty
hydrocarbon standards on a dedicated
natural gas vehicle (i.e., feedback
controlled 3-way catalyst), the cap will
ensure that systems provide robust
control of methane much like a
gasoline-fueled engine. We are not
proposing more stringent CH4 standards
because we believe that the controls
used to meet current heavy-duty
hydrocarbon standards should result in
effective CH4 control when properly
implemented. Since CH4 is already
measured under the current heavy-duty
emissions regulations (so that it may be
subtracted to calculate NMHC), the
proposed standard would not result in
additional testing costs. EPA requests
comment on whether the proposed cap
standard would result in any significant
99 But see Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 604 F. 2d 685
(DC Cir. 1979) (permissible for EPA to regulate CH4
under CAA section 202(b)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
technological challenges for
manufacturers of natural gas vehicles.
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van
CH4 Standard
EPA is proposing a CH4 emission
standard of 0. 05 g/mi as measured on
the Light-duty FTP and HFET drive
cycles, to apply beginning with model
year 2014 for HD pickups and vans
subject to the proposed CO2 standards.
Similar to the CO2 standard approach,
the CH4 emission level of a vehicle
would be a composite of the Light-duty
FTP and HFET cycles with the same
55% city weighting and 45% highway
weighting.
The level of the proposed standard is
approximately two times the average
heavy-duty gasoline and diesel truck
and van levels.100 As with N2O, this
proposed level recognizes that
manufacturers typically set emissions
design targets with a compliance margin
of approximately 50% of the standard.
Thus, we believe that the proposed
standard should be met by current
gasoline vehicles with no increase from
today’s CH4 levels. Similarly, since
current diesel vehicles generally have
even lower CH4 emissions than gasoline
vehicles, we believe that diesels would
also meet the proposed standard with a
larger compliance margin resulting in
no change in today’s CH4 levels.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine CH4 Exhaust
Emission Standard
EPA is proposing a heavy-duty engine
CH4 emission standard of 0.05 g/hp-hr
as measured on the Heavy-duty FTP, to
apply beginning in model year 2014.
The proposed standard would cap CH4
emissions at a level currently achieved
by diesel and gasoline heavy-duty
engines. The level of the standard
would generally be achievable through
normal emission control methods
already required to meet 2007 emission
standards for NMHC and EPA is
therefore not attributing any cost to this
part of this proposal (see 40 CFR
86.007–11).
The level of the proposed CH4
standard is twice the average CH4
emissions from the four diesel engines
in the ACES study.101 As with N2O, this
proposed level recognizes that
manufacturers typically set emission
design targets at about 50% of the
standard. Thus, EPA believes the
proposed standard would be met by
current diesel and gasoline engines with
little if any technological improvements.
100 Memorandum ‘‘CH Data from 2010 and 2011
4
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Certification Tests’’.
101 Coordinating Researth Council Report: ACES
Phase 1 of the Advanced Collaborative Emissions
Study, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The agency believes a more stringent
CH4 standard is not necessary due to
effective CH4 controls in current heavyduty technologies, since, as discussed
above for N2O, EPA believes that the
challenge of complying with the CO2
standards should be the primary focus
of the manufacturers.
CH4 is measured under the current
2007 regulations so that it may be
subtracted to calculate NMHC.
Therefore EPA expects that the
proposed standard would not result in
additional testing costs.
EPA is not proposing any vehiclelevel CH4 standards for heavy-duty
trucks (combination or vocational) in
this proposal. The CH4 emissions would
be controlled through the heavy-duty
engine portion of the program. The only
requirement of these truck
manufacturers to comply with the CH4
requirements is to install a certified
engine.
(3) Alternative CO2 Equivalent Option
If a manufacturer is unable to meet
the N2O or CH4 cap standards, EPA is
proposing that the manufacturer may
choose to comply using CO2 credits. In
other words, a manufacturer could offset
any N2O emissions or any CH4
emissions by taking steps to further
reduce CO2. A manufacturer choosing
this option would convert its measured
N2O and CH4 test results in excess of the
applicable standards into CO2eq to
determine the amount of CO2 credits
required. For example, a manufacturer
would use 25 Mg of positive CO2 credits
to offset 1 Mg of negative CH4 credits or
use 298 Mg of positive CO2 credits to
offset 1 Mg of negative N2O credits.102
By using the Global Warming Potential
of N2O and CH4, the proposed approach
recognizes the inter-correlation of these
elements in impacting global warming
and is environmentally neutral to
meeting the proposed individual
emissions caps.
The proposed NHTSA fuel
consumption program will not use
CO2eq, as suggested above. Measured
performance to the NHTSA fuel
consumption standards will be based on
the measurement of CO2 with no
adjustment for N2O and/or CH4. For
manufacturers that use the EPA
alternative CO2eq credit, compliance to
the EPA CO2 standard will not be
directly equivalent to compliance to the
NHTSA fuel consumption standard.
102 N O has a GWP of 298 and CH has a GWP
2
4
of 25 according to the IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) Light-Duty Vehicle N2O and CH4
Standards
For light-duty vehicles, as part of the
MY 2012–2016 rulemaking, EPA
finalized standards for N2O and CH4
which take effect with MY 2012. 75 FR
at 25421–24. Similar to the heavy-duty
standards discussed in Section II.E
above, the light-duty vehicle standards
for N2O and CH4 were established to cap
emissions and prevent future emissions
increases, and were generally not
expected to result in the application of
new technologies for current vehicle
designs or significant costs for the
manufacturers. EPA also finalized an
alternative CO2 equivalent standard
option, which manufacturers may
choose to use in lieu of complying with
the otherwise-applicable N2O and CH4
standards. The CO2-equivalent standard
option allows manufacturers to fold all
N2O and CH4 emissions, on a CO2equivalent basis, along with CO2 into
their otherwise applicable CO2
emissions standard level. For flexiblefueled vehicles, the N2O and CH4
standards must be met on both fuels
(e.g., both gasoline and E–85).
EPA has learned since the standards
were finalized that some manufacturers
may have difficulty meeting the N2O
and/or CH4 standards in the early years
of the program for a few of the vehicle
models in their existing fleet. This is
problematic in the near-term because
there is little lead time to implement
unplanned redesigns of vehicles to meet
the standards. In such cases,
manufacturers may need to either drop
vehicle models from their fleet or to
comply using the CO2 equivalent
alternative. On a CO2 equivalent basis,
folding in all N2O and CH4 emissions
would add 3–4 g/mile or more to a
manufacturer’s overall fleet-average CO2
emissions level because the alternative
standard must be used for the entire
fleet, not just for the problem vehicles.
This could be especially challenging in
the early years of the program for
manufacturers with little compliance
margin because there is very limited
lead time to develop strategies to
address these additional emissions. EPA
believes this poses a legitimate issue of
sufficiency of lead time in the short
term (as well as an issue of cost, since
EPA assumed that the N2O and CH4
standards were essentially cost free) but
expects that manufacturers would be
able to make technology changes (e.g.,
calibration or catalyst changes) to the
few vehicle models not currently
meeting the N2O and/or CH4 standards
in the course of their planned vehicle
redesign schedules in order to meet the
standards.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Because EPA intended for these
standards to be caps with little
anticipated near-term impact on
manufacturer’s current product lines,
EPA believes that it would be
appropriate to provide additional
flexibility in the near-term to allow
manufacturers to meet the N2O and CH4
standards. EPA requests comments on
the option of allowing manufacturers to
use the CO2 equivalent approach for one
pollutant but not the other for their
fleet—that is, allowing a manufacturer
to fold in either CH4 or N2O as part of
the CO2-equivalent standard. For
example, if a manufacturer is having
trouble complying with the CH4
standard but not the N2O standard, the
manufacturer could use the N2O
equivalent option including CH4, but
choose to comply separately with the
applicable N2O cap standard. EPA
requests comments on allowing this
approach in the light-duty program for
MYs 2012–2014 as an additional
flexibility to help manufacturers address
any near-term issues that they may have
with the N2O and CH4 standards.
EPA also requests comments on
possible alternative approaches of
providing additional near-term
flexibility. For example, as discussed in
Section II.E above, EPA is proposing for
HD vehicles and engines to allow
manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a
CO2 equivalent basis, to offset N2O and
CH4 emissions above the applicable
standard. EPA requests comment on
whether this approach would be
appropriate for the light-duty program
as an additional flexibility. Again, the
additional flexibility would be limited
to MYs 2012–2014 for the reasons
discussed above. EPA notes that, after
considering all relevant comments,
provisions to address this issue may be
finalized in an action independent of
the heavy-duty rulemaking process in
the interest of finalizing the provisions
as soon as possible to provide
manufacturers with certainty for MY
2012 light-duty vehicles.
(5) EPA’s Proposed Standards for Direct
Emissions From Air Conditioning
Air conditioning systems contribute
to GHG emissions in two ways—direct
emissions through refrigerant leakage
and indirect exhaust emissions due to
the extra load on the vehicle’s engine to
provide power to the air conditioning
system. HFC refrigerants, which are
powerful GHG pollutants, can leak from
the A/C system.103 This includes the
direct leakage of refrigerant as well as
103 The United States has submitted a proposal to
the Montreal Protocol which, if adopted, would
phase-out production and consumption of HFCs.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74211
the subsequent leakage associate with
maintenance and servicing, and with
disposal at the end of the vehicle’s
life.104 The most commonly used
refrigerant in automotive applications—
R134a, has a high GWP of 1430.105 Due
to the high GWP of R134a, a small
leakage of the refrigerant has a much
greater global warming impact than a
similar amount of emissions of CO2 or
other mobile source GHGs.
Heavy-duty air conditioning systems
today are similar to those used in lightduty applications. However, differences
may exist in terms of cooling capacity
(such that sleeper cabs have larger cabin
volumes than day cabs), system layout
(such as the number of evaporators), and
the durability requirements due to
longer truck life. However, the
component technologies and costs to
reduce direct HFC emissions are similar
between the two types of vehicles.
The quantity of GHG refrigerant
emissions from heavy-duty trucks
relative to the CO2 emissions from
driving the vehicle and moving freight
is very small. Therefore, a credit
approach is not appropriate for this
segment of vehicles because the value of
the credit is too small to provide
sufficient incentive to utilize feasible
and cost-effective air conditioning
leakage improvements. For the same
reason, including air conditioning
leakage improvements within the main
standard would in many instances
result in lost control opportunities.
Therefore, EPA is proposing that truck
manufacturers be required to meet a low
leakage requirement for all air
conditioning systems installed in 2014
model year and later trucks, with one
exception. The agency is not proposing
leakage standards for Class 2b–8
Vocational Vehicles at this time due to
the complexity in the build process and
the potential for different entities
besides the chassis manufacturer to be
involved in the air conditioning system
production and installation, with
consequent difficulties in developing a
regulatory system.
EPA is proposing a leakage standard
which is a ‘‘percent refrigerant leakage
104 The U.S. EPA has reclamation requirements
for refrigerants in place under Title VI of the Clean
Air Act.
105 The global warming potentials used in the
NPRM analysis are consistent with
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report. At this time, the global
warming potential values from the IPCC Second
Assessment Report have been agreed upon as the
official U.S. framework for addressing climate
change. The global warming potential values from
the IPCC Second Assessment Report are used in the
official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory submission
to the climate change framework. When inventories
are recalculated for the final rule, changes in global
warming potential may lead to adjustments.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74212
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
per year’’ to assure that high-quality,
low-leakage components are used in
each air conditioning system design.
The agency believes that a single ‘‘gram
of refrigerant leakage per year’’ would
not fairly address the variety of air
conditioning system designs and layouts
found in the heavy-duty truck sector.
EPA is proposing a standard of 1.50
percent leakage per year for Heavy-duty
Pickup Trucks and Vans and Class 7
and 87 and 8 Tractors. The proposed
standard was derived from the vehicles
with the largest system refrigerant
capacity based on the Minnesota GHG
Reporting database.106 The average
percent leakage per year of the 2010
model year vehicles is 2.7 percent. This
proposed level of reduction is roughly
comparable to that necessary to generate
credits under the light-duty vehicle
program. See 75 FR 25426–25427. Since
refrigerant leakage past the compressor
shaft seal is the dominant source of
leakage in belt-driven air conditioning
systems, the agency is seeking comment
on whether the stringency of a single
‘‘percent refrigerant leakage per year’’
standard fairly addresses the range of
system refrigerant capacities likely to be
used in heavy-duty trucks.107 Since
systems with less refrigerant may have
a larger percentage of their annual
leakage from the compressor shaft seal
than systems with more refrigerant
capacity, their relative percent
refrigerant leakage per year could be
higher, and a more extensive
application of leakage reducing
technologies could be needed to meet
the standard). EPA welcomes comments
relative to the stringency of the
standard, and on whether manufacturers
who adopt measures that improve the
global warming impact of leakage
emissions substantially beyond that
achieved by the proposed standard
should in some way be credited for this
improvement.
Manufacturers can choose to reduce
A/C leakage emissions in two ways.
First, they can utilize leak-tight
components. Second, manufacturers can
largely eliminate the global warming
impact of leakage emissions by adopting
systems that use an alternative, lowGWP refrigerant. EPA believes that
reducing A/C system leakage is both
highly cost-effective and technologically
feasible. The availability of low leakage
components is being driven by the air
conditioning program in the light-duty
GHG rule which apply to 2012 model
106 The Minnesota refrigerant leakage data can be
found at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/
climatechange/mobileair.html#leakdata.
107 Society of Automotive Engineers Surface
Vehicle Standard J2727, issued August 2008,
https://www.sae.org.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
year and later vehicles. The cooperative
industry and government Improved
Mobile Air Conditioning program has
demonstrated that new-vehicle leakage
emissions can be reduced by 50 percent
by reducing the number and improving
the quality of the components, fittings,
seals, and hoses of the A/C system.108
All of these technologies are already in
commercial use and exist on some of
today’s systems, and EPA does not
anticipate any significant improvements
in sealing technologies for model years
beyond 2014. However, EPA does
anticipate that updates to the SAE J2727
standard will be forthcoming (to address
new materials and components which
perform better than those originally
used in the SAE analysis), and that it
will be appropriate to include these
updates in the regulations concerning
refrigerant leakage.
Consistent with the 2012–2016 lightduty GHG rule, we are estimating costs
for leakage control at $18 (2008$) in
direct manufacturing costs. Including a
low complexity indirect cost multiplier
(ICM) of 1.14 results in costs of $21 in
the 2014 model year. Time based
learning is considered appropriate for
A/C leakage control, so costs in the 2017
model year would be $19. These costs
are applied to all heavy-duty pickups
and vans, and to all combination
tractors. EPA views these costs as
minimal and the reductions of potent
GHGs to be easily feasible and
reasonable in the lead times provided by
the proposed rules.
EPA proposes that manufacturers
demonstrate improvements in their A/C
system designs and components through
a design-based method. The proposed
method for calculating A/C leakage is
based closely on an industry-consensus
leakage scoring method, described
below. This leakage scoring method is
correlated to experimentally-measured
leakage rates from a number of vehicles
using the different available A/C
components. Under the proposed
approach, manufacturers would choose
from a menu of A/C equipment and
components used in their vehicles in
order to establish leakage scores, which
would characterize their A/C system
leakage performance and calculate the
percent leakage per year as this score
divided by the system refrigerant
capacity.
Consistent with the light-duty GHG
rule, EPA is proposing that a
manufacturer would compare the
components of its A/C system with a set
of leakage-reduction technologies and
actions that is based closely on that
108 Team 1—Refrigerant Leakage Reduction: Final
Report to Sponsors, SAE, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
being developed through the Improved
Mobile Air Conditioning program and
SAE International (as SAE Surface
Vehicle Standard J2727, ‘‘HFC–134a,
Mobile Air Conditioning System
Refrigerant Emission Chart,’’ August
2008 version). See generally 75 FR
25426. The SAE J2727 approach was
developed from laboratory testing of a
variety of A/C related components, and
EPA believes that the J2727 leakage
scoring system generally represents a
reasonable correlation with average realworld leakage in new vehicles. Like the
cooperative industry-government
program, our proposed approach would
associate each component with a
specific leakage rate in grams per year
that is identical to the values in J2727
and then sum together the component
leakage values to develop the total A/C
system leakage. However, in the heavyduty truck program, the total A/C
leakage score would then be divided by
the value of the total refrigerant system
capacity to develop a percent leakage
per year.
EPA believes that the design-based
approach would result in estimates of
likely leakage emissions reductions that
would be comparable to those that
would eventually result from
performance-based testing. At the same
time, comments are encouraged on all
developments that may lead to a robust,
practical, performance-based test for
measuring A/C refrigerant leakage
emissions.
CO2 emissions are also associated
with air conditioner efficiency, since air
conditioners create load on the engine.
See 74 FR 49529. However, EPA is not
proposing to set air conditioning
efficiency standards for vocational
vehicles and combination tractors. The
CO2 emissions due to air conditioning
systems in these heavy-duty trucks are
minimal compared to their overall
emissions of CO2. For example, EPA
conducted modeling of a Class 8 sleeper
cab using GEM to evaluate the impact of
air conditioning and found that it leads
to approximately 1 gram of CO2/tonmile. Therefore, a projected 24%
improvement of the air conditioning
system (the level projected in the lightduty GHG rulemaking), would only
reduce CO2 emissions by less than
0.3 g CO2/ton-mile, or approximately 0.3
percent of the baseline Class 8 sleeper
cab CO2 emissions.
EPA is not specifying a specific in-use
standard for leakage, as neither test
procedures nor facilities exist to
measure refrigerant leakage from a
vehicle’s air conditioning system.
However, consistent with the light-duty
GHG rule, where we require that
manufacturers attest to the durability of
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
components and systems used to meet
the CO2 standards (see 75 FR 25689), we
will require that manufacturers of
heavy-duty vehicles attest to the
durability of these systems, and provide
an engineering analysis which
demonstrates component and system
durability.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(6) Indirect Emissions From Air
Conditioning
As just noted, in addition to direct
emissions from refrigerant leakage, air
conditioning systems also create
indirect exhaust emissions due to the
extra load on the vehicle’s engine to
provide power to the air conditioning
system. These indirect emissions are in
the form of the additional CO2 emitted
from the engine when A/C is being used
due to the added loads. Unlike direct
emissions which tend to be a set annual
leak rate not directly tied to usage,
indirect emissions are fully a function of
A/C usage.
Due to the complexity of the heavyduty market, it is difficult to estimate
with any degree of precision what the
actual impact of indirect emissions are
across the vastly different applications
and duty cycles of heavy-duty trucks.
Depending on application, geographic
location and even seasonal usage
relationships, A/C systems usage will
vary differently across the heavy-duty
fleet and therefore efficiency
improvements will also result in
different indirect emission reductions.
Moreover, as just stated, indirect A/C
emissions from vocational vehicles and
combination tractors are very small
relative to total GHG emissions from
these vehicles. For these reasons, EPA is
not proposing an indirect emission
standard like we have proposed for
direct emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles.
Instead, EPA is seeking comment on
the applicability of an indirect
emissions credit for A/C system
efficiency improvements specifically in
the heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
(i.e., Class 2b and 3). These vehicles are
most closely related to their light-duty
counterparts that have an indirect
emissions credit program established
under the 2012–2016 MY Light-duty
Vehicle Rule. It is likely that the lightduty and heavy-duty vehicles can share
components used to improve the A/C
system efficiency and reduce indirect
A/C emissions. EPA also seeks comment
on the level of the credit and if the fleet
CO2 target standards should be adjusted
accordingly to reflect expected A/C
efficiency improvements similar to the
approach used in the light-duty rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(7) Ethanol-Fueled and Electric Vehicles
Current EPA emissions control
regulations explicitly apply to heavyduty engines and vehicles fueled by
gasoline, methanol, natural gas and
liquefied petroleum gas. For multifueled vehicles they call for compliance
with requirements established for each
consumed fuel. This contrasts with
EPA’s light-duty vehicle regulations that
apply to all vehicles generally,
regardless of fuel type. We are
proposing to revise the heavy-duty
vehicle and engine regulations to make
them consistent with the light-duty
vehicle approach, applying standards
for all regulated criteria pollutants and
GHGs regardless of fuel type, including
application to all-electric vehicles (EVs).
This provision would take effect in the
2014 model year, and be optional for
manufacturers in earlier model years.
However, to satisfy the CAA section
202(a)(3) lead time constraints, the
provision would remain optional for all
criteria pollutants through the 2015
model year.
This change would primarily affect
manufacturers of ethanol-fueled
vehicles (designed to operate on fuels
containing at least 50 percent ethanol)
and EVs. Flex-fueled vehicles (FFVs)
designed to run on both gasoline and
fuel blends with high ethanol content
would also be impacted, as they would
need to comply with requirements for
operation both on gasoline and ethanol.
We are proposing that the specific
regulatory requirements for certification
on ethanol follow those already
established for methanol, such as
certification to NMHC equivalent
standards and waiver of certain
requirements. We would expect testing
to be done using the same E85 test fuel
as is used today for light-duty vehicle
testing, an 85/15 blend of commerciallyavailable ethanol and gasoline vehicle
test fuel. EV certification would also
follow light-duty precedents, primarily
calling on manufacturers to exercise
good engineering judgment in applying
the regulatory requirements, but would
not be allowed to generate NOX or PM
credits.
This proposed provision is not
expected to result in any significant
added burden or cost. It is already the
practice of HD FFV manufacturers to
voluntarily conduct emissions testing
for these vehicles on E85 and submit the
results as part of their certification
application, along with gasoline test fuel
results. No changes in certification fees
are being proposed in connection with
this proposed provision. We expect that
there would be strong incentives for any
manufacturers seeking to market these
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74213
vehicles to also want them to be
certified: (1) Uncertified vehicles would
carry a disincentive to potential
purchasers who typically have the
benefit to the environment as one of
their reasons for considering alternative
fuels, (2) uncertified vehicles would not
be eligible for the substantial credits
they could likely otherwise generate, (3)
EVs have no tailpipe or evaporative
emissions and thus need no added
hardware to put them in a certifiable
configuration, and (4) emissions
controls for gasoline vehicles and FFVs
are also effective on dedicated ethanolfueled vehicles, and thus costly
development programs and specialized
components would not be needed; in
fact the highly integrated nature of
modern automotive products make the
emission control systems essential to
reliable vehicle performance.
Regarding technological feasibility, as
mentioned above, HD FFV
manufacturers already test on E85 and
the resulting data shows that they can
meet emissions standards on this fuel.
Furthermore, there is a substantial body
of certification data on light-duty FFVs
(for which testing on ethanol is already
a requirement), showing existing
emission control technology is capable
of meeting even the more stringent Tier
2 standards in place for light-duty
vehicles. EPA requests comment on this
proposed application of its emission
standards to HD vehicles and engines,
regardless of the fuels they operate on.
III. Feasibility Assessments and
Conclusions
In this section, NHTSA and EPA
discuss several aspects of our joint
technical analyses. These analyses are
common to the development of each
agency’s proposed standards.
Specifically we discuss: the
development of the baseline used by
each agency for assessing costs, benefits,
and other impacts of the standards, the
technologies the agencies evaluated and
their costs and effectiveness, and the
development of the proposed standards
based on application of technology in
light of the attribute based distinctions
and related compliance measurement
procedures. We also discuss
consideration of standards that are
either more or less stringent than those
proposed.
This proposal is based on the need to
obtain significant oil savings and GHG
emissions reductions from the
transportation sector, and the
recognition that there are appropriate
and cost-effective technologies to
achieve such reductions feasibly. The
decision on what standard to set is
guided by each agency’s statutory
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74214
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirements, and is largely based on
the need for reductions, the
effectiveness of the emissions control
technology, the cost and other impacts
of implementing the technology, and the
lead time needed for manufacturers to
employ the control technology. The
availability of technology to achieve
reductions and the cost and other
aspects of this technology are therefore
a central focus of this proposed
rulemaking.
Here, the focus of the standards is on
applying fuel efficiency and emissions
control technology to reduce fuel
consumption, CO2 and other greenhouse
gases. Vehicles combust fuel to generate
power that is used to perform two basic
functions: (1) Transport the truck and its
payload, and (2) operate various
accessories during the operation of the
truck such as the PTO units. Enginebased technology can reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions by
improving engine efficiency, which
increases the amount of power
produced per unit of fuel consumed.
Vehicle-based technology can reduce
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by
increasing the vehicle efficiency, which
reduces the amount of power demanded
from the engine to perform the truck’s
primary functions.
Our technical work has therefore
focused on both engine efficiency
improvements and vehicle efficiency
improvements. In addition to fuel
delivery, combustion, and
aftertreatment technology, any aspect of
the truck that affects the need for the
engine to produce power must also be
considered. For example, the drag due
to aerodynamics and the resistance of
the tires to rolling both have major
impacts on the amount of power
demanded of the engine while operating
the vehicle.
The large number of possible
technologies to consider and the breadth
of vehicle systems that are affected
mean that consideration of the
manufacturer’s design and production
process plays a major role in developing
the proposed standards. Engine and
vehicle manufacturers typically develop
many different models based on a
limited number of platforms. The
platform typically consists of a common
engine or truck model architecture. For
example, a common engine platform
may contain the same configuration
(such as inline), number of cylinders,
valvetrain architecture (such as
overhead valve), cylinder head design,
piston design, among other attributes.
An engine platform may have different
calibrations, such as different power
ratings, and different aftertreatment
control strategies, such as exhaust gas
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
recirculation (EGR) or selective catalytic
reduction (SCR). On the other hand, a
common vehicle platform has different
meanings depending on the market. In
the heavy-duty pickup truck market,
each truck manufacturer usually has
only a single pickup truck platform (for
example the F series by Ford) with
common chassis designs and shared
body panels, but with variations on load
capacity of the axles, the cab
configuration, tire offerings, and
powertrain options. Lastly, the
combination tractor market has several
different platforms and the trucks
within each platform (such as LoneStar
by Navistar) have less commonality.
Tractor manufacturers will offer several
different options for bumpers, mirrors,
aerodynamic fairing, wheels, and tires,
among others. However, some areas
such as the overall basic aerodynamic
design (such as the grill, hood,
windshield, and doors) of the tractor are
tied to tractor platform.
The platform approach allows for
efficient use of design and
manufacturing resources. Given the very
large investment put into designing and
producing each truck model,
manufacturers of heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans typically plan on a
major redesign for the models every 5
years or more. Recently, EPA’s non-GHG
heavy-duty engine program provided
new emissions standards every three
model years. Heavy-duty engine and
truck manufacturer product plans
typically have fallen into three year
cycles to reflect this regime. While the
recent non-GHG emissions standards
can be handled generally with redesigns
of engines and trucks, a complete
redesign of a new heavy-duty engine or
truck typically occurs on a slower cycle
and often does not align in time due to
the fact that the manufacturer of engines
differs from the truck manufacturer. At
the redesign stage, the manufacturer
will upgrade or add all of the
technology and make most other
changes supporting the manufacturer’s
plans for the next several years,
including plans related to emissions,
fuel efficiency, and safety regulations.
A redesign of either engine or truck
platforms often involves a package of
changes designed to work together to
meet the various requirements and
plans for the model for several model
years after the redesign. This often
involves significant engineering,
development, manufacturing, and
marketing resources to create a new
product with multiple new features. In
order to leverage this significant upfront
investment, manufacturers plan vehicle
redesigns with several model years of
production in mind. Vehicle models are
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
not completely static between redesigns
as limited changes are often
incorporated for each model year. This
interim process is called a refresh of the
vehicle and it generally does not allow
for major technology changes although
more minor ones can be done (e.g.,
small aerodynamic improvements, etc).
More major technology upgrades that
affect multiple systems of the vehicle
thus occur at the vehicle redesign stage
and not in the time period between
redesigns.
As discussed below, there are a wide
variety of CO2 and fuel consumption
reducing technologies involving several
different systems in the engine and
vehicle that are available for
consideration. Many can involve major
changes to the engine or vehicle, such
as changes to the engine block and
cylinder heads or changes in vehicle
shape to improve aerodynamic
efficiency. Incorporation of such
technologies during the periodic engine,
transmission or vehicle redesign process
would allow manufacturers to develop
appropriate packages of technology
upgrades that combine technologies in
ways that work together and fit with the
overall goals of the redesign. By
synchronizing with their multi-year
planning process, manufacturers can
avoid the large increase in resources and
costs that would occur if technology had
to be added outside of the redesign
process. We considered redesign cycles
both in our costing and in assessing the
lead time required.
As described below, the vast majority
of technology required by this proposal
is commercially available and already
being utilized to a limited extent across
the fleet. Therefore the majority of the
emission and fuel consumption
reductions which would result from
these proposed rules would result from
the increased use of these technologies.
EPA and NHTSA also believe that these
proposed rules would encourage the
development and limited use of more
advanced technologies, such as
advanced aerodynamics and hybrid
powertrains in some vocational vehicle
applications.
In evaluating truck efficiency, NHTSA
and EPA have excluded fundamental
changes in the engine or trucks’
performance. Put another way, none of
the technology pathways underlying the
proposed standards involve any
alteration in vehicle utility. For
example, the agencies did not consider
approaches that would necessitate
reductions in engine power or otherwise
limit truck performance. The agencies
have thus limited the assessment of
technical feasibility and resultant
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
vehicle cost to technologies which
maintain freight utility.
The agencies worked together to
determine component costs for each of
the technologies and build up the costs
accordingly. For costs, the agencies
considered both the direct or ‘‘piece’’
costs and indirect costs of individual
components of technologies. For the
direct costs, the agencies followed a bill
of materials approach utilized by the
agencies in the light-duty fuel economy
and GHG final rule. A bill of materials,
in a general sense, is a list of
components or sub-systems that make
up a system—in this case, an item of
technology which reduces GHG
emissions and fuel consumption. In
order to determine what a system costs,
one of the first steps is to determine its
components and what they cost.
NHTSA and EPA estimated these
components and their costs based on a
number of sources for cost-related
information. In general, the direct costs
of fuel consumption-improving
technologies for heavy-duty pickups
and vans are consistent with those used
in the 2012–2016 MY light-duty GHG
rule, except that the agencies have
scaled up certain costs where
appropriate to accommodate the larger
size and/or loads placed on parts and
systems in the heavy-duty classes
relative to the light-duty classes. For
loose heavy-duty engines, the agencies
have consulted various studies and have
exercised engineering judgment when
estimating direct costs. For technologies
expected to be added to vocational
vehicles and combination tractors, the
agencies have again consulted various
studies and have used engineering
judgment to arrive at direct cost
estimates. Once costs were determined,
they were adjusted to ensure that they
were all expressed in 2008 dollars using
a ratio of gross domestic product
deflators for the associated calendar
years.
Indirect costs were accounted for
using the ICM approach explained in
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA, rather than
using the traditional Retail Price
Equivalent (RPE) multiplier approach.
For the heavy-duty pickup truck and
van cost projections in this proposal, the
agencies have used ICMs developed for
light-duty vehicles (with the exception
that here return on capital has been
incorporated into the ICMs, where it
had not been in the light-duty rule)
primarily because the manufacturers
involved in this segment of the heavyduty market are the same manufacturers
that build light-duty trucks. For the
Class 7 and 8 tractor, vocational vehicle,
and heavy-duty engine cost projections
in this proposal, EPA contracted with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
RTI International to update EPA’s
methodology for accounting for indirect
costs associated with changes in direct
manufacturing costs for heavy-duty
engine and truck manufacturers.109 In
addition to the indirect cost multipliers
varying by complexity and time frame,
there is no reason to expect that the
multipliers would be the same for
engine manufacturers as for truck
manufacturers. The report from RTI
provides a description of the
methodology, as well as calculations of
new indirect cost multipliers. The
multipliers used here include a factor of
5 percent of direct costs representing the
return on capital for heavy-duty engines
and truck manufacturers. These indirect
cost multipliers are intended to be used,
along with calculations of direct
manufacturing costs, to provide
improved estimates of the full
additional costs associated with new
technologies.
Details of the direct and indirect
costs, and all applicable ICMs, are
presented in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.
In addition, for details on the ICMs,
please refer to the RTI report that has
been placed in the docket. The agencies
request comment on all aspects of the
cost analysis, including the adjustment
factors used in the RTI analysis—the
levels associated with R&D, warranty,
etc.—and whether those are appropriate
or should be revised. If commenters
suggest revisions, the agencies request
supporting arguments and/or
documentation.
EPA and NHTSA believe that the
emissions reductions called for by the
proposed standards are technologically
feasible at reasonable costs within the
lead time provided by the proposed
standards, reflecting our projections of
widespread use of commercially
available technology. Manufacturers
may also find additional means to
reduce emissions and lower fuel
consumption beyond the technical
approaches we describe here. We
encourage such innovation through
provisions in our flexibility program as
discussed in Section IV.
The agencies request comment on the
methods and assumptions used to
estimate costs, benefits, and technology
cost-effectiveness for the main proposal
and all of the alternatives. The agencies
also seek comment on whether
finalizing a different alternative
stringency level for certain regulatory
categories would be appropriate given
agency estimates of costs and benefits.
109 RTI International. Heavy-duty Truck Retail
Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers. July
2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74215
The remainder of this section
describes the technical feasibility and
cost analysis in greater detail. Further
detail on all of these issues can be found
in the joint draft RIA Chapter 2.
A. Class 7–8 Combination Tractor
Class 7 and 8 tractors are used in
combination with trailers to transport
freight.110 The variation in the design of
these tractors and their typical uses
drive different technology solutions for
each regulatory subcategory.
EPA and NHTSA collected
information on the cost and
effectiveness of fuel consumption and
CO2 emission reducing technologies
from several sources. The primary
sources of information were the recent
National Academy of Sciences report of
Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,111
TIAX’s assessment of technologies to
support the NAS panel report,112 EPA’s
Heavy-duty Lumped Parameter
Model,113 the analysis conducted by the
Northeast States Center for a Clean Air
Future, International Council on Clean
Transport, Southwest Research Institute
and TIAX for reducing fuel
consumption of heavy-duty long haul
combination tractors (the NESCCAF/
ICCT study),114 and the technology cost
analysis conducted by ICF for EPA.115
Following on the EISA of 2007, the
National Research Council appointed a
NAS committee to assess technologies
for improving fuel efficiency of heavyduty vehicles to support NHTSA’s
rulemaking. The 2010 NAS report
assessed current and future technologies
for reducing fuel consumption, how the
technologies could be implemented, and
110 ‘‘Tractor’’ is defined in proposed section
1037.801 to mean ‘‘a vehicle capable of pulling
trailers that is not intended to carry significant
cargo other than cargo in the trailer, or any other
vehicle intended for the primary purpose of pulling
a trailer.’’
111 Committee to Assess Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles; National Research Council;
Transportation Research Board (2010).
Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles. (‘‘The NAS Report’’) Washington, DC, The
National Academies Press. Available electronically
from the National Academy Press Web site at
https://www.nap.edu/catalog.
112 TIAX, LLC. Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles. November 2009.
113 U.S. EPA. Heavy-duty Lumped Parameter
Model.
114 NESCCAF, ICCT, Southwest Research
Institute, and TIAX. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long
Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and
CO2 Emissions. October 2009.
115 ICF International. ‘‘Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010. Docket
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0044.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74216
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
identified the potential cost of such
technologies. The NAS panel contracted
TIAX to perform an assessment of
technologies and their associated capital
costs which provide potential fuel
consumption reductions in heavy-duty
trucks and engines. Similar to the
Lumped Parameter model which EPA
developed to assess the impact and
interactions of GHG and fuel
consumption reducing technologies for
light-duty vehicles, EPA developed a
new version to specifically address the
effectiveness and interactions of the
proposed pickup truck and light heavyduty engine technologies. The
NESCAFF/ICCT study assessed
technologies available in the 2012
through 2017 to reduce CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of line haul
combination tractors and trailers. Lastly,
the ICF report focused on the capital,
maintenance, and operating costs of
technologies currently available to
reduce CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption in heavy-duty engines,
combination tractors, and vocational
vehicles.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) What technologies did the agencies
consider to reduce the CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of tractors?
Manufacturers can reduce CO2
emissions and fuel consumption of
combination tractors through use of,
among others, engine, aerodynamic, tire,
extended idle, and weight reduction
technologies. The standards are
premised on use of these technologies.
The agencies note that SmartWay trucks
are available today which incorporate
the technologies that the agencies are
considering as the basis for the
standards in this proposal. We will also
discuss other technologies that could
potentially be used, such as vehicle
speed limiters, although we are not
basing the proposed standards on their
use for the model years covered by this
proposal, for various reasons discussed
below.
In this section we discuss the baseline
tractor and engine technologies for the
2010 model year, and then discuss the
kinds of technologies that could be used
to improve performance relative to this
baseline.
(a) Baseline Tractor & Tractor
Technologies
Baseline tractor: The agencies
developed the baseline tractor to
represent the average 2010 model year
tractor. Today there is a large spread in
aerodynamics in the new tractor fleet.
Trucks sold may reflect classic styling,
or may be sold with conventional or
SmartWay aerodynamic packages. Based
on our review of current truck model
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
configurations and Polk data provided
through MJ Bradley,116 we believe the
aerodynamic configuration of the
baseline new truck fleet is
approximately 25 percent classic, 70
percent conventional, and 5 percent
SmartWay (as these configurations are
explained above in Section II.B. (2)(c)).
The baseline Class 7 and 8 day cab
tractor consists of an aerodynamic
package which closely resembles the
‘‘conventional’’ package described in
Section II.B. (2)(c), baseline tire rolling
resistance of 7.8 kg/metric ton for the
steer tire and 8.2 kg/metric ton,117 dual
tires with steel wheels on the drive
axles, and no vehicle speed limiter. The
baseline tractor for the Class 8 sleeper
cabs contains the same aerodynamic
and tire rolling resistance technologies
as the baseline day cab, does not
include vehicle speed limiters, and does
not include an idle reduction
technology. The agencies assume the
baseline transmission is a 10 speed
manual.
Performance from this baseline can be
improved by the use of the following
technologies:
Aerodynamic technologies: There are
opportunities to reduce aerodynamic
drag from the tractor, but it is difficult
to assess the benefit of individual
aerodynamic features. Therefore,
reducing aerodynamic drag requires
optimizing of the entire system. The
potential areas to reduce drag include
all sides of the truck—front, sides, top,
rear and bottom. The grill, bumper, and
hood can be designed to minimize the
pressure created by the front of the
truck. Technologies such as
aerodynamic mirrors and fuel tank
fairings can reduce the surface area
perpendicular to the wind and provide
a smooth surface to minimize
disruptions of the air flow. Roof fairings
provide a transition to move the air
smoothly over the tractor and trailer.
Side extenders can minimize the air
entrapped in the gap between the tractor
and trailer. Lastly, underbelly
treatments can manage the flow of air
underneath the tractor. As discussed in
the TIAX report, the coefficient of drag
(Cd) of a SmartWay sleeper cab high
roof tractor is approximately 0.60,
which is a significant improvement over
a truck with no aerodynamic features
which has a Cd value of approximately
116 MJ Bradley. Heavy-duty Market Analysis. May
2009. Page 10.
117 US Environmental Protection Agency.
SmartWay Transport Partnership July 2010 eupdate accessed July 16, 2010, from https://
www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/
documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.80.118 The GEM demonstrates that an
aerodynamic improvement of a Class 8
high roof sleeper cab with a Cd value
from 0.60 (which represents a
SmartWay tractor) provides a 5%
reduction in fuel consumption and CO2
emissions over a truck with a Cd of 0.68.
Lower Rolling Resistance Tires: A
tire’s rolling resistance results from the
tread compound material, the
architecture and materials of the casing,
tread design, the tire manufacturing
process, and its operating conditions
(surface, inflation pressure, speed,
temperature, etc.). Differences in rolling
resistance of up to 50% have been
identified for tires designed to equip the
same vehicle. The baseline rolling
resistance coefficient for today’s fleet is
7.8 kg/metric ton for the steer tire and
8.2 kg/metric ton for the drive tire,
based on sales weighting of the top three
manufacturers based on market share.119
Since 2007, SmartWay trucks have had
steer tires with rolling resistance
coefficients of less than 6.6 kg/metric
ton for the steer tire and less than 7.0
kg/metric ton for the drive tire.120 Low
rolling resistance (LRR) drive tires are
currently offered in both dual assembly
and single wide-base configurations.
Single wide tires can offer both the
rolling resistance reduction along with
improved aerodynamics and weight
reduction. The GEM demonstrates that
replacing baseline tractor tires with tires
which meet the SmartWay level
provides a 4% reduction in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions over
the prescribed test cycle.
Weight Reduction: Reductions in
vehicle mass reduce fuel consumption
and GHGs by reducing the overall
vehicle mass to be accelerated and also
through increased vehicle payloads
which can allow additional tons to be
carried by fewer trucks consuming less
fuel and producing lower emissions on
a ton-mile basis. Initially, the agencies
considered evaluating vehicle mass
reductions on a total vehicle basis for
tractors and vocational trucks.121 The
agencies considered defining a baseline
vehicle curb weight and the GEM model
would have used the vehicle’s actual
curb weight to calculate the increase or
decrease in fuel consumption related to
the overall vehicle mass relative to that
baseline. After considerable evaluation
118 TIAX. ‘‘Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles’’, TIAX LLC, November 19, 2009. Page 4–
50.
119 See SmartWay, Note 117, above.
120 Ibid.
121 The agencies are using the approach of
evaluating total vehicle mass for heavy-duty
pickups and vans. where we have more data on the
current fleet vehicle mass.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of this issue, including discussions with
the industry, we decided it would not
be possible to define a single vehicle
baseline mass for the tractors and for
vocational trucks that would be
appropriate and representative. Actual
vehicle curb weights for these classes of
vehicles vary by thousands of pounds
dependent on customer features added
to vehicles and critical to the function
of the vehicle in the particular vocation
in which it is used. This is true of
vehicles such as Class 8 tractors
considered in this section that may
appear to be relatively homogenous but
which in fact are quite heterogeneous.
This reality led us to the solution we
are proposing. We reflect mass
reductions for specific technology
substitutions (e.g., installing aluminum
wheels instead of steel wheels) where
we can with confidence verify the mass
reduction information provided by the
manufacturer even though we cannot
estimate the actual curb weight of the
vehicle. In this way, we are accounting
for mass reductions where we can
accurately account for its benefits. In the
future, if we are able to develop an
appropriate vehicle mass baseline for
the diversity of vehicles within a
segment and therefore could reasonable
project overall mass reductions that
would not inadvertently reduce
customer utility, we would consider
setting standards that take into account
overall vehicle mass reductions. The
agencies’ baseline tire and wheel
package consists of dual tires with steel
wheels. A tractor’s empty curb weight
can be reduced from the replacement of
dual tires with single wide tires and
with the replacement of steel wheels
with high strength steel or aluminum.
Analysis of literature indicates that
there is opportunity to reduce typical
tractor curb weights by 80 to 670
pounds, or up to roughly 3 percent,
through the use of lighter weight wheels
and single wide tires, as described in
draft RIA Chapter 2. High strength steel,
aluminum, and light weight aluminum
alloys provide opportunities to reduce
the truck’s mass relative to steel wheels.
In addition, single wide tires (a single
wide-based tire which replaces two
standard tires in each wheel position)
provide the opportunity to reduce the
overall mass of wheels and tires due to
the replacement of dual tires with
singles. On average, these technologies
together can reduce weight by over 400
pounds. A weight reduction of this
magnitude applied to a truck which
travels at 70,000 pounds will have a
minimal impact on fuel consumption.
However, for trucks which operate at
the maximum GVWR which occurs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
approximately for one third of truck
miles travelled, a reduced tare weight
will allow for additional payload to be
carried. The GEM demonstrates that a
weight reduction of 400 pounds applied
to the payload tons for one third of the
trips provides a 0.3 percent reduction in
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
over the prescribed test cycle.
Extended Idle Reduction: Auxiliary
power units (APU)s, fuel operated
heaters, battery supplied air
conditioning, and thermal storage
systems are among the technologies
available today to reduce main engine
extended idling from sleeper cabs. Each
of these technologies reduces the
baseline fuel consumption during idling
from a truck without this equipment
(the baseline) from approximately 0.8
gallons per hour (main engine idling
fuel consumption rate) to approximately
0.2 gallons per hour for an APU.122 EPA
and NHTSA agree with the TIAX
assessment of a 6 percent reduction in
overall fuel consumption reduction.123
Vehicle Speed Limiters: Fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
increase proportional to the square of
vehicle speed. Therefore, lowering
vehicle speeds can significantly reduce
fuel consumption and GHG emissions.
A vehicle speed limiter, which limits
the vehicle’s maximum speed, is a
simple technology that is utilized today
by some fleets (though the typical
maximum speed setting is often higher
than 65 mph). The GEM shows that
using a vehicle speed limiter set at 62
mph will provide a 4 percent reduction
in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
over the prescribed test cycles over a
baseline vehicle without a VSL or one
set above 65 mph.
Transmission: As discussed in the
2010 NAS report, automatic and
automated manual transmissions may
offer the ability to improve vehicle fuel
consumption by optimizing gear
selection compared to an average driver.
However, as also noted in the report and
in the supporting TIAX report, the
improvement is very dependent on the
driver of the truck, such that reductions
ranged from 0 to 8 percent.124 Welltrained drivers would be expected to
perform as well or even better than an
automatic transmission since the driver
can see the road ahead and anticipate a
changing stoplight or other road
condition that an automatic
transmission can not anticipate.
However, poorly-trained drivers that
shift too frequently or not frequently
122 See
123 See
the draft RIA Chapter 2 for details.
the 2010 NAS Report, Note 111, above, at
74217
enough to maintain optimum engine
operating conditions could be expected
to realize improved in-use fuel
consumption by switching from a
manual transmission to an automatic or
automated manual transmission. While
we believe there may be real benefits in
reduced fuel consumption and GHG
emissions through the application of
automatic or automated manual
transmission technology, we are not
proposing to reflect that potential
improvement in our standard setting nor
in our compliance model. We have
taken this approach because we cannot
say with confidence what level of
performance improvement to expect.
However, we welcome comments on
this decision supported where possible
with data. If a clear measure of
performance improvement can be
defined for the use of automatic or
automated manual transmission
technologies, we will consider reflecting
the technology in setting the stringency
of the standards and in determining
compliance with the standards.
Low Friction Transmission, Axle, and
Wheel Bearing Lubricants: The 2010
NAS report assessed low friction
lubricants for the drivetrain as a 1
percent improvement in fuel
consumption based on fleet testing.125
The light-duty fuel economy and GHG
final rule and the pickup truck portion
of this program estimate that low
friction lubricants can have an
effectiveness value between 0 and 1
percent compared to traditional
lubricants. However, it is not clear if in
many heavy-duty applications these low
friction lubricants could have
competing requirements like component
durability issues requiring specific
lubricants with different properties than
low friction. The agencies are interested
in comments on whether low friction
lubricants should be included in the
technologies modeled in GEM to obtain
certification values for fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions and
how manufacturers could ensure the use
of these lubricants for the full useful life
of the truck.
Hybrid: Hybrid powertrain
development in Class 7 and 8 tractors
has been limited to a few manufacturer
demonstration vehicles to date. One of
the key benefit opportunities for fuel
consumption reduction with hybrids is
less fuel consumption when a vehicle is
idling, which are already included as a
separate technology in the agencies’
technology assessment. NAS estimated
that hybrid systems would cost
approximately $25,000 per truck in the
2015 through 2020 timeframe and
128.
124 See
PO 00000
TIAX, Note 112, above at 4–70.
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
125 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
the 2010 NAS Report, Note 111, page 67.
30NOP2
74218
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
provide a potential fuel consumption
reduction of 10 percent, of which 6
percent is idle reduction which can be
achieved through other idle reduction
technologies.126 The limited reduction
potential outside of idle reduction for
Class 8 sleeper cab tractors is due to the
mostly highway operation and limited
start-stop operation. Due to the high cost
and limited benefit during the model
years at issue in this proposal, the
agencies are not including hybrids in
assessing standard stringency (or as an
input to GEM). However as discussed in
Section IV, the agencies are providing
incentives to encourage the introduction
of advanced technologies including
hybrid powertrains in appropriate
applications.
Management: The 2010 NAS report
noted many operational opportunities to
reduce fuel consumption, such as driver
training and route optimization. The
agencies have included discussion of
several of these strategies in draft RIA
Chapter 2, but are not using these
approaches or technologies in the
standard setting process. The agencies
are looking to other resources, such as
EPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership
and regulations that could potentially be
promulgated by the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, to
continue to encourage the development
and utilization of these approaches.
(b) Baseline Engine & Engine
Technologies
The baseline engine for the Class 8
tractors is a Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel
engine with 15 liters of displacement
which produces 455 horsepower. The
agencies are using a smaller baseline
engine for the Class 7 tractors because
of the lower combined weights of this
class of vehicles require less power,
thus the baseline is an 11L engine with
350 horsepower. The agencies
developed the baseline diesel engine as
a 2010 model year engine with an
aftertreatment system which meets
EPA’s 0.2 grams of NOX/bhp-hr
standard with an SCR system along with
EGR and meets the PM emissions
standard with a diesel particulate filter
with active regeneration. The baseline
engine is turbocharged with a variable
geometry turbocharger. The following
discussion of technologies describes
improvements over the 2010 model year
baseline engine performance, unless
otherwise noted. Further discussion of
the baseline engine and its performance
can be found in Section III.A.2.6 below.
Engine performance for CO2
emissions and fuel consumption can be
126 See
the 2010 NAS Report, Note 111, page 128.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
improved by use of the following
technologies:
Turbochargers: Improved efficiency of
a turbocharger compressor or turbine
could reduce fuel consumption by
approximately 1 to 2 percent over
variable geometry turbochargers in the
market today.127 The 2010 NAS report
identified technologies such as higher
pressure ratio radial compressors, axial
compressors, and dual stage
turbochargers as design paths to
improve turbocharger efficiency.
Low Temperature Exhaust Gas
Recirculation: Most medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle diesel engines sold
in the U.S. market today use cooled
EGR, in which part of the exhaust gas
is routed through a cooler (rejecting
energy to the engine coolant) before
being returned to the engine intake
manifold. EGR is a technology
employed to reduce peak combustion
temperatures and thus NOX. Lowtemperature EGR uses a larger or
secondary EGR cooler to achieve lower
intake charge temperatures, which tend
to further reduce NOX formation. If the
NOX requirement is unchanged, lowtemperature EGR can allow changes
such as more advanced injection timing
that will increase engine efficiency
slightly more than 1 percent.128 Because
low-temperature EGR reduces the
engine’s exhaust temperature, it may not
be compatible with exhaust energy
recovery systems such as
turbocompounding or a bottoming
cycle.
Engine Friction Reduction: Reduced
friction in bearings, valve trains, and the
piston-to-liner interface will improve
efficiency. Any friction reduction must
be carefully developed to avoid issues
with durability or performance
capability. Estimates of fuel
consumption improvements due to
reduced friction range from 0.5 to 1.5
percent.129
Selective catalytic reduction: This
technology is common on 2010 the
medium- and heavy-duty diesel engines
used in Class 7 and 8 tractors (and the
agencies therefore are considering it as
part of the baseline engine, as noted
above). Because SCR is a highly
effective NOX aftertreatment approach,
it enables engines to be optimized to
maximize fuel efficiency, rather than
127 TIAX Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium and Heavy-duty Vehicles,
Report to National Academy of Sciences, Nov 19,
2009, Page 4–2.
128 TIAX Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium and Heavy-duty Vehicles,
Report to National Academy of Sciences, Nov 19,
2009, Page 4–13.
129 TIAX, Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-duty
Vehicles, Final Report, Nov. 19, 2009, pg 4–15.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
minimize engine-out NOX. 2010 SCR
systems are estimated to result in
improved engine efficiency of
approximately 3 to 5 percent compared
to a 2007 in-cylinder EGR-based
emissions system and by an even greater
percentage compared to 2010 incylinder approaches.130 As more
effective low-temperature catalysts are
developed, the NOX conversion
efficiency of the SCR system will
increase. Next-generation SCR systems
could then enable additional efficiency
improvements; alternatively, these
advances could be used to maintain
efficiency while down-sizing the
aftertreatment. We estimate that
continued optimization of the catalyst
could offer 1 to 2 percent reduction in
fuel use over 2010 model year systems
in the 2014 model year.131 The agencies
estimate an additional 1 to 2 percent
reduction may be feasible in the 2017
model year through additional
refinement.
Improved Combustion Process: Fuel
consumption reductions in the range of
1 to 3 percent over the baseline diesel
engine are identified in the 2010 NAS
report through improved combustion
chamber design, higher fuel injection
pressure, improved injection shaping
and timing, and higher peak cylinder
pressures.132
Reduced Parasitic Loads: Accessories
that are traditionally gear or belt driven
by a vehicle’s engine can be optimized
and/or converted to electric power.
Examples include the engine water
pump, oil pump, fuel injection pump,
air compressor, power-steering pump,
cooling fans, and the vehicle’s airconditioning system. Optimization and
improved pressure regulation may
significantly reduce the parasitic load of
the water, air and fuel pumps.
Electrification may result in a reduction
in power demand, because electrically
powered accessories (such as the air
compressor or power steering) operate
only when needed if they are
electrically powered, but they impose a
parasitic demand all the time if they are
engine driven. In other cases, such as
cooling fans or an engine’s water pump,
electric power allows the accessory to
run at speeds independent of engine
130 Stanton, D. ‘‘Advanced Diesel Engine
Technology Development for High Efficiency, Clean
Combustion.’’ Cummins, Inc. Annual Progress
Report 2008 Vehicle Technologies Program:
Advanced Combustion Engine Technologies, US
Department of Energy. Pp 113–116. December 2008.
131 TIAX Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium and Heavy-duty Vehicles,
Report to National Academy of Sciences, Nov 19,
2009, pg. 4–9.
132 TIAX. Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles. November 2009. Page 4–13.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
speed, which can reduce power
consumption. The TIAX study used 2 to
4 percent fuel consumption
improvement for accessory
electrification, with the understanding
that electrification of accessories will
have more effect in short-haul/urban
applications and less benefit in linehaul applications.133
Mechanical Turbocompounding:
Mechanical turbocompounding adds a
low pressure power turbine to the
exhaust stream in order to extract
additional energy, which is then
delivered to the crankshaft. Published
information on the fuel consumption
reduction from mechanical
turbocompounding varies between 2.5
and 5 percent.134 Some of these
differences may depend on the
operating condition or duty cycle that
was considered by the different
researchers. The performance of a
turbocompounding system tends to be
highest at full load and much less or
even zero at light load.
Electric Turbocompounding: This
approach is similar in concept to
mechanical turbocompounding, except
that the power turbine drives an
electrical generator. The electricity
produced can be used to power an
electrical motor supplementing the
engine output, to power electrified
accessories, or to charge a hybrid system
battery. None of these systems have
been demonstrated commercially, but
modeled results by industry and DOE
have shown improvements of 3 to 5
percent.135
Bottoming Cycle: An engine with
bottoming cycle uses exhaust or other
133 TIAX.
November 2009. Page 3–5.
study (p. 54) and TIAX (2009,
134 NESCCAF/ICCT
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
pp. 3–5).
135 K. G. Duleep of Energy and Environmental
Analysis, R. Kruiswyk, 2008, pp. 212–214,
NESCCAF/ICCT, 2009, p. 54.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
heat energy from the engine to create
power without the use of additional
fuel. The sources of energy include the
exhaust, EGR, charge air, and coolant.
The estimates for fuel consumption
reduction range up to 10 percent as
documented in the 2010 NAS report.136
However, none of the bottoming cycle or
Rankine engine systems has been
demonstrated commercially and are
currently in only the research stage.
(2) Projected Technology Package
Effectiveness and Cost
(a) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
EPA and NHTSA project that CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
reductions can be feasibly and costeffectively achieved in these rules’
timeframes through the increased
application of aerodynamic
technologies, LRR tires, weight
reduction, extended idle reduction
technologies, vehicle speed limiters,
and engine improvements. As discussed
above, the agencies believe that hybrid
powertrains in tractors will not be costeffective in the time frame of the rules.
The agencies also are not proposing to
include drivetrain technologies in the
standard setting process, as discussed in
Section II.
The agencies evaluated each
technology and estimated the most
appropriate application rate of
technology into each tractor
subcategory. The next sections describe
the effectiveness of the individual
technologies, the costs of the
technologies, the projected application
rates of the technologies into the
regulatory subcategories, and finally the
derivation of the proposed standards.
136 See
PO 00000
2010 NAS Report, Note 111, page 57.
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74219
(i) Baseline Tractor Performance
The agencies developed the baseline
tractor for each subcategory to represent
an average 2010 model year tractor
configured as noted earlier. The
approach taken by the agencies was to
define the individual inputs to GEM.
For example, the agencies evaluated the
industry’s tractor offerings and
concluded that the average tractor
contains a generally aerodynamic shape
(such as roof fairings) and avoids classic
features such as exhaust stacks at the Bpillar, which increase drag. The
agencies consider a baseline truck as
having ‘‘conventional’’ aerodynamic
package, though today there is a large
spread in aerodynamics in the new
tractor fleet. As noted earlier, our
assessment of the baseline new truck
fleet aerodynamics represents
approximately 25 percent classic, 70
percent conventional, and 5 percent
SmartWay. This mix of vehicle
aerodynamics provides a Cd
performance level slightly greater than
the ‘‘conventional aerodynamic
package’’ Cd value (for example the
baseline high roof tractor has a Cd of
0.69 while the same tractor category
with a conventional aerodynamic
package has a Cd of 0.68). The baseline
rolling resistance coefficient for today’s
fleet is 7.8 kg/metric ton for the steer
tire and 8.2 kg/metric ton for the drive
tire, based on sales weighting of the top
three manufacturers based on market
share.137 The agencies use the inputs
described in GEM to derive the baseline
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption of
Class 7 and 8 tractors. The results are
included in Table III–2.
137 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
SmartWay Transport Partnership July 2010
e-update accessed July 16, 2010, from https://
www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/
documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
(ii) Tractor Technology Package
Effectiveness
The agencies’ assessment of the
proposed technology effectiveness was
developed through the use of the GEM
in coordination with chassis testing of
three SmartWay certified Class 8 sleeper
cabs. The agencies developed
technology performance characteristics
for each subcategory, described below.
Each technology consists of an input
parameter which is in turn modeled in
GEM. Table III–3 describes our
proposed model inputs for the range of
Class 7 and 8 tractor aerodynamic
packages and vehicle technologies. This
was combined with a projected
technology application rate to determine
the stringency of the proposed standard.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
The aerodynamic packages are
categorized as Classic, Conventional,
SmartWay, Advanced SmartWay, and
Advanced SmartWay II. The Classic
aerodynamic package refers to
traditional styling such as a flat front,
exposed air cleaners and exhaust stacks,
among others. The conventional
package refers to an overall
aerodynamic appearance and best
represents the aerodynamics of the
majority of new tractor sales. The
SmartWay aerodynamic package
includes technologies such as roof
fairings, aerodynamic hoods,
aerodynamic mirrors, chassis fairings,
and cab extenders. The Advanced
SmartWay and Advanced SmartWay II
packages reflect different degrees of new
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
aerodynamic technology development
such as active air management. A more
complete description of these
aerodynamic packages is included in
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. In general,
the coefficient of drag values for each
package and tractor subcategory were
developed from EPA’s coastdown
testing of tractor-trailer combinations,
the 2010 NAS report, and SAE papers.
The rolling resistance coefficient for
the tires was developed from
SmartWay’s tire testing to develop the
SmartWay certification. The benefits for
the extended idle reductions were
developed from literature, SmartWay
work, and the 2010 NAS report. The
weight reductions were developed from
manufacturer information.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.028
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EP30NO10.027
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74220
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
As explained above, vehicle
manufacturers often introduce major
product changes together, as a package.
In this manner the manufacturers can
optimize their available resources,
including engineering, development,
manufacturing and marketing activities
to create a product with multiple new
features. In addition, manufacturers
recognize that a truck design will need
to remain competitive over the intended
life of the design and meet future
regulatory requirements. In some
limited cases, manufacturers may
implement an individual technology
outside of a vehicle’s redesign cycle.
With respect to the levels of
technology application used to develop
the proposed standards, NHTSA and
EPA established technology application
constraints. The first type of constraint
was established based on the
138 Vehicle speed limiters are an applicable
technology or all Class 7 and 8 tractors, however the
standards are not premised on the use of this
technology.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
application of fuel consumption and
CO2 emission reduction technologies
into the different types of tractors. For
example, idle reduction technologies are
limited to Class 8 sleeper cabs using the
assumption that day cabs are not used
for overnight hoteling. A second type of
constraint was applied to most other
technologies and limited their
application based on factors reflecting
the real world operating conditions that
some combination tractors encounter.
This second type of constraint was
applied to the aerodynamic, tire, and
vehicle speed limiter technologies.
Table III–4 specifies the application
rates that EPA and NHTSA used to
develop the proposed standards.
The impact of aerodynamics on a
truck’s efficiency increases with vehicle
speed. Therefore, the usage pattern of
the truck will determine the benefit of
various aerodynamic technologies.
Sleeper cabs are often used in line haul
applications and drive the majority of
their miles on the highway travelling at
speeds greater than 55 mph. The
industry has focused aerodynamic
technology development, including
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
SmartWay tractors, on these types of
trucks. Therefore the agencies are
proposing the most aggressive
aerodynamic technology application to
this regulatory subcategory. All of the
major manufacturers today offer at least
one SmartWay truck model. The 2010
NAS Report on heavy-duty trucks found
that manufacturers indicated that
aerodynamic improvements which yield
3 to 4 percent fuel consumption
reduction or 6 to 8 percent reduction in
Cd values, beyond technologies used in
today’s SmartWay trucks are
achievable.139 EPA and NHTSA are
proposing that the aerodynamic
application rate for Class 8 sleeper cab
high roof cabs (i.e., the degree of
technology application on which the
stringency of the proposed standard is
premised) to consist of 20 percent of
Advanced SmartWay, 70 percent
SmartWay, and 10 percent conventional
reflecting our assessment of the fraction
of tractors in this segment that can
139 TIAX. Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles. November 2009. Page 4–40.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.029
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iii) Tractor Technology Application
Rates
74221
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74222
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
successfully apply these aerodynamic
packages. The small percentage of
conventional truck aerodynamics
reflects applications including tractors
serving as refuse haulers which spend a
portion of their time off-road at the
landfill and generally operate at lower
speeds with frequent stops—further
reducing the benefit of aggressive
aerodynamic technologies. Features
such as chassis skirts are prone to
damage in off-road applications;
therefore we are not proposing
standards that are based on all trucks
having chassis skirts or achieving GHG
reductions premised on use of such
technology. The 90 percent of tractors
that we project can either be SmartWay
or Advanced SmartWay equipped
reflects the bulk of Class 8 high roof
sleeper cab applications. We are not
projecting a higher fraction of Advanced
SmartWay aerodynamic systems
because of the limited lead time for the
program and the need for these more
advanced technologies to be developed
and demonstrated before being applied
across a wider fraction of the fleet. Our
averaging, banking and trading
provisions provide manufacturers with
the flexibility to implement these
technologies over time even though the
standard changes in a single step. We
request comment on our assessment of
the potential for use of Advanced
SmartWay technologies and the need for
a fraction of these vehicles to continue
to remain configured as conventional
cabs due to their occasional use offroad.
The proposed aerodynamic
application for the other tractor
regulatory categories is less aggressive
than for the Class 8 sleeper cab high
roof. The agencies recognize that there
are truck applications which require
on/off-road capability and other truck
functions which restrict the type of
aerodynamic equipment applicable. We
also recognize that these types of trucks
spend less time at highway speeds
where aerodynamic technologies have
the greatest benefit. The 2002 VIUS data
ranks trucks by major use.140 The heavy
trucks usage indicates that up to 35
percent of the trucks may be used in
on/off-road applications or heavier
applications. The uses include
construction (16 percent), agriculture
(12 percent), waste management (5
percent), and mining (2 percent).
Therefore, the agencies analyzed the
technologies to evaluate the potential
restrictions that would prevent 100
percent application of SmartWay
140 U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation
Energy Data Book, Edition 28–2009. Table 5.7.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
technologies for all of the tractor
regulatory subcategories.
Trucks designed for on/off-road
application may be restricted in the
ability to improve the aerodynamic
design of the bumper, chassis skirts, air
cleaners, and other aspects of the truck
which would typically be needed to
move a conventional truck into the
SmartWay bin. First, off-road
applications may require the use of steel
bumpers which tend to be less
aerodynamic than plastic designs.
Second, ground clearance may be an
issue for some off road applications due
to poor road surface quality. This may
pose a greater likelihood that those
items such as chassis skirts would incur
damage in use and therefore would not
be a technology desirable in these
applications. Third, the trucks used in
off-road applications may also
experience dust which requires an
additional air cleaner to manage the
dirt. Fourth, some trucks are used in
applications which require heavier load
capacity, such as those with gross
combined weights of greater than 80,000
pounds, which is today’s Federal
highway limit. Often these trucks are
configured with different axle
combinations than those traditionally
used on-road. These trucks may contain
either a lift axle or spread axle which
allows for greater carrying capability.
Both of these configurations limit the
design and effectiveness of chassis
skirts. Lastly, some work trucks require
the use of PTO operation or access to
equipment which may limit the
application of side extenders and
chassis skirts.
The agencies considered the on/offroad restriction to aerodynamic
technology application, used VIUS
estimate of approximately 35 percent of
tractors may be used in this type of
application, and used confidential data
provided by truck manufacturers
regarding the fraction of their current
sales which go into the various
applications, to project the aerodynamic
application rates for each tractor
category. For example, the agencies
project that day cabs with low roofs will
be used more often in these on/off-road
applications than day cabs with high
roof. Therefore, the agencies project
technology application rate for
conventional aerodynamics in day cab
low roof as 40 percent while it would
be 30 percent in day cab high roofs
tractors. The agencies have also
estimated that the development of
advanced aerodynamic technologies
would be applied first to high roof
sleeper cabs and then follow with the
other tractor categories. Therefore, the
agencies propose to use a 10 percent
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
application rate of the Advanced
SmartWay aerodynamic technology
package to the other tractor categories.
The agencies welcome comment on our
assessment of application rates and are
interested in data that provide estimates
on truck sales to the various
applications where aerodynamics are
less effective or restricted.
At least one LRR tire model is
available today that meets the rolling
resistance requirements of the
SmartWay and Advanced SmartWay tire
packages so the 2014 MY should afford
manufacturers sufficient lead time to
install these packages. However, tire
rolling resistance is only one of several
performance criteria that affect tire
selection. The characteristics of a tire
also influence durability, traction
control, vehicle handling, comfort, and
retreadability. A single performance
parameter can easily be enhanced, but
an optimal balance of all the criteria
will require improvements in materials
and tread design at a higher cost, as
estimated by the agencies. Tire design
requires balancing performance, since
changes in design may change different
performance characteristics in opposing
directions. Similar to the discussion
regarding lesser aerodynamic
technology application in tractor
segments other than sleeper cab high
roof, the agencies believe that the
proposed standards should not be
premised on 100 percent application of
LRR tires in all tractor segments. The
agencies are proposing to base their
analyses on application rates that vary
by category and match the application
rates used for the aerodynamic packages
to reflect the on/off-road application of
some tractors which require a different
balancing of traction versus rolling
resistance. We believe on- versus offroad traction (primarily tread pattern) is
the only tire performance parameter
which trades off with tire rolling
resistance so significantly that tire
manufacturers would be unable to
develop tires meeting both the assumed
lower rolling resistance performance
while maintaining or improving other
characteristics of tire performance. We
seek comment on our assessment.
Weight reductions can be achieved
through single wide tires replacing dual
tires and lighter weight wheel material.
Single wide tires can reduce weight by
over 160 pounds per axle. Aluminum
wheels used in lieu of steel wheels will
reduce weight by over 80 pounds for a
dual wheel axle. Light weight aluminum
steer wheels and aluminum single wide
drive wheels and tires package available
today would provide a 670 pound
weight reduction over the baseline steel
steer and dual drive wheels. The
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
agencies recognize that not all tractors
can or will use single wide tires, and
therefore are proposing a weight
reduction package of 400 pounds. The
agencies are proposing to use a 100
percent application rate for this weight
reduction package. The agencies are
unaware of reasons why a combination
of lower weight wheels or tires cannot
be applied to all combination tractors,
but welcome comments.
Idle reduction technologies provide
significant reductions in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions for
Class 8 sleeper cabs and are available on
the market today, and therefore will be
available in the 2014 model year. There
are several different technologies
available to reduce idling. These
include APUs, diesel fired heaters, and
battery powered units. Our discussions
with manufacturers indicate that idle
technologies are sometimes installed in
the factory, but it is also a common
practice to have the units installed after
the sale of the truck. We would like to
continue to incentivize this practice
while providing certainty that the
overnight idle operations will be
eliminated. Therefore, we are allowing
the installation of only an automatic
engine shutoff, without override
capability, to qualify for idle emission
reductions in GEM to allow for
aftermarket installations of idle
reduction technology. We are proposing
a 100 percent application rate for this
technology for Class 8 sleeper cabs (note
that the current fleet is estimated to
have a 30 percent application rate). The
agencies are unaware of reasons why
extended idle reduction technologies
could not be applied to all tractors with
a sleeper cab, but welcome comments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Vehicle speed limiters may be used as
a technology to meet the standard, but
in setting the standard we assumed a 0
percent application rate of vehicles
speed limiters. Although we believe
vehicles speed limiters are a simple,
easy to implement, and inexpensive
technology, we want to leave the use of
vehicles speed limiters to the truck
purchaser. Since truck fleets purchase
trucks today with owner set vehicle
speed limiters, we considered not
including VSLs in our compliance
model. However, we have concluded
that we should allow the use of VSLs
that cannot be overridden by the
operator as a means of compliance for
vehicle manufacturers that wish to offer
it and truck purchasers that wish to
purchase the technology. In doing so,
we are providing another means of
meeting that standard that can lower
compliance cost and provide a more
optimal vehicle solution for some truck
fleets. For example, a local beverage
distributor may operate trucks in a
distribution network of primarily local
roads. Under those conditions,
aerodynamic fairings used to reduce
aerodynamic drag provide little benefit
due to the low vehicle speed while
adding additional mass to the vehicle. A
vehicle manufacturer could choose to
install a VSL set at 55 mph for this
customer. The resulting truck modeled
in GEM could meet our proposed
emission standard without the use of
any specialized aerodynamic fairings.
The resulting truck would be optimized
for its intended application and would
be fully compliant with our program all
at a lower cost to the ultimate truck
purchaser. We are seeking comment on
the use of VSLs that cannot be
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74223
overridden by the end-user as a means
of compliance with our proposed
standards.
We have chosen not to assume the use
of a mandatory vehicle speed limiter in
our proposal because of concerns about
how to set a realistic application rate
that avoids unintended adverse impacts.
Although we expect there will be some
use of VSL, currently it is used when
the fleet involved decides it is feasible
and practicable and increases the
overall efficiency of the freight system
for that fleet operator. However, at this
point the agencies are not in a position
to determine in how many additional
situations use of a VSL would result in
similar benefits to overall efficiency.
Setting a mandatory expected use of
such VSL carries the risk of requiring
VSL in situations that are not
appropriate from an efficiency
perspective. To avoid such possibility,
the agencies are not premising the
proposed standards on use of VSL, and
instead will rely on the industry to
select VSL when circumstances are
appropriate for its use. Implementation
of this program may provide greater
information for using this technology in
standard setting in the future. Many
stakeholders including the American
Trucking Association have advocated
for more widespread use of vehicle
speed limits to address fuel efficiency
and greenhouse gas emissions. We
welcome comments on our decision not
to premise the emission standards on
the use of VSLs.
Table III–4 provides the proposed
application rates of each technology
broken down by weight class, cab
configuration, and roof height.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(iv) Derivation of the Proposed Tractor
Standards
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The agencies used the technology
inputs and proposed technology
application rates in GEM to develop the
proposed fuel consumption and CO2
emissions standards for each
subcategory of Class 7 and 8
combination tractors. The agencies
derived a scenario truck for each
subcategory by weighting the individual
GEM input parameters included in
Table III–3 by the application rates in
Table III–4. For example, the Cd value
for a Class 8 Sleeper Cab High Roof
scenario case was derived as 10 percent
times 0.68 plus 70 percent times 0.60
plus 20 percent times 0.55, which is
equal to a Cd of 0.60. Similar
calculations were done for tire rolling
resistance, weight reduction, idle
reduction, and vehicle speed limiters.
To account for the two proposed engine
standards, the agencies assumed a
compliant engine in GEM. In other
words, EPA is proposing the use of a
2014 model year fuel consumption map
in GEM to derive the 2014 model year
tractor standard and a 2017 model year
fuel consumption map to derive the
2017 model year tractor standard.141
The agencies then ran GEM with a
single set of vehicle inputs, as shown in
Table III–5, to derive the proposed
standards for each subcategory.
Additional detail is provided in the
draft RIA Chapter 2.
141 As explained further in Section V below, EPA
would use these inputs in GEM even for engines
electing to use the alternative engine standard.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.030
74224
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
A summary of the proposed
technology package costs is included in
Table III–7 with additional details
available in the draft RIA Chapter 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
EP30NO10.032
reduction from the baseline for each
subcategory is included in Table III–6.
30NOP2
EP30NO10.031
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The level of the 2014 and 2017 model
year proposed standards and percent
74225
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(v) Reasonableness of the Proposed
Standards
The proposed standards are based on
aggressive application rates for control
technologies which the agencies regard
as the maximum feasible for the reasons
given in Section (iii) above; see also
draft RIA Chapter 2.5.8.2. These
technologies, at the estimated
application rates, are available within
the lead time provided, as discussed in
draft RIA Chapter 2.5. Use of these
technologies would add only a small
amount to the cost of the vehicle, and
the associated reductions are highly cost
effective, an estimated $10 per ton of
CO2eq per vehicle in 2030 without
consideration of the substantial fuel
savings.142 This is even more cost
effective than the estimated cost
effectiveness for CO2eq removal and fuel
economy improvements under the lightduty vehicle rule, already considered by
the agencies to be a highly cost effective
reduction.143 Moreover, the cost of
controls is recovered due to the
142 See
Section VIII.D below.
light-duty rule had an estimated cost per
ton of $50 when considering the vehicle program
costs only and a cost of ¥$210 per ton considering
the vehicle program costs along with fuel savings
in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3–1.
143 The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
associated fuel savings, as shown in the
payback analysis included in Table
VIII–8 located in Section VIII below.
Thus, overall cost per ton of the rule,
considering fuel savings, is negative—
fuel savings associated with the rule
more than offset projected costs by a
wide margin. See Table VIII–5 in
Section VIII below. Given that the
standards are technically feasible within
the lead time afforded by the 2014
model year, are inexpensive and highly
cost effective even without accounting
for the fuel savings, and have no
apparent adverse potential impacts (e.g.,
there are no projected negative impacts
on safety or vehicle utility), the
proposed standards represent a
reasonable choice under section 202(a)
of the CAA and under NHTSA’s EISA
authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
(vi) Alternative Tractor Standards
Considered
The agencies are not proposing tractor
standards less stringent than the
proposed standards because the
agencies believe these standards are
appropriate, highly cost effective, and
technologically feasible within the
rulemaking time frame. We welcome
comments supplemented with data on
each aspect of this determination most
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
importantly on individual technology
efficacy to reduce fuel consumption and
GHGs as well was our estimates of
individual technology cost and leadtime.
The agencies considered proposing
tractor standards which are more
stringent than those proposed reflecting
increased application rates of the
technologies discussed. We also
considered setting more stringent
standards based on the inclusion of
hybrid powertrains in tractors. We
stopped short of proposing more
stringent standards based on higher
application rates of improved
aerodynamic controls and tire rolling
resistance because we concluded that
the technologies would not be
compatible with the use profile of a
subset of tractors which operate in
offroad conditions. The agencies
welcome comment on the application
rates for each type of technology and for
each tractor category. We have not
proposed more stringent standards for
tractors based on the use of hybrid
vehicle technologies, believing that
additional development and therefore
lead-time is needed to develop hybrid
systems and battery technology for
tractors that operate primarily in
highway cruise operations. We know,
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.033
74226
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(ii) Engine Technology Package
Effectiveness
The MHD and HHD diesel engine
technology package for the 2014 model
year includes engine friction reduction,
improved aftertreatment effectiveness,
improved combustion processes, and
low temperature EGR system
optimization. The agencies considered
improvements in parasitic and friction
losses through piston designs to reduce
friction, improved lubrication, and
improved water pump and oil pump
designs to reduce parasitic losses. The
aftertreatment improvements are
available through lower backpressure of
the systems and optimization of the
engine-out NOX levels. Improvements to
the EGR system and air flow through the
intake and exhaust systems, along with
turbochargers can also produce engine
efficiency improvements. We note that
individual technology improvements
are not additive due to the interaction
of technologies. The agencies assessed
the impact of each technology over each
of the 13 SET modes to project an
overall weighted SET cycle
improvement in the 2014 model year of
3 percent, as detailed in draft RIA
Chapter 2.4.2.9 through 2.4.2.14. All of
these technologies represent engine
enhancements already developed
beyond the research phase and are
available as ‘‘off the shelf’’ technologies
for manufacturers to add to their
engines during the engine’s next design
cycle. We have estimated that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(b) Tractor Engines
(i) Baseline Engine Performance
As noted above, EPA and NHTSA
developed the baseline medium and
heavy heavy-duty diesel engine to
represent a 2010 model year engine
compliant with the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOX
standard for on-highway heavy-duty
engines.
The agencies developed baseline SET
values for medium and heavy heavyduty diesel engines based on 2009
model year confidential manufacturer
data and from testing conducted by
EPA. The agencies adjusted the pre2010 data to represent 2010 model year
engine maps by using predefined
manufacturers will be able to implement
these technologies on or before the 2014
engine model year. The agencies
proposal therefore reflects a 100 percent
application rate of this technology
package. The agencies gave
consideration to proposing a more
stringent standard based on the
application of turbocompounding, a
mechanical means of waste heat
recovery, but concluded that
manufacturers would have insufficient
lead-time to complete the necessary
product development and validation
work necessary to include this
technology across the industry by model
year 2014.
As explained earlier, EPA’s heavyduty highway engine standards for
criteria pollutants apply in three year
increments. The heavy-duty engine
manufacturer product plans have fallen
into three year cycles to reflect these
requirements. The agencies are
proposing to set fuel consumption and
CO2 emission standards recognizing the
opportunity for technology
improvements over this timeframe
while reflecting the typical heavy-duty
engine manufacturer product plan
redesign and refresh cycles. Thus, the
agencies are proposing to set a more
stringent standard for heavy-duty
engines beginning in the 2017 model
year.
The MHDD and HHDD engine
technology package for the 2017 model
year includes the continued
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
technologies including SCR and other
systems that are being used in current
2010 model year production. If an
engine utilized did not meet the 0.2 g/
bhp-hr NOX level, then the individual
engine’s CO2 result was adjusted to
accommodate aftertreatment strategies
that would result in a 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOX
emission level as described in draft RIA
Chapter 2.4.2.1. The engine CO2 results
were then sales weighted within each
regulatory subcategory to develop an
industry average 2010 model year
reference engine. While most of the
engines fell within a few percent of this
baseline at least one engine was more
than six percent above this average
baseline.
development of the 2014 model year
technology package including
refinement of the aftertreatment system
plus turbocompounding. The agencies
calculated overall reductions in the
same manner as for the 2014 model year
package. The weighted SET cycle
improvements lead to a 6 percent
reduction on the SET cycle, as detailed
in draft RIA Chapter 2.4.2.12. The
agencies’ proposal is premised on a 100
percent application rate of this
technology package. We gave
consideration to proposing an even
more stringent standard based on the
use of advanced Rankine cycle (also
called bottoming cycle) engine
technology but concluded that there is
insufficient lead-time between now and
2017 for this promising technology to be
developed and applied generally to all
heavy-duty engines.144 Therefore, these
technologies were not included in
determining the stringency of the
proposed standards. However, we do
believe the bottoming cycle approach
represents a significant opportunity to
reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions in the future. EPA and
NHTSA are therefore both proposing
provisions described in Section IV to
create incentives for manufacturers to
144 TIAX noted in their report to the NAS
committee that the engine improvements beyond
2015 model year included in their report are highly
uncertain, though they include Rankine cycle type
waste heat recovery as applicable sometime
between 2016 and 2020 (page 4–29).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.034
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
for example, that hybrid systems are
being researched to capture and return
energy for tractors that operate in gently
rolling hills. However, it is not clear to
us today that these systems will be
generally applicable to tractors in the
timeframe of this regulation. We seek
comment on our assessment on the
appropriateness of setting standards
based on the use of hybrid technologies.
Further, the agencies request comment
supported by data regarding additional
technologies not considered by the
agencies in proposing these standards.
74227
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
reduction from the technology package
(just explained above) to the 2010 model
year baseline values determined using
the SET cycle. EPA developed the 2017
model year CO2 emissions standards for
diesel engines while NHTSA similarly
developed the 2017 model year diesel
engine fuel consumption standards by
continue to invest to develop this
technology.
(iii) Derivation of Engine Standards
EPA developed the proposed 2014
model year CO2 emissions standards
(based on the SET cycle) for diesel
engines by applying the three percent
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iv) Engine Technology Package Costs
EPA has historically used two
different approaches to estimate the
indirect costs (sometimes called fixed
costs) of regulations including costs for
product development, machine tooling,
new capital investments and other
general forms of overhead that do not
change with incremental changes in
manufacturing volumes. Where the
Agency could reasonably make a
specific estimate of individual
components of these indirect costs, EPA
has done so. Where EPA could not
readily make such an estimate, EPA has
instead relied on the use of markup
factors referred to as indirect cost
multipliers (ICMs) to estimate these
indirect costs as a ratio of direct
manufacturing costs. In general, EPA
has used whichever approach it
believed could provide the most
accurate assessment of cost on a case by
case basis. The agencies’ general
approach used elsewhere in this
proposal (for HD pickup trucks, gasoline
engines, combination tractors, and
vocational vehicles) estimates indirect
costs based on the use of ICMs. See also
75 FR 25376. We have used this
approach generally because these
standards are based on installing new
parts and systems purchased from a
supplier. In such a case, the supplier is
conducting the bulk of the research and
development on the new parts and
systems and including those costs in the
purchase price paid by the original
equipment manufacturer. In this
situation, we believe that the ICM
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
applying the 6 percent reduction from
the 2017 model year technology package
(reflecting performance of
turbocompounding plus the 2014 MY
technology package) to the 2010 model
year baseline values. The proposed
standards are included in Table III–9.
approach provides an accurate and clear
estimate of the additional indirect costs
borne by the manufacturer.
For the heavy-duty diesel engine
segment, however, the agencies do not
consider this model to be the most
appropriate because the primary cost is
not expected to be the purchase of parts
or systems from suppliers or even the
production of the parts and systems, but
rather the development of the new
technology by the original equipment
manufacturer itself. Most of the
technologies the agencies are projecting
the heavy-duty engine manufacturers
will use for compliance reflect
modifications to existing engine systems
rather than wholesale addition of
technology (e.g., improved
turbochargers rather than adding a
turbocharger where it did not exist
before as was done in our light-duty
joint rulemaking in the case of turbodownsizing). When the bulk of the costs
come from refining an existing
technology rather than a wholesale
addition of technology, a specific
estimate of indirect costs may be more
appropriate. For example, combustion
optimization may significantly reduce
emissions and cost a manufacturer
millions of dollars to develop but will
lead to an engine that is no more
expensive to produce. Using a bill of
materials approach would suggest that
the cost of the emissions control was
zero reflecting no new hardware and
ignoring the millions of dollars spent to
develop the improved combustion
system. Details of the cost analysis are
included in the draft RIA Chapter 2.
The agencies developed the
engineering costs for the research and
development of diesel engines with
lower fuel consumption and CO2
emissions. The aggregate costs for
engineering hours, technician support,
dynamometer cell time, and fabrication
of prototype parts are estimated at
$6,750,000 per manufacturer per year
over the five years covering 2012
through 2016. In aggregate, this averages
out to $280 per engine during 2012
through 2016 using an annual sales
value of 600,000 light-, medium- and
heavy-HD engines. The agencies also are
estimating costs of $100,000 per engine
manufacturer per engine class (light-,
medium- and heavy-HD) to cover the
cost of purchasing photo-acoustic
measurement equipment for two engine
test cells. This would be a one-time cost
incurred in the year prior to
implementation of the standard (i.e., the
cost would be incurred in 2013). In
aggregate, this averages out to $4 per
engine in 2013 using an annual sales
value of 600,000 light-, medium- and
heavy-HD engines.
Where we projected that additional
new hardware was needed to the meet
the proposed standards, we developed
the incremental costs for those
technologies and marked them up using
the ICM approach. Table III–10 below
summarizes those estimates of cost on a
per item basis. All costs shown in Table
III–18 include a low complexity ICM of
1.11 and time based learning is
considered applicable to each
technology.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.035
74228
The overall diesel engine technology
package cost for a medium HD engine
being placed in a combination tractor is
$223 in the 2014 model year and $1,027
in the 2017 model year; for a heavy HD
engine being placed in a combination
tractor these costs are $145 and $955 in
the 2014 and 2017 model years,
respectively. The differences for the
medium HD engines are the valve train
friction reduction costs of $78 in 2014
($71 in 2017) that are not applied to
heavy HD engines.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(v) Reasonableness of the Proposed
Standards
The proposed engine standards
appear to be reasonable and consistent
with the agencies’ respective statutory
authorities. With respect to the 2014
and 2017 MY standards, all of the
technologies on which the standards are
predicated have already been
demonstrated in some capacity and
their effectiveness is well documented.
The proposal reflects a 100 percent
application rate for these technologies.
The costs of adding these technologies
remain modest across the various engine
classes as shown in Table III–10. Use of
these technologies would add only a
small amount to the cost of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
vehicle,145 and the associated
reductions are highly cost effective, an
estimated $6 per ton of CO2eq per
vehicle.146 This is even more cost
effective than the estimated cost
effectiveness for CO2eq removal under
the light-duty vehicle rule, already
considered by the agencies to be a
highly cost effective reduction.147 Even
the more expensive 2017 MY proposed
standard still represents only a small
fraction of the vehicle’s total cost and is
even more cost effective than the lightduty vehicle rule. Moreover, costs are
more than offset by fuel savings.
Accordingly, EPA and NHTSA view
these standards as reflecting an
appropriate balance of the various
statutory factors under section 202(a) of
the CAA and under NHTSA’s EISA
authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
145 Sample 2010 MY day cabs are priced at
$89,000 while 2010 MY sleeper cabs are priced at
$113,000. See page 3 of ICF’s ‘‘Investigation of Costs
for Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010.
146 See Tractor CO savings and technology costs
2
for Alternative 2 in Section IX.B.
147 The light-duty rule had an estimated cost per
ton of $50 when considering the vehicle program
costs only and a cost of -$210 per ton considering
the vehicle program costs along with fuel savings
in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74229
(vi) Temporary Alternative Standard for
Certain Engine Families
As discussed above in Section II.B
(1)(b), notwithstanding the general
reasonableness of the proposed
standards, the agencies recognize that
heavy-duty engines have never been
subject to GHG or fuel consumption (or
fuel economy) standards and that such
control has not necessarily been an
independent priority for manufacturers.
The result is that there are a group of
legacy engines with emissions higher
than the industry baseline for which
compliance with the proposed 2014 MY
standards may be more challenging and
for which there may simply be
inadequate lead time. The issue is not
whether these engines’ GHG and fuel
consumption performance cannot be
improved by utilizing the technology
packages on which the proposed
standards are based. Those technologies
can be utilized by all engines and the
same degree of reductions obtained.
Rather the underlying base engine
components of these engines reflect
designs that are decades old and
therefore have base performance levels
below what is typical for the industry as
a whole today. Manufacturers have been
gradually replacing these legacy
products with new engines. Engine
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.036
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74230
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers have indicated to the
agencies they will have to align their
planned replacement of these products
with our proposed standards and at the
same time add additional technologies
beyond those identified by the agencies
as the basis for the proposed standard.
Because these changes will reflect a
larger degree of overall engine redesign,
manufacturers may not be able to
complete this work for all of their legacy
products prior to model year 2014. To
pull ahead these already planned engine
replacements would be impossible as a
practical matter given the engineering
structure and lead-times inherent in the
companies’ existing product
development processes. We have also
concluded that the use of fleet averaging
would not address the issue of legacy
engines because each manufacturer
typically produces only a limited line of
MHDD and HHDD engines. (Because
there are ample fleetwide averaging
opportunities for heavy-duty pickups
and vans, the agencies do not perceive
similar difficulties for these vehicles.)
Facing a similar issue in the lightduty vehicle rule, EPA adopted a
Temporary Lead Time Allowance
provision whereby a limited number of
vehicles of a subset of manufacturers
would meet an alternative standard in
the early years of the program, affording
them sufficient lead time to meet the
more stringent standards applicable in
later model years. See 75 FR 25414–
25418. The agencies are proposing a
similar approach here. As explained
above in Section II B. (1) (b), the
agencies are proposing a regulatory
alternative whereby a manufacturer, for
a limited period, would have the option
to comply with a unique standard
requiring the same level of reduction of
emissions (i.e., percent removal) and
fuel consumption as otherwise required,
but the reduction would be measured
from its own 2011 model year baseline.
We are thus proposing an optional
standard whereby manufacturers would
elect to have designated engine families
meet a standard of 3% reduction from
their 2011 baseline emission and fuel
consumption levels for that engine
family. Our assessment is that this three
percent reduction is appropriate based
on use of similar technology packages at
similar cost as we have estimated for the
primary program. As explained earlier,
we are not proposing that the option to
select an alternative standard continues
past the 2016 MY. By this time, the
engines should have gone through a
redesign cycle which will allow
manufacturers to replace those legacy
engines which resulted in abnormally
high baseline emission and fuel
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
consumption levels and to achieve the
MY 2017 standards which would be
feasible using the technology package
set out above (optimized NOX
aftertreatment, improved EGR,
reductions in parasitic losses, and
turbocharging). Manufacturers would, of
course, be free to adopt other technology
paths which meet the proposed MY
2017 standards.
Since the alternative standard is
premised on the need for additional
lead time, manufacturers would first
have to utilize all available flexibilities
which could otherwise provide that lead
time. Thus, the alternative would not be
available unless and until a
manufacturer had exhausted all
available credits and credit
opportunities, and engines under the
alternative standard could not generate
credits. See 75 FR 25417–25419 (similar
approach for vehicles which are part of
Temporary Lead Time Allowance under
the light-duty vehicle rule). We are
proposing that manufacturers can select
engine families for this alternative
standard without agency approval, but
are proposing to require that
manufacturers notify the agency of their
choice and to include in that
notification a demonstration that it has
exhausted all available credits and
credit opportunities. Manufacturers
would also have to demonstrate their
2011 baseline calculations as part of the
certification process for each engine
family for which the manufacturer
elects to use the alternative standard.
See Section V.C.1(b)(i) below.
(vii) Alternative Engine Standards
Considered
The agencies are not proposing engine
standards less stringent than the
proposed standards because the
agencies believe these proposed
standards are appropriate, highly cost
effective, and technologically feasible,
as just described. We welcome
comments supplemented with data on
each aspect of this determination most
importantly on individual engine
technology efficacy to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions.
Comments should also address our
estimates of individual technology cost
and lead-time.
The agencies considered proposing
engine standards which are more
stringent. Since the proposed standards
reflect 100 percent utilization of the
various technology packages, some
additional technology would have to be
added. The agencies are proposing 2017
model year standards based on the use
of turbocompounding. The agencies
considered the inclusion of more
advanced heat recovery systems, such as
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Rankine or bottoming cycles, which
would provide further reductions.
However, the agencies are not proposing
this level of stringency because our
assessment is that these technologies
would not be available for production
by the 2017 model year. The agencies
welcome comments on whether waste
heat recovery technologies are
appropriate to consider for the 2017
model year standard, or if not, then
when would they be appropriate.
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
This section describes the process the
agencies used to develop the standards
the agencies are proposing for HD
pickups and vans. We started by
gathering available information about
the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions from recent model year
vehicles. The core portion of this
information comes primarily from EPA’s
certification databases, CFEIS and
VERIFY, which contain the publicly
available data 148 regarding emission
and fuel economy results. This
information is not extensive because
manufacturers have not been required to
chassis test HD diesel vehicles for EPA’s
criteria pollutant emissions standards,
nor have they been required to conduct
any testing of heavy-duty vehicles on
the highway cycle. Nevertheless,
enough certification activity has
occurred for diesels under EPA’s
optional chassis-based program, and,
due to a California NOX requirement for
the highway test cycle, enough test
results have been voluntarily reported
for both diesel and gasoline vehicles
using the highway test cycle, to yield a
reasonably robust data set. To
supplement this data set, for purposes of
this rulemaking EPA initiated its own
testing program using in-use vehicles.
This program and the results from it
thus far are described in a memorandum
to the docket for this rulemaking.149
Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
are sold in a variety of configurations to
meet market demands. Among the
differences in these configurations that
affect CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption are curb weight, GVWR,
axle ratio, and drive wheels (two-wheel
drive or four-wheel drive). Because the
currently-available test data set does not
capture all of these configurations, it is
necessary to extend that data set across
the product mix using adjustment
factors. In this way a test result from,
say a truck with two-wheel drive, 3.73:1
axle ratio, and 8000 lb test weight, can
148 https://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm.
149 Memorandum from Cleophas Jackson, U.S.
EPA, to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162, ‘‘HeavyDuty Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Consumption Test
Program Summary’’, September 20, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
be used to model emissions and fuel
consumption from a truck of the same
basic body design, but with 4wd, a
4.10:1 axle ratio, and 8,500 lb test
weight. The adjustment factors are
based on data from testing in which
only the parameters of interest are
varied. These parameterized
adjustments and their basis are also
described in a memorandum to the
docket for this rulemaking.150
The agencies requested and received
from each of the three major
manufacturers confidential information
for each model and configuration,
indicating the values of each of these
key parameters as well as the annual
production (for the U.S. market).
Production figures are useful because,
under our proposed standards for HD
pickups and vans, compliance is judged
on the basis of production-weighted
(corporate average) emissions or fuel
consumption level, not individual
vehicle levels. For consistency and to
avoid confounding the analysis with
data from unusual market conditions in
2009, the production and vehicle
specification data is from the 2008
model year. We made the simplifying
assumption that these sales figures
reasonably approximate future sales for
purposes of this analysis.
One additional assessment was
needed to make the data set useful as a
baseline for the standards selection.
Because the appropriate standards are
determined by applying efficiencyimproving technologies to the baseline
fleet, it is necessary to know the level
of penetration of these technologies in
the latest model year (2010). This
information was also provided
confidentially by the manufacturers.
Generally, the agencies found that the
HD pickup and van fleet was at a
roughly consistent level of technology
application, with (1) the transition from
4-speed to 5- or 6-speed automatic
transmissions mostly accomplished, (2)
coupled cam phasing to achieve variable
valve control on gasoline engines
likewise mostly in place, and (3)
substantial remaining potential for
optimizing catalytic diesel NOX
aftertreatment to improve fuel economy
(the new heavy-duty NOX standards
having taken effect in the 2010 model
year).
Taking this 2010 baseline fleet, and
applying the technologies determined to
be feasible and appropriate by the 2018
model year, along with their
effectiveness levels, the agencies could
then make a determination of
150 Memorandum from Anthony Neam and Jeff
Cherry, U.S. EPA, to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162, October 18, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
appropriate proposed standards. The
assessment of feasibility, described
immediately below, takes into account
the projected costs of these
technologies. The derivation of these
costs, largely based on analyses
developed in the light-duty GHG and
fuel economy rulemaking, are described
in Section III.B(3).
Our assessment concluded that the
technologies that the agencies
considered feasible and appropriate for
HD pickups and vans could be
consistently applied to essentially all
vehicles across this sector by the 2018
model year. Therefore we did not apply
varying penetration rates across vehicle
types and models in developing and
evaluating the proposed standards.
Since the manufacturers of HD
pickups and vans generally only have
one basic pick-up truck and van with
different versions ((i.e., different wheel
bases, cab sizes, two-wheel drive, fourwheel drive, etc.) and do not have the
flexibility of the light-duty fleet to
coordinate model improvements over
several years, changes to the HD
pickups and vans to meet new standards
must be carefully planned with the
redesign cycle taken into account. The
opportunities for large-scale changes
(e.g., new engines, transmission, vehicle
body and mass) thus occur less
frequently than in the light-duty fleet,
typically at spans of 8 or more years.
However, opportunities for gradual
improvements not necessarily linked to
large scale changes can occur between
the redesign cycles. Examples of such
improvements are upgrades to an
existing vehicle model’s engine,
transmission and aftertreatment
systems. Given this long redesign cycle
and our understanding with respect to
where the different manufacturers are in
that cycle, the agencies have initially
determined that the full implementation
of the proposed standards would be
feasible and appropriate by the 2018
model year.
Although we did not determine that it
was necessary for feasibility to apply
varying technology penetration levels to
different vehicles, we did decide that a
phased implementation schedule would
be appropriate to accommodate
manufacturers’ redesign workload and
product schedules, especially in light of
this sector’s relatively low sales
volumes and long product cycles. We
did not determine a specific cost of
implementing the final standards
immediately in 2014 without a phase-in,
but we assessed it to be much higher
than the cost of the phase-in we are
proposing, due to the workload and
product cycle disruptions it would
cause, and also due to manufacturers’
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74231
resulting need to develop some of these
technologies for heavy-duty
applications sooner than or
simultaneously with light-duty
development efforts. See generally 75
FR 25467–25468 explaining why
attempting major changes outside the
redesign cycle period raises very
significant issues of both feasibility and
cost. On the other hand, waiting until
2018 before applying any new standards
could miss the opportunity to achieve
meaningful and cost-effective early
reductions not requiring a major
product redesign when the largest
changes and reductions are expected to
occur.
The proposed phase-in schedule, 15–
20–40–60–100 percent in 2014–2015–
2016–2017–2018, respectively, was
chosen to strike a balance between
meaningful reductions in the early years
(reflecting the technologies’ penetration
rates of 15 and 20 percent) and
providing manufacturers with needed
lead time via a gradually accelerating
ramp-up of technology penetration.151
By expressing the proposed phase-in in
terms of increasing fleetwide stringency
for each manufacturer, while also
providing for credit generation and use
(including averaging, carry-forward, and
carry-back), we believe our proposal
affords manufacturers substantial
flexibility to satisfy the phase-in
through a variety of pathways: the
gradual application of technologies
across the fleet (averaging a fifth of total
production in each year), greater
application levels on only a portion of
the fleet, or a mix of the two.
We considered setting more stringent
standards that would require the
application of additional technologies
by 2018. We expect, in fact, that some
of these technologies may well prove
feasible and cost-effective in this
timeframe, and may even become
technologies of choice for individual
manufacturers. This dynamic has
played out in EPA programs before and
highlights the value of setting
performance-based standards that leave
engineers the freedom to find the most
cost-effective solutions.
However, the agencies do believe that
at this stage there is not enough
information to conclude that the
additional technologies provide an
appropriate basis for standard-setting.
For example, we believe that 42V stopstart systems can be applied to gasoline
vehicles with significant GHG and fuel
151 The NHTSA proposal provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. NHTSA
and EPA also propose to provide an alternative
standards phase-in that meets EISA’s requirement
for three years of regulatory stability. See Section
II.C.d.ii for a more detailed discussion.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74232
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
consumption benefits, but we recognize
that there is uncertainty at this time
over the cost-effectiveness of these
systems in heavy-duty applications, and
over customer acceptance of vehicles
with high GCWR towing large loads that
would routinely stop running at idle.
Hybrid electric technology likewise
could be applied to heavy-duty vehicles,
and in fact has already been so applied
on a limited basis. However, the
development, design, and tooling effort
needed to apply this technology to a
vehicle model is quite large, and seems
less likely to prove cost-effective in this
timeframe, due to the small sales
volumes relative to the light-duty sector.
Here again, potential customer
acceptance would need to be better
understood because the smaller engines
that facilitate much of a hybrid’s benefit
are typically at odds with the
importance pickup trucks buyers place
on engine horsepower and torque,
whatever the vehicle’s real performance.
We also considered setting less
stringent standards calling for a more
limited set of applied technologies.
However, our assessment concluded
with a high degree of confidence that
the technologies on which the proposed
standards are premised are clearly
available at reasonable cost in the 2014–
2018 timeframe, and that the phase-in
and other flexibility provisions allow for
their application in a very cost-effective
manner, as discussed in this section
below.
More difficult to characterize is the
degree to which more or less stringent
standards might be appropriate because
of under- or over-estimating
effectiveness of the technologies whose
performance is the basis of the proposed
standards. Our basis for these estimates
is described in Section III.B.(1)(1) .
Because for the most part these
technologies have not yet been applied
to HD pickups and vans, even on a
limited basis, we are relying to some
degree on engineering judgment in
predicting their effectiveness. Even so,
we believe that we have applied this
judgment using the best information
available, primarily from our recent
rulemaking on light-duty vehicle GHGs
and fuel economy, and have generated
a robust set of effectiveness values.
We solicit comment and new
information that would aid the agencies
in establishing the appropriate level of
stringency for the HD pickup and van
standards, and on all facets of the
assessment described here and
elsewhere in these rulemaking
proposals.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(1) What technologies did the agencies
consider?
The agencies considered over 35
vehicle technologies that manufacturers
could use to improve the fuel
consumption and reduce CO2 emissions
of their vehicles during MYs 2014–2018.
The majority of the technologies
described in this section is readily
available, well known, and could be
incorporated into vehicles once
production decisions are made. Other
technologies considered may not
currently be in production, but are
beyond the research phase and under
development, and are expected to be in
production in highway vehicles over the
next few years. These are technologies
which are capable of achieving
significant improvements in fuel
economy and reductions in CO2
emissions, at reasonable costs. The
agencies did not consider technologies
in the research stage because there is
insufficient time for such technologies
to move from research to production
during the model years covered by this
proposal.
The technologies considered in the
agencies’ analysis are briefly described
below. They fall into five broad
categories: Engine technologies,
transmission technologies, vehicle
technologies, electrification/accessory
technologies, and hybrid technologies.
In this class of trucks and vans, diesel
engines are installed in about half of all
vehicles. The ratio between gasoline and
diesel engine purchases by consumers
has tended to track changes in the
overall cost of oil and the relative cost
of gasoline and diesel fuels. When oil
prices are higher, diesel sales tend to
increase. This trend has reversed when
oil prices fall or when diesel fuel prices
are significantly higher than gasoline. In
the context of our technology discussion
for heavy-duty pickups and vans, we are
treating gasoline and diesel engines
separately so each has a set of baseline
technologies. We discuss performance
improvements in terms of changes to
those baseline engines. Our cost and
inventory estimates contained
elsewhere reflect the current fleet
baseline with an appropriate mix of
gasoline and diesel engines. Note that
we are not basing the proposed
standards on a targeted switch in the
mix of diesel and gasoline vehicles. We
believe our proposed standards require
similar levels of technology
development and cost for both diesel
and gasoline vehicles. Hence the
proposed program does not force, nor
does it discourage, changes in a
manufacturer’s fleet mix between
gasoline and diesel vehicles. Although
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
we considered setting a single standard
based on the performance level possible
for diesel vehicles, we are not proposing
such an approach because the potential
disruption in the HD pickup and van
market from a forced shift would not be
justified. Types of engine technologies
that improve fuel efficiency and reduce
CO2 emissions include the following:
• Low-friction lubricants—low
viscosity and advanced low friction
lubricant oils are now available with
improved performance and better
lubrication. If manufacturers choose to
make use of these lubricants, they
would need to make engine changes and
possibly conduct durability testing to
accommodate the low-friction
lubricants.
• Reduction of engine friction
losses—can be achieved through lowtension piston rings, roller cam
followers, improved material coatings,
more optimal thermal management,
piston surface treatments, and other
improvements in the design of engine
components and subsystems that
improve engine operation.
• Cylinder deactivation—deactivates
the intake and exhaust valves and
prevents fuel injection into some
cylinders during light-load operation.
The engine runs temporarily as though
it were a smaller engine which
substantially reduces pumping losses.
• Variable valve timing—alters the
timing of the intake valve, exhaust
valve, or both, primarily to reduce
pumping losses, increase specific
power, and control residual gases.
• Stoichiometric gasoline directinjection technology—injects fuel at
high pressure directly into the
combustion chamber to improve cooling
of the air/fuel charge within the
cylinder, which allows for higher
compression ratios and increased
thermodynamic efficiency.
• Diesel engine improvements and
diesel aftertreatment improvements—
improved EGR systems and advanced
timing can provide more efficient
combustion and, hence, lower fuel
consumption. Aftertreatment systems
are a relatively new technology on
diesel vehicles and, as such,
improvements are expected in coming
years that allow the effectiveness of
these systems to improve while
reducing the fuel and reductant
demands of current systems.
Types of transmission technologies
considered include:
• Improved automatic transmission
controls—optimizes shift schedule to
maximize fuel efficiency under wide
ranging conditions, and minimizes
losses associated with torque converter
slip through lock-up or modulation.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
• Six-, seven-, and eight-speed
automatic transmissions—the gear ratio
spacing and transmission ratio are
optimized for a broader range of engine
operating conditions.
Types of vehicle technologies
considered include:
• Low-rolling-resistance tires—have
characteristics that reduce frictional
losses associated with the energy
dissipated in the deformation of the
tires under load, therefore improving
fuel efficiency and reducing CO2
emissions.
• Aerodynamic drag reduction—is
achieved by changing vehicle shape or
reducing frontal area, including skirts,
air dams, underbody covers, and more
aerodynamic side view mirrors.
• Mass reduction and material
substitution—Mass reduction
encompasses a variety of techniques
ranging from improved design and
better component integration to
application of lighter and higherstrength materials. Mass reduction is
further compounded by reductions in
engine power and ancillary systems
(transmission, steering, brakes,
suspension, etc.). The agencies
recognize there is a range of diversity
and complexity for mass reduction and
material substitution technologies and
there are many techniques that
automotive suppliers and manufacturers
are using to achieve the levels of this
technology that the agencies have
modeled in our analysis for this
proposal.
Types of electrification/accessory and
hybrid technologies considered include:
• Electric power steering and ElectroHydraulic power steering—are
electrically assisted steering systems
that have advantages over traditional
hydraulic power steering because it
replaces a continuously operated
hydraulic pump, thereby reducing
parasitic losses from the accessory
drive.
• Improved accessories—may include
high efficiency alternators, electrically
driven (i.e., on-demand) water pumps
and cooling fans. This excludes other
electrical accessories such as electric oil
pumps and electrically driven air
conditioner compressors.
• Air Conditioner Systems—These
technologies include improved hoses,
connectors and seals for leakage control.
They also include improved
compressors, expansion valves, heat
exchangers and the control of these
components for the purposes of
improving tailpipe CO2 emissions as a
result of A/C use.152
152 See draft RIA Chapter 2.3 for fuller technology
descriptions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
How did the agencies determine the
costs and effectiveness of each of these
technologies?
Building on the technical analysis
underlying the 2012–2016 MY lightduty vehicle rule, the agencies took a
fresh look at technology cost and
effectiveness values for purposes of this
proposal. For costs, the agencies
reconsidered both the direct or ‘‘piece’’
costs and indirect costs of individual
components of technologies. For the
direct costs, the agencies followed a bill
of materials (BOM) approach employed
by NHTSA and EPA in the light-duty
rule.
For two technologies, stoichiometric
gasoline direct injection (SGDI) and
turbocharging with engine downsizing,
the agencies relied to the extent possible
on the available tear-down data and
scaling methodologies used in EPA’s
ongoing study with FEV, Incorporated.
This study consists of complete system
tear-down to evaluate technologies
down to the nuts and bolts to arrive at
very detailed estimates of the costs
associated with manufacturing them.153
For the other technologies,
considering all sources of information
and using the BOM approach, the
agencies worked together intensively to
determine component costs for each of
the technologies and build up the costs
accordingly. Where estimates differ
between sources, we have used
engineering judgment to arrive at what
we believe to be the best cost estimate
available today, and explained the basis
for that exercise of judgment.
Once costs were determined, they
were adjusted to ensure that they were
all expressed in 2008 dollars using a
ratio of gross domestic product (GDP)
values for the associated calendar
years,154 and indirect costs were
accounted for using the new approach
developed by EPA and used in the
2012–2016 light-duty rule. NHTSA and
EPA also reconsidered how costs should
be adjusted by modifying or scaling
content assumptions to account for
differences across the range of vehicle
sizes and functional requirements, and
adjusted the associated material cost
impacts to account for the revised
content, although some of these
adjustments may be different for each
agency due to the different vehicle
153 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Draft
Report—Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot
Study,’’ Contract No. EP–C–07–069, Work
Assignment 1–3, September 3, 2009.
154 NHTSA examined the use of the CPI
multiplier instead of GDP for adjusting these dollar
values, but found the difference to be exceedingly
small—only $0.14 over $100.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74233
subclasses used in their respective
models.
Regarding estimates for technology
effectiveness, NHTSA and EPA used the
estimates from the 2012–2016 light-duty
rule as a baseline but adjusted them as
appropriate, taking into account the
unique requirement of the heavy-duty
test cycles to test at curb weight plus
half payload versus the light-duty
requirement of curb plus 300 lb. The
adjustments were made on an
individual technology basis by assessing
the specific impact of the added load on
each technology when compared to the
use of the technology on a light-duty
vehicle. The agencies also considered
other sources such as the 2010 NAS
Report, recent CAFE compliance data,
and confidential manufacturer estimates
of technology effectiveness. NHTSA and
EPA engineers reviewed effectiveness
information from the multiple sources
for each technology and ensured that
such effectiveness estimates were based
on technology hardware consistent with
the BOM components used to estimate
costs. Together, the agencies compared
the multiple estimates and assessed
their validity, taking care to ensure that
common BOM definitions and other
vehicle attributes such as performance
and drivability were taken into account.
The agencies note that the
effectiveness values estimated for the
technologies may represent average
values applied to the baseline fleet
described earlier, and do not reflect the
potentially-limitless spectrum of
possible values that could result from
adding the technology to different
vehicles. For example, while the
agencies have estimated an effectiveness
of 0.5 percent for low friction lubricants,
each vehicle could have a unique
effectiveness estimate depending on the
baseline vehicle’s oil viscosity rating.
Similarly, the reduction in rolling
resistance (and thus the improvement in
fuel efficiency and the reduction in CO2
emissions) due to the application of LRR
tires depends not only on the unique
characteristics of the tires originally on
the vehicle, but on the unique
characteristics of the tires being applied,
characteristics which must be balanced
between fuel efficiency, safety, and
performance. Aerodynamic drag
reduction is much the same—it can
improve fuel efficiency and reduce CO2
emissions, but it is also highly
dependent on vehicle-specific
functional objectives. For purposes of
this NPRM, NHTSA and EPA believe
that employing average values for
technology effectiveness estimates is an
appropriate way of recognizing the
potential variation in the specific
benefits that individual manufacturers
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74234
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(and individual vehicles) might obtain
from adding a fuel-saving technology.
However, the agencies seek comment on
whether additional levels of specificity
beyond that already provided would
improve the analysis for the final rules,
and if so, how those levels of specificity
should be analyzed.
The following section contains a
detailed description of our assessment
of vehicle technology cost and
effectiveness estimates. The agencies
note that the technology costs included
in this NPRM take into account only
those associated with the initial build of
the vehicle. The agencies seek comment
on the additional lifetime costs, if any,
associated with the implementation of
advanced technologies including
maintenance and replacement costs.
Based on comments, the agencies may
decide to conduct additional analysis
for the final rules regarding operating,
maintenance and replacement costs.
(a) Engine Technologies
NHTSA and EPA have reviewed the
engine technology estimates used in the
2012–2016 light-duty rule. In doing so
NHTSA and EPA reconsidered all
available sources and updated the
estimates as appropriate. The section
below describes both diesel and
gasoline engine technologies considered
for this proposal.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) Low Friction Lubricants
One of the most basic methods of
reducing fuel consumption in both
gasoline and diesel engines is the use of
lower viscosity engine lubricants. More
advanced multi-viscosity engine oils are
available today with improved
performance in a wider temperature
band and with better lubricating
properties. This can be accomplished by
changes to the oil base stock (e.g.,
switching engine lubricants from a
Group I base oils to lower-friction, lower
viscosity Group III synthetic) and
through changes to lubricant additive
packages (e.g., friction modifiers and
viscosity improvers). The use of 5W–30
motor oil is now widespread and auto
manufacturers are introducing the use of
even lower viscosity oils, such as 5W–
20 and 0W–20, to improve cold-flow
properties and reduce cold start friction.
However, in some cases, changes to the
crankshaft, rod and main bearings and
changes to the mechanical tolerances of
engine components may be required. In
all cases, durability testing would be
required to ensure that durability is not
compromised. The shift to lower
viscosity and lower friction lubricants
will also improve the effectiveness of
valvetrain technologies such as cylinder
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
deactivation, which rely on a minimum
oil temperature (viscosity) for operation.
Based on the 2012–2016 MY lightduty vehicle rule, and previouslyreceived confidential manufacturer data,
NHTSA and EPA estimated the
effectiveness of low friction lubricants
to be between 0 to 1 percent.
In the light-duty rule, the agencies
estimated the cost of moving to low
friction lubricants at $3 per vehicle
(2007$). That estimate included a
markup of 1.11 for a low complexity
technology. For HD pickups and vans,
we are using the same base estimate but
have marked it up to 2008 dollars using
the GDP price deflator and have used a
markup of 1.17 for a low complexity
technology to arrive at a value of $4 per
vehicle. As in the light-duty rule,
learning effects are not applied to costs
for this technology and, as such, this
estimate applies to all model years.155 156
fuel efficiency improvement. The 2012–
2016 light-duty final rule, the 2010 NAS
Report, and NESCCAF and Energy and
Environmental Analysis reports, as well
as confidential manufacturer data,
indicate a range of effectiveness for
engine friction reduction to be between
1 to 3 percent. NHTSA and EPA
continue to believe that this range is
accurate.
Consistent with the 2012–2016 MY
light-duty vehicle rule, the agencies
estimate the cost of this technology at
$14 per cylinder compliance cost
(2008$), including the low complexity
ICM markup value of 1.17. Learning
impacts are not applied to the costs of
this technology and, as such, this
estimate applies to all model years. This
cost is multiplied by the number of
engine cylinders.
(ii) Engine Friction Reduction
In addition to low friction lubricants,
manufacturers can also reduce friction
and improve fuel consumption by
improving the design of both diesel and
gasoline engine components and
subsystems. Approximately 10 percent
of the energy consumed by a vehicle is
lost to friction, and just over half is due
to frictional losses within the engine.157
Examples include improvements in lowtension piston rings, piston skirt design,
roller cam followers, improved
crankshaft design and bearings, material
coatings, material substitution, more
optimal thermal management, and
piston and cylinder surface treatments.
Additionally, as computer-aided
modeling software continues to
improve, more opportunities for
evolutionary friction reductions may
become available.
All reciprocating and rotating
components in the engine are potential
candidates for friction reduction, and
minute improvements in several
components can add up to a measurable
Valvetrains with coupled (or
coordinated) cam phasing can modify
the timing of both the inlet valves and
the exhaust valves an equal amount by
phasing the camshaft of an overhead
valve engine.158 For overhead valve
engines, which have only one camshaft
to actuate both inlet and exhaust valves,
couple cam phasing is the only variable
valve timing implementation option
available and requires only one cam
phaser.159
Based on the 2012–2016 light-duty
final rule, previously-received
confidential manufacturer data, and the
NESCCAF report, NHTSA and EPA
estimated the effectiveness of couple
cam phasing to be between 1 and 4
percent. NHTSA and EPA reviewed this
estimate for purposes of the NPRM, and
continue to find it accurate.
In the 2012–2016 light-duty final rule,
the agencies estimated a $41 cost per
cam phaser not including any markup
(2007$). NHTSA and EPA believe that
this estimate remains accurate. Using
the new indirect cost multiplier of 1.17,
for a low complexity technology, the
compliance cost per cam phaser would
be $46 (2008$) in the 2014 model year.
Time-based learning is applied to this
155 Note that throughout the cost estimates for this
HD analysis, the agencies have used slightly higher
markups than those used in the 2012–2016 MY
light-duty vehicle rule. The new, slightly higher
ICMs include return on capital of roughly 6%, a
factor that was not included in the light-duty
analysis.
156 Note that the costs developed for low friction
lubes for this analysis reflect the costs associated
with any engine changes that would be required as
well as any durability testing that may be required.
157 ‘‘Impact of Friction Reduction Technologies on
Fuel Economy,’’ Fenske, G. Presented at the March
2009 Chicago Chapter Meeting of the ‘Society of
Tribologists and Lubricated Engineers’ Meeting,
March 18th, 2009. Available at: https://
www.chicagostle.org/program/2008-2009/
Impact%20of%20Friction%20Reduction
%20Technologies%20on%20Fuel%20
Economy%20-%20with%20VGs%20removed.pdf
(last accessed July 9, 2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iii) Coupled Cam Phasing
158 Although couple cam phasing appears only in
the single overhead cam and overhead valve
branches of the decision tree, it is noted that a
single phaser with a secondary chain drive would
allow couple cam phasing to be applied to direct
overhead cam engines. Since this would potentially
be adopted on a limited number of direct overhead
cam engines NHTSA did not include it in that
branch of the decision tree.
159 It is also noted that coaxial camshaft
developments would allow other variable valve
timing options to be applied to overhead valve
engines. However, since they would potentially be
adopted on a limited number of overhead valve
engines, NHTSA did not include them in the
decision tree.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
technology. This technology was
considered for gasoline engines only.
(iv) Cylinder Deactivation
In conventional spark-ignited engines
throttling the airflow controls engine
torque output. At partial loads,
efficiency can be improved by using
cylinder deactivation instead of
throttling. Cylinder deactivation can
improve engine efficiency by disabling
or deactivating (usually) half of the
cylinders when the load is less than half
of the engine’s total torque capability—
the valves are kept closed, and no fuel
is injected—as a result, the trapped air
within the deactivated cylinders is
simply compressed and expanded as an
air spring, with reduced friction and
heat losses. The active cylinders
combust at almost double the load
required if all of the cylinders were
operating. Pumping losses are
significantly reduced as long as the
engine is operated in this ‘‘partcylinder’’ mode.
Cylinder deactivation control strategy
relies on setting maximum manifold
absolute pressures or predicted torque
within which it can deactivate the
cylinders. Noise and vibration issues
reduce the operating range to which
cylinder deactivation is allowed,
although manufacturers are exploring
vehicle changes that enable increasing
the amount of time that cylinder
deactivation might be suitable. Some
manufacturers may choose to adopt
active engine mounts and/or active
noise cancellations systems to address
Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH)
concerns and to allow a greater
operating range of activation. Cylinder
deactivation is a technology keyed to
more lightly loaded operation, and so
may be a less likely technology choice
for manufacturers designing for
effectiveness in the loaded condition
required for testing, and in the real
world that involves frequent operation
with heavy loads.
Cylinder deactivation has seen a
recent resurgence thanks to better
valvetrain designs and engine controls.
General Motors and Chrysler Group
have incorporated cylinder deactivation
across a substantial portion of their V8powered lineups.
Effectiveness improvements scale
roughly with engine displacement-tovehicle weight ratio: the higher
displacement-to-weight vehicles,
operating at lower relative loads for
normal driving, have the potential to
operate in part-cylinder mode more
frequently.
NHTSA and EPA adjusted the 2012–
2016 light-duty final rule estimates
using updated power to weight ratings
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
of heavy-duty trucks and confidential
business information and confirmed a
range of 3 to 4 percent for these
vehicles, though as mentioned above
there is uncertainty over how often this
technology would be exercised on the
test cycles, and a lower range may be
warranted for HD vehicles.
NHTSA and EPA consider the costs
for this technology to be identical to that
for V8 engines on light-duty trucks. As
such, the agencies have used the cost
used in the 2012–2016 light-duty final
rule. Using the new markup of 1.17 for
a low complexity technology results in
an estimate of $193 (2008$) in the 2014
model year. Time based learning is
applied to this technology. This
technology was considered for gasoline
engines only.
(v) Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct
Injection
SGDI engines inject fuel at high
pressure directly into the combustion
chamber (rather than the intake port in
port fuel injection). SGDI requires
changes to the injector design, an
additional high pressure fuel pump,
new fuel rails to handle the higher fuel
pressures and changes to the cylinder
head and piston crown design. Direct
injection of the fuel into the cylinder
improves cooling of the air/fuel charge
within the cylinder, which allows for
higher compression ratios and increased
thermodynamic efficiency without the
onset of combustion knock. Recent
injector design advances, improved
electronic engine management systems
and the introduction of multiple
injection events per cylinder firing cycle
promote better mixing of the air and
fuel, enhance combustion rates, increase
residual exhaust gas tolerance and
improve cold start emissions. SGDI
engines achieve higher power density
and match well with other technologies,
such as boosting and variable valvetrain
designs.
Several manufacturers have recently
introduced vehicles with SGDI engines,
including GM and Ford and have
announced their plans to increase
dramatically the number of SGDI
engines in their portfolios.
The 2012–2016 light-duty final rule
estimated the range of 1 to 2 percent for
SGDI. NHTSA and EPA reviewed this
estimate for purposes of the NPRM, and
continue to find it accurate.
Consistent with the 2012–2016 lightduty final rule, NHTSA and EPA cost
estimates for SGDI take into account the
changes required to the engine
hardware, engine electronic controls,
ancillary and NVH mitigation systems.
Through contacts with industry NVH
suppliers, and manufacturer press
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74235
releases, the agencies believe that the
NVH treatments will be limited to the
mitigation of fuel system noise,
specifically from the injectors and the
fuel lines. For this analysis, the agencies
have estimated the costs at $395 (2008$)
in the 2014 model year. Time based
learning is applied to this technology.
This technology was considered for
gasoline engines only, as diesel engines
already employ direct injection.
(b) Diesel Engine Technologies
Diesel engines have several
characteristics that give them superior
fuel efficiency compared to
conventional gasoline, spark-ignited
engines. Pumping losses are much lower
due to lack of (or greatly reduced)
throttling. The diesel combustion cycle
operates at a higher compression ratio,
with a very lean air/fuel mixture, and
turbocharged light-duty diesels typically
achieve much higher torque levels at
lower engine speeds than equivalentdisplacement naturally-aspirated
gasoline engines. Additionally, diesel
fuel has a higher energy content per
gallon.160 However, diesel fuel also has
a higher carbon to hydrogen ratio,
which increases the amount of CO2
emitted per gallon of fuel used by
approximately 15 percent over a gallon
of gasoline.
Based on confidential business
information and the 2010 NAS Report,
two major areas of diesel engine design
will be improved during the 2014–2018
timeframe. These areas include
aftertreatment improvements and a
broad range of engine improvements.
(i) Aftertreatment Improvements
The HD diesel pickup and van
segment has largely adopted the SCR
type of aftertreatment system to comply
with criteria pollutant emission
standards. As the experience base for
SCR expands over the next few years,
many improvements in this
aftertreatment system such as
construction of the catalyst, thermal
management, and reductant
optimization will result in a significant
reduction in the amount of fuel used in
the process. This technology was not
considered in the 2012–2016 light-duty
final rule. Based on confidential
business information, EPA and NHTSA
estimate the reduction in CO2 as a result
of these improvements at 3 to 5 percent.
The agencies have estimated the cost
of this technology at $25 for each
percentage improvement in fuel
consumption. This estimate is based on
160 Burning one gallon of diesel fuel produces
about 15 percent more carbon dioxide than gasoline
due to the higher density and carbon to hydrogen
ratio.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74236
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the agencies’ belief that this technology
is, in fact, a very cost effective approach
to improving fuel consumption. As
such, $25 per percent improvement is
considered a reasonable cost. This cost
would cover the engineering and test
cell related costs necessary to develop
and implement the improved control
strategies that would allow for the
improvements in fuel consumption.
Importantly, the engineering work
involved would be expected to result in
cost savings to the aftertreatment and
control hardware (lower platinum group
metal loadings, lower reductant dosing
rates, etc.). Those savings are considered
to be included in the $25 per percent
estimate described here. Given the 4
percent average expected improvement
in fuel consumption results in an
estimated cost of $110 (2008$) for a
2014 model year truck or van. This
estimate includes a low complexity ICM
of 1.17 and time based learning from
2012 forward.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(ii) Engine Improvements
Diesel engines in the HD pickup and
van segment are expected to have
several improvements in their base
design in the 2014–2018 timeframe.
These improvements include items such
as improved combustion management,
optimal turbocharger design, and
improved thermal management. This
technology was not considered in the
2012–2016 light-duty final rule. Based
on confidential business information,
EPA and NHTSA estimate the reduction
in CO2 as a result of these improvements
at 4 to 6 percent.
The cost for this technology includes
costs associated with low temperature
exhaust gas recirculation, improved
turbochargers and improvements to
other systems and components. These
costs are considered collectively in our
costing analysis and termed ‘‘diesel
engine improvements.’’ The agencies
have estimated the cost of diesel engine
improvements at $147 based on the cost
estimates for several individual
technologies. Specifically, the direct
manufacturing costs we have estimated
are: improved cylinder head, $9; turbo
efficiency improvements, $16; EGR
cooler improvements, $3; higher
pressure fuel rail, $10; improved fuel
injectors, $13; improved pistons, $2;
and reduced valve train friction, $94.
All values are in 2008 dollars and are
applicable in the 2014MY. Applying a
low complexity ICM of 1.17 results in a
cost of $172 (2008$) applicable in the
2014MY. We consider time based
learning to be appropriate for these
technologies.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(c) Transmission Technologies
NHTSA and EPA have also reviewed
the transmission technology estimates
used in the 2012–2016 light-duty final
rule. In doing so, NHTSA and EPA
considered or reconsidered all available
sources and updated the estimates as
appropriate. The section below
describes each of the transmission
technologies considered for this
proposal.
(i) Improved Automatic Transmission
Control (Aggressive Shift Logic and
Early Torque Converter Lockup)
Calibrating the transmission shift
schedule to upshift earlier and quicker,
and to lock-up or partially lock-up the
torque converter under a broader range
of operating conditions can reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions.
However, this operation can result in a
perceptible degradation in NVH. The
degree to which NVH can be degraded
before it becomes noticeable to the
driver is strongly influenced by
characteristics of the vehicle, and
although it is somewhat subjective, it
always places a limit on how much fuel
consumption can be improved by
transmission control changes. Given
that the Aggressive Shift Logic and Early
Torque Converter Lockup are best
optimized simultaneously due to the
fact that adding both of them primarily
requires only minor modifications to the
transmission or calibration software,
these two technologies are combined in
the modeling. We consider these
technologies to be present in the
baseline, since 6-speed automatic
transmissions are installed in the
majority of Class 2b and 3 trucks in the
2010 model year timeframe.
(ii) Automatic 6- and 8-Speed
Transmissions
Manufacturers can also choose to
replace 4- 5- and 6-speed automatic
transmissions with 8-speed automatic
transmissions. Additional ratios allow
for further optimization of engine
operation over a wider range of
conditions, but this is subject to
diminishing returns as the number of
speeds increases. As additional
planetary gear sets are added (which
may be necessary in some cases to
achieve the higher number of ratios),
additional weight and friction are
introduced. Also, the additional shifting
of such a transmission can be perceived
as bothersome to some consumers, so
manufacturers need to develop
strategies for smooth shifts. Some
manufacturers are replacing 4- and
5-speed automatics with 6-speed
automatics already, and 7- and 8-speed
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
automatics have entered production in
light-duty vehicles, albeit in lowervolume applications in luxury and
performance oriented cars.
As discussed in the light-duty final
GHG rule, confidential manufacturer
data projected that 6-speed
transmissions could incrementally
reduce fuel consumption by 0 to 5
percent from a 4-speed automatic
transmission, while an 8-speed
transmission could incrementally
reduce fuel consumption by up to
6 percent from a 4-speed automatic
transmission. GM has publicly claimed
a fuel economy improvement of up to
4 percent for its new 6-speed automatic
transmissions.161
NHTSA and EPA reviewed and
revised these effectiveness estimates
based on actual usage statistics and
testing methods for these vehicles along
with confidential business information.
When combined with improved
automatic transmission control, the
agencies estimate the effectiveness for a
conversion from a 4 to a 6-speed
transmission to be 5.3% and a
conversion from a 6 to 8-speed
transmission to be 1.7%. While 8-speed
transmissions were not considered in
the 2012–2016 light-duty final rule, they
are considered as a technology of choice
for this analysis in that manufacturers
are expected to upgrade the 6-speed
automatic transmissions being
implemented today with 8-speed
automatic transmissions in the 2014–
2018 timeframe. For this proposal, we
are estimating the cost of an 8-speed
automatic transmission at $231 (2008$)
relative to a 6-speed automatic
transmission in the 2014 model year.
This estimate is based from the 2010
NAS Report and we have applied a low
complexity ICM of 1.17 and time based
learning. This technology applies to
both gasoline and diesel trucks and
vans.
(d) Electrification/Accessory
Technologies
(i) Electrical Power Steering or
Electrohydraulic Power Steering
Electric power steering (EPS) or
Electrohydraulic power steering (EHPS)
provides a potential reduction in CO2
emissions and fuel consumption over
hydraulic power steering because of
reduced overall accessory loads. This
eliminates the parasitic losses
161 General Motors, news release, ‘‘From Hybrids
to Six-Speeds, Direct Injection And More, GM’s
2008 Global Powertrain Lineup Provides More
Miles with Less Fuel’’ (released Mar. 6, 2007).
Available at https://www.gm.com/experience/
fuel_economy/news/2007/adv_engines/2008powertrain-lineup-082707.jsp (last accessed Sept.
18, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
associated with belt-driven power
steering pumps which consistently draw
load from the engine to pump hydraulic
fluid through the steering actuation
systems even when the wheels are not
being turned. EPS is an enabler for all
vehicle hybridization technologies since
it provides power steering when the
engine is off. EPS may be implemented
on most vehicles with a standard 12V
system. Some heavier vehicles may
require a higher voltage system which
may add cost and complexity.
The 2012–2016 light-duty final rule
estimated a 1 to 2 percent effectiveness
based on the 2002 NAS report for lightduty vehicle technologies, a Sierra
Research report, and confidential
manufacturer data. NHTSA and EPA
reviewed these effectiveness estimates
and found them to be accurate, thus
they have been retained for purposes of
this NPRM.
NHTSA and EPA adjusted the EPS
cost for the current rulemaking based on
a review of the specification of the
system. Adjustments were made to
include potentially higher voltage or
heavier duty system operation for HD
pickups and vans. Accordingly, higher
costs were estimated for systems with
higher capability. After accounting for
the differences in system capability and
applying the ICM markup of low
complexity technology of 1.17, the
estimated costs for this proposal are
$108 for a MY 2014 truck or van
(2008$). As EPS systems are in
widespread usage today, time-based
learning is deemed applicable. EHPS
systems are considered to be of equal
cost and both are considered applicable
to gasoline and diesel engines.
(ii) Improved Accessories
The accessories on an engine,
including the alternator, coolant and oil
pumps are traditionally mechanicallydriven. A reduction in CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption can be realized by
driving them electrically, and only
when needed (‘‘on-demand’’).
Electric water pumps and electric fans
can provide better control of engine
cooling. For example, coolant flow from
an electric water pump can be reduced
and the radiator fan can be shut off
during engine warm-up or cold ambient
temperature conditions which will
reduce warm-up time, reduce warm-up
fuel enrichment, and reduce parasitic
losses.
Indirect benefit may be obtained by
reducing the flow from the water pump
electrically during the engine warm-up
period, allowing the engine to heat more
rapidly and thereby reducing the fuel
enrichment needed during cold starting
of the engine. Further benefit may be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
obtained when electrification is
combined with an improved, higher
efficiency engine alternator. Intelligent
cooling can more easily be applied to
vehicles that do not typically carry
heavy payloads, so larger vehicles with
towing capacity present a challenge, as
these vehicles have high cooling fan
loads.162
The agencies considered whether to
include electric oil pump technology for
the rulemaking. Because it is necessary
to operate the oil pump any time the
engine is running, electric oil pump
technology has insignificant effect on
efficiency. Therefore, the agencies
decided to not include electric oil pump
technology for this proposal.
NHTSA and EPA jointly reviewed the
estimates of 1 to 2 percent effectiveness
estimates used in the 2012–2016 lightduty final rule and found them to be
accurate for Improved Electrical
Accessories. Consistent with the 2012–
2016 light-duty final rule, the agencies
have estimated the cost of this
technology at $88 (2008$) including a
low complexity ICM of 1.17. This cost
is applicable in the 2014 model year.
Improved accessory systems are in
production currently and thus timebased learning is applied. This
technology was considered for diesel
trucks and vans only.
(e) Vehicle Technologies
(i) Mass Reduction
Reducing a vehicle’s mass, or downweighting the vehicle, decreases fuel
consumption by reducing the energy
demand needed to overcome forces
resisting motion, and rolling resistance.
Manufacturers employ a systematic
approach to mass reduction, where the
net mass reduction is the addition of a
direct component or system mass
reduction plus the additional mass
reduction taken from indirect ancillary
systems and components, as a result of
full vehicle optimization, effectively
compounding or obtaining a secondary
mass reduction from a primary mass
reduction. For example, use of a
smaller, lighter engine with lower
torque-output subsequently allows the
use of a smaller, lighter-weight
transmission and drive line
components. Likewise, the compounded
weight reductions of the body, engine
and drivetrain reduce stresses on the
suspension components, steering
components, wheels, tires and brakes,
allowing further reductions in the mass
162 In the CAFE model, improved accessories
refers solely to improved engine cooling. However,
EPA has included a high efficiency alternator in
this category, as well as improvements to the
cooling system.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74237
of these subsystems. The reductions in
unsprung masses such as brakes, control
arms, wheels and tires further reduce
stresses in the suspension mounting
points. This produces a compounding
effect of mass reductions.
Estimates of the synergistic effects of
mass reduction and the compounding
effect that occurs along with it can vary
significantly from one report to another.
For example, in discussing its estimate,
an Auto-Steel Partnership report states
that ‘‘These secondary mass changes can
be considerable—estimated at an
additional 0.7 to 1.8 times the initial
mass change.’’§163 This means for each
one pound reduction in a primary
component, up to 1.8 pounds can be
reduced from other structures in the
vehicle (i.e., a 180 percent factor). The
report also discusses that a primary
variable in the realized secondary
weight reduction is whether or not the
powertrain components can be included
in the mass reduction effort, with the
lower end estimates being applicable
when powertrain elements are
unavailable for mass reduction.
However, another report by the
Aluminum Association, which
primarily focuses on the use of
aluminum as an alternative material for
steel, estimated a factor of 64 percent for
secondary mass reduction even though
some powertrain elements were
considered in the analysis.164 That
report also notes that typical values for
this factor vary from 50 to 100 percent.
Although there is a wide variation in
stated estimates, synergistic mass
reductions do exist, and the effects
result in tangible mass reductions. Mass
reductions in a single vehicle
component, for example a door side
impact/intrusion system, may actually
result in a significantly higher weight
savings in the total vehicle, depending
on how well the manufacturer integrates
the modification into the overall vehicle
design. Accordingly, care must be taken
when reviewing reports on weight
reduction methods and practices to
ascertain if compounding effects have
been considered or not.
163 ‘‘Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using
Empirical Subsystem Influence Coefficients,’’
Malen, D.E., Reddy, K. Auto-Steel Partnership
Report, May 2007, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0472–0169. Accessed on the Internet on May 30,
2009 at: https://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/
Mass%20Compounding%20%20Final%20Report.pdf.
164 ‘‘Benefit Analysis: Use of Aluminum
Structures in Conjunction with Alternative
Powertrain Technologies in Automobiles,’’ Bull, M.
Chavali, R., Mascarin, A., Aluminum Association
Research Report, May 2008, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2009–0472–0168. Accessed on the Internet on April
30, 2009 at: https://www.autoaluminum.org/
downloads/IBIS–Powertrain-Study.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74238
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Mass reduction is broadly applicable
across all vehicle subsystems including
the engine, exhaust system,
transmission, chassis, suspension,
brakes, body, closure panels, glazing,
seats and other interior components,
engine cooling systems and HVAC
systems. It is estimated that up to 1.25
kilograms of secondary weight savings
can be achieved for every kilogram of
weight saved on a vehicle when all
subsystems are redesigned to take into
account the initial primary weight
savings.165 166
Mass reduction can be accomplished
by proven methods such as:
• Smart Design: Computer aided
engineering (CAE) tools can be used to
better optimize load paths within
structures by reducing stresses and
bending moments applied to structures.
This allows better optimization of the
sectional thicknesses of structural
components to reduce mass while
maintaining or improving the function
of the component. Smart designs also
integrate separate parts in a manner that
reduces mass by combining functions or
the reduced use of separate fasteners. In
addition, some ‘‘body on frame’’ vehicles
are redesigned with a lighter ‘‘unibody’’
construction.
• Material Substitution: Substitution
of lower density and/or higher strength
materials into a design in a manner that
preserves or improves the function of
the component. This includes
substitution of high-strength steels,
aluminum, magnesium or composite
materials for components currently
fabricated from mild steel.
• Reduced Powertrain Requirements:
Reducing vehicle weight sufficiently
allows for the use of a smaller, lighter
and more efficient engine while
maintaining or increasing performance.
Approximately half of the reduction is
due to these reduced powertrain output
requirements from reduced engine
power output and/or displacement,
changes to transmission and final drive
gear ratios. The subsequent reduced
rotating mass (e.g., transmission,
driveshafts/halfshafts, wheels and tires)
via weight and/or size reduction of
components are made possible by
reduced torque output requirements.
• Automotive companies have largely
used weight savings in some vehicle
subsystems to offset or mitigate weight
gains in other subsystems from
increased feature content (sound
insulation, entertainment systems,
improved climate control, panoramic
roof, etc.).
• Lightweight designs have also been
used to improve vehicle performance
parameters by increased acceleration
performance or superior vehicle
handling and braking.
Many manufacturers have already
announced proposed future products
plans reducing the weight of a vehicle
body through the use of high strength
steel body-in-white, composite body
panels, magnesium alloy front and rear
energy absorbing structures reducing
vehicle weight sufficiently to allow a
smaller, lighter and more efficient
engine. Nissan will be reducing average
vehicle curb weight by 15% by 2015.167
Ford has identified weight reductions of
250 to 750 lb per vehicle as part of its
implementation of known technology
within its sustainability strategy
between 2011 and 2020.168 Mazda plans
to reduce vehicle weight by 220 pounds
per vehicle or more as models are
redesigned. 169, 170 Ducker International
estimates that the average curb weight of
light-duty vehicle fleet will decrease
approximately 2.8% from 2009 to 2015
and approximately 6.5% from 2009 to
2020 via changes in automotive
materials and increased change-over
from previously used body-on-frame
automobile and light-truck designs to
newer unibody designs.167 While the
opportunity for mass reductions
available to the light-duty fleet may not
in all cases be applied directly to the
heavy-duty fleet due to the different
designs for the expected duty cycles of
a ‘‘work’’ vehicle, mass reductions are
still available particularly to areas
unrelated to the components necessary
for the work vehicle aspects.
Due to the payload and towing
requirements of these heavy-duty
vehicles, engine downsizing was not
165 ‘‘Future Generation Passenger CompartmentValidation (ASP 241)’’ Villano, P.J., Shaw, J.R.,
Polewarczyk, J., Morgans, S., Carpenter, J.A.,
Yocum, A.D., in ‘‘Lightweighting Materials—FY
2008 Progress Report,’’ U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Vehicle Technologies Program, May 2009, Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–0190.
166 ‘‘Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using
Empirical Subsystem Influence Coefficients,’’
Malen, D.E., Reddy, K. Auto-Steel Partnership
Report, May 2007, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0472–0169. Accessed on the Internet on May 30,
2009 at: https://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/
Mass%20Compounding%20-%20
Final%20Report.pdf.
167 ‘‘Lighten Up!,’’ Brooke, L., Evans, H.
Automotive Engineering International, Vol. 117, No.
3, March 2009.
168 ‘‘2008/9 Blueprint for Sustainability,’’ Ford
Motor Company. Available at: https://
www.ford.com/go/sustainability (last accessed
February 8, 2010).
169 ‘‘Mazda to cut vehicle fuel consumption 30
percent by 2015,’’ Mazda press release, June 23,
2009. Available at: https://www.mazda.com/
publicity/release/2008/200806/080623.html(last
accessed February 8, 2010).
170 ‘‘Mazda: Don’t believe hot air being emitted by
hybrid hype,’’ Greimel, H. Automotive News, March
30, 2009.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
considered in the estimates for CO2
reduction in the area of mass reduction/
material substitution. NHTSA and EPA
estimate that a 3 percent mass reduction
with no engine downsizing results in a
1 percent reduction in fuel
consumption. In addition, a 5 and 10
percent mass reduction with no engine
downsizing result in an estimated CO2
reduction of 1.6 and 3.2 percent
respectively. These effectiveness values
are 50% of the 2012–2016 light-duty
final rule values due to the elimination
of engine downsizing for this class of
vehicle.
Consistent with the 2012–2016 lightduty final rule, the agencies have
estimated the cost of mass reduction at
$1.32 per pound (2008$). For this
analysis, the agencies are estimating a
5% mass reduction or, given the
baseline weight of current trucks and
vans, are estimating costs of $462, $544,
$513, and $576 for Class 2b gasoline, 2b
diesel, 3 gasoline, 3 diesel trucks and
vans, respectively. All values are in
2008 dollars, are applicable in the 2014
model year and include a low
complexity ICM of 1.17. Time based
learning is considered applicable to
mass reduction technologies.
The agencies have recently completed
work on an Interim Joint Technical
Assessment Report that considers lightduty GHG and fuel economy standards
for the years 2017 through 2025.171 In
that report, the agencies have used
updated cost estimates for mass
reduction which were not available in
time for use in this analysis but could
be used in the final analysis. The
agencies request comment on which
mass reduction costs—those used in this
draft analysis or those used in the Joint
Technical Assessment Report—would
be most appropriate for Class 2b & 3
trucks and vans along with supporting
information.
(ii) Low Rolling Resistance Tires
Tire rolling resistance is the frictional
loss associated mainly with the energy
dissipated in the deformation of the
tires under load and thus influences fuel
efficiency and CO2 emissions. Other tire
design characteristics (e.g., materials,
construction, and tread design)
influence durability, traction (both wet
and dry grip), vehicle handling, and ride
comfort in addition to rolling resistance.
A typical LRR tire’s attributes would
include: increased tire inflation
171 ‘‘Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report:
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards for Model Years 2017–2025;’’ September
2010; available at https://epa.gov/otaq/climate/
regulations/ldv-ghg-tar.pdf and in the docket for
this rule.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
pressure, material changes, and tire
construction with less hysteresis,
geometry changes (e.g., reduced aspect
ratios), and reduction in sidewall and
tread deflection. These changes would
generally be accompanied with
additional changes to suspension tuning
and/or suspension design.
EPA and NHTSA estimated a 1 to 2
percent increase in effectiveness with a
10 percent reduction in rolling
resistance, which was based on the 2010
NAS Report findings and consistent
with the 2012–2016 light-duty final
rule.
Based on the 2012–2016 light-duty
final rule and the 2010 NAS Report, the
agencies have estimated the cost for LRR
tires to be $6 per Class 2b truck or van,
and $9 per Class 3 truck or van.172 The
higher cost for the Class 3 trucks and
vans is due to the predominant use of
dual rear tires and, thus, 6 tires per
truck. Due to the commodity-based
nature of this technology, cost learning
is not applied. This technology is
considered applicable to both gasoline
and diesel.
(iii) Aerodynamic Drag Reduction
Many factors affect a vehicle’s
aerodynamic drag and the resulting
power required to move it through the
air. While these factors change with air
density and the square and cube of
vehicle speed, respectively, the overall
drag effect is determined by the product
of its frontal area and drag coefficient,
Cd. Reductions in these quantities can
therefore reduce fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions. Although frontal areas
tend to be relatively similar within a
vehicle class (mostly due to marketand Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,’’
Transportation Research Board Special Report 286,
National Research Council of the National
Academies, 2006, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0472–0146.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
172 ‘‘Tires
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
competitive size requirements),
significant variations in drag coefficient
can be observed. Significant changes to
a vehicle’s aerodynamic performance
may need to be implemented during a
redesign (e.g., changes in vehicle shape).
However, shorter-term aerodynamic
reductions, with a somewhat lower
effectiveness, may be achieved through
the use of revised exterior components
(typically at a model refresh in midcycle) and add-on devices that currently
being applied. The latter list would
include revised front and rear fascias,
modified front air dams and rear
valances, addition of rear deck lips and
underbody panels, and lower
aerodynamic drag exterior mirrors.
The 2012–2016 light-duty final rule
estimated that a fleet average of 10 to 20
percent total aerodynamic drag
reduction is attainable which equates to
incremental reductions in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of 2 to
3 percent for both cars and trucks. These
numbers are generally supported by
confidential manufacturer data and
public technical literature. For the
heavy-duty truck category, a 5 to 10
percent total aerodynamic drag
reduction was considered due to the
different structure and use of these
vehicles equating to incremental
reductions in fuel consumption and CO2
emissions of 1 to 2 percent.
Consistent with the 2012–2016 lightduty final rule, the agencies have
estimated the cost for this technology at
$54 (2008$) including a low complexity
ICM of 1.17. This cost is applicable in
the 2014 model year to both gasoline
and diesel trucks and vans.
(3) What are the projected technology
packages’ effectiveness and cost?
The assessment of the proposed
technology effectiveness was developed
through the use of the EPA Lumped
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74239
Parameter model developed for the
light-duty rule. Many of the
technologies were common with the
light-duty assessment but the
effectiveness of individual technologies
was appropriately adjusted to match the
expected effectiveness when
implemented in a heavy-duty
application. The model then uses the
individual technology effectiveness
levels but then takes into account
technology synergies. The model is also
designed to prevent double counting
from technologies that may directly or
indirectly impact the same physical
attribute (e.g., pumping loss reductions).
To achieve the levels of the proposed
standards for gasoline and diesel
powered heavy-duty vehicles, the
technology packages were determined to
generally require the technologies
previously discussed respective to
unique gasoline and diesel technologies.
Although some of the technologies may
already be implemented in a portion of
heavy-duty vehicles, none of the
technologies discussed are considered
ubiquitous in the heavy-duty fleet. Also,
as would be expected, the available test
data shows that some vehicle models
will not need the full complement of
available technologies to achieve the
proposed standards. Furthermore, many
technologies can be further improved
(e.g., aerodynamic improvements) from
today’s best levels, and so allow for
compliance without needing to apply a
technology that a manufacturer might
deem less desirable.
Technology costs for HD pickup
trucks and vans are shown in Table III–
11.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(4) Reasonableness of the Proposed
Standards
The proposed standards are based on
the application of the control
technologies described in this section.
These technologies are available within
the lead time provided, as discussed in
draft RIA Chapter 2.3. These controls
are estimated to add costs of
approximately $1,249 to $1,592 for MY
2018 heavy-duty pickups and vans.
Reductions associated with these costs
and technologies are considerable,
estimated at a 12 percent reduction of
CO2eq emissions from the MY 2010
baseline for gasoline engine-equipped
vehicles and 17 percent for diesel
engine equipped vehicles, estimated to
result in reductions of 21 MMT of
CO2eq emissions over the lifetimes of
2014 through 2018 MY vehicles.173 The
reductions are cost effective, estimated
at $100 per ton of CO2eq removed in
2030.174 This cost is consistent with the
light-duty rule which was estimated at
$100 per ton of CO2eq removed in 2020
excluding fuel savings. Moreover, taking
into account the fuel savings associated
166 See
167 See
Table VI–4.
Table VIII–3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
with the program, the cost becomes
¥$200 per ton of CO2eq in 2030. The
cost of controls is fully recovered due to
the associated fuel savings, with a
payback period within the fifth and
sixth year of ownership, as shown in
Table VIII–6 below. Given the large, cost
effective emission reductions based on
use of feasible technologies which are
available in the lead time provided, plus
the lack of adverse impacts on vehicle
safety or utility, EPA and NHTSA regard
these proposed standards as appropriate
and consistent with our respective
statutory authorities under CAA section
202(a) and NHTSA’s EISA authority
under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
C. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
Vocational vehicles cover a wide
variety of applications which influence
both the body style and usage patterns.
They also are built using a complex
process, which includes additional
parties such as body builders. These
factors have led the agencies to propose
a vehicle standard for vocational
vehicles for the first phase of the
program that relies on less extensive
addition of technology as well as
focusing on the chassis manufacturer as
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the manufacturer subject to the
standard. We believe that future
rulemakings will consider increased
stringency and possibly more
application-specific standards. The
agencies are proposing standards for the
diesel and gasoline engines used in
vocational vehicles, similar to those
discussed above for Class 7 and 8
tractors.
(1) What technologies did the agencies
consider to reduce the CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of vocational
vehicles?
Similar to the approach taken with
tractors, the agencies evaluated
aerodynamic, tire, idle reduction,
weight reduction, hybrid powertrain,
and engine technologies and their
impact on reducing fuel consumption
and GHG emissions. The engines used
in vocational vehicles include both
gasoline and diesel engines, thus, each
type is discussed separately below. As
explained in Section II.D.1.b, the
proposed regulatory structure for heavyduty engines separates the compression
ignition (or ‘‘diesel’’) engines into three
regulatory subcategories—light heavy,
medium heavy, and heavy heavy diesel
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.037
74240
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
engines—while spark ignition (or
‘‘gasoline’’) engines are a single
regulatory subcategory. Therefore, the
subsequent discussion will assess each
type of engine separately.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) Vehicle Technologies
Vocational vehicles typically travel
fewer miles than combination tractors.
They also tend to be used in more urban
locations (with consequent stop and
start drive cycles). Therefore the average
speed of vocational vehicles is
significantly lower than tractors. This
has a significant effect on the types of
technologies that are appropriate to
consider for reducing CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption.
The agencies considered the type of
technologies for vocational vehicles
based on the energy losses of a typical
vocational vehicle. The technologies are
similar to the ones considered for
tractors. Argonne National Lab
conducted an energy audit using
simulation tools to evaluate the energy
losses of vocational vehicles, such as a
Class 6 pickup and delivery truck.
Argonne found that 74 percent of the
energy losses are attributed to the
engine, 13 percent to tires, 9 percent to
aerodynamics, two percent to
transmission losses, and the remaining
four percent of losses to axles and
accessories for a medium-duty truck
traveling at 30 mph.175
Low Rolling Resistance Tires: Tires
are the second largest contributor to
energy losses of vocational vehicles, as
found in the energy audit conducted by
Argonne National Lab (as just
mentioned). The range of rolling
resistance of tires used on vocational
vehicles today is large. This is in part
due to the fact that the competitive
pressure to improve rolling resistance of
vocational vehicle tires has been less
than that found in the line haul tire
market. In addition, the drive cycles
typical for these applications often lead
truck buyers to value tire traction and
durability more heavily than rolling
resistance. Therefore, the agencies
concluded that a regulatory program
that seeks to optimize tire rolling
resistance in addition to traction and
durability can bring about fuel
consumption and CO2 emission
reductions from this segment. The 2010
NAS report states that rolling resistance
impact on fuel consumption reduces
with mass of the vehicle and with drive
cycles with more frequent starts and
stops. The report found that the fuel
175 Argonne National Lab. Evaluation of Fuel
Consumption Potential of Medium and Heavy-duty
Vehicles through Modeling and Simulation.
October 2009. Page 89.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
consumption reduction opportunity for
reduced rolling resistance ranged
between one and three percent in the
2010 through 2020 timeframe.176 The
agencies estimate that average rolling
resistance from tires in 2010 model year
can be reduced by 10 percent by 2014
model year based on the tire
development achievements over the last
several years in the line haul truck
market which would lead to a 2 percent
reduction in fuel consumption based on
GEM.
Aerodynamics: The Argonne National
lab work shows that aerodynamics have
less of an impact on vocational vehicle
energy losses than do engines or tires.
In addition, the aerodynamic
performance of a complete vehicle is
significantly influenced by the body of
the truck. The agencies are not
proposing to regulate body builders in
this phase of regulations for the reasons
discussed in Section II. Therefore, we
are not basing any of the proposed
standards for vocational vehicles on
aerodynamic improvements. Nor would
aerodynamic performance be input into
GEM to demonstrate compliance.
Weight Reduction: NHTSA and EPA
are also not basing any of the proposed
standards on use of vehicle weight
reduction. Thus, vehicle mass
reductions would not be input into
GEM. The vocational vehicle models are
not designed to be application-specific.
Therefore weight reductions are difficult
to quantify.
Drivetrain: Optimization of vehicle
gearing to engine performance through
selection of transmission gear ratios,
final drive gear ratios and tire size can
play a significant role in reducing fuel
consumption and GHGs. Optimization
of gear selection versus vehicle and
engine speed accomplished through
driver training or automated
transmission gear selection can provide
additional reductions. The 2010 NAS
report found that the opportunities to
reduce fuel consumption in heavy-duty
vehicles due to transmission and
driveline technologies in the 2015
timeframe ranged between 2 and 8
percent.177 Initially, the agencies
considered reflecting transmission
choices and technology in our standard
setting process for both tractors and
vocational vehicles (see previous
discussion above on automated
transmissions for tractors). We have
however decided not to do so for the
following reasons.
The primary factors that determine
optimum gear selection are vehicle
176 See
177 See
2010 NAS Report, Note 111, page 146.
2010 NAS Report, Note 111, pp 134 and
137.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74241
weight, vehicle aerodynamics, vehicle
speed, and engine performance typically
considered on a two dimensional map
of engine speed and torque. For a given
power demand (determined by speed,
aerodynamics and vehicle mass) an
optimum transmission and gearing
setup will keep the engine power
delivery operating at the best speed and
torque points for highest engine
efficiency. Since power delivery from
the engine is the product of speed and
torque a wide range of torque and speed
points can be found that deliver
adequate power, but only a smaller
subset will provide power with peak
efficiency. Said more generally, the
design goal is for the transmission to
deliver the needed power to the vehicle
while maintaining engine operation
within the engine’s ‘‘sweet spot’’ for
most efficient operation. Absent
information about vehicle mass and
aerodynamics (which determines road
load at highway speeds) it is not
possible to optimize the selection of
gear ratios for lowest fuel consumption.
Truck and chassis manufacturers today
offer a wide range of tire sizes, final gear
ratios and transmission choices so that
final bodybuilders can select an optimal
combination given the finished vehicle
weight, general aerodynamic
characteristics and expected average
speed. In order to set fuel efficiency and
GHG standards that would reflect these
optimizations, the agencies would need
to regulate a wide range of small entities
that are final bodybuilders, would need
to set a large number of uniquely
different standards to reflect the specific
weight and aerodynamic differences and
finally would need test procedures to
evaluate these differences that would
not themselves be excessively
burdensome. Finally, the agencies
would need the underlying data
regarding effectively all of the
vocational trucks produced today in
order to determine the appropriate
standards. Because the market is already
motivated to reach these optimizations
themselves today, because we have
insufficient data to determine
appropriate standards, and finally,
because we believe the testing burden
would be unjustifiably high, we are not
proposing to reflect transmission and
gear ratio optimization in our GEM
model or in our standard setting.
We are broadly seeking comment on
our reasons for not reflecting these
technology choices including
recommendations for ways that the
agencies could effectively reflect
transmission related improvements. The
agencies welcome comment on
transmission and driveline technologies
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74242
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
specific to the vocational vehicle market
that can achieve fuel consumption and
GHG emissions reductions.
Idle Reduction: Episodic idling by
vocational vehicles occurs during the
workday, unlike the overnight idling of
combination tractors. Vocational vehicle
idling can be divided into two typical
types. The first type is idling while
waiting—such as during a pickup or
delivery. This type of idling can be
reduced through automatic engine shutoffs. The second type of idling is to
accomplish PTO operation, such as
compacting garbage or operating a
bucket. The agencies have found only
one study that quantifies the emissions
due to idling conducted by Argonne
National Lab based on 2002 VIUS
data.178 EPA conducted a work
assignment to assist in characterizing
PTO operations. The study of a utility
truck used in two different
environments (rural and urban) and a
refuse hauler found that the PTO
operated on average 28 percent of time
relative to the total time spent driving
and idling. The use of hybrid
powertrains to reduce idling is
discussed below.
Hybrid Powertrains: Several types of
vocational vehicles are well suited for
hybrid powertrains. Vehicles such as
utility or bucket trucks, delivery
vehicles, refuse haulers, and buses have
operational usage patterns with either a
significant amount of stop-and-go
activity or spend a large portion of their
operating hours idling the main engine
to operate a PTO unit. The industry is
currently developing three types of
hybrid powertrain systems—hydraulic,
electric, and plug-in electric. The
hybrids developed to date have seen
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
reductions between 20 and 50 percent
in the field. However, there are still
some key issues that are restricting the
penetration of hybrids, including overall
system cost, battery technology, and
lack of cost-effective electrified
accessories. The agencies are proposing
to include hybrid powertrains as a
technology to meet the vocational
vehicle standard, as described in
Section IV. However, the agencies are
not proposing a vocational vehicle
standard predicated on using a specific
penetration of hybrids. We have not
predicated the standards based on the
use of hybrids reflecting the still nascent
level of technology development and
the very small fraction of vehicle sales
they would be expected to account for
in this timeframe—on the order of only
178 Gaines, Linda, A. Vyas, J. Anderson (Argonne
National Laboratory). Estimation of Fuel Use by
Idling Commercial Trucks. January 2006.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
a percent or two. Were we to
overestimate the number of hybrids that
could be produced, we would set a
standard that is not feasible. We believe
that it is more appropriate given the
status of technology development and
our high hopes for future advancements
in hybrid technologies to encourage
their production through incentives.
The agencies welcome comments on
this approach.
(b) Gasoline Engine Technologies
The gasoline (or spark ignited)
engines certified and sold as loose
engines into the heavy-duty truck
market are typically large V8 and V10
engines produced by General Motors
and Ford. The basic engine architecture
of these engines is the same as the
versions used in the heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans. Therefore, the
technologies analyzed by the agencies
mirror the gasoline engine technologies
used in the heavy-duty pickup truck
analysis in Section III.B above.
Building on the technical analysis
underlying the 2012–2016 MY lightduty vehicle rule, the agencies took a
fresh look at technology effectiveness
values for purposes of this proposal
using a starting point the estimates from
that rule. The agencies then considered
the impact of test procedures (such as
higher test weight of HD pickup trucks
and vans) on the effectiveness estimates.
The agencies also considered other
sources such as the 2010 NAS Report,
recent CAFE compliance data, and
confidential manufacturer estimates of
technology effectiveness. NHTSA and
EPA engineers reviewed effectiveness
information from the multiple sources
for each technology and ensured that
such effectiveness estimates were based
on technology hardware consistent with
the BOM components used to estimate
costs.
The agencies note that the
effectiveness values estimated for the
technologies may represent average
values, and do not reflect the
potentially-limitless spectrum of
possible values that could result from
adding the technology to different
vehicles. For example, while the
agencies have estimated an effectiveness
of 0.5 percent for low friction lubricants,
each vehicle could have a unique
effectiveness estimate depending on the
baseline vehicle’s oil viscosity rating.
For purposes of this NPRM, NHTSA and
EPA believe that employing average
values for technology effectiveness
estimates is an appropriate way of
recognizing the potential variation in
the specific benefits that individual
manufacturers (and individual engines)
might obtain from adding a fuel-saving
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
technology. However, the agencies seek
comment on whether additional levels
of specificity beyond that already
provided would improve the analysis
for the final rules, and if so, how those
levels of specificity should be analyzed.
Baseline Engine: Similar to the
gasoline engine used as the baseline in
the light-duty GHG rule, the agencies
assumed the baseline engine in this
segment to be a naturally aspirated,
overhead valve V8 engine. The
following discussion of effectiveness is
generally in comparison to 2010
baseline engine performance.
The technologies the agencies
considered include the following:
Engine Friction Reduction: In addition
to low friction lubricants, manufacturers
can also reduce friction and improve
fuel consumption by improving the
design of engine components and
subsystems. Examples include
improvements in low-tension piston
rings, piston skirt design, roller cam
followers, improved crankshaft design
and bearings, material coatings, material
substitution, more optimal thermal
management, and piston and cylinder
surface treatments. The 2010 NAS,
NESCCAF 179 and EEA 180 reports as
well as confidential manufacturer data
used in the light-duty vehicle
rulemaking suggested a range of
effectiveness for engine friction
reduction to be between 1 to 3 percent.
NHTSA and EPA continue to believe
that this range is accurate.
Coupled Cam Phasing: Valvetrains
with coupled (or coordinated) cam
phasing can modify the timing of both
the inlet valves and the exhaust valves
an equal amount by phasing the
camshaft of a single overhead cam
engine or an overhead valve engine.
Based on the 2012–2016 MY light-duty
vehicle rule, previously-received
confidential manufacturer data, and the
NESCCAF report, NHTSA and EPA
estimated the effectiveness of couple
cam phasing CCP to be between 1 and
4 percent. NHTSA and EPA reviewed
this estimate for purposes of the NPRM,
and continue to find it accurate.
Cylinder Deactivation: In
conventional spark-ignited engines
throttling the airflow controls engine
torque output. At partial loads,
efficiency can be improved by using
cylinder deactivation instead of
throttling. Cylinder deactivation can
improve engine efficiency by disabling
or deactivating (usually) half of the
179 Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future.
‘‘Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from LightDuty Motor Vehicles.’’ September 2004.
180 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.
‘‘Technology to Improve the Fuel Economy of Light
Duty Trucks to 2015.’’ May 2006.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
cylinders when the load is less than half
of the engine’s total torque capability—
the valves are kept closed, and no fuel
is injected—as a result, the trapped air
within the deactivated cylinders is
simply compressed and expanded as an
air spring, with reduced friction and
heat losses. The active cylinders
combust at almost double the load
required if all of the cylinders were
operating. Pumping losses are
significantly reduced as long as the
engine is operated in this ‘‘part cylinder’’
mode. Effectiveness improvements scale
roughly with engine displacement-tovehicle weight ratio—the higher
displacement-to-weight vehicles,
operating at lower relative loads for
normal driving, have the potential to
operate in part-cylinder mode more
frequently. Therefore, the agencies
reduced the effectiveness assumed from
this technology for trucks because of the
lower displacement-to-weight ratio
relative to light-duty vehicles. NHTSA
and EPA adjusted the 2010 light-duty
vehicle final rule estimates using
updated power to weight ratings of
heavy-duty trucks and confidential
business information and confirmed a
range of 3 to 4 percent for these
vehicles.
Stoichiometric gasoline direct
injection: SGDI (also known as sparkignition direct injection engines) inject
fuel at high pressure directly into the
combustion chamber (rather than the
intake port in port fuel injection). Direct
injection of the fuel into the cylinder
improves cooling of the air/fuel charge
within the cylinder, which allows for
higher compression ratios and increased
thermodynamic efficiency without the
onset of combustion knock. Recent
injector design advances, improved
electronic engine management systems
and the introduction of multiple
injection events per cylinder firing cycle
promote better mixing of the air and
fuel, enhance combustion rates, increase
residual exhaust gas tolerance and
improve cold start emissions. SGDI
engines achieve higher power density
and match well with other technologies,
such as boosting and variable valvetrain
designs. The 2012–2016 MY light-duty
vehicle final rule estimated the
effectiveness of SGDI to be between 2
and 3 percent. NHTSA and EPA revised
these estimated accounting for the use
and testing methods for these vehicles
along with confidential business
information estimates received from
manufacturers while developing the
proposal. Based on these revisions,
NHTSA and EPA estimate the range of
1 to 2 percent for SGDI.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(c) Diesel Engine Technologies
Different types of diesel engines are
used in vocational vehicles, depending
on the application. They fall into the
categories of Light, Medium, and Heavy
Heavy-duty Diesel engines. The Light
Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically
range between 4.7 and 6.7 liters
displacement. The Medium Heavy-duty
Diesel engines typically have some
overlap in displacement with the Light
Heavy-duty Diesel engines and range
between 6.7 and 9.3 liters. The Heavy
Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically are
represented by engines between 10.8
and 16 liters.
Baseline Engine: There are three
baseline diesel engines, a Light,
Medium, and a Heavy Heavy-duty
Diesel engine. The agencies developed
the baseline diesel engine as a 2010
model year engine with an
aftertreatment system which meets
EPA’s 0.2 grams of NOX/bhp-hr
standard with an SCR system along with
EGR and meets the PM emissions
standard with a diesel particulate filter
with active regeneration. The engine is
turbocharged with a variable geometry
turbocharger. The following discussion
of technologies describes improvements
over the 2010 model year baseline
engine performance, unless otherwise
noted. Further discussion of the
baseline engine and its performance can
be found in Section III.C.2.(c)(i) below.
The following discussion of
effectiveness is generally in comparison
to 2010 baseline engine performance,
and is in reference to performance in
terms of the Heavy-duty FTP that would
be used for compliance for these engine
standards. This is in comparison to the
steady state SET procedure that would
be used for compliance purposes for the
engines used in Class 7 and 8 tractors.
See Section II.B.2.(i) above.
Turbochargers: Improved efficiency of
a turbocharger compressor or turbine
could reduce fuel consumption by
approximately 1 to 2 percent over
today’s variable geometry turbochargers
in the market today. The 2010 NAS
report identified technologies such as
higher pressure ratio radial
compressors, axial compressors, and
dual stage turbochargers as design paths
to improve turbocharger efficiency.
Low Temperature Exhaust Gas
Recirculation: Most LHDD, MHDD, and
HHDD engines sold in the U.S. market
today use cooled EGR, in which part of
the exhaust gas is routed through a
cooler (rejecting energy to the engine
coolant) before being returned to the
engine intake manifold. EGR is a
technology employed to reduce peak
combustion temperatures and thus NOX.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74243
Low-temperature EGR uses a larger or
secondary EGR cooler to achieve lower
intake charge temperatures, which tend
to further reduce NOX formation. If the
NOX requirement is unchanged, lowtemperature EGR can allow changes
such as more advanced injection timing
that will increase engine efficiency
slightly more than one percent. Because
low-temperature EGR reduces the
engine’s exhaust temperature, it may not
be compatible with exhaust energy
recovery systems such as
turbocompound or a bottoming cycle.
Engine Friction Reduction: Reduced
friction in bearings, valve trains, and the
piston-to-liner interface will improve
efficiency. Any friction reduction must
be carefully developed to avoid issues
with durability or performance
capability. Estimates of fuel
consumption improvements due to
reduced friction range from 0.5 to 1.5
percent.181
Selective catalytic reduction: This
technology is common on 2010 heavyduty diesel engines. Because SCR is a
highly effective NOX aftertreatment
approach, it enables engines to be
optimized to maximize fuel efficiency,
rather than minimize engine-out NOX.
2010 SCR systems are estimated to
result in improved engine efficiency of
approximately 4 to 5 percent compared
to a 2007 in-cylinder EGR-based
emissions system and by an even greater
percentage compared to 2010 incylinder approaches.182 As more
effective low-temperature catalysts are
developed, the NOX conversion
efficiency of the SCR system will
increase. Next-generation SCR systems
could then enable still further efficiency
improvements; alternatively, these
advances could be used to maintain
efficiency while down-sizing the
aftertreatment. We estimate that
continued optimization of the catalyst
could offer 1 to 2 percent reduction in
fuel use over 2010 model year systems
in the 2014 model year.183 The agencies
also estimate that continued refinement
and optimization of the SCR systems
could provide an additional 2 percent
reduction in the 2017 model year.
181 TIAX, Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-duty
Vehicles, Final Report, Nov. 19, 2009, pg. 4–15.
182 Stanton, D. ‘‘Advanced Diesel Engine
Technology Development for High Efficiency, Clean
Combustion.’’ Cummins, Inc. Annual Progress
Report 2008 Vehicle Technologies Program:
Advanced Combustion Engine Technologies, U.S.
Department of Energy. Pp. 113–116. December
2008.
183 TIAX Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium and Heavy-duty Vehicles,
Report to National Academy of Sciences, Nov 19,
2009, pg. 4–9.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74244
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Improved Combustion Process: Fuel
consumption reductions in the range of
1 to 4 percent are identified in the 2010
NAS report through improved
combustion chamber design, higher fuel
injection pressure, improved injection
shaping and timing, and higher peak
cylinder pressures.184
Reduced Parasitic Loads: Accessories
that are traditionally gear or belt driven
by a vehicle’s engine can be optimized
and/or converted to electric power.
Examples include the engine water
pump, oil pump, fuel injection pump,
air compressor, power-steering pump,
cooling fans, and the vehicle’s airconditioning system. Optimization and
improved pressure regulation may
significantly reduce the parasitic load of
the water, air and fuel pumps.
Electrification may result in a reduction
in power demand, because electrically
powered accessories (such as the air
compressor or power steering) operate
only when needed if they are
electrically powered, but they impose a
parasitic demand all the time if they are
engine driven. In other cases, such as
cooling fans or an engine’s water pump,
electric power allows the accessory to
run at speeds independent of engine
speed, which can reduce power
consumption. The TIAX study used 2 to
4 percent fuel consumption
improvement for accessory
electrification, with the understanding
that electrification of accessories will
have more effect in short-haul/urban
applications and less benefit in linehaul applications.185
(2) What is the projected technology
package’s effectiveness and cost?
(ii) Vocational Vehicle Technology
Package
comment on the appropriateness of this
approach.
The assessment of the proposed
technology effectiveness was developed
through the use of the GEM. To account
for the two proposed engine standards,
EPA is proposing the use of a 2014
model year fuel consumption map in
GEM to derive the 2014 model year
truck standard and a 2017 model year
fuel consumption map to derive the
2017 model year truck standard. (These
fuel consumption maps reflect the main
standards proposed for HD diesel
engines, not the alternative standards.)
EPA estimates that the rolling resistance
of tires can be reduced by 10 percent in
the 2014 model year. The vocational
vehicle standards for all three regulatory
categories were determined using a tire
rolling resistance coefficient of 8.1 kg/
metric ton with a 100 percent
application rate by the 2014 model year.
The set of input parameters which are
modeled in GEM are shown in Table III–
13.
based on the current baseline tractor and passenger
car tires. The baseline tractor drive tire has a rolling
resistance of 8.2 kg/metric ton based on SmartWay
testing. The average passenger car has a tire rolling
resistance of 9.75 kg/metric ton based on a
presentation made to CARB by the Rubber
Manufacturer’s Association. Additional details are
available in the draft RIA Chapter 2.
2010 NAS Report, Note 111, page 56.
2009. Pages 3–5.
186 The baseline tire rolling resistance for this
segment of vehicles was derived for the proposal
185 TIAX.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
The baseline vocational vehicle model
is defined in GEM, as described in draft
RIA Chapter 4.4.6. The agencies used a
baseline rolling resistance coefficient for
today’s vocational vehicle fleet of 9 kg/
metric ton.186 Further vehicle
technology is not included in this
baseline, as discussed below in the
discussion of the baseline vocational
vehicle. The baseline engine fuel
consumption represents a 2010 model
year diesel engine, as described in draft
RIA Chapter 4. Using these values, the
baseline performance of these vehicles
is included in Table III–12.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.039
184 See
(i) Baseline Vocational Vehicle
Performance
EP30NO10.038
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The proposed program for vocational
vehicles for this phase of regulatory
standards is limited to performance of
tire and engine technologies.
Aerodynamics technology, weight
reduction, drive train improvement, and
hybrid power trains are not included for
the reasons discussed above in Section
III.C(1). The agencies are seeking
(a) Vocational Vehicles
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74245
The agencies developed the proposed
standards by using the engine and tire
rolling resistance inputs in the GEM, as
shown in Table III–13. The percent
reductions shown in Table III–14 reflect
improvements over the 2010 model year
baseline vehicle with a 2010 model year
baseline engine.
(iii) Technology Package Cost
of the CAA and NHTSA’s EISA
authority under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2),
and the agencies believe that the
standards are consistent with their
respective authorities.
(b) Gasoline Engines
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iv) Reasonableness of the Proposed
Standards
The proposed standards would not
only add only a small amount to the
vehicle cost, but are highly cost
effective, an estimated $20 ton of CO2eq
per vehicle in 2030.187 This is even less
than the estimated cost effectiveness for
CO2eq removal under the light-duty
vehicle rule, already considered by the
agencies to be a highly cost effective
reduction.188 Moreover, the modest cost
of controls is recovered almost
immediately due to the associated fuel
savings, as shown in the payback
analysis included in Table VIII–7. Given
that the standards are technically
feasible within the lead time afforded by
the 2014 model year, are inexpensive
and highly cost effective, and do not
have other adverse potential impacts
(e.g., there are no projected negative
impacts on safety or vehicle utility), the
proposed standards represent a
reasonable choice under section 202(a)
187 See
Section VIII.D.
light-duty rule had an estimated cost per
ton of $50 when considering the vehicle program
costs only and a cost of ¥$210 per ton considering
the vehicle program costs along with fuel savings
in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3–1.
188 The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(v) Alternative Vehicle Standards
Considered
The agencies are not proposing
vehicle standards less stringent than the
proposed standards because the
agencies believe these standards are
highly cost effective, as just explained.
The agencies considered proposing
truck standards which are more
stringent reflecting the inclusion of
hybrid powertrains in those vocational
vehicles where use of hybrid
powertrains is appropriate. The agencies
estimate that a 25 percent utilization
rate of hybrid powertrains in MY 2017
vocational vehicles would add, on
average, $30,000 to the cost of each
vehicle and more than double the cost
of the rule for this sector. See the draft
RIA at Chapter 6.1.8. The emission
reductions associated with these very
high costs appear to be modest. See the
draft RIA Table 6–14. In addition, the
agencies are proposing flexibilities in
the form of generally applicable credit
opportunities for advanced
technologies, to encourage use of hybrid
powertrains. See Section IV.C.2 below.
The agencies welcome comments on
whether hybrid powertrain technologies
are appropriate to consider for the 2017
model year standard, or if not, then
when would they be appropriate.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) Baseline Gasoline Engine
Performance
EPA and NHTSA developed the
reference heavy-duty gasoline engines to
represent a 2010 model year engine
compliant with the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOX
standard for on-highway heavy-duty
engines.
NHTSA and EPA developed the
baseline fuel consumption and CO2
emissions for the gasoline engines from
manufacturer reported CO2 values used
in the certification of non-GHG
pollutants. The baseline engine for the
analysis was developed to represent a
2011 model year engine, because this is
the most current information available.
The average CO2 performance of the
heavy-duty gasoline engines was 660
g/bhp-hour, which will be used as a
baseline. The baseline gasoline engines
are all stoichiometric port fuel injected
V–8 engines without cam phasers or
other variable valve timing technologies.
While they may reflect some degree of
static valve timing optimization for fuel
efficiency they do not reflect the
potential to adjust timing with engine
speed.
(ii) Gasoline Engine Technology Package
Effectiveness
The gasoline engine technology
package includes engine friction
reduction, coupled cam phasing, and
SGDI to produce an overall five percent
reduction from the reference engine
based on the Heavy-duty Lumped
Parameter model. The agencies are
projecting a 100% application rate of
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.040
EPA and NHTSA developed the costs
of LRR tires based on the ICF report.
The estimated cost per truck is $155
(2008$) for LHD and MHD trucks and
$186 (2008$) for HHD trucks. These
costs include a low complexity ICM of
1.14 and are applicable in the 2014
model year.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(iii) Gasoline Engine Technology
Package Cost
(iv) Reasonableness of the Proposed
Standard
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
this technology package to the heavyduty gasoline engines, which results in
a CO2 standard of 627 g/bhp-hr and a
fuel consumption standard of 7.05
gallon/100 bhp-hr. As discussed in
Section II.D.b.ii, the agencies propose
that the gasoline engine standards begin
in the 2016 model year based on the
agencies’ projection of the engine
redesign schedules of the small number
of engines in this category.
(v) Alternative Gasoline Engine
Standards Considered
The proposed engine standards
appear to be reasonable and consistent
with the agencies’ respective
authorities. With respect to the 2016 MY
standard, all of the technologies on
which the standards are predicated have
been demonstrated and their
effectiveness is well documented. The
proposal reflects a 100 percent
application rate for these technologies.
The costs of adding these technologies
remain modest across the various engine
classes as shown in Table III–15. Use of
these technologies would add only a
small amount to the cost of the
vehicle,189 and the associated
reductions are highly cost effective, an
estimated $30 per ton of CO2eq per
vehicle.190 This is even more cost
effective than the estimated cost
effectiveness for CO2eq removal and fuel
economy improvement under the lightduty vehicle rule, already considered by
the agencies to be a highly cost effective
reduction.191 Accordingly, EPA and
NHTSA view these standards as
reflecting an appropriate balance of the
various statutory factors under section
202(a) of the CAA and under NHTSA’s
EISA authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
The agencies are not proposing
gasoline standards less stringent than
the proposed standards because the
agencies believe these standards are
feasible in the lead time provided,
inexpensive, and highly cost effective.
We welcome comments supplemented
with data on each aspect of this
determination most importantly on
individual gasoline engine technology
efficacy to reduce fuel consumption and
GHGs as well was our estimates of
individual technology cost and leadtime.
The proposed rule reflects 100
percent penetration of the technology
package on whose performance the
standard is based, so some additional
technology would need to be added to
obtain further improvements. The
agencies considered proposing gasoline
engine standards which are more
stringent reflecting the inclusion of
cylinder deactivation and other
advanced technologies. However, the
agencies are not proposing this level of
stringency because our assessment is
that these technologies would not be
available for production by the 2017
model year. The agencies welcome
comments on whether other gasoline
technologies are appropriate to consider
189 Sample 2010 MY vocational vehicles range in
price between $40,000 for a Class 4 work truck to
approximately $200,000 for a Class 8 refuse hauler.
See pages 16–17 of ICF’s ‘‘Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010.
190 See Vocational Vehicle CO savings and
2
technology costs for Alternative 2 in Section IX.B.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
For costs, the agencies reconsidered
both the direct or ‘‘piece’’ costs and
indirect costs of individual components
of technologies. For the direct costs, the
agencies followed a BOM approach
employed by NHTSA and EPA in the
2012–2016 LD rule. NHTSA and EPA
are proposing to use the marked up
gasoline engine technology costs
developed for the HD Pickup Truck and
Van segment because they are made by
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the same manufacturers (primarily by
Ford and GM) and, the same products
simply sold as loose engines rather than
complete vehicles. Hence the engine
cost estimates are fundamentally the
same. The costs are summarized in
Table III–15. The costs shown in Table
III–15 include a low complexity ICM of
1.17 and are applicable in the 2016
model year. No learning effects are
applied to engine friction reduction
costs, while time based learning is
considered applicable to both coupled
cam phasing and SGDI.
for the 2017 model year standard, or if
not, then when would they be
appropriate.
(c) Diesel Engines
(i) Baseline Diesel Engine Performance
EPA and NHTSA developed the
baseline heavy-duty diesel engines to
represent a 2010 model year engine
compliant with the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOX
standard for on-highway heavy-duty
engines.
The agencies utilized 2007 through
2011 model year CO2 certification levels
from the Heavy-duty FTP cycle as the
basis for the baseline engine CO2
performance. The pre-2010 data are
subsequently adjusted to represent 2010
model year engine maps by using
predefined technologies including SCR
and other systems that are being used in
current 2010 production. The engine
CO2 results were then sales weighted
within each regulatory subcategory to
develop an industry average 2010 model
year reference engine, as shown in Table
III–16. The level of CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption of these engines
varies significantly, where the engine
with the highest CO2 emissions is
estimated to be 20 percent greater than
the sales weighted average. Details of
this analysis are included in draft RIA
Chapter 2.
191 The light-duty rule had an estimated cost per
ton of $50 when considering the vehicle program
costs only and a cost of ¥$210 per ton considering
the vehicle program costs along with fuel savings
in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3–1.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.041
74246
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(iii) Technology Package Costs
NHTSA and EPA jointly developed
costs associated with the engine
technologies to assess an overall
package cost for each regulatory
category. Our engine cost estimates for
192 TIAX noted in their report to the NAS panel
that the engine improvements beyond 2015 model
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
technology package plus
turbocompounding. A similar approach
to evaluating the impact of individual
technologies as taken to develop the
overall reduction of the 2014 model year
package was taken with the 2017 model
year package. The Heavy-duty FTP cycle
improvements lead to a 5 percent
reduction on the cycle for HHDD, as
detailed in draft RIA Chapter 2.4.2.13.
The agencies used a 100 percent
application rate of the technology
package to determine the proposed 2017
MY standards. The agencies believe that
bottom cycling technologies are still in
the development phase and will not be
ready for production by the 2017 model
year.192 Therefore, these technologies
were not included in determining the
stringency of the proposed standards.
However, we do believe the bottoming
cycle approach represents a significant
opportunity to reduce fuel consumption
and GHG emissions in the future. EPA
and NHTSA are therefore both
proposing provisions described in
Section IV to create incentives for
manufacturers to continue to invest to
develop this technology.
The overall projected improvements
in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
over the baseline are included in Table
III–17.
diesel engines used in vocational
vehicles include a separate analysis of
the incremental part costs, research and
development activities, and additional
equipment, such as emissions
equipment to measure N2O emissions.
Our general approach used elsewhere in
this proposal (for HD pickup trucks,
gasoline engines, Class 7 and 8 tractors,
and Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles)
estimates a direct manufacturing cost for
a part and marks it up based on a factor
to account for indirect costs. See also 75
FR 25376. We believe that approach is
year included in their report are highly uncertain,
though they include waste heat recovery in the
engine package for 2016 through 2020 (page 4–29).
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.043
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The diesel engine technology
packages for the 2014 model year
include engine friction reduction,
improved aftertreatment effectiveness,
improved combustion processes, and
low temperature EGR system
optimization. The improvements in
parasitic and friction losses come
through piston designs to reduce
friction, improved lubrication, and
improved water pump and oil pump
designs to reduce parasitic losses. The
aftertreatment improvements are
available through lower backpressure of
the systems and optimization of the
engine-out NOX levels. Improvements to
the EGR system and air flow through the
intake and exhaust systems, along with
turbochargers can also produce engine
efficiency improvements. It should be
pointed out that individual technology
improvements are not additive to each
other due to the interaction of
technologies. The agencies assessed the
impact of each technology over the
Heavy-duty FTP and project an overall
cycle improvement in the 2014 model
year of 3 percent for HHD diesel engines
and 5 percent for LHD and MHD diesel
engines, as detailed in draft RIA Chapter
2.4.2.9 and 2.4.2.10. EPA used a 100
percent application rate of this
technology package to determine the
level of the proposed 2014 MY
standards
Recently, EPA’s heavy-duty highway
engine program for criteria pollutants
provided new emissions standards for
the industry in three year increments.
The heavy-duty engine manufacturer
product plans have fallen into three year
cycles to reflect this environment. EPA
is proposing set CO2 emission standards
recognizing the opportunity for
technology improvements over this
timeframe while reflecting the typical
heavy-duty engine manufacturer
product plan cycles. Thus, the agencies
are proposing to establish initial
standards for the 2014 model year and
a more stringent standard for heavyduty engines beginning in the 2017
model year.
The 2017 model year technology
package for LHD and MHD diesel engine
includes continued development and
refinement of the 2014 model year
technology package, in particular the
additional improvement to
aftertreatment systems. This package
leads to a projected 9 percent reduction
for LHD and MHD diesel engines in the
2017 model year. The HHD diesel
engine technology packages for the 2017
model year include the continued
development of the 2014 model year
EP30NO10.042
(ii) Diesel Engine Packages
74247
74248
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
appropriate when compliance with
proposed standards is achieved
generally by installing new parts and
systems purchased from a supplier. In
such a case, the supplier is conducting
the bulk of the research and
development on the new parts and
systems and including those costs in the
purchase price paid by the original
equipment manufacturer. The indirect
costs incurred by the original equipment
manufacturer need not include much
cost to cover research and development
since the bulk of that effort is already
done. For the MHD and HHD diesel
engine segment, however, the agencies
believe we can make a more accurate
estimate of technology cost using this
alternate approach because the primary
cost is not expected to be the purchase
of parts or systems from suppliers or
even the production of the parts and
systems, but rather the development of
the new technology by the original
equipment manufacturer itself.
Therefore, the agencies believe it more
accurate to directly estimate the indirect
costs. EPA commonly uses this
approach in cases where significant
investments in research and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
development can lead to an emission
control approach that requires no new
hardware. For example, combustion
optimization may significantly reduce
emissions and cost a manufacturer
millions of dollars to develop but will
lead to an engine that is no more
expensive to produce. Using a bill of
materials approach would suggest that
the cost of the emissions control was
zero reflecting no new hardware and
ignoring the millions of dollars spent to
develop the improved combustion
system. Details of the cost analysis are
included in the draft RIA Chapter 2. To
reiterate, we have used this different
approach because the MHD and HHD
diesel engines are expected to comply in
large part via technology changes that
are not reflected in new hardware but
rather knowledge gained through
laboratory and real world testing that
allows for improvements in control
system calibrations—changes that are
more difficult to reflect through direct
costs with indirect cost multipliers.
The agencies developed the
engineering costs for the research and
development of diesel engines with
lower fuel consumption and CO2
emissions. The aggregate costs for
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
engineering hours, technician support,
dynamometer cell time, and fabrication
of prototype parts are estimated at
$6,750,000 per manufacturer per year
over the five years covering 2012
through 2016. In aggregate, this averages
out to $280 per engine during 2012
through 2016 using a very rough annual
sales value of 600,000 LHD, MHD and
HHD diesel engines. The agencies also
are estimating costs of $100,000 per
engine manufacturer per engine class
(LHD, MHD and HHD diesel) to cover
the cost of purchasing photo-acoustic
measurement equipment for two engine
test cells. This would be a one-time cost
incurred in the year prior to
implementation of the standard (i.e., the
cost would be incurred in 2013). In
aggregate, this averages out to $4 per
engine in 2013 using a very rough
annual sales value of 600,000 LHD,
MHD and HHD diesel engines.
EPA also developed the incremental
piece cost for the components to meet
each of the 2014 and 2017 standards.
These costs shown in Table III–18
which include a low complexity ICM of
1.11; time based learning is considered
applicable to each technology.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74249
The proposed engine standards
appear to be reasonable and consistent
with the agencies’ respective
authorities. With respect to the 2014
and 2017 MY standards, all of the
technologies on which the standards
have already been demonstrated and
their effectiveness is well documented.
The proposal reflects a 100 percent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
application rate for these technologies.
The costs of adding these technologies
remain modest across the various engine
classes as shown in Table III–19. Use of
these technologies would add only a
small amount to the cost of the
vehicle,193 and the associated
reductions are highly cost effective, an
estimated $30 per ton of CO2eq per
vehicle.194 This is even more cost
effective than the estimated cost
effectiveness for CO2eq removal and fuel
economy improvement under the lightduty vehicle rule, already considered by
193 Sample 2010 MY vocational vehicles range in
price between $40,000 for a Class 4 work truck to
approximately $200,000 for a Class 8 refuse hauler.
See pages 16–17 of ICF’s ‘‘Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010.
194 See Vocational Vehicle CO savings and
2
technology costs for Alternative 2 in Section IX.B.
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.044
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iv) Reasonableness of the Proposed
Standards
EP30NO10.045
The overall costs for each diesel
engine regulatory subcategory are
included in Table III–19.
74250
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the agencies to be a highly cost effective
reduction.195 Accordingly, EPA and
NHTSA view these standards as
reflecting an appropriate balance of the
various statutory factors under section
202(a) of the CAA and under NHTSA’s
EISA authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(v) Alternative Diesel Engine Standards
Considered
Other than the specific proposal
related to legacy engine products, the
agencies are not proposing diesel engine
standards less stringent than the
proposed standards because the
agencies believe these standards are
highly cost effective. We welcome
comments supplemented with data on
each aspect of this determination most
importantly on individual engine
technology efficacy to reduce fuel
consumption and GHGs as well as our
estimates of individual technology cost
and lead-time.
The agencies considered proposing
diesel engine standards which are more
stringent reflecting the inclusion of
other advanced technologies. However,
the agencies are not proposing this level
of stringency because our assessment is
that these technologies would not be
available for production by the 2017
model year. The agencies welcome
comments on whether other diesel
engine technologies are appropriate to
consider for the 2017 model year
standard, or if not, then when would
they be appropriate.
IV. Proposed Regulatory Flexibility
Provisions
This section discusses proposed
flexibility provisions intended to
achieve the goals of the overall program
while providing alternate pathways to
achieve those goals. The primary
flexibility provisions the agencies are
proposing for combination tractors and
vocational vehicles relate to a program
of Averaging, Banking, and Trading of
credits that EPA and NHTSA are
proposing in association with each
agency’s respective CO2 and fuel
consumption standards (see Section II
above). For HD pickups and vans, the
primary flexibility provision is the fleet
averaging program patterned after the
LD GHG and CAFE rule. EPA is not
proposing an emission credit program
associated with the proposed N2O, CH4,
or HFC standards. This section also
describes proposed flexibility
provisions that would apply in specific
circumstances.
195 The light-duty rule had a cost per ton of $50
when considering the vehicle program costs only
and a cost of ¥$210 per ton considering the vehicle
program costs along with fuel savings in 2030. See
75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3–1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
A. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
Program
Averaging, Banking, and Trading
(ABT) of emissions credits have been an
important part of many EPA mobile
source programs under CAA Title II,
including engine and vehicle programs.
ABT programs can be important because
they can help to address many issues of
technological feasibility and lead-time,
as well as considerations of cost. ABT
programs are not just add-on provisions
included to help reduce costs, but are
usually an integral part of the standard
setting itself. An ABT program is
important because it provides
manufacturers flexibilities that assist the
development and implementation of
new technologies efficiently and
therefore enables new technologies to be
implemented at a more progressive pace
than without ABT. A well-designed
ABT program can provide important
environmental benefits and at the same
time increase flexibility for and reduce
costs to the regulated industry.
Section II above describes EPA’s
proposed GHG emission standards and
NHTSA’s proposed fuel consumption
standards. For each of these respective
sets of standards, the agencies are also
proposing ABT provisions consistent
with each agency’s statutory authority.
The agencies have worked closely
together to design these proposed
provisions to be essentially identical to
each other in form and function.
Because of this fundamental similarity,
the remainder of this section refers to
these provisions collectively as ‘‘the
ABT program’’ except where agencyspecific distinctions are required.
As discussed in detail below, the
structure of this proposed GHG ABT
program for HD engines is based closely
on earlier ABT programs for HD
engines; the proposed program for HD
pickups and vans is built on the existing
light-duty GHG program flexibility
provisions; and we propose first-time
ABT provisions for combination tractors
and vocational vehicles that are as
consistent as possible with our other HD
vehicle regulations. The flexibility
provisions associated with this new
regulatory category are intended to
systematically build upon the structure
of the existing programs.
As an overview, ‘‘averaging’’ means
the exchange of emission credits
between engine families or truck
families within a given manufacturer’s
regulatory subcategory. For example
within each regulatory subcategory,
engine manufacturers divide their
product line into ‘‘engine families’’ that
are comprised of engines expected to
have similar emission characteristics
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
throughout their useful life. Averaging
allows a manufacturer to certify one or
more engine families within the same
regulatory subcategory at levels above
the applicable emission standard. The
increased emissions over the standard
would need to be offset by one or more
engine families within that
manufacturer’s regulatory subcategory
that are certified below the same
emission standard, such that the average
emissions from all the manufacturer’s
engine families, weighted by engine
power, regulatory useful life, and
production volume, are at or below the
level of the emission standard. (The
inclusion of engine power, useful life,
and production volume in the averaging
calculations allows the emissions
credits or debits to be expressed in total
emissions over the useful life of the
credit-using or generating engine sales.)
Total credits for each regulatory
subcategory within each model year are
determined by summing together the
credits calculated for every engine
family within that specific regulatory
subcategory.
‘‘Banking’’ means the retention of
emission credits by the manufacturer for
use in future model year averaging or
trading. ‘‘Trading’’ means the exchange
of emission credits between
manufacturers, which can then be used
for averaging purposes, banked for
future use, or traded to another
manufacturer.
In the current HD program for criteria
pollutants, manufacturers are restricted
to only averaging, banking and trading
credits generated within a regulatory
subcategory, and we are proposing to
continue this restriction in the GHG and
fuel consumption program. However,
the agencies are evaluating—and
therefore request comment on—
potential alternative approaches in
which fewer restrictions are placed on
the use of credits for averaging, banking,
and trading. Particularly, the agencies
request comment on removing
prohibitions on averaging and trading
between some or all regulatory
categories in this proposal, and on
removing restrictions between some or
all regulatory subcategories that are
within the same regulatory category
(e.g., allowing trading of credits between
class 7 day cabs and class 8 sleeper
cabs).
In the past, we have followed the
practice of allowing averaging and
trading between like products because
we have recognized that the estimation
of emissions credits is not an absolutely
precise process, and actual emissions
reductions or increases ‘‘in use’’ would
vary due to differences in vehicle duty
cycles, maintenance practices and any
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
number of other factors. By restricting
credit averaging and trading to only
allow averaging and trading between
like products, the agencies gain some
degree of assurance that the operation
and use of the vehicles generating
credits and consuming credits would be
similar. The agencies also note that
some industry participants have
expressed concern that allowing credit
averaging, banking and trading across
different products may create an unlevel
playing field for the regulated industry.
Specifically, engine and truck
manufacturers have commonly
expressed to us a concern that some
manufacturers with a wide range of
product offerings spanning a number of
regulatory categories would be able to
use the ABT program provisions to
generate credits in regulatory class
markets where they face less
competition and then use those credits
to compete unfairly in other regulatory
categories where they face greater
competition. Finally, in the context of
regulating criteria pollutants that can
have localized and regional impacts, we
have been concerned about the
unintended consequence of unrestricted
credit averaging or trading on local or
regional concentrations of pollutants,
whereby emissions reductions might
become concentrated in some localities
or regions to the detriment of other areas
needing the reductions.
The agencies are evaluating the
possibility of placing fewer restrictions
on averaging and trading because
increasing the flexibility offered to
manufacturers to average, bank, and
trade credits across regulatory
subcategories and categories could
potentially significantly reduce the
overall cost of the program. Specifically,
we request comment on the extent to
which a difference—or unexpected
difference—in the marginal costs of
compliance per gallon of fuel saved or
ton of GHG reduced across categories or
subcategories, combined with provision
for averaging and trading across
categories and subcategories, can allow
manufacturers to achieve the same
overall reduction in fuel use and
emissions at lower cost.
While trading restrictions in the
context of past EPA rulemakings have
been motivated in part by the local or
regional nature of the pollutant being
regulated, in this instance, opportunities
for greater flexibility may exist in light
of the fact that greenhouse gases are a
global pollutant for which local
consequences are related to global, not
local or regional atmospheric
concentrations. However, trading ratios
may need to be established for averaging
and trading across categories, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
potentially across subcategories, to
ensure that averaging and trading across
categories and subcategories does not
lead to a net increase in emissions or
fuel use in light of differences in vehicle
use patterns across categories and
subcategories. Further, it is possible to
design trading ratios that ensure a net
reduction in emissions and fuel use as
a result of averaging and trading. The
agencies also request comment on the
potential additional savings in costs
(beyond those already calculated in this
proposal) due to increased flexibility in
averaging and trading provisions, on
how such averaging and trading
flexibilities could be designed to ensure
environmental neutrality, on whether
trading ratios should be designed to
achieve a net reduction in emissions
and fuel use as a result of trading, on the
concerns that have been raised by some
regarding impacts on intra-industry
competition, and on how to address the
above identified concerns about
dissimilarities in operation and use of
vehicles.
(1) Heavy-duty Engines
For the heavy-duty engine ABT
program, EPA and NHTSA are
proposing to use EPA’s existing
regulatory engine classifications as the
subcategory designations under this
engine ABT program. The proposed
regulations use the term ‘‘averaging set’’
which aligns with the regulatory
subcategories or regulatory class in the
context that they define the same set of
products. The existing diesel engine
subcategories are light-heavy-duty
(LHD), medium-heavy-duty (MHD), and
heavy-heavy-duty (HHD). LHD diesel
engines are primarily used in vehicles
with a GVWR below 19,500 lb. Vehicle
body types in this group might include
any heavy-duty vehicle built for a lightduty truck chassis, van trucks, multistop vans, recreational vehicles, and
some single axle straight trucks.
Vehicles containing these engines
would normally include personal
transportation, light-load commercial
hauling and delivery, passenger service,
agriculture, and construction
applications.
MHD diesel engines are normally
used in vehicles whose GVWR varies
from 19,501–33,000 lb. Vehicles
containing these engines typically
include school buses, tandem axle
straight trucks, city tractors, and a
variety of special purpose vehicles such
as small dump trucks, and trash
compactor trucks. Normally the
applications for these vehicles would
include commercial short haul and
intra-city delivery and pickup.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74251
HHD diesel engines are intended for
use in vehicles which exceed 33,000 lb
GVWR. Vehicles containing engines of
this type are normally tractors, trucks,
and buses used in inter-city, long-haul
applications. HHD engines are generally
regarded as designed for rebuild and
have a long useful life period. LHD and
MHD engines are typically not intended
for rebuild, though some MHD engines
are designed for rebuild, and have a
shorter useful life.
Gasoline or spark ignited engines for
heavy-duty vehicles fall into one
separate regulatory subcategory. These
engines are typically installed in trucks
with a GVWR ranging from 8,500
pounds to 19,500 pounds although they
can be installed into trucks of any size.
The compliance program we are
proposing would adopt a slightly
different method for generating a
manufacturer’s CO2 emission and fuel
consumption credit or deficit. The
manufacturer’s certification test result
would serve as the basis for the
generation of the manufacturer’s Family
Certification Level (FCL). The FCL is a
new term we propose for this program
to differentiate the purpose of this credit
generation technique from the Family
Emission Limit (FEL) previously used in
a similar context in other EPA rules. A
manufacturer could define its FCL at
any level at or above the certification
test result. Credits for the ABT program
would be generated when the FCL is
compared to its CO2 and fuel
consumption standard, as discussed in
Section II. The credits earned in this
section would be restricted to the engine
subcategory and not tradable with other
engine subcategories consistent with
EPA’s past practice for ABT programs as
described previously. Credit calculation
for the proposed Engine ABT and
program would be generated, either
positive or negative, according to
Equation IV–1 and Equation IV–2:
Equation IV–1: Proposed HD Engine
CO2 credit (deficit)
HD Engine CO2 credit (deficit) (metric
tons) = (Std¥FCL) × (CF) ×
(Volume) × (UL) × (10¥6)
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific engine regulatory subcategory
(g/bhp-hr)
FCL = Family Certification Level for the
engine family
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor in
bhp-hr/mile which is the integrated total
cycle brake horsepower-hour divided by
the equivalent mileage of the Heavy-duty
FTP cycle. For gasoline heavy-duty
engines, the equivalent mileage is 6.3
miles. For diesel heavy-duty engines, the
equivalent mileage is 6.5 miles. The
agencies are proposing that the CF
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74252
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
determined by the Heavy-duty FTP cycle
be used for engines certifying to the SET
standard.
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the engine family
UL = useful life of the engine (miles)
10¥6 converts the grams of CO2 to metric
tons
Equation IV–2: Proposed HD Engine
Fuel Consumption credit (deficit) in
gallons
HD Engine Fuel Consumption credit
(deficit) (gallons) = (Std ¥ FCL) ×
(CF) × (Volume) × (UL) × 102
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific engine regulatory subcategory
(gallon/100 bhp-hr)
FCL = Family Certification Level for the
engine family (gallon/100 bhp-hr)
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor in
bhp-hr/mile which is the integrated total
cycle brake horsepower-hour divided by
the equivalent mileage of the Heavy-duty
FTP cycle. For gasoline heavy-duty
engines, the equivalent mileage is 6.3
miles. For diesel heavy-duty engines, the
equivalent mileage is 6.5 miles. The
agencies are proposing that the CF
determined by the Heavy-duty FTP cycle
be used for engines certifying to the SET
standard.
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the engine family
UL = useful life of the engine (miles)
102 = conversion to gallons
To calculate credits or deficits,
manufacturers would determine an FCL
for each engine family they have
designated for the ABT program. We
have defined engine families in 40 CFR
1036.230 and manufacturers may
designate how to group their engines for
certification and compliance purposes.
The FCL may be above (negative) or
below (positive) its standard and would
be used to establish the CO2 credits
earned (or used) in Equation IV–1. The
proposed CO2 and fuel consumption
standards are associated with specific
regulatory subcategories as described in
Sections II.B and II.D (gasoline, light
heavy-duty diesel, medium heavy-duty
diesel, and heavy heavy-duty diesel). In
the ABT program, engines certified with
an FCL below the standard generate
positive credits (g/bhp-hr and gal/100
bhp-hr). As discussed in Section II.B
and II.D, engine families for which a
manufacturer elects to use the
alternative standard of a percent
reduction from the engine family’s 2011
MY baseline would be ineligible to
either generate or use credits.
The volume used in Equations IV–1
and IV–2 refers to the total number of
eligible engines sold per family
participating in the ABT program during
that model year. The useful life values
in Equation IV–1 are proposed to be the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
same as the regulatory classifications
previously used for the engine
subcategories. Thus, the agencies
propose that for LHD diesel engines and
gasoline engines, the useful life values
would be 110,000 miles; for MHD diesel
engines, 185,000 miles; and for HHD
diesel engines, 435,000 miles.
As noted above, credits generated by
engine manufacturers under this ABT
program would be restricted for use
only within their engine subcategory
based on performance against the
standard as defined in Section II.B and
II.D. Thus, LHD diesel engine
manufacturers could only use their LHD
diesel engine credits for averaging,
banking and trading with LHD diesel
engines, not with MHD diesel or HHD
diesel engines. This limitation is
consistent with ABT provisions in
EPA’s existing criteria pollutant
program for engines and would help
assure that credits earned to reduce
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
would be used to limit their growth and
not circumvent the intent of the
regulations. EPA and NHTSA are
concerned that extending the use of
credits beyond these designated
subcategories could also create an
advantage for large or integrated
manufacturers that currently does not
exist in the market. A manufacturer that
produces both engines and heavy-duty
highway vehicles could mix credits
across engine and vehicle categories,
shifting the burden between the sectors,
not equally shared in either sector, to
gain an advantage over competitors that
are not integrated. Similarly, large
volume manufacturers of engines can
shift credits between heavy heavy-duty
diesel engines and light heavy-duty
diesel engines to gain an advantage in
one subcategory over other
manufacturers that may not have
multiple engine offerings over several
regulatory engine subcategories. Finally,
relating credits between subcategories of
engines could be problematic because of
the differences in regulatory useful
lives. The agencies want to avoid having
credits from longer useful life categories
flooding shorter useful life categories,
adversely impacting compliance with
the proposed CO2 and fuel consumption
standards in the shorter useful life
category. The agencies would like to
ensure that this regulation reduces CO2
emissions and improves fuel
consumption in each engine
subcategory while not interfering with
the ability of manufacturers to engage in
free trade and competition. Limiting
credit ABT to the regulatory subcategory
and not between engines and vehicles
would help prevent a competitive
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
advantage due solely to the regulatory
structure. Although the reasons for
restricting engine credits to the same
engine subcategory seem persuasive to
us, the agencies welcome comments on
the extension of credits beyond the
limitations we are proposing.196
Under previous ABT programs for
other rulemakings, EPA has allowed
manufacturers to carry forward deficits
from engines for a set period of time.
The agencies are proposing to allow
manufacturers of engines to carry
forward deficits for up to three years
before reconciling the short-fall.
However, manufacturers would need to
use credits, once credits are generated,
to offset a shortfall before credits may be
banked or traded for additional model
years. This restriction reduces the
chance of manufacturers passing
forward deficits before reconciling
shortfalls and exhausting those credits
before reconciling past deficits. We will
accept comments on alternative
approaches for reconciling deficit
shortfalls in the engine category.
As described in Section II above, EPA
is proposing that a manufacturer may
choose to comply with the N2O or CH4
cap standards using CO2 credits. A
manufacturer choosing this option
would convert its N2O or CH4 test
results into CO2eq to determine the
amount of CO2 credits required. This
approach recognizes the intercorrelation of these elements in
impacting global warming. This option
does not apply to the NHTSA fuel
consumption program. To account for
the different global warming potential of
these GHGs, EPA proposes that
manufacturers determine the amount of
CO2 credits required by multiplying the
shortfall by the GWP. For example, a
manufacturer would use 25 kg of
positive CO2 credits to offset 1 kg of
negative CH4 credits. Or a manufacturer
would use 298 kg of positive CO2 credits
to offset 1 kg of negative N2O credits. In
general we do not expect manufacturers
to use this provision. However, we are
providing this alternative as a flexibility
in the event an engine manufacturer has
trouble meeting the CH4 and/or N2O
emission caps. There are not ABT
credits for performance that falls below
the CH4 or N2O caps.
Additional flexibilities for engines are
discussed later in Section IV(B).
196 These concerns were not present in the 2012–
2016 MY light-duty vehicle rule, where most
manufacturers offer diverse product lines and there
is not as much disparity among useful lives. That
rule consequently does not restrict CO2 credit
trading opportunities between light-duty vehicle
sectors.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
In addition to the engine ABT
program described above, the agencies
are also proposing a vehicle ABT
program to facilitate reductions in GHG
emissions and fuel consumption based
on combination tractor design changes
The proposed regulations use the term
‘‘averaging set’’ which aligns with the
regulatory subcategories or regulatory
class in the context that they define the
same set of products. Vehicle credits for
tractors in these classifications would be
earned on a g/ton-mile or gallon/1,000
ton-mile basis for tractors which are
below the standard. Credits generated
within regulatory subcategories would
be tradable between truck
manufacturers in that specific regulatory
subcategory only. Credits would not be
fungible between engine and vehicle
regulatory categories. This is similar to
the restrictions we have described above
for engine manufacturers.
This limitation would help ensure
that credits earned to reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption would
be used to limit their growth and not
circumvent the intent of our regulation.
As with engine credits, we are
concerned that extending the use of
credits to be transferred or traded to
other classes may create an advantage
for large or integrated manufacturers
that currently does not exist in the
market. We would like to ensure that
this regulation reduces the emission of
CO2 and fuel consumption but does not
effectively penalize non-integrated
manufacturers and those with limited
participation in the market. ABT
provides manufacturers the flexilibility
to deal with unforeseen shifts in the
marketplace that affect sales volumes.
This structure allows for a
straightforward compliance program for
each sector independently with aspects
that are also independently quantifiable
and verifiable. Credit calculation for the
proposed Class 7 and 8 tractor CO2 and
fuel consumption credits would be
generated, either positive or negative,
according to Equation IV–3 and
Equation IV–4:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
and improvements. For this category,
the structure of the proposed ABT
program should create incentives for
tractor manufacturers to advance new,
clean technologies, or existing
technologies earlier than they would
otherwise.
As explained in Sections II and III
above, combination tractor
manufacturers are divided into nine
regulatory subcategories under these
proposed rules, as shown in the
following table:
Equation IV–3: The Proposed Class 7
and 8 Tractor CO2 Credit (Deficit)
Class 7 and 8 Tractor CO2 credit
(deficit)(metric tons) = (Std-FEL) ×
(Payload Tons) × (Volume) × (UL) ×
(10¥6)
before reconciling the shortfall.
However, just as in the engine category,
manufacturers would need to use
credits once those credits have been
generated to offset a shortfall before
those credits can be banked or traded for
additional model years. This restriction
reduces the chance of tractor
manufacturers passing forward deficits
before reconciling their shortfalls and
exhausting those credits before
reconciling past deficits. Manufacturers
of vehicles that generate a deficit at the
end of the model year could carry that
deficit forward for three years following
the model year for which that deficit
was generated. Deficits would need to
be reconciled at the reporting dates for
year three. We will accept comments on
alternative approaches of reconciling
deficit shortfalls.
Additional flexibilities for Class 7 and
8 combination tractors are discussed
later in Section IV.B.
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific tractor regulatory class (g/tonmile)
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each class in tons (12.5 tons for Class 7
and 19 tons for Class 8)
FEL = Family Emission Limit for the tractor
family which is equal to the output from
GEM (g/ton-mile)
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the tractor family
UL = useful life of the tractor (435,000 miles
for Class 8 and 185,000 miles for Class
7)
10–6 converts the grams of CO2 to metric tons
Equation IV–4: Proposed Class 7 and 8
Tractor Fuel Consumption credit
(deficit) in gallons:
Class 7 and 8 Tractor Fuel Consumption
credit (deficit)(gallons) =
(Std¥FEL) × (Payload Tons) ×
(Volume) × (UL) × 103
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific tractor regulatory subcategory
(gallons/1,000 ton-mile)
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each class in tons (12.5 tons for Class 7
and 19 tons for Class 8)
FEL = Family Emission Limit for the tractor
family (gallons/1,000 ton-mile)
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the tractor family
UL = useful life of the tractor (435,000 miles
for Class 8 and 185,000 miles for Class
7)
103 = conversion to gallons
Similar to the proposed Heavy-duty
Engine ABT program described in the
previous section, we are proposing that
tractor manufacturers would be able to
carry forward credit deficits from their
regulatory subcategories for three years
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(3) Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
Similar to the Class 7 and 8
combination tractor manufacturers, we
are offering a limited ABT program for
Class 2b–8 vocational chassis
manufacturers. Vehicle credits would be
generated for those manufacturers that
introduce products into the market with
rolling resistance improvements which
are better than required to meet the
proposed vehicle standards, The
certification of the chassis would be
based on the use of LRR tires. Credit
calculation for the proposed Class 2b–8
vocational vehicle CO2 and fuel
consumption credits (deficits) would be
generated, either positive or negative,
according to Equation IV–5 and
Equation IV–6:
Equation IV–5: The proposed
Vocational Vehicle CO2 vehicle credit
(deficit)
Vocational Vehicle CO2 credit (deficit)
(metric tons) = (Std¥FEL) ×
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.046
(2) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
74253
74254
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(Payload Tons) × (Sales Volume) ×
(UL) × (10–6)
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific vocational vehicle subcategory
(g/ton-mile)
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each subcategory in tons (2.85 tons for
LHD, 5.6 tons for MHD, and 19 tons for
HHD vehicles)
FEL = Family Emission Limit for the vehicle
family (g/ton-mile)
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the vehicle family
UL = useful life of the vehicle (110,000 miles
for LHD, 185,000 miles for MHD, or
435,000 miles for HHD vehicles)
10–6 converts the grams of CO2 to metric tons
Equation IV–6: Proposed Vocational
Vehicle Fuel Consumption credit
(deficit) in gallons
Vocational Vehicle Fuel Consumption
credit for (deficit) (gallons) =
(Std¥FEL) × (Payload Tons) ×
(Sales Volume) × (UL) × 103
Where:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Std = the standard associated with the
specific vocational vehicle regulatory
subcategory (gallon/1,000 ton-mile)
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each regulatory subcategory in tons (2.85
tons for LHD, 5.6 tons for MHD, and 19
tons for HHD vehicles)
FEL = Family Emission Limit for the vehicle
family (gallon/1,000 ton-mile)
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the vehicle family
UL = useful life of the vehicle (110,000 miles
for LHD, 185,000 miles for MHD, or
435,000 miles for HHD vehicles)
103 converts to gallons
Also, similar to the proposed heavyduty engine and tractor ABT programs,
the vehicle credits generated within
each regulatory subcategory would be
allowed to be averaged, banked, or
traded between chassis manufacturers
within their existing subcategories. For
vocational vehicles the proposed
vehicle subcategories are based on the
vehicle’s GVWR. We are proposing three
vehicle subcategories LHD with a
GVWR less than or equal to 19,500
pounds, MHD vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 19,500 and less than or
equal to 33,000 pounds, and HHD
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
33,000 pounds. These three weight
categories would form the subcategories
for vocational vehicles and are found in
40 CFR 1037.230. The proposed
regulations use the term ‘‘averaging set’’
which aligns with the regulatory
categories or regulatory class in the
context that they define the same set of
products.
Similar to the proposed Heavy-duty
Engine ABT program above, vocational
chassis manufacturers would be able to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
carry forward deficits for three years
before reconciling the shortfall.
However, just as in the engine category,
manufacturers would need to use
credits earned once those credits have
been generated to offset a shortfall
before those credits can be banked or
traded for additional model years. This
restriction reduces the chance of chassis
manufacturers passing forward deficits
before reconciling their shortfalls and
exhausting those credits before
reconciling past deficits. Manufacturers
of vocational vehicles that generate a
deficit at the end of the model year
could carry that deficit forward for three
years following the model year for
which that deficit was generated.
Deficits would need to be reconciled at
the reporting dates for year three. We
will accept comments on alternative
approaches of reconciling deficit
shortfalls.
(4) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van
Flexibility Provisions
EPA and NHTSA are proposing
specific flexibility provisions for
manufacturers of HD pickups and vans,
similar to provisions adopted in the
recent rulemaking for light-duty car and
truck GHGs and fuel economy.
Additional flexibilities that apply to the
broad range of heavy-duty vehicles,
including HD pickups and vans, are
discussed in Section IV.B. All of these
flexibilities would help enable new
technologies to be implemented faster
and more cost-effectively than without a
flexibility program, and also help
manufacturers deal with unexpected
shifts in sales.
A manufacturer’s credit or debit
balance would be determined by
calculating their fleet average
performance and comparing it to the
manufacturer’s CO2 and fuel
consumption standards, as determined
by their fleet mix, for a given model
year. A target standard is determined for
each vehicle with a unique payload,
towing capacity and drive configuration.
These unique targets, weighted by their
associated production volumes, are
summed at the end of the model year to
derive the production volume-weighted
manufacturer annual fleet average
standard. A manufacturer would
generate credits if its fleet average CO2
or fuel consumption level is lower than
its standard and would generate debits
if its fleet average CO2 or fuel
consumption level is above that
standard. The end-of-year reports would
provide appropriate data to reconcile
pre-compliance estimates with final
model year figures. Similar to the lightduty GHG program, the agencies would
address any ultimate deficits by a
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
possible void of certificates on a
sufficient number of vehicles to address
the shortfall. Enforcement action would
entail penalty or other relief as
appropriate or applicable.
In addition to production weighting,
we are proposing that the EPA credit
calculations include a factor for the
vehicle useful life, in miles, in order to
allow the expression of credits in metric
tons, as in the light-duty GHG program.
The NHTSA credit calculation would
use standard and performance levels in
fuel consumption units (gallons per 100
miles), as opposed to fuel economy
units (mpg) as done in the light-duty
program, along with the vehicle useful
life, in miles, allowing the expression of
credits in gallons. We propose that other
provisions for the generation, tracking,
trading, and use of the credits be the
same as those adopted in the light-duty
GHG program, including a 5-year limit
on credit carry-forward to future model
years and a 3-year limit on deficit carryforward (or credit carry-back).
The total model year fleet credit
(debit) calculations would use the
following equations:
CO2 Credits (Mg) = [(CO2 Std¥CO2 Act)
× Volume × UL] ÷ 1,000,000
Fuel Consumption Credits (gallons) =
(FC Std¥FC Act) × Volume × UL ×
100
Where:
CO2 Std = Fleet average CO2 standard (g/mi)
FC Std = Fleet average fuel consumption
standard (gal/100 mile)
CO2 Act = Fleet average actual CO2 value (g/
mi)
FC Act = Fleet average actual fuel
consumption value (gal/100 mile)
Volume = the total production of vehicles in
the regulatory class
UL = the useful life for the regulatory class
(miles)
We are proposing that HD pickups
and vans comprise a self-contained
averaging set, such that credits earned
may be used freely for other HD pickups
and vans but not for other vehicles or
engines, and credits generated by other
vehicles or engines may not be used to
demonstrate compliance for HD pickups
and vans. We believe this approach is
appropriate because the HD pickup and
van fleet is relatively small and the
balanced fleetwide averaging concept is
critical for obtaining the desired
technology development in the 2014–
2018 timeframe, so that the potential for
large credit flows into or out of this
vehicle category would create
unwarranted market uncertainty, which
in turn could jeopardize the impetus to
develop needed technologies. An
exception to this approach is proposed
for advanced technology credits as
discussed in Section IV.B(2).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
As described above, HD pickup and
van manufacturers would be able to
carry forward deficits from their fleetwide average for three years before
reconciling the shortfall. Manufacturers
would be required to provide a plan in
their pre-model year reports showing
how they would resolve projected credit
deficits. However, just as in the engine
category, manufacturers would need to
use credits earned once those credits
have been generated to offset a shortfall
before those credits can be banked or
traded for additional model years. This
restriction reduces the chance of vehicle
manufacturers passing forward deficits
before reconciling their shortfalls and
exhausting those credits before
reconciling past deficits. We request
comments on all aspects of the proposed
HD pickup and van credit program.
B. Additional Proposed Flexibility
Provisions
The agencies are also proposing
provisions to facilitate reductions in
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
beginning in the 2014 model year.
While we view our proposed ABT and
flexibility structure as sufficient to
encourage reduction efforts by heavyduty highway engine and vehicle
manufacturers, we understand that
other efforts may enhance the overall
GHG and fuel consumption reduction
we anticipate achieving. Therefore we
propose the following flexibilities to
create additional opportunities for
manufacturers to reduce their GHG
emissions and fuel consumption. These
opportunities would help provide
additional incentives for manufacturers
to innovate and to develop new
strategies and cleaner technologies.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Early Credit Option
The agencies are proposing that
manufacturers of HD engines,
combination tractors, and vocational
vehicles be eligible to generate early
credits if they demonstrate
improvements in excess of the proposed
standards prior to model year they
become effective. The start dates for
EPA’s GHG standards and NHTSA’s fuel
consumption standards vary by
regulatory category (see Section II for
the model years when the standards
become effective). Specifically,
manufacturers would need to certify
their engines or vehicles to the
standards at least six months before the
start of the first model year of the
mandatory standards. The limitations
on the use of credits in the ABT
programs—i.e., limiting averaging to
within each the regulatory category and
vehicle or engine subcategory—would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
apply for the proposed early credits as
well.
NHTSA and EPA also request
comment on whether a credit
multiplier, specifically a multiplier of
1.5, would be appropriate to apply to
early credits from HD engines,
combination tractors, and vocational
vehicles, as a greater incentive for early
compliance. Additionally, the agencies
seek comment on whether or not a
requirement that HD engines,
combination tractors, and vocational
vehicles that are eligible to generate
early credits, be allowed to do so only
if they certify prior to June 1, 2013
should a multiplier of 1.5 be applied to
early credits.
We are proposing that manufacturers
of HD pickups and vans who
demonstrate improvements for model
year 2013 such that their fleet average
emissions and fuel consumption are
lower than the model year 2014
standards be eligible for early credits.
Under the proposed structure for the
fleet average standards, this credit
opportunity would entail certifying a
manufacturer’s entire HD pickup and
van fleet in model year 2013, and
assessing this fleet against the model
year 2014 target levels discussed in
Section II. The agencies consider the
proposed availability of early credits to
be a valuable complement to the overall
program to the extent that they
encourage early implementation of
effective technologies. We request
comment on ways the early credit
opportunities can be tailored to
accomplish this objective and protect
against unanticipated windfalls.
(2) Advanced Technology Credits
EPA and NHTSA are proposing
targeted provisions that we expect
would promote the implementation of
advanced technologies. Specifically,
manufacturers that incorporate these
technologies would be eligible for
special credits that could be applied to
other heavy-duty vehicles or engines,
including those in other heavy-duty
categories. We seek comment on any
conversion factors that may be needed.
Technologies that we propose to make
eligible are:
• Hybrid powertrain designs that
include energy storage systems.
• Rankine cycle engines.
• All-electric vehicles.
• Fuel cell vehicles.
NHTSA and EPA request comment on
whether a credit multiplier, specifically
a multiplier of 1.5, would be
appropriate to apply to advanced
technology credits, as a greater incentive
for their introduction. NHTSA and EPA
request comment on the list of
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74255
technologies identified as advanced
technologies and whether additional
technologies should be added to the list.
NHTSA and EPA also request comment
on whether credits generated from
vehicles complying prior to 2014 and
using Advanced SmartWay or Advanced
SmartWay II aerodynamic technologies
should be designated as Advanced
Technology Credits.
(a) All-Electric Vehicles and HD Pickup
Truck and Van Hybrids
For HD pickup and van hybrids, we
propose that testing would be done
using adjustments to the test procedures
developed for light-duty hybrids.
NHTSA and EPA are also proposing that
all-electric and other zero emission
vehicles produced in model years before
2014 be able to earn credits for use in
the 2014 and later HD pickup and van
compliance program, provided the
vehicles are covered by an EPA
certificate of conformity for criteria
pollutants. These credits would be
calculated based on the 2014 diesel
standard targets corresponding to the
vehicle’s work factor, and treated as
though they were earned in 2014 for
purposes of credit life. Manufacturers
would not have to early-certify their
entire HD pickup and van fleet in a
model year as for other early-complying
vehicles. NHTSA and EPA are also
proposing that model year 2014 and
later EVs and other zero emission
vehicles be factored into the fleet
average GHG and fuel consumption
calculations based on the diesel
standards targets for their model year
and work factor. If advanced technology
credits generated by pickups and vans
are used in another HD vehicle category,
these credits would, of course, be
subtracted from the manufacturer’s
pickup and van category credit balance.
In the 2012–2016 MY Light-Duty
Vehicle Rule, EPA discussed at length
the issue of whether to account for
upstream emissions of GHGs in
assessing the amount of credit to offer
to various types of electric vehicles—
that is, GHG emissions associated with
generation of the electricity needed to
power the electric vehicle. See 75 FR
25434–25436. Although acknowledging
that such emissions would not be
accounted for if electric vehicle GHG
emissions are assessed at zero for credit
generating purposes, EPA believed that
this was the appropriate course in order
to provide an incentive for
commercialization of this extremely
promising technology. At the same time,
EPA adopted a cumulative cap whereby
upstream emissions would be accounted
for if sales of EVs exceeded a given
amount.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The agencies believe that these same
considerations apply to heavy-duty
vehicles. Indeed, the agencies believe
that introduction of EVs into the heavyduty fleet would be less frequent than
for light-duty vehicles, so that there is
less risk of dilution of the main
standards by unexpectedly high
introduction of EVs into the heavy-duty
fleet and at least an equally compelling
reason to provide an incentive for the
technology’s commercial introduction.
Given the unlikelihood of significant
penetration of the technology in the
model years of these standards, the
agencies similarly do not see a need to
adopt the type of cumulative caps
which would trigger an upstream
emission accounting procedure as in the
light-duty vehicle rule. The agencies
solicit comment on these issues,
however.
(b) Vocational Vehicle and Tractor
Hybrids
For vocational vehicles or
combination tractors incorporating
hybrid powertrains, we propose two
methods for establishing the number of
credits generated, each of which is
discussed next. The agencies are not
aware of models that have been
adequately peer reviewed with data that
can assess this technology without the
conclusion of a comparison test of the
actual physical product.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) Chassis Dynamometer Evaluation
For hybrid certification to generate
credits we propose to utilize chassis
testing as an effective way to compare
the CO2 emissions and fuel
Similarly, the benefit associated with
the hybrid system for fuel consumption
would be determined from the weighted
The second set of duty cycles apply
to testing hybrid vehicles used in
applications such as utility and refuse
trucks tend to have additional benefits
associated with use of stored energy,
which avoids main engine operation
and related CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption during PTO operation. To
appropriately address benefits,
exercising the conventional and hybrid
vehicles using their PTO would help to
quantify the benefit to GHG emissions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
consumption performance of
conventional and hybrid vehicles. We
are proposing that heavy-duty hybrid
vehicles be certified using ‘‘A to B’’
vehicle chassis dynamometer testing.
This concept allows a hybrid vocational
vehicle manufacturer to directly
quantify the benefit associated with use
of its hybrid system on an applicationspecific basis. The concept would entail
testing the conventional vehicle,
identified as ‘‘A’’, using the cycles as
defined in Section V. The ‘‘B’’ vehicle
would be the hybrid version of vehicle
‘‘A’’. The ‘‘B’’ vehicle would need to be
the same exact vehicle model as the ‘‘A’’
vehicle. As an alternative, if no specific
‘‘A’’ vehicle exists for the hybrid vehicle
that is the exact vehicle model, the most
similar vehicle model would need to be
used for testing. We propose to define
the ‘‘most similar vehicle’’ as a vehicle
with the same footprint, same payload,
same testing capacity, the same engine
power system, the same intended
service class, and the same coefficient of
drag.
To determine the benefit associated
with the hybrid system for GHG
performance, the weighted CO2
emissions results from the chassis test of
each vehicle would define the benefit as
described below:
1. (CO2_A¥CO2_B)/(CO2_A) = llll
(Improvement Factor)
2. Improvement Factor × GEM CO2
Result_B = llll (g/ton mile
benefit)
and fuel consumption reductions. The
duty cycle proposed to quantify the
hybrid CO2 and fuel consumption
impact over this broader set of operation
would be the three primary drive cycles
plus a PTO duty cycle. Our proposed
PTO cycle is based on consideration of
using alternate, appropriate duty cycles
with Administrator approval in a public
process. The PTO duty cycle as
proposed takes into account the sales
impact and population of utility trucks
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fuel consumption results from the
chassis tests of each vehicle as
described below:
3. (Fuel Consumption_A¥Fuel
Consumption_B)/(Fuel
Consumption_A) = llll
(Improvement Factor)
4. Improvement Factor × GEM Fuel
Consumption Result_B = llll
(gallon/1,000 ton mile benefit)
The credits for the hybrid vehicle
would be calculated as described in the
ABT program by Equation IV–5 and
Equation IV–6, except that the result
from Equation 2 above replaces the (StdFEL) value. We are proposing that the
tons of CO2 or gallons of fuel credits
generated by a hybrid vehicle could
flow into any regulatory subcategory.
The agencies are proposing two sets of
duty cycles to evaluate the benefit
depending on the vehicle application to
assess hybrid vehicle performance—
without and with PTO systems. The key
difference between these two sets of
vehicles is that one set (e.g., delivery
trucks) does not operate a PTO while
the other set (e.g., bucket and refuse
trucks) does.
The first set of duty cycles would
apply to the hybrid powertrains used to
improve the motive performance of the
vehicles without a PTO system (such as
pickup and delivery trucks). The typical
operation of these vehicles is very
similar to the overall drive cycles
proposed in Section II. Therefore, the
agencies are proposing to use the same
vehicle drive cycle weightings for
testing these vehicles, as shown in Table
IV–2.
and refuse haulers. As described in draft
RIA Chapter 3, the agencies are
proposing to add an additional PTO
cycle to measure the improvement
achieved for this type of hybrid
powertrain application. The proposed
weightings for the hybrids with PTO are
included in Table IV–3. The agencies
welcome comments on the proposed
drive cycle weightings and the proposed
PTO cycle.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.047
74256
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(ii) Engine Dynamometer Evaluation
The engine test procedure we are
proposing for hybrid evaluation
involves exercising the conventional
engine and hybrid-engine system based
on an engine testing strategy. The basis
for the system control volume, which
serves to determine the valid test article,
would need to be the most accurate
representation of real world
functionality. An engine test
methodology would be considered valid
to the extent the test is performed on a
test article that does not mischaracterize
criteria pollutant performance or actual
system performance. Energy inputs
should not be based on simulation data
which is not an accurate reflection of
actual real world operation. It is clearly
important to be sure credits are
generated based on known physical
systems. This includes testing using
recovered vehicle kinetic energy.
Additionally, the duty cycle over which
this engine-hybrid system would be
exercised would need to reflect the use
of the application, while not promoting
a proliferation of duty cycles which
prevent a standardized basis for
comparing hybrid system performance.
The agencies are proposing the use of
the Heavy-duty FTP cycle for evaluation
of hybrid vehicles, which is the same
test cycle proposed for engines used in
vocational vehicles. For powerpack
testing, which includes the engine and
hybrid systems in a pre-transmission
format, the engine based testing is
applicable for determination of brakespecific emissions benefit versus the
engine standard. For post-transmission
powertrain systems and vehicles, the
comparison evaluation based on the
Improvement Factor and the GEM result
based on a vehicle drive trace in a
powertrain test cell or chassis
dynamometer test cell seem to
accurately reflect the performance
improvements associated with these test
configurations. It is important that
introduction of clean technology be
incentivized without compromising the
program intent of real world
improvements in GHG and fuel
consumption performance. The agencies
seek comments on the most appropriate
test procedures to accurately reflect the
performance improvement associated
with hybrid systems tested using these
or other protocols.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(3) Innovative Technology Credits
NHTSA and EPA are proposing a
credit opportunity intended to apply to
new and innovative technologies that
reduce fuel consumption and CO2
emissions, but for which the reduction
benefits are not captured over the test
procedure used to determine
compliance with the standards (i.e., the
benefits are ‘‘off-cycle’’). See 75 FR
25438–25440 where EPA adopted a
similar credit program for MY 2012–
2016 light-duty vehicles. In this case,
the ‘test procedure’ includes not only
the Heavy-duty FTP and SET
procedures used to measure compliance
with the engine standards, but also the
GEM. Eligible innovative technologies
would be those that are newly
introduced in one or more vehicle
models or engines, but that are not yet
widely implemented in the heavy-duty
fleet. This could include known
technologies not yet widely utilized in
a particular subcategory. Further, any
credits for these off-cycle technologies
would need to be based on real-world
fuel consumption and GHG reductions
that can be measured with verifiable test
methods and representing driving
conditions typical of the vehicle
application.
We would not consider technologies
to be eligible for these credits if the
technology has a significant impact on
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
over the primary test cycles or are the
technologies on whose performance the
various vehicle and engine standards
are premised. However, EPA and
NHTSA are aware of some emerging and
innovative technologies and concepts in
various stages of development with CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
reduction potential that might not be
adequately captured on the proposed
certification test cycles, and we believe
that some of these technologies might
merit some additional CO2 and fuel
consumption credit generating potential
for the manufacturer. Examples include
predictive cruise control, gear-down
protection, and active aerodynamic
features not exercised in the
certification test, such as adjustable ride
height for pickup trucks. We believe it
would be appropriate to provide an
incentive to encourage the introduction
of these types of technologies and that
a credit mechanism is an effective way
to do so. This optional credit
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74257
opportunity would be available through
the 2018 model year reflecting that
technologies may be common by then,
but the agencies welcome comment on
the need to extend beyond model year
2018.
EPA and NHTSA propose that credits
generated using innovative technologies
be restricted within the subcategory
where the credit was generated. The
agencies request comments whether
credits generated using innovative
technologies should be fungible across
vehicle and engine categories.
We are proposing that manufacturers
quantify CO2 and fuel consumption
reductions associated with the use of
the off-cycle technologies such that the
credits could be applied based on the
proposed metrics (such as g/mile and
gal/100 mile for pickup trucks, g/tonmile and gal/1,000 ton-mile for tractors
and vocational vehicles, and g/bhp-hr
and gal/100 bhp-hr for engines). Credits
would have to be based on real
additional reductions of CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption and would need
to be quantifiable and verifiable with a
repeatable methodology. Such
submissions of data should be
submitted to EPA and NHTSA, and
would be subject to a public evaluation
process in which the public would have
opportunity for comment. See 75 FR
25440. We propose that the technologies
upon which the credits are based would
be subject to full useful life compliance
provisions, as with other emissions
controls. Unless the manufacturer can
demonstrate that the technology would
not be subject to in-use deterioration
over the useful life of the vehicle, the
manufacturer would have to account for
deterioration in the estimation of the
credits in order to ensure that the
credits are based on real in-use
emissions reductions over the life of the
vehicle.
In cases where the benefit of a
technological approach to reducing CO2
emissions and fuel consumption cannot
be adequately represented using existing
test cycles, EPA and NHTSA would
review and approve as appropriate test
procedures and analytical approaches to
estimate the effectiveness of the
technology for the purpose of generating
credits. The demonstration program
should be robust, verifiable, and capable
of demonstrating the real-world
emissions benefit of the technology with
strong statistical significance. See 75 FR
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.048
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74258
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
25440. For HD pickups and vans, EPA
and NHTSA believe that the 5-cycle
approach currently used in EPA’s fuel
economy labeling program for light-duty
vehicles may provide a suitable test
regimen, provided it can be reliably
conducted on the dynamometer and can
capture the impact of the off-cycle
technology (see 71 FR 77872, December
27, 2006). EPA established the 5-cycle
test methods to better represent realworld factors impacting fuel economy,
including higher speeds and more
aggressive driving, colder temperature
operation, and the use of air
conditioning.
The CO2 and fuel consumption
benefit of some technologies may be
able to be demonstrated with a
modeling approach. In other cases
manufacturers might have to design onroad test programs that are statistically
robust and based on real-world driving
conditions. Whether the approach
involves on-road testing, modeling, or
some other analytical approach, the
manufacturer would be required to
present a proposed methodology to EPA
and NHTSA. EPA and NHTSA would
approve the methodology and credits
only if certain criteria were met.
Baseline emissions and control
emissions would need to be clearly
demonstrated over a wide range of realworld driving conditions and over a
sufficient number of vehicles to address
issues of uncertainty with the data. Data
would need to be on a vehicle modelspecific basis unless a manufacturer
demonstrated model-specific data was
not necessary. Approval of the approach
to determining a CO2 and fuel
consumption benefit would not imply
approval of the results of the program or
methodology; when the testing,
modeling, or analyses are complete the
results would likewise be subject to EPA
and NHTSA review and approval. The
agencies believe that suppliers and
vehicle manufacturers could work
together to develop testing, modeling, or
analytical methods for certain
technologies, similar to the SAE
approach used for A/C refrigerant
leakage scores. As with the similar
procedure for alternative off-cycle
credits under the 2012–2016 MY lightduty vehicle program, the agencies
would include an opportunity for public
comment as part of any approval
process.
The agencies request comments on
the proposed approach for off-cycle
emissions credits, including comments
on how best to structure the program.
EPA and NHTSA particularly request
comments on how the case-by-case
approach to assessing off-cycle
innovative technology credits could best
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
be designed, including ways to ensure
the verification of real-world emissions
benefits and to ensure transparency in
the process of reviewing manufacturers’
proposed test methods.
V. NHTSA and EPA Proposed
Compliance, Certification, and
Enforcement Provisions
A. Overview
(1) Proposed Compliance Approach
This section describes EPA’s and
NHTSA’s proposed program to ensure
compliance with EPA’s proposed
emission standards for CO2, N2O, and
CH4 and NHTSA’s proposed fuel
consumption standards, as described in
Section II. To achieve the goals
projected in this proposal, it is
important for the agencies to have an
effective and coordinated compliance
program for our respective standards. As
is the case with the Light-Duty GHG and
CAFE program, the proposed
compliance program for heavy-duty
vehicles and engines has two central
priorities. (1) To address the agencies’
respective statutory requirements; and
(2) to streamline the compliance process
for both manufacturers and the agencies
by building on existing practice
wherever possible, and by structuring
the program such that manufacturers
can use a single data set to satisfy the
requirements of both agencies. It is also
important to consider the provisions of
EPA’s existing criteria pollutant
program in the development of the
approach used for heavy-duty
certification and compliance. The
existing EPA heavy-duty highway
engine emissions program has an
established infrastructure and
methodology that would allow effective
integration with this proposed GHG and
fuel consumption program, without
needing to create new unique processes
in many instances. The compliance
program would also need to address the
importance of the impact of new control
methods for heavy-duty vehicles as well
as other control systems and strategies
that may extend beyond the traditional
purview of the criteria pollutant
program.
The proposed heavy-duty compliance
program would use a variety of
mechanisms to conduct compliance
assessments, including preproduction
certification and postproduction, in-use
monitoring once vehicles enter
customer service. Specifically, the
agencies are establishing a compliance
program that utilizes existing EPA
testing protocols and certification
procedures. Under the provisions of this
program, manufacturers would have
significant opportunity to exercise
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
implementation flexibility, based on the
program schedule and design, as well as
the credit provisions that are being
proposed in the program for advanced
technologies. This proposal includes a
process to foster the use of innovative
technologies, not yet contemplated in
the current certification process. EPA
would continue to conduct compliance
preview meetings which provide the
agency an opportunity to review a
manufacturer’s new product plans and
ABT projections. Given the nature of the
proposed compliance program which
would involve both engine and vehicle
compliance for some categories, it
would be necessary for manufacturers to
begin pre-certification meetings with
EPA early enough to address issues of
certification and compliance for both
integrated and non-integrated product
offerings.
Based on feedback EPA and NHTSA
received during the Light-Duty GHG
comment period, both agencies would
seek to ensure transparency in the
compliance process. In addition to
providing information in published
reports annually regarding the status of
credit balances and compliance on an
industry basis, EPA and NHTSA seek
comment on additional strategies for
providing information useful to the
public regarding industry’s progress
toward reducing GHG emissions and
fuel consumption from this sector while
protecting sensitive business
information.
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
The proposed compliance regulations
(for certification, testing, reporting, and
associated compliance activities) for
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
closely track both current practices and
the recently adopted greenhouse gas
regulations for light-duty vehicles and
trucks. Thus they would be familiar to
manufacturers. EPA already oversees
testing, collects and processes test data,
and performs calculations to determine
compliance with both CAFE and CAA
standards for Light-Duty. For HeavyDuty products that closely parallel lightduty pick-ups and vans, under a
coordinated approach, the compliance
mechanisms for both programs for
NHTSA and EPA would be consistent
and non-duplicative for GHG pollutant
standards and fuel consumption
requirements. Vehicle emission
standards established under the CAA
apply throughout a vehicle’s full useful
life.
Under EPA existing criteria pollutant
emission standard program for heavyduty pickup trucks and vans, vehicle
manufacturers certify a group of
vehicles called a test group. A test group
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
typically includes multiple vehicle lines
and model types that share critical
emissions-related features. The
manufacturer generally selects and tests
a single vehicle, typically considered
‘‘worst case’’ for criteria pollutant
emissions, which is allowed to
represent the entire test group for
certification purposes. The test vehicle
is the one expected to be the worst case
for the emission standard at issue.
Emissions from the test vehicle are
assigned as the value for the entire test
group. However, the compliance
program in the recent GHG regulations
for light-duty vehicles, which is
essentially the well established CAFE
compliance program, allows and may
require manufacturers to perform
additional testing at finer levels of
vehicle models and configurations in
order to get more precise model-level
fuel economy and CO2 emission levels.
This same approach would be applied
to heavy-duty pickups and vans.
Additionally, like the light-duty
program, approved use of analytically
derived fuel economy would be allowed
to predict the fuel efficiency and CO2
levels of some vehicles in lieu of testing
when deemed appropriate by the
agencies. The degree to which
analytically derived fuel economy
would be allowed and the design of the
adjustment factors would be determined
by the agencies.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engines
Heavy-duty engine certification and
compliance for traditional criteria
pollutants has been established by EPA
in its current general form since 1985.
In developing a program to address GHG
pollutants, it is important to build upon
the infrastructure for certification and
compliance that exists today. At the
same time, it is necessary to develop
additional tools to address compliance
with GHG emissions requirements,
since the proposed standard reflect
control strategies that extend beyond
those of traditional criteria pollutants.
In so doing, the agencies are proposing
use of EPA’s current engine test based
strategy—currently used for criteria
pollutant compliance—to also measure
compliance for GHG emissions. The
agencies are also proposing to add new
strategies to address vehicle specific
designs and hardware which impact
GHG emissions. The traditional engine
approach would largely match the
existing criteria pollutant control
strategy. This would allow the basic
tools for certification and compliance,
which have already been developed and
implemented, to be expanded for carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Engines with similar emissions control
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
technology may be certified in engine
families, as with criteria pollutants.
For EPA, the proposed approach for
certification would follow the current
process, which would require
manufacturer submission of certification
applications, approval of the
application, and receipt of the certificate
of conformity prior to introduction into
commerce of any engines. EPA proposes
the certificate of conformity be a single
document that would be applicable for
both criteria pollutants and greenhouse
gas pollutants. NHTSA would assess
compliance with its fuel consumption
standards based on the results of the
EPA GHG emissions compliance process
for each engine family.
(c) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
and Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
Currently, except for HD pickups and
vans, EPA does not directly regulate
exhaust emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles as a complete entity. Instead, a
compliance assessment of the engine is
undertaken as described above. Vehicle
manufacturers installing certified
engines are required to do so in a
manner that maintains all functionality
of the emission control system. While
no process exists for certifying these
heavy-duty vehicles, the agencies
believe that a process similar to the one
we propose for use for heavy-duty
engines can be applied to the vehicles.
The agencies are proposing related
certification programs for heavy-duty
vehicles. Manufacturers would divide
their vehicles into families and submit
applications to each agency for
certification for each family. However,
the demonstration of compliance would
not require emission testing of the
complete vehicle, but would instead
involve a computer simulation model,
GEM. This modeling tool uses a
combination of manufacturer-specified
and agency-defined vehicle parameters
to estimate vehicle emissions and fuel
consumption. This model would then
be exercised over certain drive cycles.
EPA and NHTSA are proposing the duty
cycles over which Class 7 and 8
combination tractors would be exercised
to be: 65 mile per hour steady state
cruise cycle, the 55 mile per hour steady
state cruise cycle, and the California
ARB transient cycle. Additional details
regarding these duty cycles will be
addressed in Section V.D(1)(b) below.
Over each duty cycle, the simulation
tool would return the expected CO2
emissions, in g/ton-mile, and fuel
consumption, gal/1,000 ton-mile, which
would then be compared to the
standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74259
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
(1) Proposed Compliance Approach
EPA and NHTSA are proposing new
emission standards to control
greenhouse gases (GHGs) and reduce
fuel consumption from heavy-duty
trucks between a gross vehicle weight
rating between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds
that are not already covered under the
MY 2012–2016 light-duty truck and
medium-duty passenger vehicle GHG
standards. In this section ‘‘trucks’’ now
refers to heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds
not already covered under the above
light-duty rule.
First, EPA is proposing fleet average
emission standards for CO2 on a gram
per mile (g/mile) basis and NHTSA is
proposing fuel consumption standards
on a gal/100 mile basis that would apply
to a manufacturer’s fleet of heavy-duty
trucks and vans with a GVWR from
8,500 pounds to 14,000 pounds (Class
2b and 3). CO2 is the primary pollutant
resulting from the combustion of
vehicular fuels, and the amount of CO2
emitted is highly correlated to the
amount of fuel consumed. In addition,
the EPA is proposing separate emissions
standards for three other GHG
pollutants: CH4, N2O, and HFC. CH4 and
N2O emissions relate closely to the
design and efficient use of emission
control hardware (i.e., catalytic
converters). The standards for CH4 and
N2O would be set as caps that would
limit emissions increases and prevent
backsliding from current emission
levels. In lieu of meeting the caps, EPA
is optionally proposing that
manufacturer could offset any N2O
emissions or any CH4 emissions above
the cap by taking steps to further reduce
CO2. Separately, EPA is proposing to set
standards to control the leakage of HFCs
from air conditioning systems. EPA and
NHTSA are requesting comment on the
opportunity for manufacturers to earn
credits toward the fleet-wide average
CO2 and fuel consumption standards for
improvements to air conditioning
system efficiency that reduce the load
on the engine and thereby reduce CO2
emissions and fuel consumption.
Previously, complete vehicles with a
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 8,500–
14,000 pounds could be certified
according to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
These heavy-duty chassis certified
vehicles were required to pass
emissions on both the Light-duty FTP
and HFET (California certified only
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74260
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirement).197 These proposed rules
would use the same testing procedures
already required for heavy-duty chassis
certification, namely the Light-duty FTP
and the HFET but extend the
requirement for chassis certification for
CO2 emissions to diesel-powered
vehicles. Currently, chassis certification
is a gasoline requirement and a diesel
option. Using the data from these two
tests, EPA and NHTSA would compare
the CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption results against the
attribute-based target. The attribute
upon which the CO2 standard would be
based would be a function of vehicle
payload, vehicle towing capacity and
two-wheel versus four-wheel drive
configuration as discussed in Section
II.C(1)(b) of this notice. The attributebased standard targets would be used to
determine a manufacturer fleet standard
and would be subject to an average
banking and trading scheme similar to
the light-duty GHG rule.
This proposal would require nearly
all heavy-duty trucks between 8,500 and
14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight
rating that are not already covered
under the light-duty truck and mediumduty passenger vehicle GHG standards
to have a CO2, CH4 and N2O values
assigned to them, either from actual
chassis dynamometer testing or from the
results of a representative vehicle in the
test group with appropriate adjustments
made for differences. This requirement
would apply based on whether the
vehicle manufacturer sold the vehicle as
a complete or nearly complete
vehicle.198 Manufacturers would be
allowed to exclude vehicles they sell to
secondary manufacturers without cabs
(often known as rolling chassis), as well
as a very small number of vehicles sold
with cabs. Specifically, a manufacturer
could certify up to two percent of its
vehicles with complete cabs, or up to
2,000 vehicles if its total sales in this
category was less than 100,000, as
vocational vehicles. To the extent
manufacturers are allowed to engine
certify for criteria pollutant (non-GHG)
requirements today, they would be
allowed to continue to do so under the
proposed regulations.
Because the program being proposed
for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
is so similar to the program recently
adopted for light-duty trucks and
codified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S,
EPA is proposing to apply most of those
197 Diesel engines are engine-certified with the
option to chassis certification Federally and for
California.
198 The proposed regulations would use the term
‘‘cab-complete vehicle’’ to refer to incomplete
vehicles sold with complete cabs, but lacking a
cargo carrying container.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
subpart S regulatory provisions to
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans and
to not recodify them in the new part
1037. Most of the new part 1037 would
not apply for heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans. How 40 CFR part 86 applies,
and which provisions of the new 40
CFR part 1037 apply for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans is described in
§ 1037.104.
(a) Certification Process
CAA section 203(a)(1) prohibits
manufacturers from introducing a new
motor vehicle into commerce unless the
vehicle is covered by an EPA-issued
certificate of conformity. Section
206(a)(1) of the CAA describes the
requirements for EPA issuance of a
certificate of conformity, based on a
demonstration of compliance with the
emission standards established by EPA
under section 202 of the Act. The
certification demonstration requires
emission testing, and must be done for
each model year.199
Under existing heavy-duty chassis
certification and other EPA emission
standard programs, vehicle
manufacturers certify a group of
vehicles called a test group. A test group
typically includes multiple vehicle car
lines and model types that share critical
emissions-related features.200 The
manufacturer generally selects and tests
one vehicle to represent the entire test
group for certification purposes. The
test vehicle is the one expected to be the
worst case for the criteria emission
standard at issue.
EPA requires the manufacturer to
make a good faith demonstration in the
certification application that vehicles in
the test group will both (1) comply
throughout their useful life within the
emissions bin assigned, and (2)
contribute to fleetwide compliance with
the applicable emissions standards
when the year is over. EPA issues a
certificate for the vehicles included in
the test group based on this
demonstration, and includes a condition
in the certificate that if the manufacturer
does not comply with the fleet average,
then production vehicles from that test
group will be treated as not covered by
the certificate to the extent needed to
bring the manufacturer’s fleet average
into compliance with the applicable
standards.
The certification process often occurs
several months prior to production and
manufacturer testing may occur months
before the certificate is issued. The
199 CAA
Section 206(a)(1).
specific test group criteria are described
in 40 CFR 86.1827–01, car lines and model types
have the meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803–01.
200 The
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
certification process for the existing
heavy-duty chassis program is an
efficient way for manufacturers to
conduct the needed testing well in
advance of certification, and to receive
certificates in a time frame which allows
for the orderly production of vehicles.
The use of conditions on the certificate
has been an effective way to ensure that
manufacturers comply throughout their
useful life and meet fleet standards
when the model year is complete and
the accounting for the individual model
sales is performed. EPA has also
adopted this approach as part of its LD
GHG compliance program.
EPA is proposing to similarly
condition each certificate of conformity
for the GHG program upon a
manufacturer’s good faith
demonstration of compliance with the
manufacturer’s fleetwide average CO2
standard. The following discussion
explains how EPA proposes to integrate
the proposed vehicle certification
program into the existing certification
program.
An integrated approach with NHTSA
will be undertaken to allow
manufacturers a single point of entry to
address certification and compliance.
Vehicle manufacturers would initiate
the formal certification process with
their submission of application for a
certificate of conformity to EPA.
(b) Certification Test Groups and Test
Vehicle Selection
For heavy-duty chassis certification to
the criteria emission standards,
manufacturers currently as mentioned
above divide their fleet into ‘‘test
groups’’ for certification purposes. The
test group is EPA’s unit of certification;
one certificate is issued per test group.
These groupings cover vehicles with
similar emission control system designs
expected to have similar emissions
performance (see 40 CFR 86.1827–01).
The factors considered for determining
test groups include Gross Vehicle
Weight, combustion cycle, engine type,
engine displacement, number of
cylinders and cylinder arrangement,
fuel type, fuel metering system, catalyst
construction and precious metal
composition, among others. Vehicles
having these features in common are
generally placed in the same test
group.201
EPA is proposing to retain the current
test group structure for heavy-duty
pickups and vans in the certification
requirements for CO2. At the time of
201 EPA provides for other groupings in certain
circumstances, and can establish its own test groups
in cases where the criteria do not apply. See 40 CFR
86.1827–01(b), (c) and (d).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
certification, manufacturers would use
the CO2 emission level from the
Emission Data Vehicle as a surrogate to
represent all of the models in the test
group. However, following certification
further testing would generally be
allowed for compliance with the fleet
average CO2 standard as described
below. EPA’s issuance of a certificate
would be conditioned upon the
manufacturer’s subsequent model level
testing and attainment of the actual fleet
average, much like light-duty CAFE and
GHG compliance requires. Under the
current program, complete heavy-duty
Otto-cycle vehicles under 14,000
pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating are
required to chassis certify (see 40 CFR
86.1801–01(a)). The current program
allows complete heavy-duty diesel
vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR to
optionally chassis certify (see 40 CFR
86.1863–07(a)). As discussed earlier,
these proposed rules would now require
all HD vehicles under 14,000 pounds
GVWR to chassis certify except as noted
in Section II.
EPA recognizes that the existing
heavy-duty chassis test group criteria do
not necessarily relate to CO2 emission
levels. See 75 FR 25472. For instance,
while some of the criteria, such as
combustion cycle, engine type and
displacement, and fuel metering, may
have a relationship to CO2 emissions,
others, such as those pertaining to the
some exhaust aftertreatment features,
may not. In fact, there are many vehicle
design factors that impact CO2
generation and emissions but are not
major factors included in EPA’s test
group criteria.202 Most important among
these may be vehicle weight,
horsepower, aerodynamics, vehicle size,
and performance features. To remedy
this, EPA is considering allowing
manufacturers provisions similar to the
LD GHG rule that would yield more
accurate CO2 estimates than only using
the test group emission data vehicle CO2
emissions.
EPA believes that the current test
group concept is appropriate for N2O
and CH4 because the technologies that
would be employed to control N2O and
CH4 emissions may generally be the
same as those used to control the
criteria pollutants. However,
manufacturers would determine if this
approach is adequate method for N2O
and CH4 emissions compliance or if
testing on additional vehicles is
required to ensure the entire fleet meet
applicable standards.
202 EPA noted this potential lack of connection
between fuel economy testing and testing for
emissions standard purposes when it first adopted
fuel economy test procedures. See 41 FR 38677,
Sept. 10, 1976.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
As just discussed, the ‘‘worst case’’
vehicle a manufacturer selects as the
Emissions Data Vehicle to represent a
test group under the existing regulations
(40 CFR 86.1828–01) may not have the
highest levels of CO2 in that group. For
instance, there may be a heavier, more
powerful configuration that would have
higher CO2, but may, due to the way the
catalytic converter has been matched to
the engine, actually have lower NOX,
CO, PM or HC emissions. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to require a single
Emission Data Vehicle that would
represent the test group for both criteria
pollutant and CO2 certification. The
manufacturer would be allowed to
initially apply the Emission Data
Vehicle’s CO2 emissions value to all
models in the test group, even if other
models in the test group are expected to
have higher CO2 emissions. However, as
a condition of the certificate, this
surrogate CO2 emissions value would
generally be replaced with actual,
model-level CO2 values based on results
from additional testing that occurs later
in the model year much like the lightduty CAFE program, or through the use
of approved methods for analytically
derived fuel economy. This model level
data would become the official
certification test results (as per the
conditioned certificate) and would be
used to determine compliance with the
fleet average. Only if the test vehicle is
in fact the worst case CO2 vehicle for the
test group could the manufacturer elect
to apply the Emission Data Vehicle
emission levels to all models in the test
group for purposes of calculating fleet
average emissions. Manufacturers
would be unlikely to make this choice,
because doing so would ignore the
emissions performance of vehicle
models in their fleet with lower CO2
emissions and would unnecessarily
inflate their CO2 fleet average. Testing at
the model level would necessarily
increase testing burden beyond the
minimum Emission Data Vehicle
testing.
EPA requests comment regarding
whether the existing heavy-duty chassis
test group can adequately represent CO2
emissions for certification purposes, and
whether the Emission Data Vehicle’s
CO2 emission level is an appropriate
surrogate for all vehicles in a test group
at the time of certification, given that
the certificate would be conditioned
upon additional model level testing
occurring during the year and that the
surrogate CO2 emission values would be
replaced with model-level emissions
data from those tests. Comments should
also address EPA’s desire to minimize
the up-front pre-production testing
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74261
burden and whether the proposed
efficiencies would be balanced by the
requirement to test all model types in
the fleet by the conclusion of the model
year in order to establish the fleet
average CO2 levels.
As explained in Sections II and III,
there are two standards that the
manufacturer would be subject to, the
fleet average standard and the in-use
standard for the useful life of the
vehicle. Compliance with the fleet
average standard is based on production
weighted averaging of the test data that
applies for each model, For each model,
the in-use standard is set at 10 percent
higher than the level used for that
model in calculating the fleet average.
The certificate covers both of these
standards, and the manufacturer has to
demonstrate compliance with both of
these standards for purposes of
receiving a certificate of conformity. The
certification process for the in-use
standard is discussed above.
(c) Pre-Model Year (or Compliance Plan)
Reporting
EPA and NHTSA are proposing that
manufacturers submit a compliance
plan for their entire fleet prior to the
certification of any test group in a given
model year. Preferably, this compliance
plan would be submitted at the
manufacturer’s annual certification
preview meeting. This preview meeting
is typically held before the earliest date
that the model year can begin. The
earliest a model year can begin is
January 2nd of the calendar year prior
to the model year. This plan would
include the manufacturer’s estimate of
its attribute-based standard, along with
a demonstration of compliance with the
standard based on projected model-level
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption,
and production estimates. This
information would be similar to the
information submitted to NHTSA and
EPA in the pre-model year report
required for CAFE compliance for lightduty vehicles. Included in the
compliance plan, manufacturers seeking
to take advantage of credit flexibilities
would include these in their compliance
demonstration. Similarly, the
compliance demonstration would need
to include a credible plan for addressing
deficits accrued in prior model years.
EPA and NHTSA would review the
compliance plan for technical viability
and conduct a certification preview
discussion with the manufacturer. The
agencies would view the compliance
plan as part of the manufacturer’s good
faith demonstration, but understands
that initial projections can vary
considerably from the reality of final
production and emission results. In
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74262
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
addition, the compliance plan must be
approved by the EPA Administrator
prior to any certificate of compliance
being issued. The agencies request
comment on the proposal to evaluate
manufacturer compliance plans prior to
the beginning of model year
certification.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(d) Demonstrating Compliance With the
Proposed Standards
(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption Fleet
Standards
As noted, attribute-based CO2
standards result in each manufacturer
having a fleet average CO2 standard
unique to its heavy-duty truck fleet of
GVWR between 8,500–14,000 pounds
and that standard would be separate
from the standard for passenger cars,
light-trucks, and other heavy-duty
trucks. The standards depend on those
attributes corresponding to the relative
capability, or ‘‘work factor’’, of the
vehicle models produced by that
manufacturer. The proposed attributes
used to determine the stringency of the
CO2 standard are payload and towing
capacity as described in Section II.C of
this notice. Generally, fleets with a mix
of vehicles with increased payloads or
greater towing capacity (or utilizing four
wheel drive configurations) would face
numerically less stringent standards
(i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile standards)
than fleets consisting of less powerful
vehicles. (However, the standards
would be expected to be equally
challenging and achieve similar percent
reductions.) Although a manufacturer’s
fleet average standard could be
estimated throughout the model year
based on projected production volume
of its vehicle fleet, the final compliance
values would be based on the final
model year production figures. A
manufacturer’s calculation of fleet
average emissions at the end of the
model year would be based on the
production-weighted average emissions
of each model in its fleet. The payload
and towing capacity inputs used to
determine manufacturer compliance
with these proposed rules would be the
advertised values.
The agencies propose to use the same
general vehicle category definitions that
are used in the current EPA HD chassis
certification (See 40 CFR 86.1816–05).
The new vehicle category definitions
differ slightly from the EPA definitions
for Heavy-duty Vehicle definitions for
the existing program, as well as other
EPA vehicle programs. Mainly,
manufacturers would be able to test, and
possibly model, more configurations of
vehicles than were historically in a
given test group. The existing criteria
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
pollutant program requires the worst
case configuration be tested for
emissions certification. For HD chassis
certification, this usually meant only
testing the vehicle with the highest
ALVW, road-load, and engine
displacement within a given test group.
This worst case configuration may only
represent a small fraction of the test
group production volume. By testing the
worst case, albeit possibly small
volume, vehicle configuration, the EPA
had a reasonable expectation that all
represented vehicles would pass the
given emissions standards. Since CO2
standards are a fleet standard based on
a combination of sales volume and work
factor (i.e., payload and towing
capability), it may be in a
manufacturer’s best interest to test
multiple configurations within a given
test group to more accurately estimate
the fleet average CO2 emission levels
and not accept the worst case vehicle
test results as representative of all
models. Additionally, vehicle models
for which a manufacturer desires to use
analytically derived fuel economy
(ADFE) to estimate CO2 emission levels
may need additional actual test data for
vehicle models of similar but not
identical configurations. The agencies
are requesting comment on allowing the
manufacturer to test as many
configurations within a test group as the
manufacturer requires in order to best
represent the volumes of each
configuration within that test group.
The agencies are also requesting
comment on using an ADFE approach
similar to that used by light-duty
vehicles, as explained in the light-duty
vehicle/light-duty truck EPA guidance
document CCD–04–06 titled ‘‘Updated
Analytically Derived Fuel Economy
(ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY and Later’’,
but expanded to a greater fraction of
possible subconfigurations and using
lower confidence limits than used for
light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks.
The agencies are proposing the use of
ADFE similar to that allowed for lightduty vehicles in 40 CFR 600.006–08(e).
This provision would allow EPA and
NHTSA to accept analytical expressions
to generate CO2 and fuel economy that
have been approved in advance by the
agencies.
For model years 2014 through 2017,
or earlier if a manufacturer is certifying
in order to generate early credits, EPA
is proposing the equation and parameter
values as expressed in Section II C or
assigning a CO2 level to an individual
vehicle’s relevant attributes. These CO2
values would be production weighted to
determine each manufacturer’s fleet
average. Each parameter would change
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on an annual basis, resulting in the
annual increase in stringency. For the
function used to describe the proposed
standard, see Section II.C of this notice.
The GHG and fuel economy
rulemaking for light-duty vehicles
adopted a carbon balance methodology
used historically to determine fuel
consumption for the light-duty labeling
and CAFE programs, whereby the
carbon-related combustion products HC
and CO are included on an adjusted
basis in the compliance calculations,
along with CO2. The resulting carbonrelated exhaust emissions (CREE) of
each test vehicle is calculated and it is
this value, rather than simply CO2
emissions, that is used in compliance
determinations. The difference between
the CREE and CO2 is typically very
small.
NHTSA and EPA are not proposing to
adopt the CREE methodology for HD
pickups and vans, and so are not
proposing to adjust CO2 emissions to
further account for additional HC and
CO. The basis of the CREE methodology
in historical labeling and CAFE
programs is not relevant to HD pickups
and vans, because these historical
programs do not exist for HD vehicles.
Furthermore, test data used in this
proposal for standards-setting has not
been adjusted for this effect, and so it
would create an inconsistency, albeit a
small one, to apply it for compliance
with the numerical standards we are
proposing. Finally, it would add
complexity to the program with little
real world benefit. We request comment
on this proposed approach.
(ii) CO2 In-Use Standards and Testing
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA requires
emission standards to apply to vehicles
throughout their statutory useful life.
Section II.B(3)(b) of this proposal
discusses in-use standards.
Currently, EPA regulations require
manufacturers to conduct in-use testing
as a condition of certification for heavyduty trucks between 8,500 and 14,000
gross vehicle weight that are chassis
certified. The vehicles are tested to
determine the in-use levels of criteria
pollutants when they are in their first
and third years of service. This testing
is referred to as the In-Use Verification
Program, which was first implemented
as part of EPA’s CAP 2000 certification
program (see 64 FR 23906, May 4, 1999).
EPA is requesting comment on
applying the in-use program already set
forth in the 2012–2016 MY light-duty
vehicle rule to heavy-duty pickups and
vans. The In-Use Verification Program
for heavy-duty pickups and vans would
follow the same general provisions of
the light-duty program in regard to
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
testing, vehicle selection, and reporting.
See 75 FR 25474–25476.
(e) Cab-Chassis Vehicles and Complete
Class 4 Vehicles
As discussed in Section I.C(2)(a), we
are proposing to include most cabchassis Class 2b and 3 vehicles in the
complete HD pickup and van program.
Because their numbers are relatively
small, and to reduce the testing and
compliance tracking burden to
manufacturers, we would treat these
vehicles as equivalent to the complete
van or truck product they are derived
from. The manufacturer would
determine which complete vehicle
configuration it produces most closely
matches the cab-chassis product leaving
its facility, and would include each of
these cab-chassis vehicles in the fleet
averaging calculations as though it were
identical to the corresponding complete
vehicle.
Any in-use testing of these vehicles
would do likewise, with loading of the
tested vehicle to a total weight equal to
the ALVW of the corresponding
complete vehicle configuration. If the
secondary manufacturer had altered or
replaced any vehicle components in a
way that would substantially affect CO2
emissions from the tested vehicle (e.g.,
axle ratio has been changed for a special
purpose vehicle), the vehicle
manufacturer could request that EPA
not test the vehicle or invalidate a test
result. Secondary (finisher)
manufacturers would not be subject to
requirements under this provision, other
than to comply with anti-tampering
regulations. However, if they modify
vehicle components in such a way that
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
are substantially affected, they become
manufacturers subject to the standards
under this proposal.
We realize that this approach does not
capture the likely loss of aerodynamic
efficiency involved in converting these
vehicles from standard pickup trucks or
vans to ambulances and the like, and
thus it could assign them lower GHG
emissions and fuel consumption than
they deserve. However, we feel that this
approach strikes a fair balance between
the alternatives—grouping these
vehicles with vocational vehicles
subject only to engine standards and tire
requirements, or creating a complex and
burdensome program that forces vehicle
manufacturers to track, and perhaps
control, a plethora of vehicle
configurations they currently do not
manage. We request comment on this
proposed provision and any suggestions
for ways to improve it.
Some complete Class 4 trucks are very
similar to complete Class 3 pickup truck
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
models, including their overall vehicle
architecture and use of the same basic
engines. EPA and NHTSA request
comment on whether these vehicles
should be regulated as part of the HD
pickup and van category and thereby be
subject to that regulatory regime (i.e.,
standard stringency, chassis-based
compliance for entire vehicle, credit
opportunities limited to HD pickup and
van subcategory, etc.), instead of as
vocational vehicles as currently
proposed. Comment is also requested on
whether such chassis certification
should be allowed as a manufacturer’s
option instead, and on whether vehicles
so certified for GHG emissions and fuel
consumption should also be allowed to
certify to chassis-based criteria pollutant
standards as well. Commenters are
asked to address the environmental
impacts of this potential change.
(2) Proposed Labeling Provisions
HD pickups and vans currently have
vehicle emission control information
labels showing compliance with criteria
pollutant standards, similar to emission
control information labels for engines.
As with engines, we believe this label is
sufficient.
(3) Other Certification Issues
(a) Carryover Certification Test Data
EPA’s proposed certification program
for vehicles allows manufacturers to
carry certification test data over from
one model year to the next, when no
significant changes to models are made.
EPA will also apply this policy to CO2,
N2O and CH4 certification test data.
(b) Compliance Fees
The CAA allows EPA to collect fees
to cover the costs of issuing certificates
of conformity for the classes of vehicles
and engines covered by this proposal.
On May 11, 2004, EPA updated its fees
regulation based on a study of the costs
associated with its motor vehicle and
engine compliance program (69 FR
51402). At the time that cost study was
conducted the current rulemaking was
not considered.
At this time the extent of any added
costs to EPA as a result of this proposal
is not known. EPA will assess its
compliance testing and other activities
associated with the rule and may amend
its fees regulations in the future to
include any warranted new costs.
C. Heavy-Duty Engines
(1) Proposed Compliance Approach
Section 203 of the CAA requires that
all motor vehicles and engines sold in
the United States to carry a certificate of
conformity issued by the U.S. EPA. For
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74263
heavy-duty engines, the certificate
specifies that the engine meets all
requirements as set forth in the
regulations (40 CFR part 86, subpart N,
for criteria pollutants) including the
requirement that the engine be
compliant with emission standards.
This demonstration is completed
through emission testing as well as
durability testing to determine the level
of emissions deterioration throughout
the useful life of the engine. In addition
to compliance with emission standards,
manufacturers are also required to
warrant their products against emission
defects, and demonstrate that a service
network is in place to correct any such
conditions. The engine manufacturer
also bears responsibility in the event
that an emission-related recall is
necessary. Finally, the engine
manufacturer is responsible for tracking
and ensuring correct installation of any
emission related components installed
by a second party (i.e., vehicle
manufacturer). EPA believes this
compliance structure is also valid for
administering the proposed GHG
regulations for heavy-duty engines.
(a) Certification Process
In order to obtain a certificate of
conformity, engine manufacturers must
complete a compliance demonstration,
normally consisting of test data from
relatively new (low-hour) engines as
well as supporting documentation,
showing that their product meets
emission standards and other regulatory
requirements. To account for aging
effects, low-hour test results are coupled
with testing-based deterioration factors
(DFs), which provide a ratio (or offset)
of end-of-life emissions to low-hour
emissions for each pollutant being
measured. These factors are then
applied to all subsequent low-hour test
data points to predict the emissions
behavior at the end of the useful life.
For purposes of this compliance
demonstration and certification, engines
with similar engine hardware and
emission characteristics throughout
their useful life may be grouped together
in engine families, consistent with
current criteria-pollutant certification
procedures. Examples of such
characteristics are the combustion cycle,
aspiration method, and aftertreatment
system. Under this system, the worstcase engine (‘‘parent rating’’) is selected
based on having the highest fuel feed
per engine stroke, and all emissions
testing is completed on this model. All
other models within the family (‘‘child
ratings’’) are expected to have emissions
at or below the parent model and
therefore in compliance with emission
standards. Any engine within the family
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74264
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
can be subject to selective enforcement
audits, in-use, confirmatory, or other
compliance testing.
We are proposing to continue to use
this approach for the selection of the
worst-case engine (‘‘parent rating’’) for
fuel consumption and GHG emissions as
well. We believe this is appropriate
because this worst case engine
configuration would be expected to
have the highest in-use fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
within the family. We note that lower
engine ratings contained within this
family would be expected to have a
higher fuel consumption rate when
measured over the Federal Test
Procedures as expressed in terms of fuel
consumption per brake horsepower
hour. This higher fuel consumption rate
is misleading in the context of
comparing engines within a single
engine family. This seeming
contradiction can be most easily
understood in terms of an example. For
a typical engine family a top rating
could be 500 horsepower with a number
of lower engine ratings down to 400
horsepower or lower included within
the family. When installed in identical
trucks the 400 and 500 horsepower
engines would be expected to operate
identically when the demanded power
from the engines is 400 horsepower or
less. So in the case where in-use driving
never included acceleration rates
leading to horsepower demand greater
than 400 horsepower, the two trucks
with the 400 and 500 horsepower
engines would give identical fuel
consumption and GHG performance.
When the desired vehicle acceleration
rates were high enough to require more
than 400 horsepower, the 500
horsepower truck would accelerate
faster than the 400 horsepower truck
resulting in higher average speeds and
higher fuel consumption and GHG
emissions measured on a per mile or per
ton-mile basis. Hence, the higher rated
engine family would be expected to
have the highest in-use fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions.
The reason that the lower engine
ratings appear to have worse fuel
consumption relates to our use of a
brake specific work metric. The brake
specific metric measures power
produced from the engine and delivered
to the vehicle ignoring the parasitic
work internal to the engine to overcome
friction and air pumping work within
the engine. The fuel consumed and GHG
emissions produced to overcome this
internal work and to produce useful
(brake) work are both measured in the
test cycle but only the brake work is
reflected in the calculation of the fuel
consumption rate. This is desirable in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
the context of reducing fuel
consumption as this approach rewards
engine designs that minimize this
internal work through better engine
designs. The less work that is needed
internal to the engine, the lower the fuel
consumption will be. If we included the
parasitic work in the calculation of the
rate, we would provide no incentive to
reduce internal friction and pumping
losses. However, when comparing two
engines within the very same family
with identical internal work
characteristics, this approach gives a
misleading comparison between two
engines as described above. This is the
case because both engines have an
identical fuel consumption rate to
overcome internal work but different
rates of brake work with the higher
horsepower rating having more brake
work because the test cycle is
normalized to 100 percent of the
engine’s rated power. The fuel
consumed for internal work can be
thought of as a fixed offset identical
between both engines. When this fixed
offset is added to the fuel consumed for
useful (brake) work over the cycle, it
increases the overall fuel consumption
(the numerator in the rate) without
adding any work to the denominator.
This fixed offset identical between the
two engines has a bigger impact on the
lower engine rating. In the extreme this
can be seen easily. As the engine ratings
decrease and approach zero, the brake
work approaches zero and the
calculated brake specific fuel
consumption approaches infinity. For
these reasons, we are proposing that the
same selection criteria, as outlined in 40
CFR part 86, subpart N, be used to
define a single engine family
designation for both criteria pollutant
and GHG emissions. Further, we are
proposing that for fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions only any selective
enforcement audits, in-use,
confirmatory, or other compliance
testing would be limited to the parent
rating for the family. This approach is
being contemplated for administrative
convenience and we seek comments on
alternatives to address compliance
testing. Consistent with the current
regulations, manufacturers may
electively subdivide a grouping of
engines which would otherwise meet
the criteria for a single family if they
have evidence that the emissions are
different over the useful life.
The agency utilizes a 12-digit naming
convention for all mobile-source engine
families (and test groups for vehicles).
This convention is also shared by the
California Air Resources Board which
allows manufacturers to potentially use
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a single family name for both EPA and
California ARB certification. Of the 12
digits, 9 are EPA-defined and provide
identifying characteristics of the engine
family. The first digit represents the
model year, through use of a predefined
code. For example, ‘‘A’’ corresponds to
the 2010 model year and ‘‘B’’
corresponds to the 2011 model year.
The 5th position corresponds to the
industry sector code, which includes
such examples as light-duty vehicle (V)
and heavy-duty diesel engines (H). The
next three digits are a unique
alphanumeric code assigned to each
manufacturer by EPA. The next four
digits describe the displacement of the
engine; the units of which are
dependent on the industry segment and
a decimal may be used when the
displacement is in liters. For engine
families with multiple displacements,
the largest displacement is used for the
family name. For on-highway vehicles
and engines, the tenth character is
reserved for use by California ARB. The
final characters (including the 10th
character in absence of California ARB
guidance) left to the manufacturer to
determine, such that the family name
forms a unique identifying characteristic
of the engine family.
This convention is well understood
by the regulated industries, provides
sufficient detail, and is flexible enough
to be used across a wide spectrum of
vehicle and engine categories. In
addition, the current harmonization
with other regulatory bodies reduces
complications for affected
manufacturers. For these reasons, we are
not proposing any major changes to this
naming convention for this proposal.
There may be additional categories
defined for the 5th character to address
heavy-duty vehicle test groups, however
that will be discussed later.
As with criteria pollutant standards,
the heavy-duty diesel regulatory
category is subdivided into three
regulatory subcategories, depending on
the GVW of the vehicle in which the
engine will be used. These regulatory
subcategories are defined as light-heavyduty (LHD) diesel, medium heavy-duty
(MHD) diesel, and heavy heavy-duty
(HHD) diesel engines. All heavy-duty
gasoline engines are grouped into a
single subcategory. Each of these
regulatory subcategories are expected to
be in service for varying amounts of
time, so they each carry different
regulatory useful lives. For this reason,
expectations for demonstrating useful
life compliance differ by subcategory,
particularly as related to deterioration
factors.
Light heavy-duty diesel engines (and
all gasoline heavy-duty engines) have
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the same regulatory useful life as a lightduty vehicle (110,000 miles), which is
significantly shorter than the other
heavy-duty regulatory subcategories.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to
maintain commonality with the lightduty GHG rule. During the light-duty
GHG rulemaking, the conclusion was
reached that no significant deterioration
would occur over the useful life.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to specify
that manufacturers would use assigned
DFs for CO2 and the values would be
zero (for additive DFs) and one (for
multiplicative DFs). EPA is interested in
data that addresses this issue.
For the medium heavy-duty and
heavy heavy-duty diesel engine
segments, the regulatory useful lives are
significantly longer (185,000 and
435,000 miles, respectively). For this
reason, the agency is not convinced that
engine/aftertreatment wear will not
have a negative impact on GHG
emissions. To address useful life
compliance for MHD and HHD diesel
engines certified to GHG standards, we
believe the criteria pollutant approach
for developing DFs is appropriate. Using
CO2 as an example, many of the engine
deterioration concerns previously
identified will affect CO2 emissions.
Reduced compression, as a result of
wear, will cause higher fuel
consumption and increase CO2
production. In addition, as
aftertreatment devices age (primarily
particulate traps), regeneration events
may become more frequent and take
longer to complete. Since regeneration
commonly requires an increase in fuel
rate, CO2 emissions would likely
increase as well. Finally, any changes in
EGR levels will affect heat release rates,
peak combustion temperatures, and
completeness of combustion. Since
these factors could reasonably be
expected to change fuel consumption,
CO2 emissions would be expected to
change accordingly.
HHD diesel engines may also require
some degree of aftertreatment
maintenance throughout their useful
life. For example, one major heavy-duty
engine manufacturer specifies that their
diesel particulate filters be removed and
cleaned at intervals between 200,000
and 400,000 miles, depending on the
severity of service. Another major
engine manufacturer requires servicing
diesel particulate filters at 300,000
miles. This maintenance or lack thereof
if service is neglected, could have
serious negative implications to CO2
emissions. In addition, there may be
emissions-related warranty implications
for manufacturers to ensure that if
rebuilding or specific emissions related
maintenance is necessary, it will occur
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
at the prescribed intervals. Therefore, it
is imperative that manufacturers are
detailed in their maintenance
instructions. The agency currently seeks
public comment on how to properly
address this issue.
Lean-NOX aftertreatment devices may
also facilitate GHG reductions by
allowing engines to run with higher
engine-out NOX levels in exchange for
more efficient calibrations. In most
cases, these aftertreatment devices
require a consumable reductant, such as
diesel exhaust fluid, which requires
periodic maintenance by the vehicle
operator. Without such maintenance,
the emission control system may be
compromised and compliance with
emission standards may be jeopardized.
Such maintenance is considered to be
critical emission related maintenance
and manufacturers must therefore
demonstrate that it is likely to be
completed at the required intervals. One
example of such a demonstration is an
engine power de-rate strategy that will
limit engine power or vehicle speed in
absence of this required maintenance.
If the manufacturer determines that
maintenance is necessary on critical
emission-related components within the
useful life period, they must have a
reasonable basis for ensuring that this
maintenance will be completed as
scheduled. This includes any
adjustment, cleaning, repair, or
replacement of critical emission-related
components. Typically, the agency has
only allowed manufacturers to schedule
such maintenance if the manufacturer
can demonstrate that the maintenance is
reasonably likely to be done at the
recommended intervals. This
demonstration may be in the form of
survey data showing at least 80 percent
of in-use engines get the prescribed
maintenance at the correct intervals.
Another possibility is to provide the
maintenance free of charge. We see no
reason to depart from this approach for
GHG-related critical emission-related
components; however the agency
welcomes commentary on this
approach.
(b) Demonstrating Compliance With the
Proposed Standards
(i) CO2 Standards
The final test results (adjusted for
deterioration, if applicable) form the
basis for the Family Certification Limit
(FCL), which the manufacturer must
specify to be at or above the certification
test results. This FCL becomes the
emission standard for the family and
any certification or confirmatory testing
must show compliance with this limit.
In addition, manufacturers may choose
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74265
an FCL at any level above their certified
emission level to provide a larger
compliance margin. If subsequent
certification or confirmatory testing
reveals emissions above the FCL, the
new, higher result becomes the FCL.
The FCL is also used to determine the
Family Emission Limit (FEL), which
serves as the emission limit for any
subsequent field testing conducted after
the time of certification. This would
primarily include selective enforcement
audits, but also may include in-use
testing and/or production line testing
for GHGs. The FEL differs from the FCL
in that it includes an EPA-defined
compliance margin; currently proposed
to be 2 percent. Under this scenario the
FEL would always be 2 percent higher
than the FCL.
Engine Emission Testing
Under current non-GHG engine
emissions regulations, manufacturers
are required to demonstrate compliance
using two test methods: The heavy-duty
transient cycle and the heavy-duty
steady state test. Each test is an engine
speed versus engine torque schedule
intended to be run on an engine
dynamometer. Over each test, emissions
are sampled using the equipment and
procedures outlined in 40 CFR part
1065, which includes provisions for
measuring CO2, N2O, and CH4.
Emissions may be sampled
continuously or in a batch configuration
(commonly known as ‘‘bag sampling’’)
and the total mass of emissions over
each cycle are normalized by the engine
power required to complete the cycle.
Following each test, a validation check
is made comparing actual engine speed
and torque over the cycle to the
commanded values. If these values do
not align well, the test is deemed
invalid.
The transient Heavy-duty FTP cycle is
characteristic of typical urban stop-andgo driving. Also included is a period of
more steady state operation that would
be typical of short cruise intervals at 45
to 55 miles per hour. Each transient test
consists of two 20 minute tests
separated by a ‘‘soak’’ period of 20
minutes. The first test is run with the
engine in a ‘‘cold’’ state, which involves
letting the engine cool to ambient
conditions either by sitting overnight or
by forced cooling provisions outlined in
§ 86.1335–90 (or 40 CFR part 1036).
This portion of the test is meant to
assess the ability of the engine to control
emissions during the period prior to
reaching normal operating temperature.
This is commonly a challenging area in
criteria pollutant emission control, as
cold combustion chamber surfaces tend
to inhibit mixing and vaporization of
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74266
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
fuel and aftertreatment devices do not
tend to function well at low
temperatures.
Following the first test, the engine is
shut off for a period of 20 minutes,
during which emission analyzer checks
are performed and preparations are
made for the second test (also known as
the ‘‘hot’’ test). After completion of the
second test, the results from the cold
and hot tests are weighted and a single
composite result is calculated for each
pollutant. Based on typical in-use duty
cycles, the cold test results are given a
1⁄7 weighting and the hot test results are
given a 6⁄7 weighting. Deterioration
factors are applied to the final weighted
results and the results are then
compared to the emission standards.
Prior to 2007, compliance only
needed to be demonstrated over the
Heavy-duty FTP. However, a number of
events brought to light the fact that this
transient cycle may not be as well suited
for engines which spend much of their
duty cycle at steady cruise conditions,
such as those used in line-haul semitrucks. As a result, the steady-state SET
procedure was added, consisting of 13
steady-state modes. During each mode,
emissions were sampled for a period of
five minutes. Weighting factors were
then applied to each mode and the final
weighted results were compared to the
emission standards (including
deterioration factors). In addition,
emissions at each mode could not
exceed the NTE emission limits.
Alternatively, manufacturers could run
the test as a ramped-modal cycle. In this
case, the cycle still consists of the same
speed/torque modes, however linear
progressions between points are added
and instead of weighting factors, each
mode is sampled for various amounts of
time. The result is a continuous cycle
lasting approximately 40 minutes. With
the implementation of part 1065 test
procedures in 2010, manufacturers are
now required to run the modal test as
a ramped-modal cycle. In addition, the
order of the speed/torque modes in the
ramped-modal cycle have changed for
2010 and later engines.
It is well known that fuel
consumption, and therefore CO2
emissions, are highly dependent on the
drive cycle over which they are
measured. Steady cruise conditions,
such as highway driving, tend to be
more efficient, having lower fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions. In
contrast, highly transient operation,
such as city driving, tends to lead to
lower efficiency and therefore higher
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.
One example of this is the difference
between EPA-measured city and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
highway fuel economy ratings assigned
to all new light-duty passenger vehicles.
For this heavy-duty engine and
vehicle proposal, we believe it is
important to assess CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption over both transient
and steady state test cycles, as all
vehicles will operate in conditions
typical of each cycle at some point in
their useful life. However, due to the
drive cycle dependence of CO2
emissions, we do not believe it is
reasonable to have a single CO2 standard
which must be met for both cycles. A
single CO2 standard would likely prove
to be too lax for steady-state conditions
while being too strict for transient
conditions. Therefore, the agencies are
recommending that all heavy-duty
engines be tested over both transient
and steady-state tests. However, only
the results from either the transient or
steady-state test cycles would be used to
assess compliance with GHG standards,
depending on the type of vehicle in
which the engine will be used. Engines
that will be used in Class 7 and 8
tractors would use the ramped-modal
cycle for GHG certification, and engines
used in vocational vehicles would use
the Heavy-duty FTP cycle. In both cases,
results from the other test cycle would
be reported but not used for a
compliance decision. Engines will
continue to be required to show criteria
pollutant compliance over both cycles,
in addition to NTE requirements.
The agencies propose that
manufacturers submit both composite
data sets, as well as modal data for
criteria and GHG pollutants for engine
certification. This would include
submission of discrete mode results
from the continuous analyzer data
collected during the ramped-modal
cycle test. This would also include
providing both cold start and hot start
transient heavy-duty FTP emissions
results, as well as the composite
emissions at the time of certification. In
an effort to improve the accuracy of the
simulation model being used for
assessing CO2 and fuel consumption
performance and overall engine
emissions performance, gaseous
pollutants sampled using continuous
analyzers (including but not limited to
emissions results for CO2, CO, and NOX)
would need to provide the constituent
data from each of the test modes. The
agencies welcome comment on this
proposed requirement. As explained
above in Section II, the agencies are
proposing an alternative standard
whereby manufacturers may elect that
certain of their engine families meet an
alternative percent reduction standard,
measured from the engine family’s 2011
baseline, instead of the main 2014 MY
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standard. As part of the certification
process, manufacturers electing this
standard would not only have to notify
the agency of the election but also
demonstrate the derivation of the 2011
baseline CO2 emission level for the
engine family. Manufacturers would
also have to demonstrate that they have
exhausted all credit opportunities.
Durability Testing
Another element of the current
certification process is the requirement
to complete durability testing to
establish DFs. As previously mentioned,
manufacturers are required to
demonstrate that their engines comply
with emission standards throughout the
regulatory compliance period of the
engine. This demonstration is
commonly made through the
combination of low-hour test results and
testing based deterioration factors.
For engines without aftertreatment
devices, deterioration factors primarily
account for engine wear as service is
accumulated. This commonly includes
wear of valves, valve seats, and piston
rings, all of which reduce in-cylinder
pressure. Oil control seals and gaskets
also deteriorate with age, leading to
higher lubricating oil consumption.
Additionally, flow properties of EGR
systems may change as deposits
accumulate and therefore alter the mass
of EGR inducted into the combustion
chamber. These factors, amongst others,
may serve to reduce power, increase
fuel consumption, and change
combustion properties; all of which
affect pollutant emissions.
For engines equipped with
aftertreatment devices, DFs take into
account engine deterioration, as
described above, in addition to aging
affects on the aftertreatment devices.
Oxidation catalysts and other catalytic
devices rely on active precious metals to
effectively convert and reduce harmful
pollutants. These metals may become
less active with age and therefore
pollutant conversion efficiencies may
decrease. Particulate filters may also
experience reduced trapping efficiency
with age due to ash accumulation and/
or degradation of the filter substrate,
which may lead to higher tailpipe PM
measurements and/or increased
regeneration frequency. If a pollutant is
predominantly controlled by
aftertreatment, deterioration of emission
control depends on the continued
operation of the aftertreatment device
much more so than on consistent
engine-out emissions.
At this time, we anticipate that most
engine component wear will not have a
significant negative impact on CO2
emissions. However, wear and aging of
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
aftertreatment devices may or may not
have a significant negative impact on
CO2 emissions. In addition, future
engine or aftertreatment technologies
may experience significant deterioration
in CO2 emissions performance over the
useful life of the engine. For these
reasons, we believe that the use of DFs
for CO2 emissions is both appropriate
and necessary. As with criteria pollutant
emissions, these DFs are preferably
developed through testing the engine
over a representative duty cycle for an
extended period of time. This is
typically either half or full useful life,
depending on the regulatory class. The
DFs are then calculated by comparing
the high-hour to low-hour emission
levels, either by division or subtraction
(for multiplicative & additive DFs,
respectively).
This testing process may be a
significant cost to an engine
manufacturer, mainly due to the amount
of time and resources required to run
the engine out to half or full useful life.
For this reason, durability testing for the
determination of DFs is not commonly
repeated from model year to model year.
In addition, some DFs may be allowed
to carry over between families sharing a
common architecture and aftertreatment
system. EPA prefers to have
manufacturers develop testing-based
DFs for their products, and we are
proposing that this be the case for the
final rule. However, we do understand
that for the reasons stated above, it may
be impractical to expect manufacturers
to have testing-based deterioration
factors available for this proposal.
Therefore, we are willing to consider
requiring the use of assigned DFs for
CO2. Under this possibility, we suggest
that manufacturers would be required to
submit any CO2 data from durability
testing to aid in developing more
accurate assigned DFs.
IRAFs/Regeneration Impacts on CO2
Heavy-duty engines may be equipped
with exhaust aftertreatment devices
which require periodic ‘‘regeneration’’ to
return the device to a nominal state. A
common example is a diesel particulate
filter, which accumulates PM as the
engine is operated. When the PM
accumulation reaches a threshold such
that exhaust backpressure is
significantly increased, exhaust
temperature is actively increased to
oxidize the stored PM. The increase in
exhaust temperature is commonly
facilitated through late combustion
phasing and/or raw fuel injection into
the exhaust system upstream of the
filter. Both methods impact emissions
and therefore must be accounted for at
the time of certification. In accordance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
with § 86.004–28(i), this type of event
would be considered infrequent because
in most cases they only occur once
every 30 to 50 hours of engine operation
(rather than once per transient test
cycle), and therefore adjustment factors
must be applied at certification to
account for these effects.
Similar to DFs, these adjustment
factors are based off of manufacturer
testing; however this testing is far less
time consuming. Emission results are
measured from two test cycles: With
and without regeneration occurring. The
differences in emission results are used,
along with the frequency at which
regeneration is expected to occur, to
develop upward and downward
adjustment factors. Upward adjustment
factors are added to all emission results
derived from a test cycle in which
regeneration did not occur. Similarly,
downward adjustment factors are
subtracted from results based on a cycle
which did experience a regeneration
event. Each pollutant will have a unique
set of adjustment factors and
additionally, separate factors are
commonly developed for transient and
steady-state test cycles.
The impact of regeneration events on
criteria pollutants varies by pollutant
and the aftertreatment device(s) used. In
general, the adjustment factor can have
a very significant impact on compliance
with the NOX standard. For this reason,
heavy-duty vehicle and engine
manufacturers are already very well
motivated to extend the regeneration
frequency to as long an interval as
possible and to reduce the regeneration
as much as possible. Both of these
actions significantly reduce the impact
of regeneration on CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption. We do not believe
that adding an adjustment factor for
infrequent regeneration to the CO2 or
fuel efficiency standards would provide
a significant additional motivation for
manufacturers to reduce regenerations.
Moreover, doing so would add
significant and unnecessary uncertainty
to our projections of CO2 and fuel
consumption performance in 2014 and
beyond. In addressing that uncertainty,
the agencies would have to set less
stringent fuel efficiency and CO2
standards for heavy-duty trucks and
engines. Therefore, we are not
proposing to include an infrequent
regeneration adjustment factor for CO2
or fuel efficiency in this program. The
agencies are seeking public commentary
on this approach.
Auxiliary Emission Control Devices
As part of the engine control strategy,
there may be devices or algorithms
which reduce the effectiveness of
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74267
emission control systems under certain
limited circumstances. These strategies
are referred to as Auxiliary Emission
Control Devices (AECDs). One example
would be the reduced use of EGR during
cold engine operation. In this case, low
coolant temperatures may cause the
electronic control unit to reduce EGR
flow to improve combustion stability.
Once the engine warms up, normal EGR
rates are resumed and full NOX control
is achieved.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers are required to disclose
all AECDs and provide a full
explanation of when the AECD is active,
which sensor inputs effect AECD
activation, and what aspect of the
emission control system is affected by
the AECD. Manufacturers are further
required to attest that their AECDs are
not ‘‘defeat-devices,’’ which are
intentionally targeted at reducing
emission control effectiveness.
Several common AECDs disclosed for
criteria pollutant certification will have
a similarly negative influence on GHG
emissions as well. One such example is
cold-start enrichment, with provides
additional fueling to stabilize
combustion shortly after initially
starting the engine. From a criteria
pollutant perspective, HC emissions can
reasonably be expected to increase as a
result. From a GHG perspective, the
extra fuel does not result in a similar
increase in power output and therefore
the efficiency of the engine is reduced,
which has a negative impact on CO2
emissions. In addition, there may be
AECDs that uniquely reduce GHG
emission control effectiveness.
Therefore, consistent with today’s
certification procedures, we are
proposing that a comprehensive list of
AECDs covering both criteria pollutant,
as well as GHG emissions is required at
the time of certification.
(ii) EPA’s N2O and CH4 Standards
In 2009, EPA issued rules requiring
manufacturers of mobile-source engines
to report the emissions of CO2, N2O, and
CH4 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009).
While CO2 is commonly measured
during certification testing, CH4 and
N2O are not. CH4 has traditionally not
been included in criteria pollutant
regulations because it is a relatively
stable molecule and does not contribute
significantly to ground-level ozone
formation. In addition, N2O is
commonly a byproduct of lean-NOX
aftertreatment systems. Until recently,
these types of systems were not widely
used on heavy-duty engines and
therefore N2O emissions were
insignificant. Both species, while
emitted in small quantities relative to
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74268
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
CO2, have much higher global warming
potential than CO2 and therefore must
be considered as part of a
comprehensive GHG regulation.
EPA is proposing that CH4 and N2O be
reported at the time of certification. We
are proposing to allow manufacturers to
use a compliance statement based on
good engineering judgment for the first
year of the program in lieu of direct
measurement of N2O. However,
beginning in the 2015 model year, the
agency is proposing to require the direct
measurement of N2O for certification.
The intent of the CH4 and N2O
standards are more focused on
prevention of future increases in these
compounds, rather than forcing
technologies that reduce these
pollutants. As one example, we envision
manufacturers satisfying this
requirement by continuing to use
catalyst designs and formulations that
appropriately control N2O emissions
rather than pursuing a catalyst that may
increase N2O. In many ways this
becomes a design-based criterion in that
the decision of one catalyst over another
will effectively determine compliance
with N2O standards over the useful life
of the engine. As noted in Section II
above, we are not at this time aware of
deterioration mechanisms for N2O and
CH4 that would result in large
deterioration factors, but neither do we
believe enough is known about these
mechanisms to justify proposing
assigned factors corresponding to no
deterioration. We are therefore asking
for comment on this subject.
(c) Additional Compliance Provisions
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) Warranty & Defect Reporting
Under section 207 of the CAA, engine
manufacturers are required to warrant
that their product is free from defects
that would cause the engine to not
comply with emission standards. This
warranty must be applicable from when
the engine is introduced into commerce
through a period generally defined as
half of the regulatory useful life
(specified in hours and years, whichever
comes first). The exact time of this
warranty is dependent on the regulatory
class of the engine. In addition,
components that are considered ‘‘high
cost’’ are required to have an extended
warranty. Examples of such components
would be exhaust aftertreatment devices
and electronic control units.
Current warranty provisions in 40
CFR part 86 define the warranty periods
and covered components for heavy-duty
engines. The current list of components
is comprised of any device or system
whose failure would result in an
increase in criteria pollutant emissions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
At this point, we believe this list to be
adequate for addressing GHG emissions
as well. However, there may be
instances where the failure of a
component or system may reduce the
efficiency of the engine while not
increasing criteria pollutant emissions.
In this case, the component or system
may be inappropriately left off the list
of covered components. Therefore we
are seeking public comment on what
devices and/or systems may need to be
added to the warranted component list
to adequately address GHG emissions.
The following list identifies items
commonly defined as critical emissionrelated components:
• Electronic control units.
• Aftertreatment devices.
• Fuel metering components.
• EGR-System components.
• Crankcase-ventilation valves.
• All components related to chargeair compression and cooling.
• All sensors and actuators associated
with any of these components.
When a manufacturer experiences an
elevated rate of failure of an emission
control device, they are required to
submit defect reports to the EPA. These
reports will generally have an
explanation of what is failing, the rate
of failure, and any possible corrections
taken by the manufacturer. Based on
how successful EPA believes the
manufacturer to be in addressing these
failures, the manufacturer may need to
conduct a product recall. In such an
instance, the manufacturer is
responsible for contacting all customers
with affected units and repairing the
defect at no cost to them. We believe
this structure for the reporting of criteria
pollutant defects, and recalls, is
appropriate for components related to
complying with GHG emissions as well.
(ii) Maintenance
Engine manufacturers are required to
outline maintenance schedules that
ensure their product will remain in
compliance with emission standards
throughout the useful life of the engine.
This schedule is required to be
submitted as part of the application for
certification. Maintenance that is
deemed to be critical to ensuring
compliance with emission standards is
classified as ‘‘critical emission-related
maintenance.’’ Generally, manufacturers
are discouraged from specifying that
critical emission-related maintenance is
needed within the regulatory useful life
of the engine. However, if such
maintenance is unavoidable,
manufacturers must have a reasonable
basis for ensuring it is performed at the
correct time. This may be demonstrated
through several methods including
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
survey data indicating that at least 80%
of engines receive the required
maintenance in-use or manufacturers
may provide the maintenance at no
charge to the user. During durability
testing of the engine, manufacturers are
required to follow their specified
maintenance schedule.
Maintenance relating to components
relating to reduction of GHG emissions
are not expected to present unique
challenges. Therefore, we are not
proposing any changes to the provisions
for the specification of emission-related
maintenance as outlined in 40 CFR part
86.
(2) Proposed Enforcement Provisions
(a) Emission Control Information Labels
Current provisions for engine
certification require manufacturers to
equip their product with permanent
emission control information labels.
These labels list important
characteristics, parameters, and
specifications related to the emissions
performance of the engine. These
include, but are not limited to, the
manufacturer, model, displacement,
emission control systems, and tune-up
specifications. In addition, this label
also provides a means for identifying
the engine family name, which can then
be referenced back to certification
documents. This label provides
essential information for field inspectors
to determine that an engine is in fact in
the certified configuration.
We do not anticipate any major
changes needing to be made to emission
control information labels as a result of
new GHG standards and a single label
is appropriate for both criteria pollutant
and GHG emissions purposes. Perhaps
the most significant addition would be
the inclusion of Family Certification
Levels or Family Emission Limits for
GHG pollutants, if the manufacturer is
participating in averaging, banking, and
trading. In addition, the label will need
to indicate whether the engine is
certified for use in vocational vehicles,
tractors, or both.
(b) In-Use Standards
In-use testing of engines provides a
number of benefits for ensuring useful
life compliance. In addition to verifying
compliance with emission standards at
any given point in the useful life, it can
be used along with manufacturer defect
reporting, to indentify components
failing at a higher than normal rate. In
this case, a product recall or other
service campaign can be initiated and
the problem can be rectified. Another
key benefit of in-use testing is the
discouragement of control strategies
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
catered to the certification test cycles. In
the past, engine manufacturers were
found to be producing engines that
performed acceptably over the
certification test cycle, while changing
to alternate operating strategies ‘‘offcycle’’ which caused increases in criteria
pollutant emissions. While these
strategies are clearly considered defeat
devices, in-use testing provides a
meaningful way of ensuring that such
strategies are not active under normal
engine operation.
Currently, manufacturers of certified
heavy-duty engines are required to
conduct in-use testing programs. The
intent of these programs is to ensure
that their products are continuing to
meet criteria pollutant emission
standards at various points within the
useful life of the engine. Since initial
certification is based on engine
dynamometer testing, and removing inuse engines from their respective
vehicles is often impractical, a unique
testing procedure was developed. This
includes using portable emission
measurement systems (PEMS) and
testing the engine over typical in-situ
drive routes rather than a prescribed test
cycle. To assess compliance, emission
results from a well defined area of the
speed/torque map of the engine, known
as the NTE zone, are compared to the
emission standards. To account for
potential increases in measurement and
operational variability, certain
allowances are applied to the standard
which results in the standard for NTE
measurements (NTE limit) to be at or
above the duty cycle emission
standards.
In addition, EPA also conducts an
annual in-use testing program of heavyduty engines. Testing procured vehicles
with specific engines over well-defined
drive routes using a constant trailer load
allows for a consistent comparison of inuse emissions performance. If potential
problems are identified in-situ, the
engine may be removed from the vehicle
and tested using an engine
dynamometer over the certification test
cycles. If deficiencies are confirmed the
agency will either work with the
manufacturer to take corrective action or
proceed with enforcement action against
the manufacturer.
The GHG reporting rule requires
manufacturers to submit CO2 data from
all engine testing (beginning in the 2011
model year), which we believe is
equally applicable to in-use
measurements. Methods of CO2 in-situ
measurement are well established and
most, if not all, PEMS devices measure
and record CO2 along with criteria
pollutants. CH4 and N2O present in-situ
measurement challenges that may be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
impractical to overcome for this testing,
and therefore it is not recommended
that they be included in in-use testing
requirements at this time. While
measurement of CO2 may be practical
and important, implementing an NTE
emission standard for CO2 is
challenging. As previously discussed,
CO2 emissions are highly dependent on
the drive cycle of the vehicle, which
does not lend itself well to the NTEbased test procedure. Therefore, we
propose that manufacturers be required
to submit CO2 data from in-use testing,
in both g/bhp-hr and g/ton-mile, but
these data will be used for reference
purposes only (there would be no NTE
limit/standard for CO2).
(3) Other Certification Provisions
(a) Carryover/Carry Across Certification
Test Data
EPA’s current certification program
for heavy-duty engines allows
manufacturers to carry certification test
data over and across certification testing
from one model year to the next, when
no significant changes to models are
made. EPA is proposing to also apply
this policy to CO2, N2O and CH4
certification test data.
(b) Certification Fees
The CAA allows EPA to collect fees
to cover the costs of issuing certificates
of conformity for the classes of engines
covered by this proposal. On May 11,
2004, EPA updated its fees regulation
based on a study of the costs associated
with its motor vehicle and engine
compliance program (69 FR 51402). At
the time that cost study was conducted,
the current rulemaking was not
considered. At this time the extent of
any added costs to EPA as a result of
this proposal is not known. EPA will
assess its compliance testing and other
activities associated with the rule and
may amend its fees regulations in the
future to include any warranted new
costs.
(c) Onboard Diagnostics
Beginning in the 2013 model year,
manufacturers will be required to equip
heavy-duty engines with on-board
diagnostic systems. These systems
monitor the activity of the emission
control system and issue alerts when
faults are detected. These diagnostic
systems are currently being developed
based around components and systems
that influence criteria pollutant
emissions. Consistent with the lightduty vehicle GHG rule, we believe that
monitoring of these components and
systems for criteria pollutant emissions
will have an equally beneficial effect on
CO2 emissions. Therefore, we do not
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74269
anticipate the necessity of having any
unique onboard diagnostic provisions
for heavy-duty GHG emissions. We are
seeking comment on this topic,
however.
(d) Applicability of Current High
Altitude Provisions to Greenhouse
Gases
EPA is proposing that engines covered
by this proposal must meet CO2, N2O
and CH4 standards at elevated altitudes.
The CAA requires emission standards
under section 202 for heavy-duty
engines to apply at all altitudes. EPA
does not expect engine CO2, CH4, or
N2O emissions to be significantly
different at high altitudes based on
engine calibrations commonly used at
all altitudes. Therefore, EPA proposes
that it retain its current high altitude
regulations so manufacturers will not
normally be required to submit engine
CO2 test data for high altitude. Instead,
they will be required to submit an
engineering evaluation indicating that
common calibration approaches will be
utilized at high altitude. Any deviation
in emission control practices employed
only at altitude will need to be included
in the AECD descriptions submitted by
manufacturers at certification. In
addition, any AECD specific to high
altitude will be required to include
emissions data to allow EPA evaluate
and quantify any emission impact and
validity of the AECD.
(e) Emission-Related Installation
Instructions
Engine manufacturers are currently
required to provide detailed installation
instructions to vehicle manufacturers.
These instructions outline how to
properly install the engine,
aftertreatment, and other supporting
systems, such that the engine will
operate in its certified configuration. At
the time of certification, manufacturers
may be required to submit these
instructions to EPA to verify that
sufficient detail has been provided to
the vehicle manufacturer.
We do not anticipate any major
changes to this documentation as a
result of regulating GHG emissions. The
most significant impact will be the
addition of language prohibiting vehicle
manufacturers from installing engines
into vehicle categories in which they are
not certified for. An example would be
a tractor manufacturer installing an
engine certified for only vocational
vehicle use. Explicit instructions on
behalf of the engine manufacturer that
such acts are prohibited will serve as
sufficient notice to the vehicle
manufacturers and failure to follow
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74270
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
such instructions will in the vehicle
manufacturer being in non-compliance.
(f) Alternate CO2 Emission and Fuel
Consumption Standards
Under the proposed rule, engine
manufacturers have the option of
certifying to CO2 emission and fuel
consumption standards that are 5
percent below a baseline value
established from their 2011 model-year
products. If a manufacturer elects to
participate in this program they must
indicate this on their certification
application. In addition, sufficient
details must be submitted regarding the
baseline engine such that the agency can
verify that the correct optional CO2
emission and fuel consumption
standards have been calculated. This
data will need to include the engine
family name of the baseline engine, so
references to the original certification
application can be made, as well as test
data showing the CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption of the baseline engine.
D. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Proposed Compliance Approach
In addition to requiring engine
manufacturers to certify their engines,
manufacturers of Class 7 and 8
combination tractors must also certify
that their vehicles meet the proposed
CO2 emission and fuel consumption
standards. This vehicle certification will
ensure that efforts beyond just engine
efficiency improvements are undertaken
to reduce GHG emissions and fuel
consumption. Some examples include
aerodynamic improvements, rolling
resistance reduction, idle reduction
technologies, and vehicle speed limiting
systems.
Unlike engine certification however,
this certification would be based on a
load-specific basis (g/ton-mile or gal/
1,000 ton-mile as opposed to workbased, or g/bhp-hr). This would take
into account the anticipated vehicle
loading that would be experienced in
use and the associated affects on fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions.
Vehicle manufacturers would also be
required to warrant their products
against emission defects, and
demonstrate that a service network is in
place to correct any such conditions.
The vehicle manufacturer also bears
responsibility in the event that an
emission-related recall is necessary.
(a) Certification Process
In order to obtain a certificate of
conformity for the tractor, vehicle
manufacturers would complete a
compliance demonstration, showing
that their product meets emission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
standards as well as other regulatory
requirements. For purposes of this
demonstration, vehicles with similar
emission characteristics throughout
their useful life are grouped together in
test groups, similar to EPA’s light-duty
emissions certification program.
Examples of characteristics that would
define a test group for heavy-duty
vehicles are wheel and tire package,
aerodynamic profile, tire rolling
resistance, and engine model. Under
this system, the worst-case vehicle
would be selected based on having the
highest fuel consumption, and all other
models within the family are assumed
to have emissions and fuel consumption
at or below the parent model and
therefore in compliance with CO2
emission and fuel consumption
standards. Any vehicle within the
family can be subject to selective
enforcement auditing in addition to
confirmatory or other administrator
testing.
We anticipate test groups for Class 7
and 8 combination tractors to utilize the
standardized 12-digit naming
convention, as outlined in the engine
certification section of this chapter. As
with engines, each certifying vehicle
manufacturer will have a unique three
digit code assigned to them. Currently,
there is no 5th digit (industry sector)
code for this class of vehicles, for which
we propose to use the next available
character, ‘‘2.’’ Since we are proposing
that the engine is one of several testgroup defining features, we still believe
it is appropriate to include engine
displacement in the family name. If the
test-group consists includes multiple
engine models with varying
displacements, the largest would be
specified in the test-group name,
consistent with current practices. The
remaining characters would remain
available for California ARB and/or
manufacturer use, such that the result is
a unique test-group name.
Class 7 and 8 tractors share several
common traits, such as the trailer
attachment provisions, number of
wheels, and general construction.
However, further inspection reveals key
differences related to GHG emissions.
Payloads hauled by Class 7 tractors are
significantly less than Class 8 tractors.
In addition, Class 8 vehicles may have
provisions for hoteling (‘‘sleeper cabs’’),
which results in an increase in size as
well as the addition of comfort features
like power and climate control for use
while the truck is parked. Both
segments may have various degrees of
roof fairing to provide better
aerodynamic matching to the trailer
being pulled. This is a feature which
can help reduce CO2 emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
significantly when properly matched to
the trailer, but can also increase CO2
emissions if improperly matched. Based
on these differences, it is reasonable to
expect differences in CO2 emissions,
and therefore these properties form the
basis for the proposed combination
tractor regulatory subcategories.
The various combinations of payload,
cab size, and roof profile result in nine
proposed regulatory subcategories for
Class 7 and 8 trucks. These include
Class 7 (day cabs), Class 8 (day cabs),
and Class 8 (sleeper cabs), each with
high, mid, and low roof profiles. The
Class 7 tractors would have a regulatory
useful life of 185,000 miles while Class
8 tractors would have a regulatory life
of 435,000 miles and must meet CO2
emission standards throughout this
period.
(b) Demonstrating Compliance With the
Proposed Standards
(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption
Standards
Consistent with existing certification
processes for light-duty vehicles and
heavy-duty pickups and vans, emissions
testing of the complete vehicle would be
the preferred method for demonstrating
compliance with vehicle emission
standards. However, vehicle-level
certification is new to the heavy-duty
vehicle segment above 14,000 lb.
Therefore, most vehicle manufacturers
are not adequately equipped to conduct
vehicle-level emission testing for Class
7 and 8 combination tractors. Chassis
dynamometers, emission sampling
equipment, and staff engineering
support are a few of the factors that
would add significant cost to vehicle
development in a relatively short
amount of time, which may make the
prospect of vehicle testing quite
onerous. In addition to the
infrastructure and testing facilities the
industry would need to add, the
agencies have not completed the
extensive work ultimately desirable for
us to propose new test procedures and
standards based on the use of a chassis
test procedure. Moreover, as explained
in Section II.C, because of the enormous
numbers of truck configurations that
have an impact on fuel consumption,
we do not believe that it would be
reasonable, at least initially, to require
testing of many combinations of tractor
model configurations on a chassis
dynamometer. Recognizing these
constraints related to time, staffing, and
capital, we are proposing only a vehicle
simulation model option for
demonstrating compliance at the time of
certification. However, we do believe
that a chassis based test procedure as
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
currently utilized for vehicles below
14,000 pounds could be a better longterm approach to regulate all heavy-duty
vehicles and we are seeking comment
on a chassis based approach.
Model
Vehicle modeling will be conducted
using the agencies’ simulation model,
GEM, which is described in detail in
Chapter 4 of the draft RIA. Basically,
this model functions by defining a
vehicle configuration and then exercises
the model over various drive cycles.
Several initialization files are needed to
define a vehicle, which include
mechanical attributes, control
algorithms, and driver inputs. The
majority of these inputs will be
predetermined by EPA and NHTSA for
the purposes of vehicle certification.
The net results from GEM are CO2
emissions and fuel consumption values
over the proposed drive cycles. The CO2
emission result will be used for
demonstrating compliance with vehicle
CO2 standards while the fuel
consumption result will be used for
demonstrating compliance with the fuel
consumption standards.
The vehicle manufacturer will be
responsible for entering aerodynamic
properties of the vehicle, the weight
reduction, tire properties, idle reduction
systems, and vehicle speed limiting
systems. For GEM inputs relating to
weight reduction and aerodynamics, the
agencies are proposing the use of lookup
tables based on typical performance
levels across the industry. These lookup
tables do not have data directly related
to CO2, but rather provide the
appropriate coefficients for the model to
assess CO2- and fuel consumptionrelated performance. The agencies will
enter the appropriate engine map
reflecting use of a certified engine in the
truck (and will enter the same value
even if an engine family is certified to
the temporary percent reduction
alternative standard, in order to evaluate
vehicle performance independently of
engine performance.) We believe this
approach reduces the testing burden
placed upon manufacturers, yet
adequately assesses improvements
associated with select technologies. The
model will be publicly available and
will be found on EPA’s Web site.
The agency reserves the right to
independently evaluate the inputs to the
model via Administrator testing to
validate those model inputs. The agency
also reserves the right to evaluate
vehicle performance using the inputs to
the model provided by the manufacturer
to confirm the performance of the
system using GEM. This could include
generating emissions results using the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
GEM and the inputs as provided by the
manufacturer based on the agency’s own
runs. This could also include
conducting comparable testing to verify
the inputs provided by the
manufacturer. In the event of such
testing or evaluation, the
Administrator’s results become the
official certification results. The
exception being that the manufacturer
may continue to use their data as
initially submitted, provided it
represents a worst-case condition over
the Administrator’s results.
To better facilitate the entry of only
the appropriate parameters, the agencies
will provide a graphical user interface
in the model for entering data specific
to each vehicle. This graphical user
interface allows the end user to avoid
interacting directly with the model and
any associated coding. It is expected
that this template will be submitted to
EPA as part of the certification process
for each certified vehicle configuration.
For certification, the model will
exercise the vehicle over three test
cycles; one transient and two steadystate. For the transient test, we are
proposing to use the heavy-heavy-duty
diesel truck (HHDDT) transient test
cycle, which was developed by the
California Air Resources Board and
West Virginia University to evaluate
heavy-duty vehicles. The transient
mode simulates urban, start-stop
driving, featuring 1.8 stops per mile
over the 2.9 mile duration. The two
steady state test points are reflective of
the tendency for some of these vehicles
to operate for extended periods at
highway speeds. Based on data from the
EPA’s MOVES database, and common
highway speed limits, we are proposing
these two points to be 55 and 65 mph.
The model will predict the total
emissions results from each segment
using the unique properties entered for
each vehicle. These results are then
normalized to the payload and distance
covered, so as to yield a gram/ton-mile
result, as well as a fuel consumption
(gal/1,000 ton-mile) result for each test
cycle. As with engine and vehicle
testing, certification will be based on a
parent rating for the test group,
representing the worst-case fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions.
However, vehicle manufacturers will
also have the opportunity to model subconfigurations to determine any benefits
that are available on only a select
number of vehicles within a test group.
The results from all three tests are
then combined using weighting factors,
which reflect typical usage patterns. The
typical usage characteristics of Class 7
and 8 tractors with day cabs differ
significantly from Class 8 tractors with
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74271
sleeper cabs. The trucks with day cabs
tend to operate in more urban areas,
have a limited travel range, and tend to
return to a common depot at the end of
each shift. Class 8 sleeper cabs,
however, are typically used for long
distance trips which consist of mostly
highway driving in an effort to cover the
highest mileage in the shortest time. For
these reasons, we propose that the
cycles are weighted differently for these
two groups of vehicles. For Class 7 and
8 trucks with day cabs, we propose
weights of 64%, 17%, and 19% (65
mph, 55 mph, and transient, resp.). For
Class 8 with sleeper cabs, the high
speed cruise tendency results in
proposed weights of 86%, 9%, and 5%
(65 mph, 55 mph, and transient,
respectively). These final, weighted
emission results are compared to the
emission standard to assess compliance.
Durability Testing
As with engine certification, a
manufacturer must provide evidence of
compliance through the regulatory
useful life of the vehicle. Factors
influencing vehicle-level GHG
performance over the life of the vehicle
fall into two basic categories: Vehicle
attributes and maintenance items. Each
category merits different treatment from
the perspective of assessing useful life
compliance, as each has varying degrees
of manufacturer versus owner/operator
responsibility.
The category of vehicle attributes
generally refers to aerodynamic features,
such as fairings, side-skirts, air dams, air
foils, etc, which are installed by the
manufacturer to reduce aerodynamic
drag on the vehicle. These features have
a significant impact on GHG emissions
and their emission reduction properties
are assessed early in the useful life (at
the time of certification). These features
are expected to last the full life of the
vehicle without becoming detached,
cracked/broken, misaligned, or
otherwise not in the original state. In the
absence of the aforementioned failure
modes, the performance of these
features is not expected to degrade over
time and the benefit to reducing GHG
emissions is expected to last for the life
of the vehicle with no special
maintenance requirements. To assess
useful life compliance, we recommend
a design-based approach which would
ensure that the manufacturer has
robustly designed these features so they
can reasonably be expected to last the
useful life of the vehicle.
The category of maintenance items
refers to items that are replaced,
renewed, cleaned, inspected, or
otherwise addressed in the preventative
maintenance schedule specified by the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74272
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
vehicle manufacturer. Items that have a
direct influence on GHG emissions are
primarily lubricants. Synthetic engine
oil may be used by vehicle
manufacturers to reduce the GHG
emissions of their vehicles.
Manufacturers may specify that these
fluids be changed throughout the useful
life of the vehicle. If this is the case, the
manufacturer should have a reasonable
basis that the owner/operator will use
fluids having the same properties. This
may be accomplished by requiring (in
service documentation, labeling, etc)
that only these fluids can be used as
replacements.
If the vehicle remains in its original
certified condition throughout its useful
life, it is not believed that GHG
emissions would increase as a result of
service accumulation. This is based on
the assumption that as components
wear, the rolling resistance due to
friction is likely to stay the same or
decrease. With all other components
remaining equal (tires, aerodynamics,
etc), the overall drag force would stay
the same or decrease, thus not
significantly changing GHG emissions at
the end of useful life. It is important to
remember however, that this vehicle
assessment does not take into account
any engine-related wear affects, which
may in fact increase GHG emissions
over time.
For the reasons explained above, we
believe that for the first phase of this
program, it is most important to ensure
that the vehicle remain in its certified
configuration throughout the useful life.
This can most effectively be
accomplished through engineering
analysis and specific maintenance
instructions provided by the vehicle
manufacturer. The vehicle manufacturer
would be primarily responsible for
providing engineering analysis
demonstrating that vehicle attributes
will last for the full life of the vehicle.
In addition they will be required to
submit the recommended maintenance
schedule (and other service related
documentation), showing that fluids
meeting original equipment properties
are required as replacements.
(ii) EPA’s Air Conditioning Leakage
Standards
Heavy-duty vehicle air conditioning
systems contribute to GHG emissions in
two ways. First, operation of the air
conditioning unit places an accessory
load on the engine, which increases fuel
consumption. Second, most modern
refrigerants are HFC-based, which have
significant global warming potential
(GWP = 1430). For heavy-duty vehicles,
the load added by the air conditioning
system is comparatively small compared
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
to other power requirements of the
vehicle. Therefore, we are not targeting
any GHG reduction due to decreased air
conditioning usage or higher efficiency
A/C units for this proposal. However,
refrigerant leakage, even in very small
quantities, can have significant adverse
effects on GHG emissions.
Refrigerant leakage is a concern for
heavy-duty vehicles, similar to lightduty vehicles. To address this, EPA is
proposing a design-based standard for
reducing refrigerant leakage from heavyduty vehicles. This standard is based off
using the best practices for material
selection and interface sealing, as
outlined in SAE publication J2727.
Based on design criteria in this
publication, a leakage ‘‘score’’ can be
assessed and an estimated annual leak
rate can be made for the A/C system
based on the refrigerant capacity.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers would be required to
outline the design of their system,
including specifying materials and
construction methods. They will also
need to supply the leakage score
developed using SAE J2727 and the
refrigerant volume of their system to
determine the leakage rate per year. If
the certifying manufacturer does not
complete installation of the air
conditioning unit, detailed instructions
must be provided to the final installer
which ensures that the A/C system is
assembled to meet the low-leakage
standards. These instructions will also
need to be provided at the time of
certification, and manufacturers must
retain all records relating to auditing of
the final assembler.
(c) In-Use Standards
As previously addressed, the drivecycle dependence of CO2 emissions
makes NTE-based in-use testing
impractical. In addition, we believe the
reporting of CO2 data from the criteria
pollutant in-use testing program will be
helpful in future rulemaking efforts. For
these reasons, we are not proposing an
NTE-based in-use testing program for
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors
during this proposal.
In the absence of NTE-based in-use
testing, provisions are necessary for
verifying that production vehicles are in
the certified configuration, and remain
so throughout the useful life. Perhaps
the easiest method for doing this is to
verify the presence of installed
emission-related components. This
would basically consist of a vehicle
audit against what is claimed in the
certification application. This includes
verifying the presence of aerodynamic
components, such as fairings, sideskirts, and gap-reducers. In addition, the
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
presence of idle-reduction and speed
limiting devices would be verified. The
presence of LRR tires could be verified
at the point of initial sale; however
verification at other points throughout
the useful life would be non-enforceable
for the reasons mentioned previously.
The category of wear items primarily
relates to tires. It is expected that
vehicle manufacturers will equip their
trucks with LRR tires, as they may
provide a substantial reduction in GHG
emissions. The tire replacement
intervals for this class of vehicle is
normally in the range of 50,000 to
100,000 miles, which means the owner/
operator will be replacing the tires at
several points within the useful life of
the vehicle. We believe that as LRR tires
become more common on new
equipment, the aftermarket prices of
these tires will also decrease. Along
with decreasing tire prices, the fuel
savings realized through use of LRR
tires will ideally provide enough
incentive for owner/operators to
continue purchasing these tires. The
inventory modeling in this proposal
reflects the continued use of LRR tires
through the life of the vehicle. We seek
comment on this and all aspects of our
inventory modeling.
(2) Proposed Enforcement Provisions
As identified above, a significant
amount of vehicle-level GHG reduction
is anticipated to come from the use of
components specifically designed to
reduce GHG emissions. Examples of
such components include LRR tires,
aerodynamic fairings, idle reduction
systems, and vehicle speed limiters. At
the time of certification, vehicle
manufacturers will specify which
components will be on their vehicle
when introduced into commerce. Based
on this list of components reported to
EPA the GHG performance of the
vehicle will be assessed, typically
through modeling, and a certificate of
conformity may be issued. As described
in the in-use testing section, it is
important to have the ability to
determine if the vehicle is in the
certified configuration both at the time
of sale, as well as at any point within
the useful life.
Perhaps the most practical and basic
method of verifying that a vehicle is in
its certified configuration is through a
vehicle emissions control information
label, similar to that used for engines
and light-duty vehicles. This label
would list identifying features of the
vehicle, including model year, vehicle
model, certified engine family, vehicle
manufacturer, test group, and GHG
emissions category. In addition, this
label would list emission-related
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
components that an inspector could
reference in the event of a field
inspection. Possible examples may
include LRR (for LRR tires), ARF
(aerodynamic roof fairing), and ARM
(aerodynamic rearview mirrors). With
this information, inspectors could verify
the presence and condition of attributes
listed as part of the certified
configuration.
Similarly, on current emission control
information labels, manufacturers list
abbreviations, which are defined in SAE
J1930, for each emission control device.
Examples include three-way catalyst
(TWC), electronic control (EC), and
heated oxygen sensor (HO2S).
Unfortunately we are not aware of a
similar, existing list of vehicle emission
control devices and features likely to be
used on heavy-duty vehicles. At this
point, it is also difficult to develop such
a list due to the wide array of devices
and features vehicle manufacturers may
use in the future. Therefore, we are
currently seeking comment on how to
best define a list of emission control
devices and features for use in this
vehicle GHG certification label.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers will be required to
submit an example of their vehicle
emission control label such that EPA
can verify that all critical elements are
present. Such elements include the
vehicle family/test group name,
emission control system identifiers
described above, regulatory sub-category
of the vehicle, and Family Emission
Limits to which the vehicle is certified
to. In addition to the label,
manufacturers will also need to describe
where the unique vehicle identification
number and date of production can be
found on the vehicle.
(3) Other Certification Provisions
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) Warranty
Section 207 of the CAA requires
manufacturers to warrant their products
to be free from defects that would
otherwise cause non-compliance with
emission standards. In addition, this
warranty must ensure that the vehicle
remains in this configuration
throughout its useful life. For purposes
of this regulation, vehicle manufacturers
must warrant all components installed
which act to reduce CO2 emissions at
the time of initial sale. This includes all
aerodynamic features, tires, idle
reduction systems, speed limiting
system, and other equipment added to
reduce CO2 emissions. In addition, the
manufacturer must ensure these
components and systems remain
functional for the useful life of the
vehicle. The exception being tires,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
which are only required to be warranted
for the first life of the tires (vehicle
manufacturers are not expected to cover
replacement tires). For aerodynamic
features, such as fairings or side-skirts,
the manufacturer must warrant against
failures which are not the result
operator damage. However, these
components should be designed to
withstand possible damage from normal
driving, which may include stone
impingement and other minor impact
with small debris.
The vehicle manufacturer is also
required to warrant the A/C system for
the useful life of the vehicle against
design or manufacturing defects causing
refrigerant leakage in excess of the
standard.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers must supply a copy of
the warranty statement that will be
supplied to the end customer. This
document should outline what is
covered under the GHG emissions
related warranty as well as the length of
coverage. Customers must also have
clear access to the terms of the warranty,
the repair network, and the process for
obtaining warranty service.
(b) Maintenance
Vehicle manufacturers are required to
outline maintenance schedules that
ensure their product will remain in
compliance with emission standards
throughout the useful life of the vehicle.
For heavy-duty vehicles, such
maintenance may include fluid/
lubricant service, fairing adjustments, or
service to the GHG emission control
system. This schedule is required to be
submitted as part of the application for
certification. Maintenance that is
deemed to be critical to ensuring
compliance with emission standards is
classified as ‘‘critical emission-related
maintenance.’’ Generally, manufacturers
are discouraged from specifying that
critical emission-related maintenance is
needed within the regulatory useful life
of the engine. However, if such
maintenance is unavoidable,
manufacturers must have a reasonable
basis for ensuring it is performed at the
correct time. This may be demonstrated
through several methods including
survey data indicating that at least 80%
of engines receive the required
maintenance in-use or manufacturers
may provide the maintenance at no
charge to the user.
(c) Certification Fees
Similar to engine certification, the
agency will assess certification fees for
heavy-duty vehicles. The proceeds from
these fees are used to fund the
compliance and certification activities
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74273
related to GHG regulation for this
regulatory category. In addition to the
certification process, other activities
funded by certification fees include
EPA-administered in-use testing,
selective enforcement audits, and
confirmatory testing. At this point, the
exact costs associated with the heavyduty vehicle GHG compliance are not
well known. EPA will assess its
compliance program associated with
this proposal and assess the appropriate
level of fees. We anticipate that fees will
be applied based on test groups,
following the light-duty vehicle
approach.
(d) Requirements For Conducting
Aerodynamic Assessment Using
Allowed Methods
The requirements for conducting
aerodynamic assessment using allowed
methods includes two key components:
Adherence to a minimum set of
standardized criteria for each allowed
method and submittal of aerodynamic
values and supporting information on
an annual basis for the purposes of
certifying vehicles to a particular
aerodynamic bin as discussed in the
Section II.
First, we are proposing requirements
for conducting each of the allowed
aerodynamic assessment methods. We
will cite approved and published
standards and practices, where feasible,
but will attempt to propose criteria
where none exists or where more
current research indicates otherwise.
We are requesting comment on the
proposed requirements for each allowed
method, standards and practices that
should be used, and any unique criteria
that we are proposing. A description of
the requirements for each method is
discussed later in this section. The
manufacturer would be required to
provide information showing that they
meet these requirements and attest to
the accuracy of the information
provided.
Second, to ensure continued
compliance, manufacturers would be
required to provide a minimum set of
information on an annual basis at
certification time (1) to support
continued use of an aerodynamic
assessment method and (2) to assign an
aerodynamic value based on the
applicable aerodynamic bins. The
information supplied to the agencies
should be based on an approved
aerodynamic assessment method and
adhere to the requirements for
conducting aerodynamic assessment
mentioned above.
Regardless of the method, all testing
should be performed with a tractortrailer combination to mimic real world
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74274
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
usage. Accordingly, it is important to
match the type of tractor with the
correct trailer. Although, as discussed
elsewhere in this proposal, the correct
tractor-trailer combination is not always
present or tractor-only operation may
occur, the majority of operation in the
real world involves correctly matched
tractor-trailer combinations and we will
attempt to reflect that here. Therefore,
the following guidelines should be used
when performing an aerodynamic
assessment:
• For a Class 7 and 8 tractor truck
with a low roof, a standard flatbed
trailer must be used;
• For a Class 7 and 8 tractor truck
with a mid roof, a standard tanker trailer
must be used;
• For a Class 7 and 8 tractor truck
with a high roof, a standard box trailer
must be used.
The definitions of each standard
trailer are proposed in § 1037.501(g).
This ensures consistency and continuity
in the aerodynamic assessments, and
maintains the overlap with real world
operation.
Standardized Criteria for Aerodynamic
Assessment Methods
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) Coastdown Procedure Requirements
For coastdown testing, the test runs
should be conducted in a manner
consistent with SAE J2263 with
additional modifications as described in
the 40 CFR part 1066, subpart C, and in
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA using the
mixed model analysis method. The
agencies seek comment on the use of
these protocols and the modifications
that are described.
Since the coastdown procedure is the
primary aerodynamic assessment
method, the manufacturer would be
required to conduct the coastdown
procedure according to the requirements
in this proposal and supply the
following to the agency for approval:
• Facility information: Name and
location, description and/or
background/history, equipment and
capability, track and facility elevation,
and track size/length;
• Test conditions for each test result
including date and time, wind speed
and direction, ambient temperature and
humidity, vehicle speed, driving
distance, manufacturer name, test
vehicle/model type, model year,
applicable model engine family, tire
type and rolling resistance, test weight
and driver name(s) and/or ID(s);
• Average Cd result as calculated in
40 CFR 1037.520(b) from valid tests
including, at a minimum, ten valid test
results, with no maximum number,
standard deviation, calculated error and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
error bands, and total number of tests,
including number of voided or invalid
tests.
(ii) Wind Tunnel Testing Requirements
Wind tunnel testing would conform to
the following procedures and
modifications, where applicable,
including:
• SAE J1252, ‘‘SAE WIND TUNNEL
TEST PROCEDURE FOR TRUCKS AND
BUSES’’ (July 1981) except that article
5.2 that specifies a minimum Reynolds
number of 0.7 × 106 is not included and
is superseded, for the purposes of this
rulemaking, by a minimum Reynolds
number of 1.0 × 106 and, for reducedscale wind tunnel testing, a one-eighth
(1⁄8th) or larger scale model of a heavyduty tractor and trailer must be used
and of sufficient design to simulate
airflow through the radiator inlet grill;
• J1594, ‘‘VEHICLE AERODYNAMICS
TERMINOLOGY’’ (December 1994); and
• J2071, ‘‘AERODYNAMIC TESTING
OF ROAD VEHICLES—OPEN THROAT
WIND TUNNEL ADJUSTMENT’’ (June
1994).
In addition, the wind tunnel used for
aerodynamic assessment would be a
recognized facility by the Subsonic
Aerodynamic Testing Association. The
agencies seek comment on the use of
these protocols and the modifications
described and the need for membership
in this testing association.
For wind tunnel testing, we are
proposing that manufacturers perform
wind tunnel testing and the coastdown
procedure, according to the
requirements proposed in this notice, on
the same tractor model and provide the
results for both methods. The wind
tunnel tests should be conducted at a
zero yaw angle and, if so equipped,
utilizing the moving/rolling floor (i.e.,
the moving/rolling floor should be on
during the test as opposed to static) for
comparison to the coastdown
procedure, which corrects to a zero yaw
angle for the oncoming wind. The
manufacturer would be required to
supply the following:
• Facility information: Name and
location, description and background/
history, layout, wind tunnel type,
diagram of wind tunnel layout,
structural and material construction;
• Wind tunnel design details: Corner
turning vane type and material, air
settling, mesh screen specification, air
straightening method, tunnel volume,
surface area, average duct area, and
circuit length;
• Wind tunnel flow quality:
Temperature control and uniformity,
airflow quality, minimum airflow
velocity, flow uniformity, angularity
and stability, static pressure variation,
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
turbulence intensity, airflow
acceleration and deceleration times, test
duration flow quality, and overall
airflow quality achievement;
• Test/Working section information:
Test section type (e.g., open, closed,
adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular,
square, oval), length, contraction ratio,
maximum air velocity, maximum
dynamic pressure, nozzle width and
height, plenum dimensions and net
volume, maximum allowed model scale,
maximum model height above road,
strut movement rate (if applicable),
model support, primary boundary layer
slot, boundary layer elimination method
and photos and diagrams of the test
section;
• Fan section description: Fan type,
diameter, power, maximum rotational
speed, maximum tip speed, support
type, mechanical drive, sectional total
weight;
• Data acquisition and control (where
applicable): Acquisition type, motor
control, tunnel control, model balance,
model pressure measurement, wheel
drag balances, wing/body panel
balances, and model exhaust
simulation;
• Moving ground plane or Rolling
Road (if applicable): Construction and
material, yaw table and range, moving
ground length and width, belt type,
maximum belt speed, belt suction
mechanism, platen instrumentation,
temperature control, and steering; and
• Facility correction factors and
purpose.
(iii) CFD Requirements
Currently, there is no existing
standard, protocol or methodology
governing the use of CFD. Therefore, we
are coupling the use of CFD with
empirical measurements from
coastdown and wind tunnel procedures.
However, we think it is important to
require a minimum set of criteria that all
CFD analysis should follow for the
purpose of these rules and to produce a
consistent set of results to maintain
compliance. Since there are primarily
two-types of CFD software code, NavierStokes based and Lattice-Boltzman
based, we are outlining two sets of
criteria to address both types. Therefore,
the agencies propose that manufacturers
use commercially-available CFD
software code with a turbulence model
enabled and Navier-Stokes formula
solver, where applicable. Further details
and criteria for each type of
commercially-available CFD software
code follows immediately and general
criteria for all CFD analysis are
subsequently described.
For Navier-Stokes based CFD code,
manufacturers must perform an
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
unstructured, time-accurate analysis
using a mesh grid size with total surface
elements greater than or equal to 5
million cells/nodes, a near-vehicle cell
size of less than or equal to 10
millimeters (mm), a near-wall cell size
of less than or equal to 1mm,203 and a
volume element size of less than or
equal to 5 mm; using hexagonal or
polyhedral mesh cell shapes. All
Navier-Stokes based CFD analysis
should be performed with a k-epsilon
(k-e) or a shear stress transport k-omega
(SST k-w) turbulence model and mesh
deformation enabled with boundary
layer resolution of +/¥ 95%. Finally,
Navier-Stokes based CFD analysis for
the purposes of determining the Cd
should be performed once result
convergence is achieved and
manufacturers should be able to
demonstrate convergence by supplying
multiple, successive convergence
values.
For Lattice-Boltzman based CFD code,
the agencies propose that manufacturers
perform an unstructured, time-accurate
analysis using a mesh grid size with
total surface elements greater than or
equal to 5 million cells/nodes, a nearvehicle cell size of less than or equal to
10 millimeters (mm), a near-wall cell
size of less than or equal to 1mm, and
a volume element size of less than or
equal to 5 mm; using cubic volume
elements and triangle and/or
quadrilateral surface elements.
Finally, in general for CFD, all
analysis should be conducted assuming
zero yaw angle for comparison to the
coastdown test procedure. In addition,
the ambient conditions assumed for the
CFD analysis should be defined
according to the environmental
conditions that the manufacturer is
seeking to simulate. For simulating a
wind tunnel test, the CFD analysis
should accurately model that wind
tunnel and assume a wind tunnel
blockage ratio consistent with SAE
J1252 or that matches the selected wind
tunnel, whichever is lower. For
simulation of open road conditions
similar to that experienced during
coastdown test procedures, the CFD
analysis should assume a blockage ratio
of less than or equal 0.2%.
The agencies seek comment on the
use of CFD commercial or open source
203 See Lecture Notes in Applied and
Computational Mechanics, The Aerodynamics of
Heavy Vehicles II: Trucks, Buses, and Trains; DOI:
10.1007/978–3–540–85070–0_33; ‘‘Applicability of
Commercial CFD tools for assessment of heavy
vehicle aerodynamic characteristics’’ as created by
the University of Chicago as Operator of Argonne
National Laboratory (‘‘Argonne’’) under contract No.
W–31–109–ENG–38 with the U.S. Department of
Energy.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
code and the criteria set forth above for
conducting the analysis.
Finally, in general for each of the
allowed aerodynamic assessment
methods, we are requesting comment on
the list of information that must be
provided for facilities and test
conditions.
Annual Testing and Data Submittal for
Aerodynamic Assessment
Once the manufacturer has performed
acceptance demonstration, the
aerodynamic assessment can be used to
generate Cd values for all vehicle
models the manufacturer plans to certify
and introduce into commerce. For each
model, the manufacturer would supply
a predicted Cd based for each of the
other models in the manufacturer’s fleet
and the other conditions used to
determine the base Cd. This reduces
burden on the manufacturer to perform
aerodynamic assessment but provides
data for all the models in a
manufacturer’s fleet. If a manufacturer
has previously performed aerodynamic
assessment on the other models, the
manufacturer may submit an
experimental Cd in lieu of a predicted
Cd.
The aerodynamic assessment data
would be used by the manufacturer who
would input the Cd value from the lookup table, based on the results from the
aerodynamic assessment, into GEM and
determine a GHG emissions and fuel
consumption level.
Since the agency may input the data
into the model, manufacturers would
provide the information described above
for acceptance demonstration for the
purposes of annual certification. In
addition, the manufacturer would
supply manufacturer fleet information
to the agency for annual certification
purposes along with the acceptance
demonstration parameters:
manufacturer name, model year, model
line (if different than manufacturer
name), model name, engine family,
engine displacement, transmission
name and type, number of axles, axle
ratio, vehicle dimensions, including
frontal area, predicted or measured
coefficient of drag, assumptions used in
developing the predicted or measured
Cd. justification for carry-across of
aerodynamic assessment data, photos of
the model line-up, if available, and
model applications and usage options.
We are requesting comment on the
annual testing requirements and the
burden on manufacturers to satisfy the
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74275
(e) Aerodynamic Assessment Validation
and Compliance
Although the procedures above
should ensure accuracy in the
aerodynamic assessment, it is always
beneficial to perform confirmation or
validation post-certification. The
agencies would like to ensure a level
playing field among the manufacturers
and the different aerodynamic
assessment methods. The agencies hope
to finalize a method for doing so after
working through the comments from all
stakeholders in a collaborative manner.
The agencies envision that a program
for aerodynamic assessment could
consist of two parts: (1) Validation of
the manufacturer source data by
performing an audit of the
manufacturer’s aerodynamic assessment
methods and tools as described in this
proposal using a reference truck and/or
(2) vehicle confirmatory evaluation
using a vehicle recruited from the in-use
fleet and performing the aerodynamic
assessment discussed in this proposal,
either using the manufacturer’s facility
and tools or using the agency’s facility
and tools. We are seeking comment on
the all aspects of an aerodynamic
assessment validation and compliance.
E. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
(1) Proposed Compliance Approach
Like Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors, heavy-duty vocational vehicles
would be required to have both engine
and complete vehicle certificates of
conformity. As discussed in the engine
certification section, engines that will be
used in vocational vehicles would need
to be certified using the Heavy-duty FTP
cycle for GHG pollutants and show
compliance through the useful life of
the engine. This certification is in
addition to the current requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity for
criteria pollutant emissions.
For this proposal, the majority of the
GHG reduction for vocational vehicles is
expected to come from the use of LRR
tires as well as increased utilization of
hybrid powertrain systems. Other
technologies such as aerodynamic
improvements and vehicle speed
limiting systems are not as relevant for
this class of vehicles, since the typical
duty cycle is much more urban,
consisting of lower speeds and frequent
stopping. Idle reduction strategies are
expected to be encompassed by hybrid
technology, which we anticipate will
ultimately handle PTO operation.
Therefore, for this initial proposal,
certification of heavy-duty vocational
vehicles with conventional powertrains
will focus on quantifying GHG benefits
due to the use of LRR tires.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74276
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(a) Certification Process
Vehicles would be divided into test
groups for purposes of certification. As
with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors,
these are groups of vehicles within a
given regulatory category that are
expected to share common emission
characteristics. Vocational vehicle
regulatory subcategories share the same
structure as those used for heavy-duty
engine criteria pollutant certification
and are based on GVWR. This includes
light-heavy (LHD) with a GVWR at or
below 19,500 pounds, medium-heavy
(MHD) with a GVWR above 19,500
pounds and at or below 33,000 pounds,
and heavy-heavy (HHD) with a GVWR
above 33,000 pounds. Other test group
features may include the type of tires
used, intended application, and number
of wheels.
As with Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors, we anticipate using the
standardized 12-digit naming
convention to identify vocational
vehicle test groups. As with engines and
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, each
certifying vehicle manufacturer would
have a unique three digit code assigned
to them. Currently, there is no 5th digit
(industry sector) code for this class of
vehicles, for which we propose to use
the next available character, ‘‘3.’’ Since
we are proposing that the engine is one
of several test-group defining features,
we still believe it is appropriate to
include engine displacement in the
family name. If the test-group consists
includes multiple engine models with
varying displacements, the largest
would be specified in the test-group
name, consistent with current practices.
The remaining characters would remain
available for California ARB and/or
manufacturer use, such that the result is
a unique test-group name.
Each test group would need to
demonstrate compliance with emission
standards using the GEM approach.
Additional provisions are available for
certification of hybrid vehicles or
vehicles using unique technologies,
which was detailed in Section IV. If the
test group consists of multiple models,
only result from the worst-case model is
necessary for certification. However,
manufacturers would need to submit an
engineering evaluation demonstrating
that the test group has been assembled
appropriately and that the test model
indeed reflects the worst-case model.
Also, manufacturers should plan on
submitting tire rolling resistance
properties to EPA at the time of
certification. Finally the data from each
of the certification cycles described
below will need to be submitted at the
time of certification.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(b) Demonstrating Compliance With the
Proposed Standards
(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption
Standards
Model
For this proposal, the agencies are
proposing that demonstrating
compliance with GHG and fuel
consumption standards would primarily
involve demonstrating the use of LRR
tires and quantifying the associated CO2
and fuel consumption benefit. Similar to
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, this
will be done using GEM. However, the
input parameters entered by the vehicle
manufacturer would be limited to the
properties of the tires. GEM will use the
tire data, along with inputs reflecting a
baseline truck and engine, to generate a
complete vehicle model. The test weight
used in the model will be based on the
vehicle class, as identified above. Lightheavy-duty vehicles will have a test
weight of 16,000 pounds; 25,150 pounds
for medium heavy-duty vehicles; and
heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles
will use a test weight of 67,000 pounds.
The model would then be exercised
over the HHDDT transient cycle as well
as 55 and 65 mph steady-state cruise
conditions. The results of each of the
three tests would be weighted at 37%,
21%, and 42% for 65 mph, 55 mph, and
transient tests, respectively.
It may seem more expedient and just
as accurate to require manufacturers use
tires meeting certain industry standards
for qualifying tires as having LRR. In
addition, CO2 and fuel consumption
benefits could be quantified for different
ranges of coefficients of rolling
resistance to provide a means for
comparison to the standard. However,
we believe that as technology advances,
other aspects of vocational vehicles may
warrant inclusion in future rulemakings.
For this reason, we believe it is
important to have the certification
framework in place to accommodate
such additions. While the modeling
approach may seem to be overly
complicated for this phase of the rules,
it also serves to create a certification
pathway for future rulemakings and
therefore we believe this is the best
approach. Should innovative
technologies be considered that are
currently beyond the scope of the
model, it would be necessary for the
manufacturer to conduct A to B testing
which reflects the improvement
associated with the new technology.
The test protocol to be used and the
basis of this assessment will require a
public vetting process which would
likely include notice and comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In-use Standards
The category of wear items primarily
relates to tires. It is expected that
vehicle manufacturers will equip their
trucks with LRR (LRR) tires, since the
proposed vehicle standard is predicated
on LRR tires’ performance. The tire
replacement intervals for this class of
vehicle is normally in the range of
50,000 to 100,000 miles, which means
the owner/operator will be replacing the
tires at several points within the useful
life of the vehicle. We believe that as
LRR tires become more common on new
equipment, the aftermarket prices of
these tires will also decrease. Along
with decreasing tire prices, the fuel
savings realized through use of LRR
tires will ideally provide enough
incentive for owner/operators to
continue purchasing these tires. The
inventory modeling in this proposal
reflects the continued use of LRR tires
through the life of the vehicle. We seek
comment on this and all aspects of our
inventory modeling.
(ii) Evaporative Emission Standards
Evaporative and refueling emissions
from heavy-duty highway engines and
vehicles are currently regulated under
40 CFR part 86. Even though these
emission standards apply to the same
engines and vehicles that must meet
exhaust emission standards, we require
a separate certificate for complying with
evaporative and refueling emission
standards. An important related point to
note is that the evaporative and
refueling emission standards always
apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust
emission standards may apply to either
the engine or the vehicle. For vehicles
other than pickups and vans, the
standards proposed in this notice to
address greenhouse gas emissions apply
separately to engines and to vehicles.
Since we plan to apply both greenhouse
gas standards and evaporative/refueling
emission standards to vehicle
manufacturers, we believe it would be
advantageous to have the regulations
related to their certification
requirements written together as much
as possible. EPA regards these proposed
changes as discrete, minimal, and for
the most part clarifications to the
existing standards. Except as
specifically proposed here, EPA is not
soliciting comment on, or otherwise
considering whether to make changes to
those standards. Accordingly, EPA will
not consider any comments directed to
any aspect of these standards other than
those specifically proposed here.
We are generally not proposing to
change the evaporative or refueling
emission standards, but we have come
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
across several provisions that warrant
clarification or correction:
• When adopting the most recent
evaporative emission change we did not
carry through the changes to the
regulatory text applying evaporative
emission standards for methanol-fueled
compression-ignition engine. The
proposed regulations correct this by
applying the new standards to all fuels
that are subject to standards.
• We are proposing provisions to
address which standards apply when an
auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed
in a motor vehicle, which is currently
not directly addressed in the highway
regulation. The proposed approach
would require testing complete vehicles
with any auxiliary engines (and the
corresponding fuel-system components).
Incomplete vehicles would be tested
without the auxiliary engines, but any
such engines and the corresponding
fuel-system components would need to
meet the standards that apply under our
nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR
part 1060.
• We are proposing to remove the
option for secondary vehicle
manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank
capacity than is specified by the
certifying manufacturer without recertifying the vehicle. Secondary
vehicle manufacturers needing a greater
fuel tank capacity would need to either
work with the certifying manufacturer
to include the larger tank, or go through
the effort to re-certify the vehicle itself.
Our understanding is that this provision
has not been used and would be better
handled as part of certification rather
than managing a separate process. We
are proposing corresponding changes to
the emission control information label.
• Rewriting the regulations in a new
part in conjunction with the greenhouse
gas standards allows for some occasions
of improved organization and clarity, as
well as updating various provisions. For
example, we are proposing a leaner
description of evaporative emission
families that does not reference sealing
methods for carburetors or air cleaners.
We are also clarifying how evaporative
emission standards affect engine
manufacturers and proposing more
descriptive provisions related to
certifying vehicles above 26,000 pounds
GVWR using engineering analysis.
• Since we adopted evaporative
emission standards for gaseous-fuel
vehicles, we have developed new
approaches for design-based
certification (see, for example, 40 CFR
1060.240). We request comment on
changing the requirements related to
certifying gaseous-fuel vehicles to
design-based certification. This would
allow for a simpler assessment for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
certifying these vehicles without
changing the standards that apply.
(2) Proposed Labeling Provisions
It is crucial that a means exist for
allowing field inspectors to identify
whether a vehicle is certified, and if so,
whether it is in the certified
configuration. As with engines and
tractors, we believe an emission control
information label is a logical first step
in facilitating this identification. For
vocational vehicles, the engine will
have a label that is permanently affixed
to the engine and identify the engine as
certified for use in a certain regulatory
subcategory of vehicle (i.e., MHD, etc.).
The vehicle will also have a label
listing the test group, engine family, and
range of tire rolling resistances that the
vehicle is certified to use. In addition,
if any other emission related
components are present, such as hybrid
powertrains, key components will also
need to be specified on the label. Like
the engine label, this will need to be
permanently affixed to the vehicle in an
area that is clearly accessible to the
owner/operator.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers will be required to
submit an example of their vehicle
emission control label such that EPA
can verify that all critical elements are
present. Such elements include the
vehicle family/test group name,
emission control system identifiers
described above, regulatory sub-category
of the vehicle, and Family Emission
Limits to which the vehicle is certified
to. In addition to the label,
manufacturers will also need to describe
where the unique vehicle identification
number and date of production can be
found on the vehicle.
(3) Other Certification Issues
Warranty
As with other heavy-duty engine and
vehicle regulatory categories, vocational
vehicle chassis manufacturers would be
required to warrant their product to be
free from defects that would adversely
affect emissions. This warranty also
covers the failure of emission related
components for the useful life of the
vehicle. For vocational chassis, the key
emission related component addressed
in this proposal is the tires.
Manufacturers of chassis for
vocational vehicles would be required
to warrant tires to be free from defects
at the time of initial sale. As with Class
7 and 8 combination tractors, we expect
the chassis manufacturer to only
warrant tires the original tires against
manufacturing or design-related defects.
This tire warranty would not cover
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74277
replacement tires or damage from road
hazards or improper inflation.
As with Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors, all warranty documentation
would be submitted to EPA at the time
of certification. This should include the
warranty statement provided to the
owner/operator, description of the
service repair network, list of covered
components (both conventional and
high-cost), and length of coverage.
EPA Certification Fees
Similar to engine and tractor-trailer
vehicle certification, the agency will
assess certification fees for vocational
vehicles. The proceeds from these fees
are used to fund the compliance and
certification activities related to GHG
regulation for this industry segment. In
addition to the certification process,
other activities funded by certification
fees include EPA-administered in-use
testing, selective enforcement audits,
and confirmatory testing. At this point,
the exact costs associated with the
heavy-duty vehicle GHG compliance are
not well known. EPA will assess its
compliance program associated with
this proposal and assess the appropriate
level of fees. We anticipate that fees will
be applied based on test groups,
following the light-duty vehicle
approach.
Maintenance
Vehicle manufacturers are required to
outline maintenance schedules that
ensure their product will remain in
compliance with emission standards
throughout the useful life of the vehicle.
For heavy-duty vehicles, such
maintenance may include fluid/
lubricant service, fairing adjustments, or
service to the GHG emission control
system. This schedule is required to be
submitted as part of the application for
certification. Maintenance that is
deemed to be critical to ensuring
compliance with emission standards is
classified as ‘‘critical emission-related
maintenance.’’ Generally, manufacturers
are discouraged from specifying that
critical emission-related maintenance is
needed within the regulatory useful life
of the engine. However, if such
maintenance is unavoidable,
manufacturers must have a reasonable
basis for ensuring it is performed at the
correct time. This may be demonstrated
through several methods including
survey data indicating that at least 80%
of engines receive the required
maintenance in-use or manufacturers
may provide the maintenance at no
charge to the user.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74278
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
F. General Regulatory Provisions
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Statutory Prohibited Acts
Section 203 of the CAA describes acts
that are prohibited by law. This section
and associated regulations apply equally
to the greenhouse gas standards as to
any other regulated emission. Acts that
are prohibited by section 203 of the
CAA include the introduction into
commerce or the sale of an engine or
vehicle without a certificate of
conformity, removing or otherwise
defeating emission control equipment,
the sale or installation of devices
designed to defeat emission controls,
and other actions. In addition, vehicle
manufacturers, or any other party, may
not make changes to the certified engine
that would result in it not being in the
certified configuration.
EPA proposes to apply § 86.1854–12
to heavy-duty vehicles and engines; this
codifies the prohibited acts spelled out
in the statute. Although it is not legally
necessary to repeat what is in the CAA,
EPA believes that including this
language in the regulations provides
clarity and improves the ease of use and
completeness of the regulations. Since
this change merely codifies provisions
that already apply, there is no burden
associated with the change.
(2) Regulatory Amendments Related to
Heavy-Duty Engine Certification
We are proposing to adopt the new
engine-based greenhouse gas standards
in 40 CFR part 1036 and the new
vehicle-based standards in 40 CFR part
1037. We are proposing to continue to
rely on 40 CFR parts 85 and 86 for
conventional certification and
compliance provisions related to criteria
pollutants, but the proposed regulations
include a variety of amendments that
would affect the provisions that apply
with respect to criteria pollutants. We
are not intending to change the
stringency of, or otherwise substantively
change any existing standards.
The introduction of new parts in the
CFR is part of a long-term plan to
migrate all the regulatory provisions
related to highway and nonroad engine
and vehicle emissions to a portion of the
CFR called Subchapter U, which
consists of 40 CFR parts 1,000 through
1299. We have already adopted
emission standards, test procedures, and
compliance provisions for several types
of engines in 40 CFR parts 1033 through
1074. We intend eventually to capture
all the regulatory requirements related
to heavy-duty highway engines and
vehicles in these new parts. Moving
regulatory provisions to the new parts
allows us to publish the regulations in
a way that is better organized, reflects
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
updates to various certification and
compliance procedures, provides
consistency with other engine programs,
and is written in plain language. We
have already taken steps in this
direction for heavy-duty highway
engines by adopting the engine-testing
procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 and the
provisions for selective enforcement
audits in 40 CFR part 1068.
EPA solicits comment on these
proposed drafting changes and
additions. This solicitation relates solely
to the appropriate migration,
translation, and enhancement of
existing provisions. EPA is not soliciting
comment on the substance of these
existing rules, and is not proposing to
amend, reconsider, or otherwise reexamine these provisions’ substantive
effect.
The rest of this section describes the
most significant of these proposed
redrafting changes. The proposal
includes several changes to the
certification and compliance
procedures, including the following:
• We propose to require that engine
manufacturers provide installation
instructions to vehicle manufacturers
(see § 1036.130). We expect this is
already commonly done; however, the
regulatory language spells out a
complete list of information we believe
is necessary to properly ensure that
vehicle manufacturers install engines in
a way that is consistent with the
engine’s certificate of conformity.
• § 1036.30, § 1036.250, and
§ 1036.825 spell out several detailed
provisions related to keeping records
and submitting information to us.
• We wrote the greenhouse gas
regulations to divide heavy-duty
engines into ‘‘spark-ignition’’ and
‘‘compression-ignition’’ engines, rather
than ‘‘Otto-cycle’’ and ‘‘diesel’’ engines,
to align with our terminology in all our
nonroad programs. This will likely
involve no effective change in
categorizing engines except for natural
gas engines. To address this concern, we
would include a provision in § 1036.150
to allow manufacturers to meet
standards for spark-ignition engines if
they were regulated as Otto-cycle
engines in 40 CFR part 86, and vice
versa.
• § 1036.205 describes a new
requirement for imported engines to
describe the general approach to
importation (such as identifying
authorized agents and ports of entry),
and identifying a test lab in the United
States where EPA can perform testing
on certified engines. These steps are
part of our ongoing effort to ensure that
we have a compliance and enforcement
program that is as effective for imported
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
engines as for domestically produced
engines. We have already adopted these
same provisions for several types of
nonroad engines.
• § 1036.210 specifies a process by
which manufacturers are able to get
preliminary approval for EPA decisions
for questions that require lead time for
preparing an application for
certification. This might involve, for
example, preparing a plan for durability
testing, establishing engine families,
identifying adjustable parameters, and
creating a list of scheduled maintenance
items.
• § 1036.225 describes how to amend
an application for certification.
• We are proposing to apply the
exemption and recall provisions as
written in 40 CFR part 1068 instead of
the comparable provisions in 40 CFR
part 85. This involves only minor
changes relative to current practice.
We are aware that it may be
appropriate to move several additional
provisions in 40 CFR parts 85 and 86 to
subchapter U. For example, highway
engine manufacturers may find it
preferable to use the same parameters
specified for defining nonroad engine
families for certifying highway engines.
To the extent that the nonroad
provisions would apply appropriately
for highway engines, we and the
manufacturers would benefit from a
consistent approach to certifying both
types of engines in a way that does not
compromise the degree of emission
control achieved under the existing
standards.
Another area of particular interest is
defect reporting. Existing regulations
require manufacturers to report defects
to EPA whenever the same defect occurs
at least 25 times. This approach can be
somewhat onerous for manufacturers
making high-volume products. For
example, for an engine model with
annual sales above 25,000, this
represents a defect rate of less than 0.1
percent. In contrast, the approach to
defect reporting in § 1068.501
accommodates the high sales volumes
associated with highway engines, basing
requirements on a percentage of
defective products, rather than setting a
fixed number for all engine families.
This flexibility is paired with the
explicit direction for the manufacturer
to actively monitor warranty claims,
customer complaints, and other sources
of information to evaluate and track
potential defects. We believe this aligns
both with the manufacturers’ interest in
producing quality products and EPA’s
interest in addressing any quality
concerns that arise from the need to
repair in-use engines and vehicles.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(3) Test Procedures For Measuring
Emissions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles
We are proposing a new part 1066
that would contain a general chassisbased test procedures in for measuring
emissions from a variety of vehicles,
including vehicles over 14,000 pounds
GVWR. However, we are not proposing
to apply these procedures broadly at
this time. The test procedures in 40 CFR
part 86 would continue to apply for
vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR.
Rather, the proposed part 1066
procedures would apply only for any
testing that would be required for larger
vehicles. This could include ‘‘A to B’’
hybrid vehicle testing and coastdown
testing. Nevertheless, we will likely
consider in the future applying these
procedures also for other heavy-duty
vehicle testing and for light-duty
vehicles, highway motorcycles, and/or
nonroad recreational vehicles that rely
on chassis-based testing.
As noted above, engine manufacturers
are already using the test procedures in
40 CFR part 1065 instead of those
originally adopted in 40 CFR part 86.
The new procedures are written to
apply generically for any type of engine
and include the current state of
technology for measurement
instruments, calibration procedures, and
other practices. We are proposing the
chassis-based test procedures in part
1066 to have a similar structure.
The proposed procedures in part 1066
reference large portions of part 1065 to
align test specifications that apply
equally to engine-based and vehiclebased testing, such as CVS and analyzer
specifications and calibrations, test
fuels, calculations, and definitions of
many terms. Since several highway
engine manufacturers were involved in
developing the full range of specified
procedures in part 1065, we are
confident that many of these provisions
are appropriate without modification for
vehicle testing.
The remaining test specifications
needed in part 1066 are mostly related
to setting up, calibrating, and operating
a chassis dynamometer. This also
includes the coastdown procedures that
are required for establishing the
dynamometer load settings to ensure
that the dynamometer accurately
simulates in-use driving.
Current testing requirements related
to dynamometer specifications rely on a
combination of regulatory provisions,
EPA guidance documents, and extensive
know-how from industry experience
that has led to a good understanding of
best practices for operating a vehicle in
the laboratory to measure emissions. We
attempted in this proposal to capture
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
this range of material, organizing these
specifications and verification and
calibration procedures to include a
complete set of provisions to ensure that
a dynamometer meeting these
specifications would allow for carefully
controlled vehicle operation such that
emission measurements are accurate
and repeatable. We request comment on
the range of proposed requirements
related to designing, building, and
operating chassis dynamometers. For
example, we believe that the proposed
verification and calibration procedures
in part 1066, subpart B, for diameter,
speed, torque, acceleration, base inertia,
friction loss, and other parameters are
all necessary to ensure proper
dynamometer operation. It may be that
some of these checks are redundant, or
could be achieved with different
procedures. There may also be
additional checks needed to remove
possibilities for inadequate accuracy or
precision.
The procedures are written with the
understanding that heavy-duty highway
manufacturers have, and need to have,
single-roll electric dynamometers for
testing. We are aware that this is not the
case for other applications, such as allterrain vehicles. We are not adopting
specific provisions for testing with
hydrokinetic dynamometers, we are
already including a provision
acknowledging that we may approve the
use of dynamometers meeting
alternative specifications if that is
appropriate for the type of vehicle being
tested and for the level of stringency
represented by the corresponding
emission standards.
Drafting a full set of test specifications
highlights the mixed use of units for
testing. Some chassis-based standards
and procedures are written based largely
on the International System of Units
(SI), such as gram per kilometer (g/km)
standards and kilometers per hour (kph)
driving, while others are written based
largely on English units (g/mile
standards and miles per hour driving).
The proposal includes a mix of SI and
English units with instructions about
converting units appropriately.
However, most of the specifications and
examples are written in English units.
While this seems to be the prevailing
practice for testing in the United States,
we understand that vehicle testing
outside the United States is almost
universally done in SI units. In any
case, dynamometers are produced with
the capability of operating in either
English or SI units. We believe there
would be a substantial advantage
toward the goal of achieving globally
harmonized test procedures if we would
write the test procedures based on SI
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74279
units. This would also in several cases
allow for more straightforward
calculations, and reduced risk of
rounding errors. For comparison, part
1065 is written almost exclusively in SI
units. We request comment on the use
of units throughout part 1066.
A fundamental obstacle toward using
SI units is the fact that some duty cycles
are specified based on speeds in miles
per hour. To address this, it would be
appropriate to convert the applicable
driving schedules to meter-per-second
(m/s) values. Converting speeds to the
nearest 0.01 m/s would ensure that the
prescribed driving cycle does not
change with respect to driving
schedules that are specified to the
nearest 0.1 mph. The regulations would
include the appropriate mph (or kph)
speeds to allow for a ready
understanding of speed values (see 40
CFR part 1037, Appendix I). This
would, for example, allow for drivers to
continue to follow a mph-based speed
trace. The ± 2 mph tolerance on driving
speeds could be converted to ± 1.0 m/
s, which corresponds to an effective
speed tolerance of ± 2.2 mph. This may
involve a tightening or loosening of the
existing speed tolerance, depending on
whether manufacturers used the full
degree of flexibility allowed for a mph
tolerance value that is specified without
a decimal place. Similarly, the Cruise
cycles for heavy-duty vehicles could be
specified as 24.5 ± 0.5 m/s (54.8 ± 1.1
mph) and 29.0 ± 0.5 m/s (64.9 ± 1.1
mph).
G. Penalties
As part of the fuel efficiency
improvement program to be created
through this rulemaking, NHTSA is
proposing civil penalties for noncompliance with fuel consumption
standards. NHTSA’s authority under
EISA, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k),
requires the agency to determine
appropriate measurement metrics, test
procedures, standards, and compliance
and enforcement protocols for HD
vehicles. NHTSA interprets its authority
to develop an enforcement program to
include the authority to determine and
assess civil penalties for noncompliance, that would impose
penalties determined based on the
discussion that follows.
NHTSA proposes that in cases of noncompliance, the agency would establish
civil penalties based on consideration of
the following factors:
• Actual fuel consumption
performance related to the applicable
standard.
• Estimated cost to comply with the
regulation and applicable standard.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74280
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
• Quantity of vehicles or engines not
complying.
• Manufacturer’s history of noncompliance.
• The civil penalty should act as a
deterrent.
• The financial condition of the
manufacturer.
• Civil penalties paid for noncompliance of the same vehicles under
the EPA GHG program.
NHTSA recognizes that EPA also has
authority to impose civil penalties for
non-compliance with GHG regulations.
It is not the intent of either agency to
impose duplicative civil penalties, and
in the case of non-compliance with fuel
consumption regulations, NHTSA
intends to give consideration to civil
penalties imposed by EPA for GHG noncompliance, as EPA would give
consideration to civil penalties imposed
by NHTSA in the case of noncompliance with GHG regulations.204
The proposed civil penalty amount
NHTSA could impose would not exceed
the limit that EPA is authorized to
impose under the CAA. The potential
maximum civil penalty for a
manufacturer would be calculated as
follows in Equation V–1:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Equation V–1: Aggregate Maximum
Civil Penalty
Aggregate Maximum Civil Penalty for a
Non-Compliant Regulatory Category
= (CAA Limit) × (production
volume within the regulatory
category)
NHTSA seeks comments related to
this proposal for a civil penalty program
under EISA.
EPA has occasionally in the past
conducted rulemakings to provide for
nonconformance penalties—monetary
penalties that allow a manufacturer to
sell engines or vehicles that do not meet
an emissions standard. Nonconformance
penalties are authorized for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles under section
206(g) of the CAA. Three basic criteria
have been established by rulemaking for
determining the eligibility of emissions
standards for nonconformance penalties
in any given model year: (1) The
emissions standard in question must
become more difficult to meet, (2)
substantial work must be required in
order to meet the standard, and (3) a
technological laggard must be likely to
develop (40 CFR 86.1103–87). A
technological laggard is a manufacturer
who cannot meet a particular emissions
204 EPA discussed a similar situation concerning
consideration of civil penalties imposed by NHTSA
for CAFE violations for light-duty vehicles, in the
final rule establishing the 2012–2016 MY standards.
See 75 FR 25324 and 25482, May 7, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
standard due to technological (not
economic) difficulties and who, in the
absence of nonconformance penalties,
might be forced from the marketplace.
The process to determine if these
criteria are met and to establish penalty
amounts and conditions is carried out
via rulemaking, as required by the CAA.
The CAA (in section 205) also lays out
requirements for the assessment of civil
penalties for noncompliance with
emissions standards.
As discussed in detail in Section III,
the agencies have determined that the
proposed GHG and fuel consumption
standards are readily feasible, and we
do not believe a technological laggard
will emerge in any sector covered by
these proposed standards. In addition to
the standards being premised on use of
already-existing, cost-effective
technologies, there are a number of
flexibilities and alternative standards
built into the proposal. However, we do
request comment regarding this
assessment and on whether or not it
would be appropriate for EPA and
NHTSA to initiate rulemaking activity
to set nonconformance penalties for the
proposed standards, subject to their
respective statutory authorities. Should
nonconformance penalties be
warranted, the benefits of establishing
them would be threefold: (1) The EPA
and NHTSA programs would continue
to be equivalent, allowing
manufacturers to sell the same vehicles
and engines to satisfy both programs,
(2) competitiveness in the affected HD
sector would be maintained, preserving
jobs and consumer choices, and
(3) nonconformance penalties would be
set through a transparent public process,
involving notice and public hearing.
implementation plans (SIPs), geographic
locations, vehicle activity, and
microscale projects.
The agencies performed multiple
MOVES runs to establish reference case
and control case emission inventories
and fuel consumption values. The
agencies ran MOVES with user input
databases that reflected characteristics
of the proposed rules, such as emissions
improvements and recent sales
projections. Some post-processing of the
model output was required to ensure
proper results. The agencies ran MOVES
for non-GHGs, CO2, CH4, and N2O for
calendar years 2005, 2018, 2030, and
2050. Additional runs were performed
for just the three greenhouse gases and
for fuel consumption for every calendar
year from 2014 to 2050, inclusive,
which fed the economy-wide modeling,
monetized benefits estimation, and
climate impacts analysis.
The agencies also used MOVES to
estimate emissions and fuel
consumption impacts for the other
alternatives considered and described in
Section IX.
VI. How would this proposed program
impact fuel consumption, GHG
emissions, and climate change?
(b) Control Run Updates
EPA developed additional user input
data for MOVES runs to estimate control
case inventories. To account for
improvements of engine and vehicle
efficiency, EPA developed several user
inputs to run the control case in
MOVES. Since MOVES does not operate
based on Heavy-duty FTP cycle results,
EPA used the percent reduction in
engine CO2 emissions expected due to
the proposed rules to develop energy
inputs for the control case runs. Also,
EPA used the percent reduction in
aerodynamic drag coefficient and tire
rolling resistance coefficient expected
from the proposed rules to develop road
load input for the control case. The fuel
supply update used in the reference
case was used in the control case.
Details of all the MOVES runs, input
A. What methodologies did the agencies
use to project GHG emissions and fuel
consumption impacts?
EPA and NHTSA used EPA’s official
mobile source emissions inventory
model named Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES2010),205, to estimate
emission and fuel consumption impacts
of these proposed rules. MOVES has
capability to take in user inputs to
modify default data to better estimate
emissions for different scenarios, such
as different regulatory alternatives, state
205 MOVES homepage: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
models/moves/index.htm. Version MOVES2010
was used for emissions impacts analysis for this
proposal. Current version as of September 14, 2010
is an updated version named MOVES2010a,
available directly from the MOVES homepage. To
replicate results from this proposal, MOVES2010
must be used.
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
B. MOVES Analysis
(1) Inputs and Assumptions
(a) Reference Run Updates
Since MOVES2010 vehicle sales and
activity data were developed from
AEO2006, EPA first updated these data
using sales and activity estimates from
AEO2010. EPA also updated the fuel
supply information in MOVES to reflect
a 100% E10 ‘‘gasoline’’ fuel supply to
reflect the Renewable Fuels Standard.206
MOVES2010 defaults were used for all
other parameters to estimate the
reference case emissions inventories.
206 Renewable Fuels Standard available at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/index.htm.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74281
these vehicles will not be represented as
engine and road load reduction
components, but total vehicle CO2
reductions. These estimated reductions
are described in Table VI–3.
207 Section II discusses an alternative engine
standard proposed for the HD diesel engines in the
2014, 2015, and 2016 model years. To the extent
that engines using this alternative would be
expected to have baseline emissions greater than
the industry average, the reduction from the
industry average projected in this proposal could be
reduced.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.050
into MOVES for estimating control case
emissions inventories.
EP30NO10.049
Table VI–1 and Table VI–2 describe
the estimated expected reductions from
these proposed rules, which were input
Since nearly all HD pickup trucks and
vans will be certified on a chassis
dynamometer, the CO2 reductions for
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
data tables, and post-processing are
available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162).
74282
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(C) What are the projected reductions in
fuel consumption and GHG emissions?
EPA and NHTSA expect significant
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption from these proposed
rules—emission reductions from both
downstream (tailpipe) and upstream
(fuel production and distribution)
sources, and fuel consumption
reductions from more efficient vehicles.
Increased vehicle efficiency and
reduced vehicle fuel consumption
would also reduce GHG emissions from
upstream sources. The following
subsections summarize the GHG
emissions and fuel consumption
reductions expected from these
proposed rules.
EPA used MOVES to estimate
downstream GHG inventories from
these proposed rules. We expect
reductions in CO2 from all heavy-duty
vehicle categories. The reductions come
from engine and vehicle improvements.
EPA expects CH4 and N2O emissions to
increase very slightly because of a
rebound in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) and because significant vehicle
reductions of these two GHGs are not
expected from these proposed rules.
Overall, downstream GHG emissions
will be reduced significantly, and is
described in the following subsections.
For CO2 and fuel consumption, the
total energy consumption ‘‘pollutant’’
was run in MOVES rather than CO2
itself. The energy was converted to fuel
consumption based on fuel heating
values assumed in the Renewable Fuels
Standard and used in the development
of MOVES emission and energy rates.
These values are 117,250 kJ/gallon for
E10 208 and 138,451 kJ/gallon for
diesel.209 To calculate CO2, the agencies
assumed a CO2 content of 8,576 g/gallon
for E10 and 10,180 g/gallon for diesel.
Table VI–4 shows the fleet-wide GHG
reductions and fuel savings from
reference case to control case through
the lifetime of model year 2014 through
2018 heavy-duty vehicles. Table VI–5
shows the downstream GHG emissions
reductions and fuel savings in 2018,
2030, and 2050.
the GHG standards. Thus, significant
portions of the upstream GHG emission
reductions will occur outside of the
United States; a breakdown and
discussion of projected international
versus domestic reductions is included
in the draft RIA Chapter 5. GHG
emission reductions from upstream
sources can be found in Table VI–6.
208 Renewable Fuels Standards assumptions of
115,000 BTU/gallon gasoline (E0) and 76,330 BTU/
gallon ethanol (E100) weighted 90% and 10%,
respectively, and converted to kJ at 1.055 kJ/BTU.
209 MOVES2004 Energy and Emission Inputs.
EPA420–P–05–003, March 2005. https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420p05003.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.051
Upstream GHG emission reductions
associated with the production and
distribution of fuel were projected using
emission factors from DOE’s
‘‘Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy Use in
Transportation’’ (GREET1.8) model,
with some modifications consistent
with the Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas
rulemaking. More information regarding
these modifications can be found in the
draft RIA Chapter 5. These estimates
include both international and domestic
emission reductions, since reductions in
foreign exports of finished gasoline and/
or crude would make up a significant
share of the fuel savings resulting from
(2) Upstream (Fuel Production and
Distribution)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Downstream (Tailpipe)
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74283
417,584 metric tons CO2eq in 2050, as
detailed in draft RIA Chapter 5.3.4.
D. Overview of Climate Change Impacts
From GHG Emissions
contribute analyses concerning GHG
emissions under section 202(a) of the
CAA. The TSD reviews observed and
projected changes in climate based on
current and projected atmospheric GHG
concentrations and emissions, as well as
the related impacts and risks from
climate change that are projected in the
absence of GHG mitigation actions,
including this proposal and other U.S.
and global actions. The TSD was
updated and revised based on expert
technical review and public comment as
part of EPA’s rulemaking process for the
final Endangerment Findings. The key
findings synthesized here and the
information throughout the TSD are
primarily drawn from the assessment
reports of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP), and
NRC.212
In May 2010, the NRC published its
comprehensive assessment, ‘‘Advancing
the Science of Climate Change.’’ 213 It
concluded that ‘‘climate change is
occurring, is caused largely by human
activities, and poses significant risks
for—and in many cases is already
affecting—a broad range of human and
natural systems.’’ Furthermore, the NRC
stated that this conclusion is based on
findings that are ‘‘consistent with the
conclusions of recent assessments by
the U.S. Global Change Research
Program, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment
Report, and other assessments of the
state of scientific knowledge on climate
change.’’ These are the same
assessments that served as the primary
scientific references underlying the
Administrator’s Endangerment Finding.
Importantly, this recent NRC assessment
represents another independent and
critical inquiry of the state of climate
change science, separate and apart from
the previous IPCC and USGCRP
assessments. The NRC assessment is a
clear affirmation that the scientific
underpinnings of the Administrator’s
Endangerment Finding are robust,
credible, and appropriately
characterized by EPA.
212 For a complete list of core references from
IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP, NRC and others relied upon
for development of the TSD for EPA’s
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
see section 1(b), specifically, Table 1.1 of the TSD
Docket: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0171–11645.
213 National Research Council (NRC) (2010).
Advancing the Science of Climate Change. National
Academy Press. Washington, DC.
The primary long-lived GHGs directly
emitted by human activities include
CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6.
Greenhouse gases have a warming effect
by trapping heat in the atmosphere that
would otherwise escape to space. In
2007, U.S. GHG emissions were 7,150
(4) Total (Upstream + Downstream +
HFC)
Table VI–7 combines downstream
results from Table VI–5, upstream
210 U.S. EPA (2010) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. EPA–430–R–
10–006, Washington, DC.
211 See Endangerment TSD, Note 9 above.
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(1) Observed Trends in Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Concentrations
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.053
Once emitted, GHGs that are the
subject of this regulation can remain in
the atmosphere for decades to centuries,
meaning that (1) their concentrations
become well-mixed throughout the
global atmosphere regardless of
emission origin, and (2) their effects on
climate are long lasting. GHG emissions
come mainly from the combustion of
fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with
additional contributions from the
clearing of forests and agricultural
activities. Transportation activities, in
aggregate, are the second largest
contributor to total U.S. GHG emissions
(27 percent) despite a decline in
emissions from this sector during
2008.210
This section provides a summary of
observed and projected changes in GHG
emissions and associated climate
change impacts. The source document
for the section below is the Technical
Support Document (TSD) 211 for EPA’s
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings Under the Clean Air Act (74
FR 66496, December 15, 2009). Below is
the Executive Summary of the TSD
which provides technical support for
the endangerment and cause or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
results Table VI–6, and HFC results to
show total GHG reductions for calendar
years 2018, 2030, and 2050.
EP30NO10.052
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(3) HFC Emissions
Based on projected HFC emission
reductions due to the proposed AC
leakage standards, EPA estimates the
HFC reductions to be 118,885 metric
tons of CO2eq in 2018, 355,576 metric
tons of CO2eq emissions in 2030 and
74284
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
teragrams 214 of CO2 equivalent 215
(TgCO2eq). The dominant gas emitted is
CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion.
Methane is the second largest
component of U.S. emissions, followed
by N2O and the fluorinated gases (HFCs,
PFCs, and SF6). Electricity generation is
the largest emitting sector (34% of total
U.S. GHG emissions), followed by
transportation (27%) and industry
(19%).
Transportation sources under section
202(a) 216 of the CAA (passenger cars,
light-duty trucks, other trucks and
buses, motorcycles, and passenger
cooling) emitted 1,649 TgCO2eq in 2007,
representing 23% of total U.S. GHG
emissions. U.S. transportation sources
under section 202(a) made up 4.3% of
total global GHG emissions in 2005,217
which, in addition to the United States
as a whole, ranked only behind total
GHG emissions from China, Russia, and
India but ahead of Japan, Brazil,
Germany, and the rest of the world’s
countries. In 2005, total U.S. GHG
emissions were responsible for 18% of
global emissions, ranking only behind
China, which was responsible for 19%
of global GHG emissions. The scope of
this proposal focuses on GHG emissions
under section 202(a) from heavy-duty
source categories (see Section V).
The global atmospheric CO2
concentration has increased about 38%
from pre-industrial levels to 2009, and
almost all of the increase is due to
anthropogenic emissions. The global
atmospheric concentration of CH4 has
increased by 149% since pre-industrial
levels (through 2007); and the N2O
concentration has increased by 23%
(through 2007). The observed
concentration increase in these gases
can also be attributed primarily to
anthropogenic emissions. The industrial
fluorinated gases, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6,
have relatively low atmospheric
concentrations but the total radiative
forcing due to these gases is increasing
214 One teragram (Tg) = 1 million metric tons. 1
metric ton = 1,000 kilograms = 1.102 short tons =
2,205 pounds.
215 Long-lived GHGs are compared and summed
together on a CO2-equivalent basis by multiplying
each gas by its global warming potential (GWP), as
estimated by IPCC. In accordance with United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) reporting procedures, the U.S. quantifies
GHG emissions using the 100-year timeframe values
for GWPs established in the IPCC Second
Assessment Report.
216 Source categories under Section 202(a) of the
CAA are a subset of source categories considered in
the transportation sector and do not include
emissions from non-highway sources such as boats,
rail, aircraft, agricultural equipment, construction/
mining equipment, and other off-road equipment.
217 More recent emission data are available for the
United States and other individual countries, but
2005 is the most recent year for which data for all
countries and all gases are available.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
rapidly; these gases are almost entirely
anthropogenic in origin.
Historic data show that current
atmospheric concentrations of the two
most important directly emitted, longlived GHGs (CO2 and CH4) are well
above the natural range of atmospheric
concentrations compared to at least the
last 650,000 years. Atmospheric GHG
concentrations have been increasing
because anthropogenic emissions have
been outpacing the rate at which GHGs
are removed from the atmosphere by
natural processes over timescales of
decades to centuries.
(2) Observed Effects Associated With
Global Elevated Concentrations of GHGs
Greenhouse gases, at current (and
projected) atmospheric concentrations,
remain well below published exposure
thresholds for any direct adverse health
effects and are not expected to pose
exposure risks (i.e., breathing/
inhalation).
The global average net effect of the
increase in atmospheric GHG
concentrations, plus other human
activities (e.g., land-use change and
aerosol emissions), on the global energy
balance since 1750 has been one of
warming. This total net heating effect,
referred to as forcing, is estimated to be
+1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) watts per square
meter (W/m2), with much of the range
surrounding this estimate due to
uncertainties about the cooling and
warming effects of aerosols. However, as
aerosol forcing has more regional
variability than the well-mixed, longlived GHGs, the global average might
not capture some regional effects. The
combined radiative forcing due to the
cumulative (i.e., 1750 to 2005) increase
in atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
CH4, and N2O is estimated to be +2.30
(+2.07 to +2.53) W/m2. The rate of
increase in positive radiative forcing
due to these three GHGs during the
industrial era is very likely to have been
unprecedented in more than 10,000
years.
Warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from
observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice,
and rising global average sea level.
Global mean surface temperatures have
risen by 1.3 ± 0.32 °F (0.74 °C ± 0.18 °C)
over the last 100 years. Eight of the 10
warmest years on record have occurred
since 2001. Global mean surface
temperature was higher during the last
few decades of the 20th century than
during any comparable period during
the preceding four centuries.
Most of the observed increase in
global average temperatures since the
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mid-20th century is very likely due to
the observed increase in anthropogenic
GHG concentrations. Climate model
simulations suggest natural forcing
alone (i.e., changes in solar irradiance)
cannot explain the observed warming.
U.S. temperatures also warmed during
the 20th and into the 21st century;
temperatures are now approximately 1.3
°F (0.7 °C) warmer than at the start of
the 20th century, with an increased rate
of warming over the past 30 years. Both
the IPCC 218 and the CCSP reports
attributed recent North American
warming to elevated GHG
concentrations. In the CCSP (2008)
report,219 the authors find that for North
America, ‘‘more than half of this
warming [for the period 1951–2006] is
likely the result of human-caused
greenhouse gas forcing of climate
change.’’
Observations show that changes are
occurring in the amount, intensity,
frequency and type of precipitation.
Over the contiguous United States, total
annual precipitation increased by 6.1%
from 1901 to 2008. It is likely that there
have been increases in the number of
heavy precipitation events within many
land regions, even in those where there
has been a reduction in total
precipitation amount, consistent with a
warming climate.
There is strong evidence that global
sea level gradually rose in the 20th
century and is currently rising at an
increased rate. It is not clear whether
the increasing rate of sea level rise is a
reflection of short-term variability or an
increase in the longer-term trend. Nearly
all of the Atlantic Ocean shows sea level
rise during the last 50 years with the
rate of rise reaching a maximum (over
2 millimeters [mm] per year) in a band
along the U.S. east coast running eastnortheast.
Satellite data since 1979 show that
annual average Arctic sea ice extent has
shrunk by 4.1% per decade. The size
and speed of recent Arctic summer sea
ice loss is highly anomalous relative to
the previous few thousands of years.
218 Hegerl, G.C. et al. (2007) Understanding and
Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
219 CCSP (2008) Reanalysis of Historical Climate
Data for Key Atmospheric Features: Implications for
Attribution of Causes of Observed Change. A Report
by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and
the Subcommittee on Global Change Research
[Randall Dole, Martin Hoerling, and Siegfried
Schubert (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC, 156 pp.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Widespread changes in extreme
temperatures have been observed in the
last 50 years across all world regions,
including the United States. Cold days,
cold nights, and frost have become less
frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and
heat waves have become more frequent.
Observational evidence from all
continents and most oceans shows that
many natural systems are being affected
by regional climate changes, particularly
temperature increases. However,
directly attributing specific regional
changes in climate to emissions of GHGs
from human activities is difficult,
especially for precipitation.
Ocean CO2 uptake has lowered the
average ocean pH (increased acidity)
level by approximately 0.1 since 1750.
Consequences for marine ecosystems
can include reduced calcification by
shell-forming organisms, and in the
longer term, the dissolution of carbonate
sediments.
Observations show that climate
change is currently affecting U.S.
physical and biological systems in
significant ways. The consistency of
these observed changes in physical and
biological systems and the observed
significant warming likely cannot be
explained entirely due to natural
variability or other confounding nonclimate factors.
Most future scenarios that assume no
explicit GHG mitigation actions (beyond
those already enacted) project
increasing global GHG emissions over
the century, with climbing GHG
concentrations. Carbon dioxide is
expected to remain the dominant
anthropogenic GHG over the course of
the 21st century. The radiative forcing
associated with the non-CO2 GHGs is
still significant and increasing over
time.
Future warming over the course of the
21st century, even under scenarios of
low-emission growth, is very likely to be
greater than observed warming over the
past century. According to climate
model simulations summarized by the
IPCC,220 through about 2030, the global
warming rate is affected little by the
choice of different future emissions
scenarios. By the end of the 21st
century, projected average global
warming (compared to average
temperature around 1990) varies
significantly depending on the emission
scenario and climate sensitivity
assumptions, ranging from 3.2 to 7.2 °F
(1.8 to 4.0 °C), with an uncertainty range
of 2.0 to 11.5 °F (1.1 to 6.4 °C).
All of the United States is very likely
to warm during this century, and most
areas of the United States are expected
to warm by more than the global
average. The largest warming is
projected to occur in winter over
northern parts of Alaska. In western,
central and eastern regions of North
America, the projected warming has less
seasonal variation and is not as large,
especially near the coast, consistent
with less warming over the oceans.
It is very likely that heat waves will
become more intense, more frequent,
and longer lasting in a future warm
climate, whereas cold episodes are
projected to decrease significantly.
Increases in the amount of
precipitation are very likely in higher
latitudes, while decreases are likely in
most subtropical latitudes and the
southwestern United States, continuing
observed patterns. The mid-continental
area is expected to experience drying
during summer, indicating a greater risk
of drought.
Intensity of precipitation events is
projected to increase in the United
States and other regions of the world.
More intense precipitation is expected
to increase the risk of flooding and
result in greater runoff and erosion that
has the potential for adverse water
quality effects.
It is likely that hurricanes will
become more intense, with stronger
peak winds and more heavy
precipitation associated with ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface
temperatures. Frequency changes in
hurricanes are currently too uncertain
for confident projections.
By the end of the century, global
average sea level is projected by IPCC 221
to rise between 7.1 and 23 inches (18
and 59 centimeter [cm]), relative to
around 1990, in the absence of
increased dynamic ice sheet loss. Recent
rapid changes at the edges of the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets
show acceleration of flow and thinning.
While an understanding of these ice
220 Meehl, G.A. et al. (2007) Global Climate
Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
221 IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.
Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(3) Projections of Future Climate Change
With Continued Increases in Elevated
GHG Concentrations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74285
sheet processes is incomplete, their
inclusion in models would likely lead to
increased sea level projections for the
end of the 21st century.
Sea ice extent is projected to shrink in
the Arctic under all IPCC emissions
scenarios.
(4) Projected Risks and Impacts
Associated With Future Climate Change
Risk to society, ecosystems, and many
natural Earth processes increase with
increases in both the rate and magnitude
of climate change. Climate warming
may increase the possibility of large,
abrupt regional or global climatic events
(e.g., disintegration of the Greenland Ice
Sheet or collapse of the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet). The partial deglaciation of
Greenland (and possibly West
Antarctica) could be triggered by a
sustained temperature increase of 2 to 7
°F (1 to 4° C) above 1990 levels. Such
warming would cause a 13 to 20 feet (4
to 6 meter) rise in sea level, which
would occur over a time period of
centuries to millennia.
The CCSP 222 reports that climate
change has the potential to accentuate
the disparities already evident in the
American health care system, as many
of the expected health effects are likely
to fall disproportionately on the poor,
the elderly, the disabled, and the
uninsured. The IPCC 223 states with very
high confidence that climate change
impacts on human health in U.S. cities
will be compounded by population
growth and an aging population.
Severe heat waves are projected to
intensify in magnitude and duration
over the portions of the United States
where these events already occur, with
potential increases in mortality and
morbidity, especially among the elderly,
young, and frail.
Some reduction in the risk of death
related to extreme cold is expected. It is
not clear whether reduced mortality
from cold will be greater or less than
increased heat-related mortality in the
United States due to climate change.
222 Ebi, K.L., J. Balbus, P.L. Kinney, E. Lipp, D.
Mills, M.S. O’Neill, and M. Wilson (2008) Effects of
Global Change on Human Health. In: Analyses of
the effects of global change on human health and
welfare and human systems. A Report by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research.
[Gamble, J.L. (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J.
Wilbanks, (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 2–1
to 2–78.
223 Field, C.B. et al. (2007) North America. In:
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74286
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Increases in regional ozone pollution
relative to ozone levels without climate
change are expected due to higher
temperatures and weaker circulation in
the United States and other world cities
relative to air quality levels without
climate change. Climate change is
expected to increase regional ozone
pollution, with associated risks in
respiratory illnesses and premature
death. In addition to human health
effects, tropospheric ozone has
significant adverse effects on crop
yields, pasture and forest growth, and
species composition. The directional
effect of climate change on ambient
particulate matter levels remains
uncertain.
Within settlements experiencing
climate change, certain parts of the
population may be especially
vulnerable; these include the poor, the
elderly, those already in poor health, the
disabled, those living alone, and/or
indigenous populations dependent on
one or a few resources. Thus, the
potential impacts of climate change
raise environmental justice issues.
The CCSP 224 concludes that, with
increased CO2 and temperature, the life
cycle of grain and oilseed crops will
likely progress more rapidly. But, as
temperature rises, these crops will
increasingly begin to experience failure,
especially if climate variability
increases and precipitation lessens or
becomes more variable. Furthermore,
the marketable yield of many
horticultural crops (e.g., tomatoes,
onions, fruits) is very likely to be more
sensitive to climate change than grain
and oilseed crops.
Higher temperatures will very likely
reduce livestock production during the
summer season in some areas, but these
losses will very likely be partially offset
by warmer temperatures during the
winter season.
Cold-water fisheries will likely be
negatively affected; warm-water
fisheries will generally benefit; and the
results for cool-water fisheries will be
mixed, with gains in the northern and
losses in the southern portions of
ranges.
Climate change has very likely
increased the size and number of forest
fires, insect outbreaks, and tree
mortality in the interior West, the
Southwest, and Alaska, and will
continue to do so. Over North America,
224 Backlund, P., A. Janetos, D.S. Schimel, J.
Hatfield, M.G. Ryan, S.R. Archer, and D.
Lettenmaier (2008) Executive Summary. In: The
Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land
Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the
United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research. Washington, DC., USA, 362 pp.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:56 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
forest growth and productivity have
been observed to increase since the
middle of the 20th century, in part due
to observed climate change. Rising CO2
will very likely increase photosynthesis
for forests, but the increased
photosynthesis will likely only increase
wood production in young forests on
fertile soils. The combined effects of
expected increased temperature, CO2,
nitrogen deposition, ozone, and forest
disturbance on soil processes and soil
carbon storage remain unclear.
Coastal communities and habitats will
be increasingly stressed by climate
change impacts interacting with
development and pollution. Sea level is
rising along much of the U.S. coast, and
the rate of change will very likely
increase in the future, exacerbating the
impacts of progressive inundation,
storm-surge flooding, and shoreline
erosion. Storm impacts are likely to be
more severe, especially along the Gulf
and Atlantic coasts. Salt marshes, other
coastal habitats, and dependent species
are threatened by sea level rise, fixed
structures blocking landward migration,
and changes in vegetation. Population
growth and rising value of infrastructure
in coastal areas increases vulnerability
to climate variability and future climate
change.
Climate change will likely further
constrain already over-allocated water
resources in some regions of the United
States, increasing competition among
agricultural, municipal, industrial, and
ecological uses. Although water
management practices in the United
States are generally advanced,
particularly in the West, the reliance on
past conditions as the basis for current
and future planning may no longer be
appropriate, as climate change
increasingly creates conditions well
outside of historical observations. Rising
temperatures will diminish snowpack
and increase evaporation, affecting
seasonal availability of water. In the
Great Lakes and major river systems,
lower water levels are likely to
exacerbate challenges relating to water
quality, navigation, recreation,
hydropower generation, water transfers,
and binational relationships. Decreased
water supply and lower water levels are
likely to exacerbate challenges relating
to aquatic navigation in the United
States.
Higher water temperatures, increased
precipitation intensity, and longer
periods of low flows will exacerbate
many forms of water pollution,
potentially making attainment of water
quality goals more difficult. As waters
become warmer, the aquatic life they
now support will be replaced by other
species better adapted to warmer water.
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In the long term, warmer water and
changing flow may result in
deterioration of aquatic ecosystems.
Ocean acidification is projected to
continue, resulting in the reduced
biological production of marine
calcifiers, including corals.
Climate change is likely to affect U.S.
energy use and energy production and
physical and institutional
infrastructures. It will also likely
interact with and possibly exacerbate
ongoing environmental change and
environmental pressures in settlements,
particularly in Alaska where indigenous
communities are facing major
environmental and cultural impacts.
The U.S. energy sector, which relies
heavily on water for hydropower and
cooling capacity, may be adversely
impacted by changes to water supply
and quality in reservoirs and other
water bodies. Water infrastructure,
including drinking water and
wastewater treatment plants, and sewer
and stormwater management systems,
will be at greater risk of flooding, sea
level rise and storm surge, low flows,
and other factors that could impair
performance.
Disturbances such as wildfires and
insect outbreaks are increasing in the
United States and are likely to intensify
in a warmer future with warmer
winters, drier soils, and longer growing
seasons. Although recent climate trends
have increased vegetation growth,
continuing increases in disturbances are
likely to limit carbon storage, facilitate
invasive species, and disrupt ecosystem
services.
Over the 21st century, changes in
climate will cause species to shift north
and to higher elevations and
fundamentally rearrange U.S.
ecosystems. Differential capacities for
range shifts and constraints from
development, habitat fragmentation,
invasive species, and broken ecological
connections will alter ecosystem
structure, function, and services.
(5) Present and Projected U.S. Regional
Climate Change Impacts
Climate change impacts will vary in
nature and magnitude across different
regions of the United States.
Sustained high summer temperatures,
heat waves, and declining air quality are
projected in the Northeast,225
225 Northeast includes West Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Southeast,226 Southwest,227 and
Midwest.228 Projected climate change
would continue to cause loss of sea ice,
glacier retreat, permafrost thawing, and
coastal erosion in Alaska.
Reduced snowpack, earlier spring
snowmelt, and increased likelihood of
seasonal summer droughts are projected
in the Northeast, Northwest,229 and
Alaska. More severe, sustained droughts
and water scarcity are projected in the
Southeast, Great Plains,230 and
Southwest.
The Southeast, Midwest, and
Northwest in particular are expected to
be impacted by an increased frequency
of heavy downpours and greater flood
risk.
Ecosystems of the Southeast,
Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest,
Northwest, and Alaska are expected to
experience altered distribution of native
species (including local extinctions),
more frequent and intense wildfires,
and an increase in insect pest outbreaks
and invasive species.
Sea level rise is expected to increase
storm surge height and strength,
flooding, erosion, and wetland loss
along the coasts, particularly in the
Northeast, Southeast, and islands.
Warmer water temperatures and
ocean acidification are expected to
degrade important aquatic resources of
islands and coasts such as coral reefs
and fisheries.
A longer growing season, low levels of
warming, and fertilization effects of
carbon dioxide may benefit certain crop
species and forests, particularly in the
Northeast and Alaska. Projected summer
rainfall increases in the Pacific islands
may augment limited freshwater
supplies. Cold-related mortality is
projected to decrease, especially in the
Southeast. In the Midwest in particular,
heating oil demand and snow-related
traffic accidents are expected to
decrease.
Climate change impacts in certain
regions of the world may exacerbate
problems that raise humanitarian, trade,
and national security issues for the
226 Southeast includes Kentucky, Virginia,
Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South
Carolina, southeast Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
227 Southwest includes California, Nevada, Utah,
western Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico (except the
extreme eastern section), and southwest Texas.
228 The Midwest includes Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and
Missouri.
229 The Northwest includes Washington, Idaho,
western Montana, and Oregon.
230 The Great Plains includes central and eastern
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming,
Nebraska, eastern Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas,
extreme eastern New Mexico, central Texas, and
Oklahoma
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:56 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
United States. The IPCC 231 identifies
the most vulnerable world regions as the
Arctic, because of the effects of high
rates of projected warming on natural
systems; Africa, especially the subSaharan region, because of current low
adaptive capacity as well as climate
change; small islands, due to high
exposure of population and
infrastructure to risk of sea level rise
and increased storm surge; and Asian
mega-deltas, such as the GangesBrahmaputra and the Zhujiang, due to
large populations and high exposure to
sea level rise, storm surge and river
flooding. Climate change has been
described as a potential threat
multiplier with regard to national
security issues.
E. Changes in Atmospheric CO2
Concentrations, Global Mean
Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean
pH Associated with the Proposal’s GHG
Emissions Reductions
EPA examined 232 the reductions in
CO2 and other GHGs associated with
this proposal and analyzed the projected
effects on atmospheric CO2
concentrations, global mean surface
temperature, sea level rise, and ocean
pH which are common variables used as
indicators of climate change. The
analysis projects that the preferred
alternative of this proposal will reduce
atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
global climate warming and sea level
rise. Although the projected reductions
and improvements are small in overall
magnitude by themselves, they are
quantifiable and would contribute to
reducing the risks associated with
climate change.
EPA determines that the projected
reductions in atmospheric CO2, global
mean temperature and sea level rise are
meaningful in the context of this
proposal. In addition, EPA has
conducted an analysis to evaluate the
projected changes in ocean pH in the
context of the changes in emissions
from this proposal. The results for
projected atmospheric CO2
concentrations are estimated to be
reduced by 0.693 to 0.784 part per
231 Parry, M.L. et al. (2007) Technical Summary.
In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)], Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp.
23S78.
232 Using the Model for the Assessment of
Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC)
5.3v2, https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/
), EPA estimated the effects of this proposal’s
greenhouse gas emissions reductions on global
mean temperature and sea level. Please refer to
Chapter 8.4 of the RIA for additional information.
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74287
million by volume (ppmv) (average of
0.732 ppmv), global mean temperature
is estimated to be reduced by 0.002 to
0.004°C, sea-level rise is projected to be
reduced by approximately 0.012–0.048
cm based on a range of climate
sensitivities, and ocean pH will increase
by 0.0003 pH units by 2100.
(1) Estimated Projected Reductions in
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, Global
Mean Surface Temperatures, Sea Level
Rise, and Ocean pH
EPA estimated changes in the
atmospheric CO2 concentration, global
mean temperature, and sea level rise out
to 2100 resulting from the emissions
reductions in this proposal using the
GCAM (Global Change Assessment
Model, formerly MiniCAM), integrated
assessment model 233 coupled with the
Model for the Assessment of
Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate
Change (MAGICC, version 5.3v2).234
GCAM was used to create the globally
and temporally consistent set of climate
relevant variables required for running
MAGICC. MAGICC was then used to
estimate the projected change in these
variables over time. Given the
magnitude of the estimated emissions
reductions associated with the rule, a
simple climate model such as MAGICC
is reasonable for estimating the
atmospheric and climate response. This
widely-used, peer reviewed modeling
tool was also used to project
temperature and sea level rise under
different emissions scenarios in the
Third and Fourth Assessments of the
IPCC.
The integrated impact of the following
pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions
changes are considered: CO2, CH4, N2O,
NOX, CO2 and SO2, and volatile organic
compounds (VOC). For CO, SO2, and
NOX, emissions reductions were
estimated for 2018, 2030, and 2050
(provided in Section VII.A). For CO2,
CH4, and N2O an annual time-series of
233 GCAM is a long-term, global integrated
assessment model of energy, economy, agriculture
and land use, that considers the sources of
emissions of a suite of GHG’s, emitted in 14 globally
disaggregated regions, the fate of emissions to the
atmosphere, and the consequences of changing
concentrations of greenhouse related gases for
climate change. GCAM begins with a representation
of demographic and economic developments in
each region and combines these with assumptions
about technology development to describe an
internally consistent representation of energy,
agriculture, land-use, and economic developments
that in turn shape global emissions.
Brenkert A, S. Smith, S. Kim, and H. Pitcher,
2003: Model Documentation for the MiniCAM.
PNNL–14337, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
234 Wigley, T.M.L. 2008. MAGICC 5.3.v2 User
Manual. UCAR—Climate and Global Dynamics
Division, Boulder, Colorado. https://
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74288
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(upstream + downstream) emissions
reductions estimated from the proposal
were input directly. The GHG emissions
reductions, from Section VI.C, were
applied as net reductions to a global
reference case (or baseline) emissions
scenario in GCAM to generate an
emissions scenario specific to this
proposal. EPA linearly scaled emissions
reductions between a zero input value
in 2013 and the value supplied for 2018
to produce the reductions for 2014–
2018. A similar scaling was used for
2019–2029 and 2031–2050. The
emissions reductions past 2050 were
scaled with total U.S. road
transportation fuel consumption from
the GCAM reference scenario. Road
transport fuel consumption past 2050
does not change significantly and thus
emissions reductions remain relatively
constant from 2050 through 2100.
Specific details about the reference case
scenario and how the emissions
reductions were applied to generate the
scenario can be found in the proposal’s
RIA, Chapter 8.4.
MAGICC is a global model and is
primarily concerned with climate,
therefore the impact of short-lived
climate forcing agents (e.g., O3) are not
explicitly simulated as in regional air
quality models. While many precursors
related to short-lived climate forcers
such as ozone are considered, MAGICC
simulates the longer term effect on
climate from long-lived GHGs. The
impacts to ground-level ozone and other
non-GHGs are discussed in Section VII
of this proposal and the draft RIA
Chapter 8.2. Some aerosols, such as
black carbon, cause a positive forcing or
warming effect by absorbing incoming
solar radiation. There remain some
significant scientific uncertainties about
black carbon’s total climate effect,235 as
well as concerns about how to treat the
short-lived black carbon emissions
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
235 The range of uncertainty in the current
magnitude of black carbon’s climate forcing effect
is evidenced by the ranges presented by the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (2007) and the more
recent study by Ramanathan, V. and Carmichael, G.
(2008) Global and regional climate changes due to
black carbon. Nature Geoscience, 1(4): 221–227.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
alongside the long-lived, well-mixed
greenhouse gases in a common
framework (e.g., what are the
appropriate metrics to compare the
warming and/or climate effects of the
different substances, given that, unlike
greenhouse gases, the magnitude of
aerosol effects can vary immensely with
location and season of emissions).
Further, estimates of the direct radiative
forcing of individual species are less
certain than the total direct aerosol
radiative forcing.
There is no single accepted
methodology for transforming black
carbon emissions into temperature
change or CO2eq emissions. The
interaction of black carbon (and other
co-emitted aerosol species) with clouds
is especially poorly quantified, and this
factor is key to any attempt to estimate
the net climate impacts of black carbon.
While black carbon is likely to be an
important contributor to climate change,
it would be premature to include
quantification of black carbon climate
impacts in an analysis of the proposed
standards at this time.
Changes in atmospheric CO2
concentration, global mean temperature,
and sea level rise for both the reference
case and the emissions scenarios
associated with this proposal were
computed using MAGICC. To calculate
the reductions in the atmospheric CO2
concentrations as well as in temperature
and sea level resulting from this
proposal, the output from the policy
scenario associated with the preferred
approach of this proposal was
subtracted from an existing Global
Change Assessment Model (GCAM,
formerly MiniCAM) reference emission
scenario. To capture some key
uncertainties in the climate system with
the MAGICC model, changes in
atmospheric CO2, global mean
temperature and sea level rise were
projected across the most current IPCC
range of climate sensitivities which
ranges from 1.5 °C to 6.0 °C.236 This
236 In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate
sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the
annual mean global surface temperature following
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
range reflects the uncertainty for
equilibrium climate sensitivity for how
much global mean temperature would
rise if the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere were to
double. The information for this range
come from constraints from past climate
change on various time scales, and the
spread of results for climate sensitivity
from ensembles of models.237 Details
about this modeling analysis can be
found in the draft RIA Chapter 8.4.
The results of this modeling,
summarized in Table VI–8, show small
but quantifiable reductions in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations,
projected global mean temperature and
sea level resulting from this proposal,
across all climate sensitivities. As a
result of the emission reductions from
the proposed standards for this
proposal, the atmospheric CO2
concentration is projected to be reduced
by an average of 0.732 ppmv, the global
mean temperature is projected to be
reduced by approximately 0.002–0.004
°C by 2100, and global mean sea level
rise is projected to be reduced by
approximately 0.012–0.050 cm by 2100.
The range of reductions in global mean
temperature and sea level rise is larger
because CO2 concentrations are not
tightly coupled to climate sensitivity,
whereas the magnitude of temperature
change response to CO2 changes (and
therefore sea level rise) is tightly
coupled to climate sensitivity in the
MAGICC model.
a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon
dioxide concentration. The IPCC states that climate
sensitivity is ‘‘likely’’ to be in the range of 2 °C to
4.5 °C, ‘‘very unlikely’’ to be less than 1.5 °C, and
‘‘values substantially higher than 4.5° C cannot be
excluded.’’ IPCC WGI, 2007, Climate Change 2007—
The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/.
237 Meehl, G.A. et al. (2007) Global Climate
Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74289
that would result from this proposal, the
program calculates an increase in ocean
pH of 0.0003 pH units. Thus, this
analysis indicates the projected decrease
in atmospheric CO2 concentrations from
the preferred approach associated with
this proposal would result in an
increase in ocean pH. For additional
validation, results were generated from
the atmospheric CO2 concentration
change for each climate sensitivity case
(1.5 to 6.0) and using different known
constants from the literature. A
comprehensive discussion of the
modeling analysis associated with ocean
pH is provided in the draft RIA, Chapter
8.
(though these risks were not formally
estimated for this proposal) across a
range of equilibrium climate
sensitivities.
EPA’s analysis of the proposal’s
impact on global climate conditions is
intended to quantify these potential
reductions using the best available
science. While EPA’s modeling results
of the effect of this proposal alone show
small differences in climate effects (CO2
concentration, temperature, sea-level
rise, ocean pH), when expressed in
terms of global climate endpoints and
global GHG emissions, yield results that
are repeatable and consistent within the
modeling frameworks used.
(2) Proposal’s Effect on Climate
As a substantial portion of CO2
emitted into the atmosphere is not
removed by natural processes for
millennia, each unit of CO2 not emitted
into the atmosphere avoids essentially
permanent climate change on centennial
time scales. Reductions in emissions in
the near-term are important in
determining long-term climate
stabilization and associated impacts
experienced not just over the next
decades but in the coming centuries and
millennia.241 Though the magnitude of
the avoided climate change projected
here is small, these reductions would
represent a reduction in the adverse
risks associated with climate change
VII. How Would This Proposal Impact
Non-GHG Emissions and Their
Associated Effects?
238 IPCC’s ‘‘best estimates’’ at the end of the 21st
century from Table TS.6 in the Technical Summary:
Contribution of Working Group I (Solomon et al.,
2007).
239 IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
240 Lewis, E., and D. W. R. Wallace. 1998.
Program Developed for CO2 System Calculations.
ORNL/CDIAC–105. Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. Emissions Inventory Impacts
(1) Upstream Impacts of the Program
Increasing efficiency in heavy-duty
vehicles would result in reduced fuel
demand and therefore reductions in the
emissions associated with all processes
involved in getting petroleum to the
pump. These projected upstream
emission impacts on criteria pollutants
are summarized in Table VII–1. Table
VII–2 shows the corresponding
projected impacts on upstream air toxic
emissions in 2030.
241 National Research Council (NRC) (2010).
Climate Stabilization Targets. Committee on
Stabilization Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse
Gas Concentrations; Board on Atmospheric
Sciences and Climate, Division of Earth and Life
Sciences, National Academy Press. Washington,
DC.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.054
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The reductions are small relative to
the IPCC’s 2100 ‘‘best estimates’’ 238 for
global mean temperature increases
(1.1—6.4 ßC) and sea level rise (0.18–
0.59m) for all global GHG emissions
sources for a range of emissions
scenarios.239 These ‘‘best estimates’’ are
assessed from a hierarchy of models that
encompass a simple climate model,
several Earth Models of Intermediate
Complexity, and a large number of
Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulation
Models and are based on the six major
scenarios described in the Special
Report on Emissions Scenarios, not
including dynamical ice sheet behavior
that would lead to an increase in sea
level rise. Further discussion of EPA’s
modeling analysis is found in the draft
RIA, Chapter 8.
EPA used the Program CO2SYS,240
version 1.05 to estimate projected
changes in ocean pH for tropical waters
based on the atmospheric CO2
concentration change (reduction)
resulting from this proposal. The
program performs calculations relating
parameters of the CO2 system in
seawater. EPA used the program to
calculate ocean pH as a function of
atmospheric CO2 concentrations, among
other specified input conditions. Based
on the projected atmospheric CO2
concentration reductions (0.731 ppmv
by 2100 for a climate sensitivity of 3.0)
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
To project these impacts, EPA
estimated the impact of reduced
petroleum volumes on the extraction
and transportation of crude oil as well
as the production and distribution of
finished gasoline and diesel. For the
purpose of assessing domestic-only
emission reductions it was necessary to
estimate the fraction of fuel savings
attributable to domestic finished
gasoline and diesel, and of this fuel
what fraction is produced from
domestic crude. For this analysis EPA
estimated that 50 percent of fuel savings
is attributable to domestic finished
gasoline and diesel and that 90 percent
of this gasoline and diesel originated
from imported crude. Emission factors
for most upstream emission sources are
based on the GREET1.8 model,
developed by DOE’s Argonne National
Laboratory but in some cases the GREET
values were modified or updated by
EPA to be consistent with the National
Emission Inventory. These updates are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
consistent with those used for the
upstream analysis included in the LightDuty GHG rulemaking. More
information on the development of the
emission factors used in this analysis
can be found in draft RIA Chapter 5.
(2) Downstream Impacts of the Program
While these proposed rules do not
regulate non-GHG pollutants, EPA
expects reductions in downstream
emissions of most non-GHG pollutants.
These pollutants include NOX, SO2, CO,
and HC. The primary reason for this is
the improvements in road load
(aerodynamics and tire rolling
resistance) under the proposal. Another
reason is that emissions from certain
pollutants (e.g., SO2) are proportional to
fuel consumption. For vehicle types not
affected by road load improvements,
non-GHG emissions may increase very
slightly due to VMT rebound. EPA also
anticipates the use of APUs in
combination tractors for GHG reduction
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
purposes during extended idling. These
units exhibit different non-GHG
emissions characteristics compared to
the on-road engines they would replace
during extended idling. EPA used
MOVES to determine non-GHG
emissions inventories for baseline and
control cases. Further information about
the MOVES analysis is available in
Section VI and RIA Chapter 5. The
improvements in road load, use of
APUs, and VMT rebound were included
in the MOVES runs and post-processing.
Table VII–3 summarizes the
downstream criteria pollutant impacts
of this proposal. Most of the impacts
shown are through projected increased
APU use. Because APUs are required to
meet much less stringent PM2.5
standards than on-road engines, the
projected widespread use of APUs leads
to higher PM2.5. Table VII–4 summarizes
the downstream air toxics impacts of
this proposal.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.055
74290
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74291
242 Although the net impact is small when
aggregated to the national level, it is unlikely that
the geographic location of increases in downstream
PM2.5 emissions will coincide with the location of
decreases in upstream PM2.5 emissions. Impacts of
the emissions changes will be included in the air
quality modeling that will be completed for the
final rulemaking.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.057
fuel consumption; therefore a decrease
is seen in both upstream and
downstream sources. The downstream
increase in PM2.5 due to APU use is
mostly negated by upstream PM2.5
reductions, though our calculations
show a slight net increase in 2030 and
2050.242
EP30NO10.056
As shown in Table VII–5 and Table
VII–6, the agencies estimate that this
program would result in reductions of
NOX, VOC, CO, SOX, and air toxics. For
NOX, VOC, and CO, much of the net
reductions are realized through the use
of APUs, which emit these pollutants at
a lower rate than on-road engines during
extended idle operation. Additional
reductions are achieved in all pollutants
through reduced road load (improved
aerodynamics and tire rolling
resistance), which reduces the amount
of work required to travel a given
distance. For SOX, downstream
emissions are roughly proportional to
(3) Total Impacts of the Program
74292
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
B. Health Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
In this section we discuss health
effects associated with exposure to some
of the criteria and air toxic pollutants
impacted by the proposed heavy-duty
vehicle standards.
(1) Particulate Matter
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) Background
Particulate matter is a generic term for
a broad class of chemically and
physically diverse substances. It can be
principally characterized as discrete
particles that exist in the condensed
(liquid or solid) phase spanning several
orders of magnitude in size. Since 1987,
EPA has delineated that subset of
inhalable particles small enough to
penetrate to the thoracic region
(including the tracheobronchial and
alveolar regions) of the respiratory tract
(referred to as thoracic particles).
Current National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) use PM2.5 as the
indicator for fine particles (with PM2.5
referring to particles with a nominal
mean aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to 2.5 μm), and use PM10 as the
indicator for purposes of regulating the
coarse fraction of PM10 (referred to as
thoracic coarse particles or coarsefraction particles; generally including
particles with a nominal mean
aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5
μm and less than or equal to 10 μm, or
PM10–2.5). Ultrafine particles are a subset
of fine particles, generally less than 100
nanometers (0.1 μm) in aerodynamic
diameter.
Fine particles are produced primarily
by combustion processes and by
transformations of gaseous emissions
(e.g., SOX, NOX, and VOC) in the
atmosphere. The chemical and physical
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly
with time, region, meteorology, and
source category. Thus, PM2.5 may
include a complex mixture of different
pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon
and metal compounds. These particles
can remain in the atmosphere for days
to weeks and travel hundreds to
thousands of kilometers.
(b) Health Effects of PM
Scientific studies show ambient PM is
associated with a series of adverse
health effects. These health effects are
discussed in detail in EPA’s Integrated
Science Assessment for Particulate
Matter (ISA).243 Further discussion of
health effects associated with PM can
243 U.S. EPA (2009) Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F, Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
also be found in the draft RIA for this
proposal. The ISA summarizes evidence
associated with PM2.5, PM10–2.5, and
ultrafine particles.
The ISA concludes that health effects
associated with short-term exposures
(hours to days) to ambient PM2.5 include
mortality, cardiovascular effects, such as
altered vasomotor function and hospital
admissions and emergency department
visits for ischemic heart disease and
congestive heart failure, and respiratory
effects, such as exacerbation of asthma
symptoms in children and hospital
admissions and emergency department
visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease and respiratory infections.244
The ISA notes that long-term exposure
to PM2.5 (months to years) is associated
with the development/progression of
cardiovascular disease, premature
mortality, and respiratory effects,
including reduced lung function
growth, increased respiratory
symptoms, and asthma development.245
The ISA concludes that the currently
available scientific evidence from
epidemiologic, controlled human
exposure, and toxicological studies
supports a causal association between
short- and long-term exposures to PM2.5
and cardiovascular effects and
mortality. Furthermore, the ISA
concludes that the collective evidence
supports likely causal associations
between short- and long-term PM2.5
exposures and respiratory effects. The
ISA also concludes that the scientific
evidence is suggestive of a causal
association for reproductive and
developmental effects and cancer,
mutagenicity, and genotoxicity and
long-term exposure to PM2.5.246
For PM10–2.5, the ISA concludes that
the current evidence is suggestive of a
causal relationship between short-term
exposures and cardiovascular effects,
such as hospitalization for ischemic
heart disease. There is also suggestive
evidence of a causal relationship
between short-term PM10–2.5 exposure
and mortality and respiratory effects.
Data are inadequate to draw conclusions
regarding the health effects associated
with long-term exposure to PM10–2.5.247
For ultrafine particles, the ISA
concludes that there is suggestive
evidence of a causal relationship
between short-term exposures and
cardiovascular effects, such as changes
in heart rhythm and blood vessel
244 See U.S. EPA, 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 243,
at Section 2.3.1.1.
245 See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 243,
at page 2–12, Sections 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1.
246 See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 243,
at Section 2.3.2.
247 See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 243,
at Section 2.3.4, Table 2–6.
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
function. It also concludes that there is
suggestive evidence of association
between short-term exposure to
ultrafine particles and respiratory
effects. Data are inadequate to draw
conclusions regarding the health effects
associated with long-term exposure to
ultrafine particles.248
(2) Ozone
(a) Background
Ground-level ozone pollution is
typically formed by the reaction of VOC
and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. These pollutants,
often referred to as ozone precursors, are
emitted by many types of pollution
sources, such as highway and nonroad
motor vehicles and engines, power
plants, chemical plants, refineries,
makers of consumer and commercial
products, industrial facilities, and
smaller area sources.
The science of ozone formation,
transport, and accumulation is complex.
Ground-level ozone is produced and
destroyed in a cyclical set of chemical
reactions, many of which are sensitive
to temperature and sunlight. When
ambient temperatures and sunlight
levels remain high for several days and
the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and
its precursors can build up and result in
more ozone than typically occurs on a
single high-temperature day. Ozone can
be transported hundreds of miles
downwind from precursor emissions,
resulting in elevated ozone levels even
in areas with low local VOC or NOX
emissions.
(b) Health Effects of Ozone
The health and welfare effects of
ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA’s 2006 Air Quality
Criteria Document and 2007 Staff
Paper.249 250 People who are more
susceptible to effects associated with
exposure to ozone can include children,
the elderly, and individuals with
respiratory disease such as asthma.
Those with greater exposures to ozone,
for instance due to time spent outdoors
(e.g., children and outdoor workers), are
of particular concern. Ozone can irritate
the respiratory system, causing
coughing, throat irritation, and
breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce
248 See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 243,
at Section 2.3.5, Table 2–6.
249 U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for
Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final).
EPA/600/R–05/004aF–cF. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
250 U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–452/R–07–
003. Washington, DC, U.S. EPA. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
lung function and cause pulmonary
inflammation in healthy individuals.
Ozone can also aggravate asthma,
leading to more asthma attacks that
require medical attention and/or the use
of additional medication. Thus, ambient
ozone may cause both healthy and
asthmatic individuals to limit their
outdoor activities. In addition, there is
suggestive evidence of a contribution of
ozone to cardiovascular-related
morbidity and highly suggestive
evidence that short-term ozone exposure
directly or indirectly contributes to nonaccidental and cardiopulmonary-related
mortality, but additional research is
needed to clarify the underlying
mechanisms causing these effects. In a
recent report on the estimation of ozonerelated premature mortality published
by NRC, a panel of experts and
reviewers concluded that short-term
exposure to ambient ozone is likely to
contribute to premature deaths and that
ozone-related mortality should be
included in estimates of the health
benefits of reducing ozone exposure.251
Animal toxicological evidence indicates
that with repeated exposure, ozone can
inflame and damage the lining of the
lungs, which may lead to permanent
changes in lung tissue and irreversible
reductions in lung function. The
respiratory effects observed in
controlled human exposure studies and
animal studies are coherent with the
evidence from epidemiologic studies
supporting a causal relationship
between acute ambient ozone exposures
and increased respiratory-related
emergency room visits and
hospitalizations in the warm season. In
addition, there is suggestive evidence of
a contribution of ozone to
cardiovascular-related morbidity and
non-accidental and cardiopulmonary
mortality.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(3) Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides
(a) Background
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of
the NOX family of gases. Most NO2 is
formed in the air through the oxidation
of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel
is burned at a high temperature. SO2, a
member of the sulfur oxide (SOX) family
of gases, is formed from burning fuels
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil
derived), extracting gasoline from oil, or
extracting metals from ore.
SO2 and NO2 can dissolve in water
droplets and further oxidize to form
sulfuric and nitric acid which react with
251 National Research Council (NRC), 2008.
Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic
Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The
National Academies Press: Washington, DC Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
ammonia to form sulfates and nitrates,
both of which are important
components of ambient PM. The health
effects of ambient PM are discussed in
Section VII. B. (1) (b) of this preamble.
NOX and NMHC are the two major
precursors of ozone. The health effects
of ozone are covered in Section VII. B.
(2)(b).
(b) Health Effects of NO2
Information on the health effects of
NO2 can be found in the EPA Integrated
Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen
Oxides.252 The EPA has concluded that
the findings of epidemiologic,
controlled human exposure, and animal
toxicological studies provide evidence
that is sufficient to infer a likely causal
relationship between respiratory effects
and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA
concludes that the strongest evidence
for such a relationship comes from
epidemiologic studies of respiratory
effects including symptoms, emergency
department visits, and hospital
admissions. The ISA also draws two
broad conclusions regarding airway
responsiveness following NO2 exposure.
First, the ISA concludes that NO2
exposure may enhance the sensitivity to
allergen-induced decrements in lung
function and increase the allergeninduced airway inflammatory response
following 30-minute exposures of
asthmatics to NO2 concentrations as low
as 0.26 ppm. In addition, small but
significant increases in non-specific
airway hyperresponsiveness were
reported following 1-hour exposures of
asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO2. Second,
exposure to NO2 has been found to
enhance the inherent responsiveness of
the airway to subsequent nonspecific
challenges in controlled human
exposure studies of asthmatic subjects.
Enhanced airway responsiveness could
have important clinical implications for
asthmatics since transient increases in
airway responsiveness following NO2
exposure have the potential to increase
symptoms and worsen asthma control.
Together, the epidemiologic and
experimental data sets form a plausible,
consistent, and coherent description of
a relationship between NO2 exposures
and an array of adverse health effects
that range from the onset of respiratory
symptoms to hospital admission.
Although the weight of evidence
supporting a causal relationship is
somewhat less certain than that
associated with respiratory morbidity,
NO2 has also been linked to other health
252 U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science
Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria
(Final Report). EPA/600/R–08/071. Washington,
DC: U.S.EPA. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162 .
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74293
endpoints. These include all-cause
(nonaccidental) mortality, hospital
admissions or emergency department
visits for cardiovascular disease, and
decrements in lung function growth
associated with chronic exposure.
(c) Health Effects of SO2
Information on the health effects of
SO2 can be found in the EPA Integrated
Science Assessment for Sulfur
Oxides.253 SO2 has long been known to
cause adverse respiratory health effects,
particularly among individuals with
asthma. Other potentially sensitive
groups include children and the elderly.
During periods of elevated ventilation,
asthmatics may experience symptomatic
bronchoconstriction within minutes of
exposure. Following an extensive
evaluation of health evidence from
epidemiologic and laboratory studies,
the EPA has concluded that there is a
causal relationship between respiratory
health effects and short-term exposure
to SO2. Separately, based on an
evaluation of the epidemiologic
evidence of associations between shortterm exposure to SO2 and mortality, the
EPA has concluded that the overall
evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship between short-term
exposure to SO2 and mortality.
(4) Carbon Monoxide
Information on the health effects of
CO can be found in the EPA Integrated
Science Assessment (ISA) for Carbon
Monoxide.254 The ISA concludes that
ambient concentrations of CO are
associated with a number of adverse
health effects.255 This section provides
a summary of the health effects
associated with exposure to ambient
concentrations of CO.256
253 U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science
Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides—Health
Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R–08/047F.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
254 U.S. EPA, 2010. Integrated Science
Assessment for Carbon Monoxide (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/019F, 2010.
Available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. Docket EPA-HQOAR-2010-0162.
255 The ISA evaluates the health evidence
associated with different health effects, assigning
one of five ‘‘weight of evidence’’ determinations:
causal relationship, likely to be a causal
relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship,
inadequate to infer a causal relationship, and not
likely to be a causal relationship. For definitions of
these levels of evidence, please refer to Section 1.6
of the ISA.
256 Personal exposure includes contributions from
many sources, and in many different environments.
Total personal exposure to CO includes both
ambient and nonambient components; and both
components may contribute to adverse health
effects.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74294
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Human clinical studies of subjects
with coronary artery disease show a
decrease in the time to onset of exerciseinduced angina (chest pain) and
electrocardiogram changes following CO
exposure. In addition, epidemiologic
studies show associations between
short-term CO exposure and
cardiovascular morbidity, particularly
increased emergency room visits and
hospital admissions for coronary heart
disease (including ischemic heart
disease, myocardial infarction, and
angina). Some epidemiologic evidence
is also available for increased hospital
admissions and emergency room visits
for congestive heart failure and
cardiovascular disease as a whole. The
ISA concludes that a causal relationship
is likely to exist between short-term
exposures to CO and cardiovascular
morbidity. It also concludes that
available data are inadequate to
conclude that a causal relationship
exists between long-term exposures to
CO and cardiovascular morbidity.
Animal studies show various
neurological effects with in-utero CO
exposure. Controlled human exposure
studies report inconsistent neural and
behavioral effects following low-level
CO exposures. The ISA concludes the
evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship with both short- and longterm exposure to CO and central
nervous system effects.
A number of epidemiologic and
animal toxicological studies cited in the
ISA have evaluated associations
between CO exposure and birth
outcomes such as preterm birth or
cardiac birth defects. The epidemiologic
studies provide limited evidence of a
CO-induced effect on preterm births and
birth defects, with weak evidence for a
decrease in birth weight. Animal
toxicological studies have found
associations between perinatal CO
exposure and decrements in birth
weight, as well as other developmental
outcomes. The ISA concludes these
studies are suggestive of a causal
relationship between long-term
exposures to CO and developmental
effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide
evidence of effects on respiratory
morbidity such as changes in
pulmonary function, respiratory
symptoms, and hospital admissions
associated with ambient CO
concentrations. A limited number of
epidemiologic studies considered
copollutants such as ozone, SO2, and
PM in two-pollutant models and found
that CO risk estimates were generally
robust, although this limited evidence
makes it difficult to disentangle effects
attributed to CO itself from those of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
larger complex air pollution mixture.
Controlled human exposure studies
have not extensively evaluated the effect
of CO on respiratory morbidity. Animal
studies at levels of 50–100 ppm CO
show preliminary evidence of altered
pulmonary vascular remodeling and
oxidative injury. The ISA concludes that
the evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship between short-term CO
exposure and respiratory morbidity, and
inadequate to conclude that a causal
relationship exists between long-term
exposure and respiratory morbidity.
Finally, the ISA concludes that the
epidemiologic evidence is suggestive of
a causal relationship between short-term
exposures to CO and mortality.
Epidemiologic studies provide evidence
of an association between short-term
exposure to CO and mortality, but
limited evidence is available to evaluate
cause-specific mortality outcomes
associated with CO exposure. In
addition, the attenuation of CO risk
estimates which was often observed in
copollutant models contributes to the
uncertainty as to whether CO is acting
alone or as an indicator for other
combustion-related pollutants. The ISA
also concludes that there is not likely to
be a causal relationship between
relevant long-term exposures to CO and
mortality.
(5) Air Toxics
Heavy-duty vehicle emissions
contribute to ambient levels of air toxics
known or suspected as human or animal
carcinogens, or that have noncancer
health effects. The population
experiences an elevated risk of cancer
and other noncancer health effects from
exposure to the class of pollutants
known collectively as ‘‘air toxics.’’ 257
These compounds include, but are not
limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein,
diesel particulate matter and exhaust
organic gases, polycyclic organic matter,
and naphthalene. These compounds
were identified as national or regional
risk drivers in past National-scale Air
Toxics Assessments and have
significant inventory contributions from
mobile sources.258
(a) Diesel Exhaust
Heavy-duty diesel engines emit diesel
exhaust, a complex mixture composed
of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen,
water vapor, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
257 U.S. EPA. 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1
2002/risksum.html. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
258 U.S. EPA 2009. National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment for 2002. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
nata2002/. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compounds, sulfur compounds and
numerous low-molecular-weight
hydrocarbons. A number of these
gaseous hydrocarbon components are
individually known to be toxic,
including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3butadiene. The diesel particulate matter
present in diesel exhaust consists of fine
particles (< 2.5 μm), including a
subgroup with a large number of
ultrafine particles (< 0.1 μm). These
particles have a large surface area which
makes them an excellent medium for
adsorbing organics and their small size
makes them highly respirable. Many of
the organic compounds present in the
gases and on the particles, such as
polycyclic organic matter, are
individually known to have mutagenic
and carcinogenic properties.
Diesel exhaust varies significantly in
chemical composition and particle sizes
between different engine types (heavyduty, light-duty), engine operating
conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate),
and fuel formulations (high/low sulfur
fuel). Also, there are emissions
differences between on-road and
nonroad engines because the nonroad
engines are generally of older
technology. After being emitted in the
engine exhaust, diesel exhaust
undergoes dilution as well as chemical
and physical changes in the atmosphere.
The lifetime for some of the compounds
present in diesel exhaust ranges from
hours to days.259
(i) Diesel Exhaust: Potential Cancer
Effects
In EPA’s 2002 Diesel Health
Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),260
exposure to diesel exhaust was
classified as likely to be carcinogenic to
humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures, in accordance
with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA
cancer guidelines. A number of other
agencies (National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer, the World Health Organization,
California EPA, and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services) have made similar
classifications. However, EPA also
concluded in the Diesel HAD that it is
not possible currently to calculate a
cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due
to a variety of factors that limit the
259 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment
Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust.
EPA/600/8–90/057F Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC. Retrieved on March
17, 2009 from https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
260 See U.S. EPA (2002) Diesel HAD, Note 259, at
pp. 1–1, 1–2.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
current studies, such as limited
quantitative exposure histories in
occupational groups investigated for
lung cancer.
For the Diesel HAD, EPA reviewed 22
epidemiologic studies on the subject of
the carcinogenicity of workers exposed
to diesel exhaust in various
occupations, finding increased lung
cancer risk, although not always
statistically significant, in 8 out of 10
cohort studies and 10 out of 12 casecontrol studies within several
industries. Relative risk for lung cancer
associated with exposure ranged from
1.2 to 1.5, although a few studies show
relative risks as high as 2.6.
Additionally, the Diesel HAD also relied
on two independent meta-analyses,
which examined 23 and 30 occupational
studies respectively, which found
statistically significant increases in
smoking-adjusted relative lung cancer
risk associated with exposure to diesel
exhaust of 1.33 to 1.47. These metaanalyses demonstrate the effect of
pooling many studies and in this case
show the positive relationship between
diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer
across a variety of diesel exhaustexposed occupations.261 262
In the absence of a cancer unit risk,
the Diesel HAD sought to provide
additional insight into the significance
of the diesel exhaust-cancer hazard by
estimating possible ranges of risk that
might be present in the population. An
exploratory analysis was used to
characterize a possible risk range by
comparing a typical environmental
exposure level for highway diesel
sources to a selected range of
occupational exposure levels. The
occupationally observed risks were then
proportionally scaled according to the
exposure ratios to obtain an estimate of
the possible environmental risk. A
number of calculations are needed to
accomplish this, and these can be seen
in the EPA Diesel HAD. The outcome
was that environmental risks from
diesel exhaust exposure could range
from a low of 10¥4 to 10¥5 to as high
as 10¥3, reflecting the range of
occupational exposures that could be
associated with the relative and absolute
risk levels observed in the occupational
studies. Because of uncertainties, the
analysis acknowledged that the risks
could be lower than 10¥4 or 10¥5, and
a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure
was not ruled out.
261 Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998).
Diesel exposure and lung cancer. Epidemiology,
9(1), 84–91. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
262 Lipsett, M. Campleman, S. (1999).
Occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and lung
cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health, 80(7),
1009–1017. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(ii) Diesel Exhaust: Other Health Effects
Noncancer health effects of acute and
chronic exposure to diesel exhaust
emissions are also of concern to the
EPA. EPA derived a diesel exhaust
reference concentration (RfC) from
consideration of four well-conducted
chronic rat inhalation studies showing
adverse pulmonary effects.263 264 265 266
The RfC is 5 μg/m3 for diesel exhaust as
measured by diesel particulate matter.
This RfC does not consider allergenic
effects such as those associated with
asthma or immunologic effects. There is
growing evidence, discussed in the
Diesel HAD, that exposure to diesel
exhaust can exacerbate these effects, but
the exposure-response data are
presently lacking to derive an RfC. The
EPA Diesel HAD states, ‘‘With [diesel
particulate matter] being a ubiquitous
component of ambient PM, there is an
uncertainty about the adequacy of the
existing [diesel exhaust] noncancer
database to identify all of the pertinent
[diesel exhaust]-caused noncancer
health hazards.’’ (p. 9–19). The Diesel
HAD concludes ‘‘that acute exposure to
[diesel exhaust] has been associated
with irritation of the eye, nose, and
throat, respiratory symptoms (cough and
phlegm), and neurophysiological
symptoms such as headache,
lightheadedness, nausea, vomiting, and
numbness or tingling of the
extremities.’’ 267
(iii) Ambient PM2.5 Levels and Exposure
to Diesel Exhaust PM
The Diesel HAD also briefly
summarizes health effects associated
with ambient PM and discusses the
EPA’s annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/
m3. There is a much more extensive
body of human data showing a wide
spectrum of adverse health effects
associated with exposure to ambient
263 Ishinishi, N. Kuwabara, N. Takaki, Y., et al.
(1988). Long-term inhalation experiments on diesel
exhaust. In: Diesel exhaust and health risks. Results
of the HERP studies. Ibaraki, Japan: Research
Committee for HERP Studies; pp. 11–84. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
264 Heinrich, U., Fuhst, R., Rittinghausen, S., et al.
(1995). Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats
and two different strains of mice to diesel engine
exhaust, carbon black, and titanium dioxide. Inhal
Toxicol, 7, 553–556. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
265 Mauderly, J.L., Jones, R.K., Griffith, W.C., et al.
(1987). Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in
rats exposed chronically by inhalation. Fundam.
Appl. Toxicol., 9, 208–221. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
266 Nikula, K.J., Snipes, M.B., Barr, E.B., et al.
(1995). Comparative pulmonary toxicities and
carcinogenicities of chronically inhaled diesel
exhaust and carbon black in F344 rats. Fundam.
Appl. Toxicol, 25, 80–94. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
267 See U.S. EPA (2002), Diesel HAD at Note 259,
at p. 9–9.
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74295
PM, of which diesel exhaust is an
important component. The PM2.5
NAAQS is designed to provide
protection from the noncancer and
premature mortality effects of PM2.5 as
a whole.
(iv) Diesel Exhaust PM Exposures
Exposure of people to diesel exhaust
depends on their various activities, the
time spent in those activities, the
locations where these activities occur,
and the levels of diesel exhaust
pollutants in those locations. The major
difference between ambient levels of
diesel particulate and exposure levels
for diesel particulate is that exposure
accounts for a person moving from
location to location, proximity to the
emission source, and whether the
exposure occurs in an enclosed
environment.
Occupational Exposures
Occupational exposures to diesel
exhaust from mobile sources can be
several orders of magnitude greater than
typical exposures in the nonoccupationally exposed population.
Over the years, diesel particulate
exposures have been measured for a
number of occupational groups. A wide
range of exposures have been reported,
from 2 μg/m3 to 1,280 μg/m3, for a
variety of occupations. As discussed in
the Diesel HAD, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health has
estimated a total of 1,400,000 workers
are occupationally exposed to diesel
exhaust from on-road and nonroad
vehicles.
Elevated Concentrations and Ambient
Exposures in Mobile Source-Impacted
Areas
Regions immediately downwind of
highways or truck stops may experience
elevated ambient concentrations of
directly-emitted PM2.5 from diesel
engines. Due to the unique nature of
highways and truck stops, emissions
from a large number of diesel engines
are concentrated in a small area. Studies
near roadways with high truck traffic
indicate higher concentrations of
components of diesel PM than other
locations.268 269 270 High ambient particle
268 Zhu, Y.; Hinds, W.C.; Kim, S.; Shen, S.;
Sioutas, C. (2002). Study of ultrafine particles near
a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic.
Atmospheric Environment 36: 4323–4335. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
269 Lena, T.S; Ochieng, V.; Holguın-Veras, J.;
´
Kinney, P.L. (2002). Elemental carbon and PM2.5
levels in an urban community heavily impacted by
truck traffic. Environ Health Perspect 110: 1009–
1015. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
270 Soliman, A.S.M.; Jacko, J.B.; Palmer, G.M.
(2006). Development of an empirical model to
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
Continued
30NOP2
74296
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
concentrations have also been reported
near trucking terminals, truck stops, and
bus garages.271 272 273 Additional
discussion of exposure and health
effects associated with traffic is
included below in Section VII.B.(5)(j).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(b) Benzene
The EPA’s Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) database lists benzene as
a known human carcinogen (causing
leukemia) by all routes of exposure, and
concludes that exposure is associated
with additional health effects, including
genetic changes in both humans and
animals and increased proliferation of
bone marrow cells in mice.274 275 276 EPA
states in its IRIS database that data
indicate a causal relationship between
benzene exposure and acute
lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a
relationship between benzene exposure
and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia
and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The
International Agency for Research on
Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that
benzene is a human carcinogen and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) has characterized
benzene as a known human
carcinogen.277 278
A number of adverse noncancer
health effects including blood disorders,
estimate real-world fine particulate matter emission
factors: the Traffic Air Quality model. J Air & Waste
Manage Assoc 56: 1540–1549. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
271 Davis, M.E.; Smith, T.J.; Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.;
Ryan, L.M.; Garshick, E. (2006). Modeling particle
exposure in U.S. trucking terminals. Environ Sci
Techol 40: 4226–4232. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
272 Miller, T.L.; Fu, J.S.; Hromis, B.; Storey, J.M.
(2007). Diesel truck idling emissions—
measurements at a PM2.5 hot spot. Proceedings of
the Annual Conference of the Transportation
Research Board, paper no. 07–2609. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
273 Ramachandran, G.; Paulsen, D.; Watts, W.;
Kittelson, D. (2005). Mass, surface area, and number
metrics in diesel occupational exposure assessment.
J Environ Monit 7: 728–735. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
274 U.S. EPA. 2000. Integrated Risk Information
System File for Benzene. This material is available
electronically at https://www.epagov/iris/subst/0276.
htm. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
275 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
1982. Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
29. Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345–389.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
276 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.;
Henry, V.A. 1992. Synergistic action of the benzene
metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic
stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage
colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 89:3691–3695. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
277 See IARC, Note 275, above.
278 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report
on Carcinogens available at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.
gov/go/16183. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
such as preleukemia and aplastic
anemia, have also been associated with
long-term exposure to benzene.279 280
The most sensitive noncancer effect
observed in humans, based on current
data, is the depression of the absolute
lymphocyte count in blood.281 282 In
addition, recent work, including studies
sponsored by the Health Effects Institute
(HEI), provides evidence that
biochemical responses are occurring at
lower levels of benzene exposure than
previously known.283 284 285 286 EPA’s
IRIS program has not yet evaluated
these new data.
(c) 1,3-Butadiene
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene
as carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation.287 288 The IARC has
279 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and
carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health
Perspect. 82: 193–197. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
280 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity.
Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3:
541–554. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
281 Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E.
Bechtold, G.E. Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi,
W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-Holland, L.P. Zhang,
W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes (1996).
Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily
exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29: 236–246.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
282 U.S. EPA (2002). Toxicological Review of
Benzene (Noncancer Effects). Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System, Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington
DC. This material is available electronically at
https://www.epa.gov/iris/ubst/0276.htm. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
283 Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.;
Cohen, B.; Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport,
S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.; Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.;
Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok, E.; Li, Y.;
Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report
115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in
Workers Exposed to Benzene in China. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
284 Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B.
Cohen, et al. (2002). Hematological changes among
Chinese workers with a broad range of benzene
exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275–285.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
285 Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et
al. (2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to
Low Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774–1776.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
286 Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene
metabolism in rodents at doses relevant to human
exposure from Urban Air. Research Reports Health
Effect Inst. Report No.113. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
287 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3Butadiene. Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No.
EPA600–P–98–001F. This document is available
electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/
buta-sup.pdf. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
288 U.S. EPA (2002). Full IRIS Summary for 1,3butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0). Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington,
DC https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determined that 1,3-butadiene is a
human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS
has characterized 1,3-butadiene as a
known human carcinogen.289 290 There
are numerous studies consistently
demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is
metabolized into genotoxic metabolites
by experimental animals and humans.
The specific mechanisms of 1,3butadiene-induced carcinogenesis are
unknown; however, the scientific
evidence strongly suggests that the
carcinogenic effects are mediated by
genotoxic metabolites. Animal data
suggest that females may be more
sensitive than males for cancer effects
associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure;
there are insufficient data in humans
from which to draw conclusions about
sensitive subpopulations. 1,3-butadiene
also causes a variety of reproductive and
developmental effects in mice; no
human data on these effects are
available. The most sensitive effect was
ovarian atrophy observed in a lifetime
bioassay of female mice.291
(d) Formaldehyde
Since 1987, EPA has classified
formaldehyde as a probable human
carcinogen based on evidence in
humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and
monkeys.292 EPA is currently reviewing
recently published epidemiological
data. For instance, research conducted
by the National Cancer Institute found
an increased risk of nasopharyngeal
cancer and lymphohematopoietic
malignancies such as leukemia among
workers exposed to formaldehyde.293 294
289 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(1999). Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
71, Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals,
hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97
(in preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon,
France. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
290 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (2005). National Toxicology Program 11th
Report on Carcinogens available at: ntp.niehs.nih.
gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E7FCE50709CB4C932. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
291 Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al.
(1996). Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene
in rats and mice by inhalation. Fundam. Appl.
Toxicol. 32:1–10. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
292 U.S. EPA (1987). Assessment of Health Risks
to Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents
from Exposure to Formaldehyde, Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
293 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P.A.;
Hayes, R.B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from
lymphohematopoetic malignancies among workers
in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National
Cancer Institute 95: 1615–1623. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
294 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.;
Hayes, R.B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid
cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries.
American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117–1130.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
In an analysis of the
lymphohematopoietic cancer mortality
from an extended follow-up of these
workers, the National Cancer Institute
confirmed an association between
lymphohematopoietic cancer risk and
peak exposures.295 A recent National
Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health study of garment workers also
found increased risk of death due to
leukemia among workers exposed to
formaldehyde.296 Extended follow-up of
a cohort of British chemical workers did
not find evidence of an increase in
nasopharyngeal or
lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a
continuing statistically significant
excess in lung cancers was reported.297
Recently, the IARC re-classified
formaldehyde as a human carcinogen
(Group 1).298
Formaldehyde exposure also causes a
range of noncancer health effects,
including irritation of the eyes (burning
and watering of the eyes), nose and
throat. Effects from repeated exposure in
humans include respiratory tract
irritation, chronic bronchitis and nasal
epithelial lesions such as metaplasia
and loss of cilia. Animal studies suggest
that formaldehyde may also cause
airway inflammation—including
eosinophil infiltration into the airways.
There are several studies that suggest
that formaldehyde may increase the risk
of asthma—particularly in the
young.299 300
295 Beane Freeman, L.E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J.H.;
Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.; Hoover, R.N.;
Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers
in formaldehyde industries: The National Cancer
Institute cohort. J. National Cancer Inst. 101: 751–
761. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
296 Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort
of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an
update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 193–200. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
297 Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer.
2003. Extended follow-up of a cohort of British
chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. J
National Cancer Inst. 95:1608–1615. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
298 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
2006. Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tertButoxypropan-2-ol. Volume 88. (in preparation),
World Health Organization, Lyon, France. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
299 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological profile for
Formaldehyde. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
https://ww.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
300 WHO (2002). Concise International Chemical
Assessment Document 40: Formaldehyde.
Published under the joint sponsorship of the United
Nations Environment Programme, the International
Labour Organization, and the World Health
Organization, and produced within the framework
of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound
Management of Chemicals. Geneva. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(e) Acetaldehyde
Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA’s
IRIS database as a probable human
carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in
rats, and is considered toxic by the
inhalation, oral, and intravenous
routes.301 Acetaldehyde is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen by
the U.S. DHHS in the 11th Report on
Carcinogens and is classified as possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by
the IARC.302 303 EPA is currently
conducting a reassessment of cancer risk
from inhalation exposure to
acetaldehyde.
The primary noncancer effects of
exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and
respiratory tract.304 In short-term
(4 week) rat studies, degeneration of
olfactory epithelium was observed at
various concentration levels of
acetaldehyde exposure.305 306 Data from
these studies were used by EPA to
develop an inhalation reference
concentration. Some asthmatics have
been shown to be a sensitive
subpopulation to decrements in
functional expiratory volume (FEV1
test) and bronchoconstriction upon
acetaldehyde inhalation.307 The agency
is currently conducting a reassessment
of the health hazards from inhalation
exposure to acetaldehyde.
(f) Acrolein
Acrolein is extremely acrid and
irritating to humans when inhaled, with
acute exposure resulting in upper
301 U.S. EPA. 1991. Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acetaldehyde. Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. Available at https://
www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
302 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report
on Carcinogens available at: ntp.niehs.nih.gov/
index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E7FCE50709CB4C932. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
303 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
1999. Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals,
hydrazine, and hydrogen peroxide. IARC
Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk
of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
304 See Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde, Note 301, above.
305 Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, V.J. Feron,
R.N. Hooftman, and W.R.F. Notten. 1986. Effects of
the variable versus fixed exposure levels on the
toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. J. Appl. Toxicol.
6: 331–336. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162
306 Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J.
Feron. 1982. Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in
rats. I. Acute and subacute studies. Toxicology. 23:
293–297. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
307 Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.;
and Matsuda, T. 1993. Aerosolized acetaldehyde
induces histamine-mediated bronchoconstriction in
asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis. 148 (4 Pt 1): 940–
3. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74297
respiratory tract irritation, mucus
hypersecretion and congestion. The
intense irritancy of this carbonyl has
been demonstrated during controlled
tests in human subjects, who suffer
intolerable eye and nasal mucosal
sensory reactions within minutes of
exposure.308 These data and additional
studies regarding acute effects of human
exposure to acrolein are summarized in
EPA’s 2003 IRIS Human Health
Assessment for acrolein.309 Evidence
available from studies in humans
indicate that levels as low as 0.09 ppm
(0.21 mg/m3) for five minutes may elicit
subjective complaints of eye irritation
with increasing concentrations leading
to more extensive eye, nose and
respiratory symptoms.310 Lesions to the
lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats,
rabbits, and hamsters have been
observed after subchronic exposure to
acrolein.311 Acute exposure effects in
animal studies report bronchial hyperresponsiveness.312 In a recent study, the
acute respiratory irritant effects of
exposure to 1.1 ppm acrolein were more
pronounced in mice with allergic
airway disease by comparison to nondiseased mice which also showed
decreases in respiratory rate.313 Based
on these animal data and demonstration
of similar effects in humans (e.g.,
reduction in respiratory rate),
individuals with compromised
respiratory function (e.g., emphysema,
asthma) are expected to be at increased
risk of developing adverse responses to
strong respiratory irritants such as
acrolein.
EPA determined in 2003 that the
human carcinogenic potential of
acrolein could not be determined
because the available data were
inadequate. No information was
available on the carcinogenic effects of
308 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency). (2003). Toxicological review of acrolein in
support of summary information on Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/
635/R–03/003. p. 10. Available online at: https://
www.epa.gov/ncea/ris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
309 See U.S. EPA 2003 Toxicological review of
acrolein, Note 308, above.
310 See U.S. EPA 2003 Toxicological review of
acrolein, Note 308, at p. 11.
311 Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acrolein. Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available at
https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
312 See U.S. 2003 Toxicological review of
acrolein, Note 308, at p. 15.
313 Morris J.B., Symanowicz P.T., Olsen J.E., et al.
2003. Immediate sensory nerve-mediated
respiratory responses to irritants in healthy and
allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol
94(4):1563–1571. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74298
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
acrolein in humans and the animal data
provided inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity.314 The IARC
determined in 1995 that acrolein was
not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity
in humans.315
(g) Polycyclic Organic Matter
Polycyclic organic matter is generally
defined as a large class of organic
compounds which have multiple
benzene rings and a boiling point
greater than 100° Celsius. Many of the
compounds included in the class of
compounds known as polycyclic
organic matter are classified by EPA as
probable human carcinogens based on
animal data. One of these compounds,
naphthalene, is discussed separately
below. Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons are a subset of polycyclic
organic matter that contains only
hydrogen and carbon atoms. A number
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are
known or suspected carcinogens. Recent
studies have found that maternal
exposures to polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (a subclass of polycyclic
organic matter) in a population of
pregnant women were associated with
several adverse birth outcomes,
including low birth weight and reduced
length at birth, as well as impaired
cognitive development at age
three.316 317 EPA has not yet evaluated
these recent studies.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(h) Naphthalene
Naphthalene is found in small
quantities in gasoline and diesel fuels.
Naphthalene emissions have been
measured in larger quantities in both
gasoline and diesel exhaust compared
with evaporative emissions from mobile
sources, indicating it is primarily a
product of combustion. EPA released an
external review draft of a reassessment
314 U.S. EPA. 2003. Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acrolein. Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available at https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
315 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
1995. Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
63. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and
other industrial chemicals, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
316 Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W–Y.; et al.
(2002). Effect of transplacental exposure to
environmental pollutants on birth outcomes in a
multiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect.
111: 201–205. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
317 Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai,
W.Y.; Tang, D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu,
Y.H.; Camann, D.; Kinney, P. (2006). Effect of
prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3
years of life among inner-city children. Environ
Health Perspect 114: 1287–1292. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
of the inhalation carcinogenicity of
naphthalene based on a number of
recent animal carcinogenicity
studies.318 The draft reassessment
completed external peer review.319
Based on external peer review
comments received, additional analyses
are being undertaken. This external
review draft does not represent official
agency opinion and was released solely
for the purposes of external peer review
and public comment. The National
Toxicology Program listed naphthalene
as ‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen’’ in 2004 on the basis
of bioassays reporting clear evidence of
carcinogenicity in rats and some
evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.320
California EPA has released a new risk
assessment for naphthalene, and the
IARC has reevaluated naphthalene and
re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly
carcinogenic to humans.321 Naphthalene
also causes a number of chronic noncancer effects in animals, including
abnormal cell changes and growth in
respiratory and nasal tissues.322
(i) Other Air Toxics
In addition to the compounds
described above, other compounds in
gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles will be
affected by this proposal. Mobile source
air toxic compounds that would
potentially be impacted include
ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde,
toluene, and xylene. Information
regarding the health effects of these
318 U. S. EPA. 2004. Toxicological Review of
Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation
Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency,
Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/436.htm. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
319 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
(2004). External Peer Review for the IRIS
Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Naphthalene. August 2004. https://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
320 National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2004).
11th Report on Carcinogens. Public Health Service,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Research Triangle Park, NC. Available from: https://
ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
321 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
(2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol.
82. Lyon, France. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
322 U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of
Naphthalene, Environmental Protection Agency,
Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compounds can be found in EPA’s IRIS
database.323
(j) Exposure and Health Effects
Associated With Traffic
Populations who live, work, or attend
school near major roads experience
elevated exposure concentrations to a
wide range of air pollutants, as well as
higher risks for a number of adverse
health effects. While the previous
sections of this preamble have focused
on the health effects associated with
individual criteria pollutants or air
toxics, this section discusses the
mixture of different exposures near
major roadways, rather than the effects
of any single pollutant. As such, this
section emphasizes traffic-related air
pollution, in general, as the relevant
indicator of exposure rather than any
particular pollutant.
Concentrations of many trafficgenerated air pollutants are elevated for
up to 300–500 meters downwind of
roads with high traffic volumes.324
Numerous sources on roads contribute
to elevated roadside concentrations,
including exhaust and evaporative
emissions, and resuspension of road
dust and tire and brake wear.
Concentrations of several criteria and
hazardous air pollutants are elevated
near major roads. Furthermore, different
semi-volatile organic compounds and
chemical components of particulate
matter, including elemental carbon,
organic material, and trace metals, have
been reported at higher concentrations
near major roads.
Populations near major roads
experience greater risk of certain
adverse health effects. The Health
Effects Institute published a report on
the health effects of traffic-related air
pollution.325 It concluded that evidence
is ‘‘sufficient to infer the presence of a
causal association’’ between traffic
exposure and exacerbation of childhood
asthma symptoms. The HEI report also
concludes that the evidence is either
‘‘sufficient’’ or ‘‘suggestive but not
sufficient’’ for a causal association
between traffic exposure and new
childhood asthma cases. A review of
asthma studies by Salam et al. (2008)
323 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database is available at: https://www.epa.gov/
iris.
324 Zhou, Y.; Levy, J.I. (2007). Factors influencing
the spatial extent of mobile source air pollution
impacts: A meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 7: 89.
doi:10.1186/1471–2458–7–89 Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
325 HEI Panel on the Health Effects of Air
Pollution. (2010). Traffic-related air pollution: A
critical review of the literature on emissions,
exposure, and health effects. [Online at https://
www.healtheffects.org.] Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
reaches similar conclusions.326 The HEI
report also concludes that there is
‘‘suggestive’’ evidence for pulmonary
function deficits associated with traffic
exposure, but concluded that there is
‘‘inadequate and insufficient’’ evidence
for causal associations with respiratory
health care utilization, adult-onset
asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease symptoms, and allergy. A
review by Holguin (2008) notes that the
effects of traffic on asthma may be
modified by nutrition status, medication
use, and genetic factors.327
The HEI report also concludes that
evidence is ‘‘suggestive’’ of a causal
association between traffic exposure and
all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.
There is also evidence of an association
between traffic-related air pollutants
and cardiovascular effects such as
changes in heart rhythm, heart attack,
and cardiovascular disease. The HEI
report characterizes this evidence as
‘‘suggestive’’ of a causal association, and
an independent epidemiological
literature review by Adar and Kaufman
(2007) concludes that there is
‘‘consistent evidence’’ linking trafficrelated pollution and adverse
cardiovascular health outcomes.328
Some studies have reported
associations between traffic exposure
and other health effects, such as birth
outcomes (e.g., low birth weight) and
childhood cancer. The HEI report
concludes that there is currently
‘‘inadequate and insufficient’’ evidence
for a causal association between these
effects and traffic exposure. A review by
Raaschou-Nielsen and Reynolds (2006)
concluded that evidence of an
association between childhood cancer
and traffic-related air pollutants is weak,
but noted the inability to draw firm
conclusions based on limited
evidence.329
There is a large population in the
United States living in close proximity
of major roads. According to the Census
Bureau’s American Housing Survey for
2007, approximately 20 million
residences in the United States, 15.6%
326 Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008).
Recent evidence for adverse effects of residential
proximity to traffic sources on asthma. Current
Opin Pulm Med 14: 3–8. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
327 Holguin, F. (2008). Traffic, outdoor air
pollution, and asthma. Immunol Allergy Clinics
North Am 28: 577–588. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
328 Adar, S.D.; Kaufman, J.D. (2007).
Cardiovascular disease and air pollutants:
Evaluating and improving epidemiological data
implicating traffic exposure. Inhal Toxicol 19: 135–
149. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
329 Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air
pollution and childhood cancer: A review of the
epidemiological literature. Int J Cancer 118: 2920–
2929. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
of all homes, are located within 300 feet
(91 m) of a highway with 4+ lanes, a
railroad, or an airport.330 Therefore, at
current population of approximately
309 million, assuming that population
and housing are similarly distributed,
there are over 48 million people in the
United States living near such sources.
The HEI report also notes that in two
North American cities, Los Angeles and
Toronto, over 40% of each city’s
population live within 500 meters of a
highway or 100 meters of a major road.
It also notes that about 33% of each
city’s population resides within 50
meters of major roads. Together, the
evidence suggests that a large U.S.
population lives in areas with elevated
traffic-related air pollution.
People living near roads are often
socioeconomically disadvantaged.
According to the 2007 American
Housing Survey, a renter-occupied
property is over twice as likely as an
owner-occupied property to be located
near a highway with 4+ lanes, railroad
or airport. In the same survey, the
median household income of rental
housing occupants was less than half
that of owner-occupants ($28,921/
$59,886). Numerous studies in
individual urban areas report higher
levels of traffic-related air pollutants in
areas with high minority or poor
populations.331 332 333
Students may also be exposed in
situations where schools are located
near major roads. In a study of nine
metropolitan areas across the United
States, Appatova et al. (2008) found that
on average greater than 33% of schools
were located within 400 m of an
Interstate, U.S., or State highway, while
12% were located within 100 m.334 The
study also found that among the
metropolitan areas studied, schools in
330 U.S. Census Bureau (2008). American Housing
Survey for the United States in 2007. Series H–150
(National Data), Table 1A–7. [Accessed at https://
www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/
ahs07.html on January 22, 2009] Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
331 Lena, T.S.; Ochieng, V.; Carter, M.; Holguın´
Veras, J.; Kinney, P.L. (2002). Elemental carbon and
PM2.5 levels in an urban community heavily
impacted by truck traffic. Environ Health Perspect
110: 1009–1015. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
332 Wier, M.; Sciammas, C.; Seto, E.; Bhatia, R.;
Rivard, T. (2009). Health, traffic, and environmental
justice: collaborative research and community
action in San Francisco, California. Am J Public
Health 99: S499–S504. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
333 Forkenbrock, D.J. and L.A. Schweitzer,
Environmental Justice and Transportation
Investment Policy. Iowa City: University of Iowa,
1997. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
334 Appatova, A.S.; Ryan, P.H.; LeMasters, G.K.;
Grinshpun, S.A. (2008). Proximal exposure of
public schools and students to major roadways: A
nationwide U.S. survey. J Environ Plan Mgmt
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74299
the Eastern United States were more
often sited near major roadways than
schools in the Western United States.
Demographic studies of students in
schools near major roadways suggest
that this population is more likely than
the general student population to be of
non-white race or Hispanic ethnicity,
and more often live in low
socioeconomic status locations.335 336 337
There is some inconsistency in the
evidence, which may be due to different
local development patterns and
measures of traffic and geographic scale
used in the studies.334
C. Environmental Effects of Non-GHG
Pollutants
In this section we discuss some of the
environmental effects of PM and its
precursors such as visibility
impairment, atmospheric deposition,
and materials damage and soiling, as
well as environmental effects associated
with the presence of ozone in the
ambient air, such as impacts on plants,
including trees, agronomic crops and
urban ornamentals, and environmental
effects associated with air toxics.
(1) Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree
to which the atmosphere is transparent
to visible light.338 Visibility impairment
is caused by light scattering and
absorption by suspended particles and
gases. Visibility is important because it
has direct significance to people’s
enjoyment of daily activities in all parts
of the country. Individuals value good
visibility for the well-being it provides
them directly, where they live and
work, and in places where they enjoy
recreational opportunities. Visibility is
also highly valued in significant natural
areas, such as national parks and
wilderness areas, and special emphasis
is given to protecting visibility in these
335 Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.;
McLaughlin, R.; Ostro, B. (2004). Proximity of
California public schools to busy roads. Environ
Health Perspect 112: 61–66. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
336 Houston, D.; Ong, P.; Wu, J.; Winer, A. (2006).
Proximity of licensed child care facilities to nearroadway vehicle pollution. Am J Public Health 96:
1611–1617. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
337 Wu, Y.; Batterman, S. (2006). Proximity of
schools in Detroit, Michigan to automobile and
truck traffic. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 16:
457–470. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
338 National Research Council, 1993. Protecting
Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas.
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze
in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162. This book can be viewed on the
National Academy Press Web site at https://
www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74300
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
areas. For more information on visibility
see the final 2009 PM ISA.339
EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to
address visibility. First, EPA has
concluded that PM2.5 causes adverse
effects on visibility in various locations,
depending on PM concentrations and
factors such as chemical composition
and average relative humidity, and has
set secondary PM2.5 standards.340 The
secondary PM2.5 standards act in
conjunction with the regional haze
program. EPA’s regional haze rule (64
FR 35714) was put in place in July 1999
to protect the visibility in Mandatory
Class I Federal areas. There are 156
national parks, forests and wilderness
areas categorized as Mandatory Class I
Federal areas (62 FR 38680–38681, July
18, 1997).341 Visibility can be said to be
impaired in both PM2.5 nonattainment
areas and Mandatory Class I Federal
areas.
(2) Plant and Ecosystem Effects of
Ozone
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Elevated ozone levels contribute to
environmental effects, with impacts to
plants and ecosystems being of most
concern. Ozone can produce both acute
and chronic injury in sensitive species
depending on the concentration level
and the duration of the exposure. Ozone
effects also tend to accumulate over the
growing season of the plant, so that even
low concentrations experienced for a
longer duration have the potential to
create chronic stress on vegetation.
Ozone damage to plants includes visible
injury to leaves and impaired
photosynthesis, both of which can lead
to reduced plant growth and
reproduction, resulting in reduced crop
yields, forestry production, and use of
sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In
addition, the impairment of
photosynthesis, the process by which
the plant makes carbohydrates (its
source of energy and food), can lead to
a subsequent reduction in root growth
and carbohydrate storage below ground,
resulting in other, more subtle plant and
ecosystems impacts.
These latter impacts include
increased susceptibility of plants to
insect attack, disease, harsh weather,
interspecies competition and overall
decreased plant vigor. The adverse
effects of ozone on forest and other
339 See
U.S. EPA 2009. Final PM ISA, Note 243.
existing annual primary and secondary
PM2.5 standards have been remanded and are being
addressed in the currently ongoing PM NAAQS
review.
341 These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as
those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres,
wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding
5,000 acres, and all international parks which were
in existence on August 7, 1977.
340 The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
natural vegetation can potentially lead
to species shifts and loss from the
affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss
or reduction in associated ecosystem
goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone
injury to leaves can result in a loss of
aesthetic value in areas of special scenic
significance like national parks and
wilderness areas. The final 2006 Ozone
Air Quality Criteria Document presents
more detailed information on ozone
effects on vegetation and ecosystems.
(3) Atmospheric Deposition
Wet and dry deposition of ambient
particulate matter delivers a complex
mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc,
lead, nickel, aluminum, cadmium),
organic compounds (e.g., polycyclic
organic matter, dioxins, furans) and
inorganic compounds (e.g., nitrate,
sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. The chemical form of the
compounds deposited depends on a
variety of factors including ambient
conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity,
oxidant levels) and the sources of the
material. Chemical and physical
transformations of the compounds occur
in the atmosphere as well as the media
onto which they deposit. These
transformations in turn influence the
fate, bioavailability and potential
toxicity of these compounds.
Atmospheric deposition has been
identified as a key component of the
environmental and human health
hazard posed by several pollutants
including mercury, dioxin and PCBs.342
Adverse impacts on water quality can
occur when atmospheric contaminants
deposit to the water surface or when
material deposited on the land enters a
waterbody through runoff. Potential
impacts of atmospheric deposition to
waterbodies include those related to
both nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse
effects to human health and welfare can
occur from the addition of excess
nitrogen via atmospheric deposition.
The nitrogen-nutrient enrichment
contributes to toxic algae blooms and
zones of depleted oxygen, which can
lead to fish kills, frequently in coastal
waters. Deposition of heavy metals or
other toxics may lead to the human
ingestion of contaminated fish,
impairment of drinking water, damage
to the marine ecology, and limits to
recreational uses. Several studies have
been conducted in U.S. coastal waters
and in the Great Lakes Region in which
342 U.S. EPA (2000). Deposition of Air Pollutants
to the Great Waters: Third Report to Congress.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA–
453/R–00–0005. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the role of ambient PM deposition and
runoff is investigated.343 344 345 346 347
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen
and sulfur contributes to acidification,
altering biogeochemistry and affecting
animal and plant life in terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems across the United
States. The sensitivity of terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems to acidification from
nitrogen and sulfur deposition is
predominantly governed by geology.
Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen
and sulfur deposition in sensitive areas
acidifies lakes, rivers and soils.
Increased acidity in surface waters
creates inhospitable conditions for biota
and affects the abundance and
nutritional value of preferred prey
species, threatening biodiversity and
ecosystem function. Over time,
acidifying deposition also removes
essential nutrients from forest soils,
depleting the capacity of soils to
neutralize future acid loadings and
negatively affecting forest sustainability.
Major effects include a decline in
sensitive forest tree species, such as red
spruce (Picea rubens) and sugar maple
(Acer saccharum), and a loss of
biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton, and
macro invertebrates.
In addition to the role nitrogen
deposition plays in acidification,
nitrogen deposition also leads to
nutrient enrichment and altered
biogeochemical cycling. In aquatic
systems increased nitrogen can alter
species assemblages and cause
eutrophication. In terrestrial systems
nitrogen loading can lead to loss of
nitrogen sensitive lichen species,
decreased biodiversity of grasslands,
meadows and other sensitive habitats,
and increased potential for invasive
species. For a broader explanation of the
topics treated here, refer to the
description in Section 7.1.2 of the draft
RIA.
343 U.S. EPA (2004). National Coastal Condition
Report II. Office of Research and Development/
Office of Water. EPA–620/R–03/002. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
344 Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. 2002.
Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on
PM2.5 particulate matter over the New York-New
Jersey harbor estuary. Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077–
1086. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
345 Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M.
Church. 2000. Factors influencing the atmospheric
depositional fluxes of stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be
into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 65–79.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
346 Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. 2003.
Dry deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los
Angeles Basin and adjacent coastal waters. J.
Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11–1 to 11–24.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
347 Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al.
2002. Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes
Erie and Ontario: A comparative analysis. J. Great
Lakes Res. 28(3): 437–450. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Adverse impacts on soil chemistry
and plant life have been observed for
areas heavily influenced by atmospheric
deposition of nutrients, metals and acid
species, resulting in species shifts, loss
of biodiversity, forest decline and
damage to forest productivity. Potential
impacts also include adverse effects to
human health through ingestion of
contaminated vegetation or livestock (as
in the case for dioxin deposition),
reduction in crop yield, and limited use
of land due to contamination.
Atmospheric deposition of pollutants
can reduce the aesthetic appeal of
buildings and culturally important
articles through soiling, and can
contribute directly (or in conjunction
with other pollutants) to structural
damage by means of corrosion or
erosion. Atmospheric deposition may
affect materials principally by
promoting and accelerating the
corrosion of metals, by degrading paints,
and by deteriorating building materials
such as concrete and limestone.
Particles contribute to these effects
because of their electrolytic,
hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and
their ability to adsorb corrosive gases
(principally sulfur dioxide).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(4) Environmental Effects of Air Toxics
Emissions from producing,
transporting and combusting fuel
contribute to ambient levels of
pollutants that contribute to adverse
effects on vegetation. Volatile organic
compounds, some of which are
considered air toxics, have long been
suspected to play a role in vegetation
damage.348 In laboratory experiments, a
wide range of tolerance to VOCs has
been observed.349 Decreases in
harvested seed pod weight have been
reported for the more sensitive plants,
and some studies have reported effects
on seed germination, flowering and fruit
ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or
their role in conjunction with other
stressors (e.g., acidification, drought,
temperature extremes) have not been
well studied. In a recent study of a
mixture of VOCs including ethanol and
toluene on herbaceous plants,
significant effects on seed production,
leaf water content and photosynthetic
efficiency were reported for some plant
species.350
348 U.S. EPA. 1991. Effects of organic chemicals
in the atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/
3–91/001. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
349 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M
Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD
Sharpe. 2003. Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants
in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341–343. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
350 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M
Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Research suggests an adverse impact
of vehicle exhaust on plants, which has
in some cases been attributed to
aromatic compounds and in other cases
to nitrogen oxides.351 352 353 The impacts
of VOCs on plant reproduction may
have long-term implications for
biodiversity and survival of native
species near major roadways. Most of
the studies of the impacts of VOCs on
vegetation have focused on short-term
exposure and few studies have focused
on long-term effects of VOCs on
vegetation and the potential for
metabolites of these compounds to
affect herbivores or insects.
D. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG
Pollutants
(1) Current Levels of Non-GHG
Pollutants
This proposal may have impacts on
ambient concentrations of criteria and
air toxic pollutants. Nationally, levels of
PM2.5, ozone, NOX, SOX, CO and air
toxics are declining.354 However,
approximately 127 million people lived
in counties that exceeded any NAAQS
in 2008.355 These numbers do not
include the people living in areas where
there is a future risk of failing to
maintain or attain the NAAQS. It is
important to note that these numbers do
not account for potential SO2, NO2 or Pb
nonattainment areas which have not yet
been designated. Also, EPA is currently
reviewing the standards for PM and CO,
and those standards could be made
more protective, which would increase
the number of people living in
nonattainment areas.
Further, the majority of Americans
continue to be exposed to ambient
concentrations of air toxics at levels
which have the potential to cause
Sharpe. 2003. Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants
in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341–343. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
351 Viskari E–L. 2000. Epicuticular wax of Norway
spruce needles as indicator of traffic pollutant
deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 121:327–
337. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
352 Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. 1997.
Uptake and transformation of benzene and toluene
by plant leaves. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 37:24–29.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
353 Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A
Ziegler-Jons, D Knoppik, B Hock. 1987. Toxic
components of motor vehicle emissions for the
spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235–243.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
354 U.S. EPA (2010). Our Nation’s Air: Status and
Trends through 2008. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Publication No. EPA 454/R–09–002. https://
www.epa.gov/airtrends/2010/. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
355 See U.S. EPA Trends, Note 354.
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74301
adverse health effects.356 357 The levels
of air toxics to which people are
exposed vary depending on where
people live and work and the kinds of
activities in which they engage, as
discussed in detail in U.S. EPA’s recent
mobile source air toxics rule.358
(2) Impacts of Proposed Standards on
Future Ambient Concentrations of
PM2.5, Ozone and Air Toxics
Full-scale photochemical air quality
modeling is necessary to accurately
project levels of criteria pollutants and
air toxics. For the final rulemaking, a
national-scale air quality modeling
analysis will be performed to analyze
the impacts of the standards on PM2.5,
ozone, and selected air toxics (i.e.,
benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
acrolein and 1,3-butadiene). The length
of time needed to prepare the necessary
emissions inventories, in addition to the
processing time associated with the
modeling itself, has precluded us from
performing air quality modeling for this
proposal.
Sections VII.A and VII.B of the
preamble present projections of the
changes in criteria pollutant and air
toxics emissions due to the proposed
vehicle standards; the basis for those
estimates is set out in Chapter 6 of the
draft RIA. The atmospheric chemistry
related to ambient concentrations of
PM2.5, ozone and air toxics is very
complex, and making predictions based
solely on emissions changes is
extremely difficult. However, based on
the magnitude of the emissions changes
predicted to result from the proposed
standards, EPA expects that there will
be a relatively small change in ambient
air quality, pending a more
comprehensive analysis for the final
rulemaking.
For the final rulemaking, EPA intends
to use a 2005-based Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling
platform as the tool for the air quality
modeling. The CMAQ modeling system
is a comprehensive three-dimensional
grid-based Eulerian air quality model
designed to estimate the formation and
fate of oxidant precursors, primary and
secondary PM concentrations and
deposition, and air toxics, over regional
and urban spatial scales (e.g., over the
contiguous United States).359 360 361 362
356 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007).
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007.
357 See U.S. EPA 2010, Light-Duty 2012–2016 MY
Vehicle Rule, Note 6.
358 See U.S. EPA 2007, Note 356.
359 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Byun,
D.W., and Ching, J.K.S., Eds, 1999. Science
algorithms of EPA Models-3 Community Multiscale
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
Continued
30NOP2
74302
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
The CMAQ model is a well-known and
well-established tool and is commonly
used by EPA for regulatory analyses, for
instance the recent ozone NAAQS
proposal, and by States in developing
attainment demonstrations for their
State Implementation Plans.363 The
CMAQ model version 4.7 was most
recently peer-reviewed in February of
2009 for the U.S. EPA.364
CMAQ includes many science
modules that simulate the emission,
production, decay, deposition and
transport of organic and inorganic gasphase and particle-phase pollutants in
the atmosphere. EPA intends to use the
most recent version of CMAQ which
reflects updates to version 4.7 to
improve the underlying science. These
include aqueous chemistry mass
conservation improvements, improved
vertical convective mixing and lowered
CB05 mechanism unit yields for
acrolein from 1,3-butadiene tracer
reactions which were updated to be
consistent with laboratory
measurements.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VIII.What are the agencies’ estimated
cost, economic, and other impacts of
the proposed program?
In this section, we present the costs
and impacts of the proposed HD
National Program. It is important to note
that NHTSA’s proposed fuel
consumption standards and EPA’s
proposed GHG standards would both be
in effect, and each would lead to
average fuel economy increases and
Air Quality (CMAQ modeling system, EPA/600/R–
99/030, Office of Research and Development).
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
360 Byun, D.W., and Schere, K.L., 2006. Review of
the Governing Equations, Computational
Algorithms, and Other Components of the Models3 Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ)
Modeling System, J. Applied Mechanics Reviews,
59 (2), 51–77. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
361 Dennis, R.L., Byun, D.W., Novak, J.H.,
Galluppi, K.J., Coats, C.J., and Vouk, M.A., 1996.
The next generation of integrated air quality
modeling: EPA’s Models-3, Atmospheric
Environment, 30, 1925–1938. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
362 Carlton, A., Bhave, P., Napelnok, S., Edney, E.,
Sarwar, G., Pinder, R., Pouliot, G., and Houyoux, M.
Model Representation of Secondary Organic
Aerosol in CMAQv4.7. Ahead of Print in
Environmental Science and Technology. Accessed
at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/
es100636q?prevSearch=CMAQ&searchHistoryKey
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
363 U.S. EPA (2007). Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone.
EPA document number 442/R–07–008, July 2007.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162
364 Allen, D. et al. (2009). Report on the Peer
Review of the Atmospheric Modeling and Analysis
Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/peer/
reviewdocs.html. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
GHG emission reductions. The two
agencies’ proposed standards would
comprise the HD National Program.
The net benefits of the proposed HD
National Program consist of the effects
of the program on:
• The vehicle program costs (costs of
complying with the vehicle CO2
standards)
• Fuel savings associated with
reduced fuel usage resulting from the
program
• The economic value of reductions
in greenhouse gas emissions,
• The reductions in other (non-GHG)
pollutants,
• Costs associated with increases in
noise, congestion, and accidents
resulting from increased vehicle use,
• The economic value of
improvements in U.S. energy security
impacts,
• Benefits associated with increased
vehicle use due to the ‘‘rebound’’ effect.
We also present the cost-effectiveness
of the standards, or the cost per ton of
emissions reduced. A few effects of the
program, such as the effects on other
pollutants, are not included here. We
plan to add the effects of other
pollutants to the analysis for the final
rules.
The program may have other effects
that are not included here. The agencies
seek comment on whether any costs or
benefits are omitted from this analysis,
so that they can be explicitly recognized
in the final rules. In particular, as
discussed in Section III and in Chapter
2 of the draft RIA, the technology cost
estimates developed here take into
account the costs to hold other vehicle
attributes, such as size and performance,
constant. In addition, the analysis
assumes that the full technology costs
are passed along to vehicle buyers. With
these assumptions, because welfare
losses are monetary estimates of how
much buyers would have to be
compensated to be made as well off as
in the absence of the change,365 the
price increase measures the loss to the
buyer.366 Assuming that the full
365 This approach describes the economic concept
of compensating variation, a payment of money
after a change that would make a consumer as well
off after the change as before it. A related concept,
equivalent variation, estimates the income change
that would be an alternative to the change taking
place. The difference between them is whether the
consumer’s point of reference is her welfare before
the change (compensating variation) or after the
change (equivalent variation). In practice, these two
measures are typically very close together.
366 Indeed, it is likely to be an overestimate of the
loss to the consumer, because the consumer has
choices other than buying the same vehicle with a
higher price; she could choose a different vehicle,
or decide not to buy a new vehicle. The consumer
would choose one of those options only if the
alternative involves less loss than paying the higher
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
technology cost gets passed along to the
buyer as an increase in price, the
technology cost thus measures the
welfare loss to the buyer. Increasing fuel
economy would have to lead to other
changes in the vehicles that buyers find
undesirable for there to be additional
losses not included in the technology
costs.
The costs estimates include the costs
of holding other vehicle attributes, such
as performance, constant. The 2010
light-duty GHG/CAFE rule, discussed
that if other vehicle attributes are not
held constant, then the cost estimates do
not capture the impacts of these
changes.367 The light duty rule also
discussed other potential issues that
could affect the calculation of the
welfare impacts of these types of
changes, such as behavioral issues
affecting the demand for technology
investments, investment horizon
uncertainty, and the rate at which truck
owners trade off higher vehicle
purchase price against future fuel
savings. The agencies seek comments,
including supporting data and
quantitative analyses, if possible, of any
additional impacts of the proposed
standards on vehicle attributes and
performance, and other potential
aspects that could positively or
negatively affect the welfare
implications of this proposed
rulemaking, not addressed in this
analysis.
The total monetized benefits
(excluding fuel savings) under the
program are projected to be $1.5 to $7.9
billion in 2030, depending on the value
used for the social cost of carbon. These
benefits are summarized below in Table
VIII–25. The costs of the program in
2030 are estimated to be approximately
$1.9 billion for new engine and truck
technology less $19 billion in savings
realized by trucking operations through
fewer fuel expenditures (calculated
using pre-tax fuel prices). These costs
are summarized below in Table VIII–24.
The present value of the total monetized
benefits (excluding fuel savings) under
the program are expected to range from
$23 billion to $150 billion with a 3%
discount rate; with a 7% discount rate,
the total monetized benefits are
expected to range from $15 billion to
price. Thus, the increase in price that the consumer
faces would be the upper bound of loss of consumer
welfare, unless there are other changes to the
vehicle due to the fuel economy improvements that
make the vehicle less desirable to consumers.
367 Environmental Protection Agency and
Department of Transportation, ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule,’’
Federal Register 75(88) (May 7, 2010). See
especially sections III.H.1 (pp. 25510–25513) and
IV.G.6 (pp. 25651–25657).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
$140 billion. These values, summarized
in Table VIII–25, depend on the value
used for the social cost of carbon. The
present value of costs of the program for
new engine and truck technology, in
Table VIII–24, are expected to be $42
billion using a 3% discount rate, and
$23 billion with a 7% discount rate, less
fuel savings (calculated using pre-tax
fuel prices) of $350 billion with a 3%
discount rate, and $150 billion with a
7% discount rate. Total present net
benefits (in Table VIII–26) are thus
expected to range from $330 billion to
$460 billion with a 3% discount rate,
and $150 billion to $270 billion with a
7% discount rate.
The estimates developed here are
measured against a baseline fuel
economy associated with MY 2010
vehicles. The extent to which fuel
economy improvements may have
occurred in the absence of the rules
affect the net benefits associated with
the rule. If trucks would have ended up
installing technologies to achieve the
fuel savings and reduced GHG
emissions in the absence of this
proposal, then both the costs and
benefits of these fuel savings could be
attributed to market forces, not the
rules. At this time, the agencies do not
have estimates of the extent of fuelsaving technologies that might have
been adopted in the absence of this
proposal. We seek comment on whether
the agencies should use an alternative
baseline based on data provided by
commenters to estimate the degree to
which the technologies discussed in this
proposal would have been adopted in
the absence of this proposal.
EPA has undertaken an analysis of the
economy-wide impacts of the proposed
heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency and
GHG standards as an exploratory
exercise that EPA believes could
provide additional insights into the
potential impacts of the program.368
These results were not a factor regarding
the appropriateness of the proposed
standards. It is important to note that
the results of this modeling exercise are
dependent on the assumptions
associated with how manufacturers
would make fuel efficiency
improvements and how trucking
operations would respond to increases
in higher vehicle costs and improved
vehicle fuel efficiency as a result of the
proposed program.
Further information on these and
other aspects of the economic impacts of
our rules are summarized in the
368 See Memorandum to Docket, ‘‘Economy-Wide
Impacts of Proposed Heavy-Duty Truck Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards’’,
October 8, 2010. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
following sections and are presented in
more detail in the draft RIA for this
proposed rulemaking.
A. Conceptual Framework for
Evaluating Impacts
This regulation is motivated primarily
by the goals of reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases and promoting U.S.
energy security by reducing
consumption and imports of petroleumbased fuels. These motivations involve
classic externalities, meaning that
private decisions do not incorporate all
of the costs associated with these
problems; these costs are not borne
completely by the households or
businesses whose actions are
responsible for them. In the absence of
some mechanism to ‘‘internalize’’ these
costs—that is, to transfer their burden to
individuals or firms whose decisions
impose them—individuals and firms
will consume more petroleum-based
fuels than is socially optimal.
Externalities are a classic motivation for
government intervention in markets.
These externalities, as well as effects
due to changes in emissions of other
pollutants and other impacts, are
discussed in Sections VIII.H–VIII.J.
In some cases, these classic
externalities are by themselves enough
to justify the costs of imposing fuel
efficiency standards. For some discount
rates and some projected social costs of
carbon, however, the reductions in these
external costs are less than the costs of
new fuel saving technologies needed to
meet the standards. (See Tables 9–18
and 9–19 in the draft RIA.)
Nevertheless, this regulation reduces
trucking companies’ fuel costs;
according to our estimates, these savings
in fuel costs are by themselves sufficient
to pay for the technologies over periods
of time considerably shorter than
vehicles’ expected lifetimes under the
assumptions used for this analysis (e.g.,
AEO 2010 projected fuel prices). If these
estimates are correct, then the entire
value of the reductions in external costs
represents additional net benefits of the
rule, beyond those resulting from the
fact that the value of fuel savings
exceeds the costs of technologies
necessary to achieve them.
It is often asserted that there are costeffective fuel-saving technologies that
truck companies are not taking
advantage of. This is commonly known
as the ‘‘energy gap’’ or ‘‘energy paradox.’’
Standard economic theory suggests that
in normally functioning competitive
markets, interactions between vehicle
buyers and producers would lead
producers to incorporate all costeffective technology into the vehicles
that they offer, without government
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74303
intervention. Unlike in the light-duty
vehicle market, the vast majority of
vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty
truck market are purchased and
operated by businesses with narrow
profit margins, and for which fuel costs
represent a substantial operating
expense.
Even in the presence of uncertainty
and imperfect information—conditions
that hold to some degree in every
market—we generally expect firms to
attempt to minimize their costs in an
effort to survive in a competitive
marketplace, and therefore to make
decisions that are in the best interest of
the company and its owners and/or
shareholders. In this case, the benefits of
the rules would be due exclusively to
reducing the economic costs of
externalities resulting from fuel
production and consumption. However,
as discussed below in Section VIII.E, the
agencies have estimated that the
application of fuel-saving technologies
in response to the proposed standards
would, on average, yield private returns
to truck owners of 140% to 420% (see
Table VIII–21 below). The agencies have
also estimated that the application of
these technologies would be
significantly lower in the absence of the
proposed standards (i.e., under the ‘‘no
action’’ regulatory alternative), meaning
that truck buyers and operators ignore
opportunities to make investments in
higher fuel economy that appear to offer
significant cost savings.
There are several possible
explanations in the economics literature
for why trucking companies do not
adopt technologies that would be
expected to increase their profits: there
could be a classic market failure in the
trucking industry—market power,
externalities, or asymmetric or
incomplete (i.e., missing market)
information; there could be institutional
or behavioral rigidities in the industry
(union rules, standard operating
procedures, statutory requirements, loss
aversion, etc.), whereby participants
collectively do not minimize costs; or
the engineering estimates of fuel savings
and costs for these technologies might
overstate their benefits or understate
their costs in real-world applications.
To try to understand why trucking
companies have not adopted these
seemingly cost-effective fuel-saving
technologies, the agencies have
surveyed published literature about the
energy paradox, and held discussions
with numerous truck market
participants. Below, we have listed five
categories of possible explanations
derived from these sources. Collectively,
these five hypotheses may explain the
apparent inconsistency between the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74304
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
engineering analysis, which finds a
number of cost-effective methods of
improving fuel economy, and the
observation that many of these
technologies are not widely adopted.
These hypotheses include imperfect
information in the original and resale
markets, split incentives, uncertainty
about future fuel prices, and adjustment
and transactions costs. As the
discussion will indicate, some of these
explanations suggest failures in the
private market for fuel-saving
technology in addition to the
externalities caused by producing and
consuming fuel that are the primary
motivation for the rules. Other
explanations suggest market-based
behaviors that may imply additional
costs of regulating truck fuel efficiency
that are not accounted for in this
analysis. Anecdotal evidence from
various segments of the trucking
industry suggests that many of these
hypotheses may play a role in
explaining the puzzle of why truck
purchasers appear to under-invest in
fuel economy, although different
explanations may apply to different
segments, or even different companies.
The published literature does not
appear to include empirical analysis or
data related to this question.
The agencies invite comment on these
explanations, and on any data or
information that could be used to
investigate the role of any or all of these
five hypotheses in explaining this
energy paradox as it applies specifically
to trucks. The agencies also request
comment and information regarding any
other hypotheses that could explain the
appearance that cost-effective fuelsaving technologies have not been
widely incorporated into trucks.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Information Issues in the Original
Sale Markets
One potential hypothesis for why the
trucking industry does not adopt what
appear to be inexpensive fuel saving
technologies is that there is inadequate
or unreliable information available
about the effectiveness of many fuelsaving technologies for new vehicles. As
the NAS report notes, ‘‘Reliable, peerreviewed data on fuel saving
performance is available only for a few
technologies in a few applications. As a
result, the committee had to rely on
information from a wide range of
sources, * * * including many results
that have not been duplicated by other
researchers or verified over a range of
duty cycles.’’ If reliable information on
the effectiveness of many new
technologies is absent, truck buyers will
understandably be reluctant to spend
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
additional money to purchase vehicles
equipped with unproven technologies.
This lack of information can manifest
itself in multiple ways. For instance, the
problem may arise purely because
collecting reliable information on
technologies is costly (also see Section
VIII.A.5 on transaction costs). Moreover,
information has aspects of a public
good, in that no single firm has the
incentive to do the costly
experimentation to determine whether
or not particular technologies are costeffective, while all firms benefit from
the knowledge that would be gained
from that experimentation. Similarly, if
multiple firms must conduct the same
tests to get the same information, costs
could be reduced by some form of
coordination of information gathering.
There are several possible reasons
why trucking firms may experience
difficulty gathering or interpreting
information about fuel-saving
technologies. It may be difficult for
truck drivers and fleet operators to
separate the individual effects of various
technologies and operating strategies
from one another, particularly when
they tend to be used in conjunction. It
may also be difficult for truck operators
to assess the applicability of even
objective and reliable test results to their
own specific vehicle configurations and
operating practices; at the same time,
the effects of specific technologies or
operating practices may vary with
geography, season of the year, or other
factors. In highly competitive markets,
any firm that conducts tests of fuel
efficiency is unlikely to share results
with other firms. If so, then costeffective technological improvements
may not be adopted because they cannot
be reliably distinguished from
inefficient technologies.
To some extent, information about the
effectiveness of some selected
technologies does exist, and it suggests
that some technologies appear to be very
cost-effective in some situations. The
SmartWay Transport Partnership is a
complementary partnership between
EPA and the freight goods industry
(shippers, truck and rail carriers, and
logistics companies) whose aim is to
provide better information on fuelefficient, low-carbon technologies and
operational practices to help accelerate
their deployment. SmartWay initially
focused on evaluating and testing
technologies for use in over-the-road
class 8 tractor-trailers, commonly
operated by the large, national trucking
fleets. For this reason, more information
is available about the configuration and
operation of these types of trucks. Many
of the technologies that SmartWay
selected for evaluation can also save
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
fuel and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in other types of trucks and
trucking operations. However, due to
the wide diversity among other types of
trucks and truck operations, and lack of
precise information about the
effectiveness of technologies in each one
of these types of truck and trucking
operations, it is difficult for the program
to provide good information that is
specific to each company. This makes it
much more challenging to improve
market confidence in fuel-saving
technologies for these other truck types
in the same way that SmartWay has
done with its existing partners.
SmartWay will continue to serve as a
test bed for emerging technologies and
as a conduit for technical information
by developing and sharing information
on other types of medium- and heavyduty vehicles, helping to build market
confidence in innovative financial,
technical and operational solutions for
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
across the freight goods industry, and
promoting retrofit fuel-saving
technologies within the existing legacy
fleet. Information provision, such as the
efforts of the SmartWay program, is a
direct, non-regulatory approach to
addressing the problem of the
availability and reliability of results, as
long as truck purchasers are able and
willing to act on the information.
While its effect on information is
indirect, we expect the requirement for
the use of new technologies included in
this proposal will circumvent these
information issues, resulting in their
adoption, thus providing more readily
available information about their
benefits. The agencies appreciate,
however, that the diversity of truck
uses, driving situations, and driver
behavior willl lead to variation in the
fuel savings that individual trucks or
fleets experience from using specific
technologies.
(2) Information Issues in the Resale
Market
In addition to issues in the new
vehicle market, a second hypothesis for
why trucking companies may not adopt
what appear to be cost-effective
technologies to save fuel is that the
resale market may not reward the
addition of fuel-saving technology to
vehicles adequately to ensure their
original purchase by new truck buyers.
This inadequate payback for users
beyond the original owner may
contribute to the short payback period
that new purchasers appear to expect.369
The agencies seek data and information
on the extent to which costs of fuel369 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
NAS 2010, Note 111, at p. 188.
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
saving equipment can be recovered in
the resale truck market.
Some of this unwillingness to pay for
fuel-saving technology may be due to
the extension of the information
problems in the new vehicle market into
resale markets. Buyers in the resale
market have no more reason to trust
information on fuel-saving technologies
than buyers in the original market.
Because actual fuel economy of trucks
on the road depends on many factors,
including geography and driving styles
or habits, even objective sources such as
logs of truck performance for used
vehicles may not provide reliable
information about the fuel economy that
potential purchasers of used trucks will
experience.
A related possibility is that vehicles
will be used for different purposes by
their second owners than those for
which they were originally designed.
For instance, a vehicle originally
purchased for long hauls might be used
by its second owner instead for regional
or intrastate trips, in which case some
of the fuel-saving measures that proved
effective in its original use may not be
equally effective in these new uses. If
information were more widely available
and reliable, then purchasers in the
resale market would seek vehicles with
technologies that best suited their
purposes, and buyers would be matched
with sellers so that used vehicles would
be used primarily for purposes in which
their fuel-saving technologies were most
valuable.
It is also possible, though, that the
fuel savings experienced by the
secondary purchasers may not match
those experienced by their original
owners if the optimal secondary new
use of the vehicle does not earn as many
benefits from the technologies. In that
case, the premium for fuel-saving
technology in the secondary market
should accurately reflect its value to
potential buyers participating in that
market, even if it is lower than its value
in the original market, and the market
has not failed. Because the information
necessary to optimize use in the
secondary market may not be readily
available or reliable, however, buyers in
the resale market may have less ability
than purchasers of new vehicles to
identify and gain the advantages of new
fuel-saving technologies, and may thus
be even less likely to pay a premium for
them.
For these reasons, purchasers’
willingness to pay for fuel-economy
technologies may be even lower in the
resale market than in the original
equipment market. Even when fuelsaving technologies will provide
benefits in the resale markets,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
purchasers of used vehicles may not be
willing to compensate their original
owners fully for their remaining value.
As a result, the purchasers of original
equipment may expect the resale market
to provide inadequate appropriate
compensation for the new technologies,
even when those technologies would
reduce costs for the new buyers. This
information issue may partially explain
what appears to be the very short
payback periods required for new
technologies in the new vehicle market.
(3) Split Incentives in the Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Truck Industry
A third hypothesis explaining the
energy paradox as applied to trucking
involves split incentives. When markets
work effectively, signals provided by
transactions in one market are quickly
transmitted to related markets and
influence the decisions of buyers and
sellers in those related markets. For
instance, in a well-functioning market
system, changes in the expected future
price of fuel should be transmitted
rapidly to those who purchase trucks,
who will then reevaluate the amount of
fuel-saving technology to purchase for
new vehicles. If for some reason a truck
purchaser will not be directly
responsible for future fuel costs, or the
individual who will be responsible for
fuel costs does not decide which truck
characteristics to purchase, then those
price signals may not be transmitted
effectively, and incentives can be
described as ‘‘split.’’
One place where such a split may
occur is between the owners and
operators of trucks. Because they are
generally responsible for purchasing
fuel, truck operators have strong
incentives to economize on its use, and
are thus likely to support the use of fuelsaving technology. However, the owners
of trucks or trailers are often different
from operators, and may be more
concerned about their longevity or
maintenance costs than about their fuel
efficiency when purchasing vehicles. As
a result, capital investments by truck
owners may be channeled into
equipment that improves vehicles’
durability or reduces their maintenance
costs, rather than into fuel-saving
technology. If operators can choose
freely among the trucks they drive,
competition among truck owners to
employ operators would encourage
owners to invest in fuel-saving
technology. However, if truck owners
have more ability to choose among
operators, then market signals for
improved fuel savings that would
normally be transmitted to truck owners
may be muted.
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74305
Anecdotal information about large
truck fleets suggests that, even within a
company, the office or department
responsible for truck purchases is often
different from that responsible for
purchasing fuel. Therefore, the
employees who purchase trucks may
have strong incentives to lower their
initial capital cost, but not equally
strong incentives to lower operating
costs.
Single-wide tires, which save fuel and
allow more payload (thus increasing
revenue), offer another example of split
incentives. They require a different
driving style; those concerned about
retaining drivers may resist their
purchase, because drivers may not like
the slightly different ‘‘feel’’ of wheel
torque needed. Maintenance and repair
staff may resist them because the tires
may not be as available as they would
like on the road, or they may need to
change road service providers. Finally,
those who resell the trucks may believe
that the resale market will not value the
tires. While financial pressures should
provide incentives for greater
coordination, especially when fuel costs
are a large share of operating costs, it
may be difficult institutionally to
change budgeting procedures and to
coordinate across offices. Thus, even
within a company incentives for fuel
savings may not be fully transmitted to
those responsible for purchasing
decisions.
In addition, the NAS report notes that
split incentives can arise between
tractor and trailer operators.370 Trailers
affect the fuel efficiency of shipping, but
trailer owners do not face strong
incentives to coordinate with truck
owners. Although some trucking fleets
own or lease their own trailers, a
significant part of the trucking business
is ‘‘drop and hook’’ service, in which
trucking fleets pick up and drop off
trailers and containers. These trailers
and containers can belong to shippers,
other trucking companies, leasing
companies, or ocean-going vessel lines,
in which cases their owners may not
face strong incentives to economize on
fuel consumption by tractor operators.
Though tractor operators should, in
principle, have some ability to arrange
tractor-trailer combinations that provide
increased fuel efficiency, the value of
the resulting fuel savings may be small
relative to the complexity and cost
involved. EPA and NHTSA are not
proposing to regulate trailers in this
proposal.
By itself, information provision may
be inadequate to address the potential
underinvestment in fuel economy
370 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
NAS 2010, Note 111, at p. 182.
30NOP2
74306
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
resulting from such split incentives. In
this setting, regulation may contribute to
fuel savings that otherwise may be
difficult to achieve.
The agencies seek evidence and data
on the extent to which split incentives
affect purchasing choices in truck
markets. For example, are trailer buyers
that do not own their own tractors less
likely to purchase aerodynamic trailers
than those that purchase and drive both
tractors and trailers?
(4) Uncertainty About Future Cost
Savings
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Another hypothesis for the lack of
adoption of seemingly fuel saving
technologies may be uncertainty about
future fuel prices or truck maintenance
costs. When purchasers have less than
perfect foresight about future operating
expenses, they may implicitly discount
future savings in those costs due to
uncertainty about potential returns from
investments that reduce future costs. In
contrast, the immediate costs of the fuelsaving or maintenance-reducing
technologies are certain and immediate,
and thus not subject to discounting. In
this situation, both the expected return
on capital investments in higher fuel
economy and potential variance about
its expected rate may play a role in a
firm’s calculation of its payback period
on such investments.
In the context of energy efficiency
investments for the home, Metcalf and
Rosenthal (1995) and Metcalf and
Hassett (1995) observe that households
weigh known, up-front costs that are
essentially irreversible against an
unknown stream of future fuel
savings.371 Uncertainty about the value
of future energy savings may make riskaverse households reluctant to invest in
energy-saving technologies that appear
to offer attractive economic returns.
These authors find that it is possible to
replicate the observed adoption rates for
household energy efficiency
improvements by incorporating the
effect of uncertainty about the value of
future energy savings into an empirical
model. Notably, in this situation,
requiring households to adopt
technologies more quickly may make
371 Metcalf, G., and D. Rosenthal (1995). ‘‘The
‘New’ View of Investment Decisions and Public
Policy Analysis: An Application to Green Lights
and Cold Refrigerators,’’ Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management 14: 517–531. Hassett and Metcalf
(1995). ‘‘Energy Tax Credits and Residential
Conservation Investment: Evidence from Panel
Data’’ Journal of Public Economics 57 (1995): 201–
217. Metcalf, G., and K. Hassett (1999). ‘‘Measuring
the Energy Savings from Home Improvement
Investments: Evidence from Monthly Billing Data.’’
The Review of Economics and Statistics 81(3): 516–
528.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
them worse off by imposing additional
risk on them.
Greene et al. (2009) also find support
for this explanation in the context of
light-duty fuel economy decisions: a
loss-averse consumer’s expected net
present value of increasing the fuel
economy of a passenger car can be very
close to zero, even if a risk-neutral
expected value calculation shows that
its buyer can expect significant net
benefits from purchasing a more fuelefficient car.372 These authors note that
uncertainty regarding the future price of
gasoline is a less important source of
this result than is uncertainty about the
lifetime, expected use, and reliability of
the vehicle. Supporting this hypothesis
is a finding by Dasgupta et al. (2007)
that consumers are more likely to lease
than buy a vehicle with higher
maintenance costs because it provides
them with the option to return it before
those costs become too high.373
However, the agencies know of no
studies that have estimated the impact
of uncertainty on perceived future
savings for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles.
Purchasers’ uncertainty about future
fuel prices implies that mandating
improvements in fuel efficiency can
reduce the expected utility associated
with truck purchases. This is because
adopting such regulation requires
purchasers to assume a greater level of
risk than they would in its absence,
even if the future fuel savings predicted
by a risk-neutral calculation actually
materialize. Thus the mere existence of
uncertainty about future savings in fuel
costs does not by itself assure that
regulations requiring improved fuel
efficiency will necessarily provide
economic benefits for truck purchasers
and operators. On the other hand,
because risk aversion reduces expected
returns for businesses, competitive
pressures can reduce risk aversion: riskneutral companies can make higher
average profits over time. Thus,
significant risk aversion is unlikely to
survive competitive pressures.
(5) Adjustment and Transactions Costs
Another hypothesis is that
transactions costs of changing to new
technologies (how easily drivers will
adapt to the changes, e.g.) may slow or
prevent their adoption. Because of the
372 Greene, D., J. German, and M. Delucchi (2009).
‘‘Fuel Economy: The Case for Market Failure’’ in
Reducing Climate Impacts in the Transportation
Sector, Sperling, D., and J. Cannon, eds. Springer
Science.
373 Dasgupta, S., S. Siddarth, and J. Silva-Risso
(2007). ‘‘To Lease or to Buy? A Structural Model of
a Consumer’s Vehicle and Contract Choice
Decisions.’’ Journal of Marketing Research 44: 490–
502.
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
diversity in the trucking industry, truck
owners and fleets may like to see how
a new technology works in the field,
when applied to their specific
operations, before they adopt it. If a
conservative approach to new
technologies leads truck buyers to adopt
new technologies slowly, then
successful new technologies are likely
to be adopted over time without market
intervention, but with potentially
significant delays in achieving fuel
saving, environment, and energy
security benefits.
In addition, there may be costs
associated with training drivers to
realize the potential fuel savings
enabled by new technologies, or with
accelerating fleet operators’ scheduled
fleet turnover and replacement to hasten
their acquisition of vehicles equipped
with new fuel-saving technologies.
Here, again, there may be no market
failure; requiring the widespread use of
these technologies may impose
adjustment and transactions costs not
included in this analysis. As in the
discussion of the role of risk, these
adjustment and transactions costs are
typically immediate and undiscounted,
while their benefits are future and
uncertain; risk or loss aversion may
further discourage companies from
adopting new technologies.
To the extent that there may be
transactions costs associated with the
new technologies, then regulation gives
all new truck purchasers a level playing
field, because it will require all of them
to adjust on approximately the same
time schedule. If experience with the
new technologies serves to reduce
uncertainty and risk, the industry as a
whole may become more accepting of
new technologies. This could increase
demand for future new technologies and
induce additional benefits in the legacy
fleet through complementary efforts
such as SmartWay.
(6) Summary
On the one hand, commercial vehicle
operators are under competitive
pressure to reduce operating costs, and
thus their purchasers would be expected
to pursue and rapidly adopt costeffective fuel-saving technologies. On
the other hand, the short payback period
required by buyers of new trucks is a
symptom that suggests some
combination of uncertainty about future
cost savings, transactions costs, and
imperfectly functioning markets. In
addition, widespread use of tractortrailer combinations introduces the
possibility that owners of trailers may
have weaker incentives than truck
owners or operators to adopt fuel-saving
technology for their trailers. The market
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
for medium- and heavy-duty trucks may
face these problems, both in the new
vehicle market and in the resale market.
Provision of information about fuelsaving technologies through voluntary
programs such as SmartWay will assist
in the adoption of new cost-saving
technologies, but diffusion of new
technologies can still be obstructed.
Those who are willing to experiment
with new technologies expect to find
cost savings, but those may be difficult
to prove. As noted above, because
individual results of new technologies
vary, new truck purchasers may find it
difficult to identify or verify the effects
of fuel-saving technologies. Those who
are risk-averse are likely to avoid new
technologies out of concerns over the
possibility of inadequate returns on the
investment, or with other adverse
impacts. Competitive pressures in the
freight transport industry can provide a
strong incentive to reduce fuel
consumption and improve
environmental performance. However,
not every driver or trucking fleet
operating today has the requisite ability
or interest to access the technical
information, some of which is already
provided by SmartWay, nor the
resources necessary to evaluate this
information within the context of his or
her own freight operation.
As noted at the beginning of this
section, the agencies seek comments on
all these hypotheses as well as any data
that could inform our understanding of
what appears to be slow adoption of
cost-effective fuel-saving technologies in
these industries.
B. Costs Associated With the Proposed
Program
In this section, the agencies present
the estimated costs associated with the
proposed program. The presentation
here summarizes the costs associated
with new technology expected to be
added to meet the new GHG and fuel
consumption standards. The analysis
summarized here provides the estimate
of incremental costs on a per truck basis
and on an annual total basis.
The presentation here summarizes the
best estimate by EPA and NHTSA staff
as to the technology mix expected to be
employed for compliance. For details
behind the cost estimates associated
with individual technologies, the reader
is directed to Section III of this
preamble and to Chapter 2 of the draft
RIA.
With respect to the cost estimates
presented here, the agencies note that,
because these estimates relate to
technologies which are in most cases
already available, these cost estimates
are technically robust.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(1) Costs per Truck
For the Class 2b and 3 pickup trucks
and vans, the agencies have used a
methodology consistent with that used
for our recent light-duty joint
rulemaking since most of the
technologies expected for Class 2b and
3 pickup trucks and vans is consistent
with that expected for the larger lightduty trucks. The cost estimates
presented in the recent light-duty joint
rulemaking were then scaled upward to
account for the larger weight, towing
capacity, and work demands of the
trucks in these heavier classes. For
details on that scaling process and the
resultant costs for individual
technologies, the reader is directed to
Section III of this preamble and to
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. Note also
that all cost estimates have been
updated to 2008 dollars for this analysis
while the recent light-duty joint
rulemaking was presented in 2007
dollars.
For the loose heavy-duty gasoline
engines, we have generally used enginerelated costs from the Class 2b and 3
pickup truck and van estimates since
the loose heavy-duty gasoline engines
are essentially the same engines as those
sold into the Class 2b and 3 pickup
truck and van market.
For heavy-duty diesel engines, the
agencies have estimated costs using a
different methodology than that
employed in the recent light-duty joint
rulemaking. In the recent light-duty
joint rulemaking, the fixed costs were
included in the hardware costs via an
indirect cost multiplier. As such, the
hardware costs presented in that
analysis, and in the cost estimates for
Class 2b and 3 trucks, included both the
actual hardware and the associated
fixed costs. For this analysis, some of
the fixed costs are estimated separately
for HD diesel engines and are presented
separately from the hardware costs. For
details, the reader is directed to Chapter
2 of the draft RIA. Importantly, both
methodologies after the figures are
totaled account for all the costs
associated with the proposal. As noted
above, all costs are presented in 2008
dollars.
The estimates of vehicle compliance
costs cover the years leading up to—
2012 and 2013—and including
implementation of the program—2014
through 2018. Also presented are costs
for the years following implementation
to shed light on the long term (2022 and
later) cost impacts of the program. The
year 2022 was chosen here consistent
with the recent light-duty joint
rulemaking. That year was considered
long term in that analysis because the
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74307
short-term and long-term markup factors
described shortly below are applied in
five year increments with the 2012
through 2016 implementation span and
the 2017 through 2021 span both
representing the short-term. Since many
of the costs used in this analysis are
based on costs in the recent light-duty
joint rulemaking analysis, consistency
with that analysis seems appropriate.
That said, comments are requested as to
whether a different year would be a
more appropriate long term year.
Some of the individual technology
cost estimates are presented in brief in
Section III, and account for both the
direct and indirect costs incurred in the
manufacturing and dealer industries (for
a complete presentation of technology
costs, please refer to Chapter 2 of the
draft RIA). To account for the indirect
costs on Class 2b and 3 pickup trucks
and vans, the agencies have applied an
ICM factor to all of the direct costs to
arrive at the estimated technology cost.
The ICM factor used was 1.17 in the
short-term (2014 through 2021) to
account for differences in the levels of
R&D, tooling, and other indirect costs
that will be incurred. Once the program
has been fully implemented, some of the
indirect costs will no longer be
attributable to these standards and, as
such, a lower ICM factor is applied to
direct costs in 2022 and later. The
agencies have also applied ICM factors
to Class 4 through 8 trucks and to
heavy-duty diesel engine technologies.
Markup factors in these categories range
from 1.11 to 1.26 in the short term (2014
through 2021) depending on the
complexity of the given technology.
Note that, for the HD diesel engines, the
agencies have applied these mark ups to
ensure that our estimates are
conservative since we have estimated
fixed costs separately for technologies
applied to these categories—effectively
making the use of markups a double
counting of indirect costs. The agencies
request comment on whether this
approach is overly conservative. The
agencies also request comment on the
ICMs being used in this analysis—the
levels associated with R&D, warranty,
etc.—and whether those are appropriate
or should be revised. If commenters
suggest revisions, the agencies request
supporting arguments and/or
documentation. For the details on the
ICMs, please refer to the report that has
been placed in the docket for this
proposal.374
The agencies have also considered the
impacts of manufacturer learning on the
374 RTI International. Heavy-duty Truck Retail
Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers. July
2010.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74308
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
technology cost estimates by reflecting
the phenomenon of volume-based
learning curve cost reductions in our
modeling using two algorithms—
‘‘volume-based’’ for newer technologies
and ‘‘time-based’’ for mature
technologies. The observed
phenomenon in the economic literature
which supports manufacturer learning
cost reductions are based on reductions
in costs as production volumes increase,
and the economic literature suggests
these cost reductions occur indefinitely,
though the absolute magnitude of the
cost reductions decrease as production
volumes increase (with the highest
absolute cost reduction occurring with
the first doubling of production). The
agencies use the terminology ‘‘volumebased’’ and ‘‘time-based’’ to distinguish
among newer technologies and more
mature technologies, respectively, and
how learning cost reductions are
applied in cost analyses. The volumebased learning algorithm applies for the
early, steep portion of the learning curve
and is estimated to result in 20 percent
lower costs after two full years of
implementation (i.e., a 2016 MY cost
would be 20 percent lower than the
2014 and 2015 model year costs for a
new technology being implemented in
2014). The time-based learning
algorithm applies for the flatter portion
of the learning curve and is estimated to
result in 3 percent lower costs in each
of the five years following first
introduction of a given technology.
Once two volume-based learning steps
have occurred (for technologies having
volume-based learning applied), time
based learning would begin. For
technologies to which time based
learning is applied, learning would
begin in year 2 at 3 percent per year for
5 years. Beyond 5 years of time-based
learning at 3 percent per year, 5 years
of time-based learning at 2 percent per
year, then 5 at 1 percent per year
become effective.
Learning impacts have been
considered on most but not all of the
technologies expected to be used
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
because some of the expected
technologies are already used rather
widely in the industry and, presumably,
learning impacts have already occurred.
The agencies have applied the volumebased learning algorithm for only a
handful of technologies considered to be
new or emerging technologies such as
energy recovery systems and thermal
storage units which might one day be
used on big trucks. For most
technologies, the agencies have
considered them to be more established
and, hence, the agencies have applied
the lower time-based learning algorithm.
For more discussion of the learning
approach and the technologies to which
each type of learning has been applied
the reader is directed to Chapter 2 of the
draft RIA.
In past rulemakings that have made
use of these learning curve effects,
comments have been received from
industry related to learning effects.
Commenters have stated that firms think
of learning in terms of time, not
production or sales volume, because
that is how contracts are written
between original equipment
manufacturers and their suppliers. The
agencies seek comment on whether or
not learning is being considered
properly in our analyses—is it
appropriate to consider time-based
learning on technologies that are already
in the marketplace, or should the
assumption be that such learning is
already considered in the cost estimates
we use? Similarly, while the agencies
firmly believe that learning continues to
occur given the level of ingenuity in the
industries we regulate, we want to know
more about whether it is appropriate for
the agencies to consider the learning in
our cost estimates or to consider all
costs to be long-term, fully learned
costs. The agencies seek not only
comment on this issue but supporting
information regarding learning effects
and how learning is accounted for in
cost contracts between supplying and
purchasing firms.
The technology cost estimates
discussed in Section III and detailed in
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA are used to
build up technology package cost
estimates. For each engine and truck
class, a single package for each was
developed capable of complying with
the proposed standards and the costs for
each package was generated. The
technology packages and package costs
are discussed in more detail in Chapter
2 of the draft RIA. The compliance cost
estimates take into account all credits
and trading programs and include costs
associated with air conditioning
controls. Table VIII–1 presents the
average incremental costs per truck for
this proposal. For HD pickup trucks and
vans (Class 2b and 3), costs increase as
the standards become more stringent in
2014 through 2018. Following 2018,
costs then decrease going forward as
learning effects result in decreased costs
for individual technologies. By 2022,
the long term ICMs take effect and costs
decrease yet again. For vocational
vehicles, cost trends are more difficult
to discern as diesel engines begin
adding technology in 2014, gasoline
engines begin adding technology in
2016, and the trucks themselves begin
adding technology in 2014. With
learning effects the costs, in general,
decrease each year except for the heavyduty gasoline engine changes in 2016.
Long term ICMs take effect in 2022 to
provide more cost reductions. For
combination tractors, costs generally
decrease each year due to learning
effects with the exception of 2017 when
the engines placed in sleeper cab
tractors add turbo compounding.
Following that, learning impacts result
in cost reductions and the long term
ICMs take effect in 2022 for further cost
reductions. By 2030 and later, cost per
truck estimates remain constant for all
classes. Regarding the long term ICMs
taking effect in 2022, the agencies
consider this the point at which some
indirect costs decrease or are no longer
considered attributable to the program
(e.g., warranty costs go down). Costs per
truck remain essentially constant
thereafter.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74309
are not included in Table VIII–1. The
agencies have estimated the R&D costs
at $6.75 million per manufacturer per
year for five years and the new test cell
costs (to accommodate measurement of
N2O emissions) at $100,000 per
manufacturer. These costs apply
individually for LHD, MHD and HHD
engines. Given the 14 manufacturers
impacted by the proposed standards, 11
of which are estimated to sell both MHD
and HHD engines and 3 of which are
estimated to sell LHD engines, we have
estimated a five year annual R&D cost of
$168.8 million dollars (2 × 11 × $6.75
million plus 3 × $7.75 million for each
year 2012–2016) and a one-time test cell
cost of $2.5 million dollars (2 × 11 ×
$100,000 plus 3 × $100,000 in 2013).
Estimating annual sales of HD diesel
engines at roughly 600,000 units results
in roughly $280 per engine per year for
five years beginning in 2012 and ending
in 2016. Again, these costs are not
reflected in Table VIII–1, but are
included in Table VIII–2 as ‘‘Other
Engineering Costs.’’
The certification and compliance
program costs, for all engine and truck
types, are estimated at $4.4 million per
year and are expected to continue
indefinitely. These costs are detailed in
the ‘‘Draft Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request’’ which
is contained in the docket for this
rule.375 Estimating annual sales of
heavy-duty trucks at roughly 1.5 million
units would result in $3 per engine/
truck per year. These costs are not
reflected in Table VIII–1, but are
included in Table VIII–2 as ‘‘Compliance
Program’’ costs.
375 ‘‘Draft Supporting Statement for Information
Collection Request,’’ Control of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, EPA
ICR Tracking Number 2394.01.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Annual Costs of the Proposal
The costs presented here represent the
incremental costs for newly added
technology to comply with the proposal.
Together with the projected increases in
truck sales, the increases in per-truck
average costs shown in Table VIII–1
above result in the total annual costs
presented in Table VIII–2 below. Note
that the costs presented in Table VIII–
2 do not include the savings that would
occur as a result of the improvements to
fuel consumption. Those impacts are
presented in Section VIII.E. Note also
that the costs presented here represent
costs estimated to occur presuming that
the proposed standards will continue in
perpetuity. Any future changes to the
proposed standards would be
considered at the time they are
proposed and/or made final. In other
words, the proposed standards do not
apply only to 2014–2018 model year
trucks—they do, in fact, apply to all
2014 and later model year trucks. We
present more detail regarding the 2014–
2018 model year trucks in Section VIII.K
where we summarize all monetized
costs and benefits.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.058
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
These costs would, presumably, have
some impact on new truck prices,
although the agencies make no attempt
at determining what the impact of
increased costs would be on new truck
prices. Nonetheless, on a percentage
basis, the costs shown in Table VIII–1
for 2018 MY trucks (when all proposed
requirements are fully implemented)
would be roughly four percent for a
typical HD pickup truck or van, less
than one percent for a typical vocational
vehicle, and roughly six percent for a
typical combination truck/tractor using
new truck prices of $40,000, $100,000
and $100,000, respectively. The costs
would represent lower or higher
percentages of new truck prices for new
trucks with higher or lower prices,
respectively. Given the wide range of
new truck prices in these categories—a
Class 4 Vocational work truck might be
$40,000 when new while a Class 8
refuse truck (i.e., a large vocational
vehicle) might be as much as $200,000
when new—it is very difficult to reflect
incremental costs as percentages of new
truck prices for all trucks. What is
presented here is the average cost (Table
VIII–1) compared with typical new
truck prices.
As noted above, the fixed costs were
estimated separately from the hardware
costs for HD diesel engines that are
placed in vocational vehicles and
combination tractors. Those fixed costs
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
C. Indirect Cost Multipliers
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Markup Factors to Estimate Indirect
Costs
For most of the segments in this
analysis, the indirect costs are estimated
by applying indirect cost multipliers
(ICM) to direct cost estimates. ICMs
were calculated by EPA as a basis for
estimating the impact on indirect costs
of individual vehicle technology
changes that would result from
regulatory actions. Separate ICMs were
derived for low, medium, and high
complexity technologies, thus enabling
estimates of indirect costs that reflect
the variation in research, overhead, and
other indirect costs that can occur
among different technologies. ICMs
were also applied in the MY 2012–2016
CAFE rulemaking.
The previous CAFE rulemaking
applied a retail price equivalent (RPE)
factor to estimate indirect costs and
mark up direct costs to the retail level.
Retail Price Equivalents are estimated
by dividing the total revenue of a
manufacturer by the direct
manufacturing costs. As such, it
includes all forms of indirect costs for
a manufacturer and assumes that the
ratio applies equivalently for all
technologies. ICMs are based on RPE
estimates that are then modified to
reflect only those elements of indirect
costs that would be expected to change
in response to a technology change. For
example, warranty costs would be
reflected in both RPE and ICM
estimates, while marketing costs might
only be reflected in an RPE estimate but
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
not an ICM estimate for a particular
technology, if the new technology is not
one expected to be marketed to
consumers. Because ICMs calculated by
EPA are for individual technologies,
many of which are small in scale, they
often reflect a subset of RPE costs; as a
result, the RPE is typically higher than
an ICM. This is not always the case, as
ICM estimates for complex technologies
may reflect higher than average indirect
costs, with the resulting ICM larger than
the averaged RPE for the industry.
Precise association of ICM elements
with individual technologies based on
the varied accounting categories in
company annual reports is not possible.
Hence, there is a degree of uncertainty
in the ICM estimates. If all indirect costs
moved in proportion to changes in
direct costs the ICM and RPE would be
the same. Because most individual
technologies are smaller scale than
many of the activities of auto companies
(such as designing and developing
entirely new vehicles), it would be
expected that the RPE estimate would
reflect an upper bound on the average
ICM estimate. The agencies are
continuing to study ICMs and the most
appropriate way to apply them, and it
is possible revised ICM values may be
used in our final rulemaking. With this
in mind, the agencies are presenting a
sensitivity analysis reflecting costs
measured using the RPE in place of the
ICM and indirect costs estimated
independently in our primary analysis
to examine the potential impact of these
two approaches on estimated costs.
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Background
While this analysis relies on ICMs to
estimate indirect costs, an alternative
method of estimating indirect costs is
the retail price equivalent factor. The
RPE has been used by NHTSA, EPA and
other agencies to account for cost factors
not included in available direct cost
estimates, which are derived from cost
teardown studies or sometimes
provided by manufacturers. The RPE is
the basis for these markups in all DOT
safety regulations and in most previous
fuel economy rules. The RPE includes
all variable and fixed elements of
overhead costs, as well as selling costs
such as vehicle delivery expenses,
manufacturer profit, and full dealer
markup, and assumes that the ratio of
indirect costs to direct costs is constant
for all vehicle changes. Historically,
NHTSA has estimated that the RPE has
averaged about 1.5 for the light-duty
motor vehicle industry. The implication
of an RPE of 1.5 is that each added $1.00
of variable cost in materials, labor, and
other direct manufacturing costs results
in an increase in consumer prices of
$1.50 for any change in vehicles.
NHTSA has estimated the RPE from
light-duty vehicle manufacturers’
financial statements over nearly 3
decades, and although its estimated
value has varied somewhat year-to-year,
it has generally hovered around a level
of 1.5 throughout most of this period.
The NAS report as well as a study by
RTI International found that other
estimates of the RPE varied from 1.26 to
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.059
74310
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
over 2.376 In a recent report, NAS
acknowledged that an ICM approach
was preferable but recommended
continued use of the RPE over ICMs
until such time as empirical data
derived from rigorous estimation
methods is available. The NAS report
recommended using an RPE of 1.5 for
outsourced (supplier manufactured) and
2.0 for in-house (OEM manufactured)
technologies and an RPE of 1.33 for
advanced hybrid and electric vehicle
technologies.
ICMs typically are significantly lower
than RPEs, because they measure
changes in only those elements of
overhead and selling-related costs that
are directly influenced by specific
technology changes to vehicles. For
example, the number of managers might
not be directly proportional to the value
of direct costs contained in a vehicle, so
that if a regulation increases the direct
costs of manufacturing vehicles, there
might be little or no change in the
number of managers. ICMs would thus
assume little or no change in that
portion of indirect costs associated with
the number of managers—these costs
would be allocated only to the existing
base vehicle. By contrast, the RPE
reflects the historical overall
relationship between the direct costs to
manufacture vehicles and the prices
charged for vehicles, which must
compensate manufacturers for both their
direct and indirect costs for producing
and selling vehicles. The assumption
behind the RPE is that changes in the
long-term price of the final product that
accompany increases in direct costs of
vehicle manufacturing will continue to
reflect this historical relationship.
Another difference between the RPE
and ICM is that ICMs have been derived
separately for different categories of
technologies. A relatively simple
technology change, such as switching to
a different tire with lower rolling
resistance characteristics, would not
influence indirect costs in the same
proportion as a more complex change,
such as development of a full hybrid
design. ICMs were developed for 3
broad categories of technology
complexities, and are applied separately
to fuel economy technologies judged to
fit into each of these categories. This
requires determining which of these
complexity categories each technology
should be assigned.
There is some level of uncertainty
surrounding both the ICM and RPE
markup factors. The ICM estimates used
376 Rogozhin, Alex, Michael Gallaher, and Walter
McManus. ‘‘Automobile Industry Retail Price
Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers.’’ Report
prepared for EPA by RTI International. EPA Report
EPA–420–R–09–003, February 2009.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
in this proposal group all technologies
into three broad categories and treat
them as if individual technologies
within each of the three categories (low,
medium, and high complexity) would
have the same ratio of indirect costs to
direct costs. This simplification means
it is likely that the direct cost for some
technologies within a category will be
higher and some lower than the estimate
for the category in general. More
importantly, the ICM estimates have not
been validated through a direct
accounting of actual indirect costs for
individual technologies. Rather, the ICM
estimates were developed using
adjustment factors developed in two
separate occasions: The first, a
consensus process, was reported in the
RTI report; The second, a modified
Delphi method, was conducted
separately and reported in an EPA
memo.377 Both these panels were
composed of EPA staff members with
previous background in the automobile
industry; the memberships of the two
panels overlapped but were not the
same.378 The panels evaluated each
element of the industry’s RPE estimates
and estimated the degree to which those
elements would be expected to change
in proportion to changes in direct
manufacturing costs. The method and
estimates in the RTI report were peer
reviewed by three industry experts and
subsequently by reviewers for the
International Journal of Production
Economics.379 RPEs themselves are
inherently difficult to estimate because
the accounting statements of
manufacturers do not neatly categorize
all cost elements as either direct or
indirect costs. Hence, each researcher
developing an RPE estimate must apply
a certain amount of judgment to the
allocation of the costs. Moreover, RPEs
for heavy- and medium-duty trucks and
for engine manufacturers are not as well
studied as they are for the light-duty
automobile industry. Since empirical
estimates of ICMs are ultimately derived
from the same data used to measure
RPEs, this affects both measures.
377 Helfand, Gloria, and Sherwood, Todd.
‘‘Documentation of the Development of Indirect
Cost Multipliers for Three Automotive
Technologies.’’ Memorandum, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
August 2009.
378 NHTSA staff participated in the development
of the process for the second, modified Delphi
panel, and reviewed the results as they were
developed, but did not serve on the panel.
379 The results of the RTI report were published
in Alex Rogozhin, Michael Gallaher, Gloria
Helfand, and Walter McManus, ‘‘Using Indirect Cost
Multipliers to Estimate the Total Cost of Adding
New Technology in the Automobile Industry.’’
International Journal of Production Economics 124
(2010): 360–368.
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74311
However, the value of RPE has not been
measured for specific technologies, or
for groups of specific technologies. Thus
applying a single average RPE to any
given technology by definition
overstates costs for very simple
technologies, or understates them for
advanced technologies.
To highlight the potential differences
between the use of ICMs and RPEs to
estimate indirect costs, the agencies
conducted an analysis based on the use
of average RPEs for each industry in the
place of the ICM and direct fixed cost
estimates used in our proposal. Since
most technologies involved in this
proposal are low complexity level
technologies, the estimate based on the
use of an average RPE likely overstates
the costs. The weighted average RPEs
for the truck and engine industries are
1.36 and 1.28 respectively. These values
were substituted for the ICMs and
directly estimate indirect costs used in
the primary cost analysis referenced
elsewhere in this document. Using the
average RPEs, the five model year cost
of $7.7B in the primary analysis
increases to $9.3B, an increase of 21
percent. The agencies request comment
accompanied by supporting data on the
use of ICMs and RPE factors to estimate
fixed costs.
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reductions
The agencies have calculated the cost
per ton of GHG reductions associated
with this proposal on a CO2eq basis
using the above costs and the emissions
reductions described in Sections VI and
VII. These values are presented in Table
VIII–3 through Table VIII–5 for HD
pickups and vans, vocational vehicles
and combination trucks/tractors,
respectively. The cost per metric ton of
GHG emissions reductions has been
calculated in the years 2020, 2030, 2040,
and 2050 using the annual vehicle
compliance costs and emission
reductions for each of those years. The
value in 2050 represents the long-term
cost per ton of the emissions reduced.
The agencies have also calculated the
cost per metric ton of GHG emission
reductions including the savings
associated with reduced fuel
consumption (presented below in
Section VIII. E.). This latter calculation
does not include the other benefits
associated with this proposal such as
those associated with energy security
benefits as discussed later in Section
VIII.I. By including the fuel savings in
the cost estimates, the cost per ton is
generally less than $0 since the
estimated value of fuel savings
outweighs the program costs. The
results for CO2eq costs per ton under the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74312
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.060
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
proposal across all regulated categories
are shown in Table VIII–6.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
380 The program costs, fuel savings, and CO
2eq
reductions of the engines installed in vocational
vehicles are embedded in the vehicle standards and
analysis.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
who drive more than our average
estimates for vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) will experience more fuel
savings; drivers who drive less than our
average VMT estimates will experience
less fuel savings.
The expected impacts on fuel
consumption are shown in Table VIII–
7. The gallons shown in the table reflect
impacts from the new CO2 standards
and include increased consumption
resulting from the rebound effect.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
EP30NO10.062
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) What are the projected changes in
fuel consumption?
The new CO2 standards will result in
significant improvements in the fuel
efficiency of affected trucks. Drivers of
those trucks will see corresponding
savings associated with reduced fuel
expenditures. The agencies have
estimated the impacts on fuel
consumption for the tailpipe CO2
standards. To do this, fuel consumption
is calculated using both current CO2
emission levels and the new CO2
standards. The difference between these
estimates represents the net savings
from the CO2 standards. Note that the
total number of miles that vehicles are
driven each year is different under the
control case scenario than in the
reference case due to the ‘‘rebound
effect,’’ which is discussed in Section
VIII.E.(5). EPA also notes that drivers
30NOP2
EP30NO10.061
E. Impacts of Reduction in Fuel
Consumption
74313
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
GHG emissions but invites comment on
whether to consider this impact.
EPA’s quantified reductions in fuel
consumption focus on the gains from
reducing fuel used by heavy-duty
vehicles within the United States.
However, as discussed in Section VIII.I,
EPA also recognizes that this regulation
will lower the world price of oil (the
‘‘monopsony’’ effect). Lowering oil
prices could lead to an uptick in oil
consumption globally, leading to a
corresponding increase in GHG
emissions in other countries. This global
increase in emissions could slightly
offset some of the emission reductions
achieved domestically as a result of the
regulation.
EPA does not provide quantitative
estimates of the impact of the regulation
on global petroleum consumption and
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(2) Potential Impacts on Global Fuel Use
and Emissions
(3) What are the monetized fuel savings?
Using the fuel consumption estimates
presented in Table VIII–7, the agencies
can calculate the monetized fuel savings
associated with the proposed standards.
To do this, reduced fuel consumption is
multiplied in each year by the
corresponding estimated average fuel
price in that year, using the reference
case taken from the AEO 2010. These
estimates do not account for the
significant uncertainty in future fuel
prices; the monetized fuel savings will
be understated if actual fuel prices are
higher (or overstated if fuel prices are
lower) than estimated. AEO is a
standard reference used by NHTSA and
EPA and many other government
agencies to estimate the projected price
of fuel. This has been done using both
As shown in Table VIII–8, the
agencies are projecting that truck
consumers would realize very large fuel
savings as a result of the proposed
standards. As discussed further in the
introductory paragraphs of Section VIII,
it is a conundrum from an economic
perspective that these large fuel savings
have not been provided by
manufacturers and purchased by
consumers of these products. Unlike in
the light-duty vehicle market, the vast
majority of vehicles in the medium- and
heavy-duty truck market are purchased
and operated by businesses; for them,
fuel costs may represent substantial
operating expenses. Even in the
presence of uncertainty and imperfect
information—conditions that hold to
some degree in every market—we
generally expect firms to be cost-
minimizing to survive in a competitive
marketplace and to make decisions that
are therefore in the best interest of the
company and its owners and/or
shareholders.
A number of behavioral and market
phenomena may lead to a disconnect
between how businesses account for
fuel savings in their decisions and the
way in which we account for the full
stream of fuel savings for these rules,
including imperfect information in the
original and resale markets, split
incentives, uncertainty in future fuel
prices, and adjustment or transactions
costs (see Section VIII.A for a more
detailed discussion). As discussed
below in the context of rebound in
Section VIII.E.5, the nature of the
explanation for this gap may influence
the actual magnitude of the fuel savings.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the pre-tax and post-tax fuel prices.
Since the post-tax fuel prices are the
prices paid at fuel pumps, the fuel
savings calculated using these prices
represent the savings consumers would
see. The pre-tax fuel savings are those
savings that society would see. These
results are shown in Table VIII–8. Note
that in Section VIII.K, the overall
benefits and costs of the rules are
presented and, for that reason, only the
pre-tax fuel savings are presented there.
The agencies also request comment on
the additional information that would
be provided by conducting sensitivity
analysis that considers the effect of
uncertainty in future fuel prices on
estimated fuel savings. For instance, the
agencies could conduct sensitivity
analyses by relying on the AEO 2010
low oil price and high oil price
scenarios.
The agencies request comment on this
issue as discussed in more detail in
Section VIII.A. The agencies also
request comment on the interest in a
sensitivity analysis that considers the
role of fuel price uncertainty by
considering lower and higher future fuel
prices scenarios.
(4) Payback Period and Lifetime Savings
on New Truck Purchases
Another factor of interest is the
payback period on the purchase of a
new truck that complies with the new
standards. In other words, how long
would it take for the expected fuel
savings to outweigh the increased cost
of a new vehicle? For example, a new
2018 MY HD pickup truck and van is
estimated to cost $1,290 more, a
vocational vehicle $332 more, and a
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.063
74314
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74315
costs. EPA prefers to account for all
costs (positive and negative) directly
realized by the end user to accurately
present the total cost and to differentiate
those costs and cost savings from more
generally realized societal benefits. At
the end of this section (Section VIII.L),
however, the agencies also present
summary tables that show the cost and
benefit analysis from the fuel efficiency
perspective, where the purpose of a
program to regulate fuel efficiency is
primarily to save fuel. From this
perspective, fuel savings would be
counted as benefits that occur over the
lifetime of the vehicle as it consumes
less fuel, rather than as negative costs
that would be experienced either at the
time of purchase or over the lifetime of
the vehicle. OMB’s Circular A–4, which
provides guidance to Federal agencies
on the development of regulatory
analysis, makes clear that either
approach is acceptable.
much shorter and actually are expected
to occur within the first year of
ownership under both the 3% and 7%
discounting cases. As can be seen in
Table VIII–10 and Table VIII–11, the
lifetime fuel savings are estimated to be
considerable with savings of $4,000
(3%) and $3,100 (7%) for the vocational
vehicles and over $74,000 (3%) and
$58,000 (7%) for the combination
tractors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.064
value than current savings. Shown next
are estimated increased costs (costs do
not necessarily reflect increased prices
which may be higher or lower than
costs) for the new truck (refer to Table
VIII–1). The next columns show the
period required for the fuel savings to
exceed the new truck costs. As seen in
the table, in the fifth year of ownership,
the discounted fuel savings (at both 3%
and 7% discount rates) have begun to
outweigh the increased cost of the truck.
As shown in the table, the full life
savings using 3% discounting would be
$2,590 and at 7% discounting would be
$1,620.
Costs in this section are shown from
the greenhouse gas perspective where
fuel savings are treated as negative
costs, since the primary motivations of
this rule are U.S. energy security and
reductions in GHG emissions. From that
perspective, the benefits of the rule are
the external effects, and the net effects
on truck owners and operators are the
The story is somewhat different for
vocational vehicles and combination
tractors. These cases are shown in Table
VIII–10 and Table VIII–11, respectively.
Since these trucks travel more miles in
a given year, their payback periods are
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
combination tractor $5,827 more (all
values are on average, and relative to the
reference case vehicle) due to the
addition of new GHG reducing
technology. This new technology will
result in lower fuel consumption and,
therefore, savings in fuel expenditures.
But how many months or years would
pass before the fuel savings exceed the
upfront costs? Table VIII–9 shows the
payback period analysis for HD pickup
trucks and vans. The table shows fuel
consumed under the reference case and
fuel consumed by a 2018 model year
truck under the proposal, inclusive of
fuel consumed due to rebound miles.
The decrease in fuel consumed under
the proposal is then monetized by
multiplying by the fuel price reported
by AEO (reference case) for 2018 and
later. This value represents the fuel
savings expected under the proposal for
an HD pickup or van. These savings are
then discounted each year since future
savings are considered to be of less
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
All of these payback analyses include
fuel consumed during rebound VMT in
the proposal or control case but not in
the reference case, consistent with other
parts of the analysis. Further, this
analysis does not include other societal
impacts such as reduced time spent
refueling or noise, congestion and
accidents since the focus is meant to be
on those factors buyers think about most
while considering a new truck purchase.
Note also that operators that drive more
miles per year than the average would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
realize greater fuel savings than
estimated here, and those that drive
fewer miles per year would realize
lesser savings. The same holds true for
operators that keep their vehicles longer
(i.e., more years) than average in that
they would realize greater lifetime fuel
savings than operators that keep their
vehicles for fewer years than average.
Likewise, should fuel prices be higher
than the AEO 2010 reference case,
operators will realize greater fuel
savings than estimated here while they
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would realize lesser fuel savings were
fuel prices to be lower than the AEO
2010 reference case.
(5) Rebound Effect
The VMT rebound effect refers to the
fraction of fuel savings expected to
result from an increase in fuel efficiency
that is offset by additional vehicle use.
If truck shipping costs decrease as a
result of lower fuel costs, an increase in
truck VMT may occur. Unlike the lightduty rebound effect, the medium-duty
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.065
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74316
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
and heavy-duty rebound effect has not
been extensively studied. Because the
factors influencing the medium- and
heavy-duty rebound effect are generally
different from those affecting the lightduty rebound effect, much of the
research on the light-duty rebound
effect is not likely to apply to the
medium- and heavy-duty sectors. One of
the major differences between the
medium- and heavy-duty rebound effect
and the light-duty rebound effect is that
heavy-duty trucks are used primarily for
commercial and business purposes.
Since these businesses are profit driven,
decision makers are highly likely to be
aware of the costs and benefits of
different shipping decisions, both in the
near term and long term. Therefore,
shippers are much more likely to take
into account changes in the overall
operating costs per mile when making
shipping decisions that affect VMT.
Another difference from the light-duty
case is that, as discussed in the recent
NAS Report 382, when calculating the
percentage change in trucking costs to
determine the rebound effect, all
changes in the operating costs should be
considered. The cost of labor and fuel
generally constitute the top two shares
of truck operating costs, depending on
the price of petroleum,383 distance
traveled, type of truck, and
commodity.384 Finally, the equipment
costs associated with the purchase or
leasing of the truck is also a significant
component of total operating costs. Even
though vehicle costs are lump-sum
purchases, they can be considered
operating costs for trucking firms, and
these costs are, in many cases, expected
to be passed onto the final consumers of
shipping services on a variable basis.
This shipping cost increase could help
temper the rebound effect relative to the
case of light-duty vehicles, in which
vehicle costs are not considered
operating costs.
When calculating the net change in
operating costs, both the increase in
new vehicle costs and the decrease in
fuel costs per mile should be taken into
consideration. The higher the net cost
savings, the higher the expected
rebound effect. Conversely, if the
upfront vehicle costs outweighed future
cost savings and total costs increased,
shipping costs would rise, which would
382 See
NAS Report, Note 111.
Transportation Research Institute,
An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking,
December 2008 (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162–0007).
384 Transport Canada, Operating Cost of Trucks,
2005. See https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/reportacg-operatingcost2005-2005-e-2-1727.htm, accessed
on July 16, 2010 (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162–0006). See also ATRI, 2008.
383 American
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
likely result in a decrease in truck VMT.
In theory, other changes such as
maintenance costs and insurance rates
would also be taken into account,
although information on these potential
cost changes is extremely limited. We
invite comment on the most appropriate
methodology for factoring new vehicle
purchase or leasing costs into the permile operating costs. We also invite
comment or data on how these
regulations could affect maintenance,
insurance, or other operating costs.
The following sections describe the
factors affecting the rebound effect,
different methodologies for estimating
the rebound effect, and examples of
different estimates of the rebound effect
to date. According to the NAS study, it
is ‘‘not possible to provide a confident
measure of the rebound effect,’’ yet NAS
concluded that a rebound effect likely
exists and that ‘‘estimates of fuel savings
from regulatory standards will be
somewhat misestimated if the rebound
effect is not considered.’’ While we
believe the medium- and heavy-duty
rebound effect needs to be studied in
more detail, we have attempted to
capture the potential impact of the
rebound effect in our analysis. For this
proposal, we have used a rebound effect
for vocational vehicles of 15%, a
rebound effect for HD pickup trucks and
vans of 10%, and a rebound effect for
combination tractors of 5%. These VMT
impacts are reflected in the estimates of
total GHG and other air pollution
reductions presented in Chapter 5 of the
draft RIA. We invite comment and the
submission of additional data on the
medium-duty and heavy-duty rebound
effect.
(a) Factors Affecting the Magnitude of
the Rebound Effect
The heavy-duty vehicle rebound
effect is driven by the interaction of
several different factors. In the shortrun, decreasing the fuel cost per mile of
driving could lead to a decrease in end
product prices. Lower prices could
stimulate additional demand for those
products, which would then result in an
increase in VMT. In the long run,
shippers could reorganize their logistics
and distribution networks to take
advantage of lower truck shipping costs.
For example, shippers may shift away
from other modes of shipping such as
rail, barge, or air. In addition, shippers
may also choose to reduce the number
of warehouses, reduce load rates, and
make smaller, more frequent shipments,
all of which could also lead to an
increase in heavy-duty VMT. Finally,
the benefits of the fuel savings could
ripple through the economy, which
could in turn increase overall demand
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74317
for goods and services shipped by
trucks, and therefore increase truck
VMT.
Conversely, if a fuel economy
regulation leads to net increases in the
cost of trucking because fuel savings do
not fully offset the increase in upfront
vehicle costs, then the price of trucking
services could rise, spurring a decrease
in heavy-duty VMT and shift to rail
shipping. These effects would also
ripple through the economy.
Because these factors have not been
well studied to date, the interaction and
potential magnitude of these impacts is
not well understood. However, the
rebound effect is one of the
determinants of the fuel savings likely
to result from adopting stricter fuel
economy or GHG emissions standards,
and is thus an important parameter
affecting EPA’s evaluation of alternative
standards for future model years.
Therefore, we invite submission of data
regarding the medium- and heavy-duty
rebound effect.
(b) Options for Quantifying the Rebound
Effect
As described in the previous section,
the fuel economy rebound effect for
heavy-duty trucks has not been studied
as extensively as the rebound effect for
light-duty vehicles, and virtually no
research has been conducted on the HD
pickup truck and van rebound effect. In
this proposal, we discuss four options
for quantifying the rebound effect. We
invite comment on these options, and
we also welcome comment on other
possible methodologies.
(i) Aggregate Estimates
The aggregate approximation
approach quantifies the overall change
in truck VMT as a result of a percentage
change in truck shipping prices. This
approach relies on estimates of
aggregate price elasticity of demand for
trucking services, given a percentage
change in trucking prices, which is
generally referred to as an ‘‘own-price
elasticity.’’ Estimates of trucking ownprice elasticities vary widely, and there
is no general consensus on the most
appropriate values to use. A 2004
literature survey cited in the recent NAS
report 385 found aggregate elasticity
estimates in the range of ¥0.5 to
¥1.5.386 In other words, given an ownprice elasticity of ¥1.5, a 10% decrease
in trucking prices leads to a 15%
increase in demand for truck shipping
demand. However, this survey does not
385 See
2010 NAS Report, Note 111.
and Glaister, ‘‘Road Traffic Demand
Elasticity Estimates: A Review,’’ Transport Reviews
Volume 24, 3, pp. 261–274, 2004 (Docket ID: EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0005).
386 Graham
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74318
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
differentiate between studies that
quantify change in tons shipped or tonmiles. In addition, most of the studies
find that these elasticity estimates vary
substantially based on the length of the
trip and the type of cargo. For example,
one study estimated an own-price
elasticity of ¥0.1 for the lumber sector
and ¥2.3 for the chemical sector.387
The increase in overall truck VMT
resulting from the rebound effect
implicitly includes some component of
mode shifting. Since there are
differences in GHG emissions per ton of
freight moved by rail compared to truck,
any potential shifting of freight from one
mode to the other could have GHG
impacts. Although the total demand for
freight transport is generally determined
by economic activity, there is often the
choice of shipping by either truck or by
rail when freight is transported over
land routes. This is because the United
States has both an extensive highway
network and an extensive rail network;
these networks closely parallel each
other and are often both viable choices
for freight transport for many origin and
destination pairs within the continent. If
rates go down for one mode, there will
be an increase in demand for that mode
and some demand will be shifted from
other modes. This ‘‘cross-price
elasticity’’ is a measure of the percentage
change in demand for shipping by
another mode (e.g., rail) given a
percentage change in the price of
trucking. Aggregate estimates of crossprice elasticities also vary widely, and
there is no general consensus on the
most appropriate value to use for
analytical purposes. The NAS report
cites values ranging from 0.35 to 0.59.388
Other reports provide significantly
different cross-price elasticities, ranging
from 0.1 389 to 2.0.390
When considering intermodal shift,
the most relevant kinds of shipments are
those that are competitive between rail
and truck modes. These trips include
387 Winston, C. (1981). The welfare effects of ICC
rate regulation revisited. The Bell Journal of
Economics, 12, 232–244 (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162–0021).
388 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 111. See also 2009
Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Draft Final Paper
commissioned by the NAS in support of the
medium-duty and heavy-duty report. Assessment of
Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium and
Heavy-duty Vehicles: Commissioned Paper on
Indirect Costs and Alternative Approaches Docket
ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0009).
389 Friedlaender, A. and Spady, R. (1980) A
derived demand function for freight transportation,
Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, pp. 432–
441 (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0004).
390 Christidis and Leduc, ‘‘Longer and Heavier
Vehicles for freight transport,’’ European
Commission Joint Research Center’s Institute for
Prospective Technology Studies, 2009 (Docket ID:
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
long-haul shipments greater than 500
miles, which weigh between 50,000 and
80,000 pounds (the legal road limit in
many States). Special kinds of cargo like
coal and short-haul deliveries are of less
interest because they are generally not
economically transferable between truck
and rail modes, and they would not be
expected to shift modes except under an
extreme price change. However, the
total volume of ton-miles that could
potentially be subject to mode shifting
has also not been studied extensively.
(ii) Sector-Specific Estimates
Given the limited data available
regarding the medium- and heavy-duty
rebound effect, the aggregate approach
greatly simplifies many of the
assumptions associated with
calculations of the rebound effect. In
reality, however, responses to changes
in fuel efficiency and new vehicle costs
will vary significantly based on the
commodities affected. A detailed,
sector-specific approach would be
expected to more accurately reflect
changes in the trucking market given
these standards. For example, inputoutput tables could be used to
determine the trucking cost share of the
total delivered price of a product or
sector. Using the change in trucking
prices described in the aggregate
approach, the product-specific demand
elasticities could be used to calculate
the change in sales and shipments for
each product. The change in shipment
increases could then be weighted by the
share of the trucking industry total, and
then summed to get the total increase in
trucking output. A simplifying
assumption could then be made that the
increase in output results in an increase
in VMT. This type of detailed data has
not yet been collected, so we do not
have any calculations available for the
proposal. While we hope to have this
data available for the final rulemaking,
gathering high quality data may take a
longer time frame. We invite the
submission of comments or data that
could be used as part of this
methodology.
(iii) Eonometric Estimates
Similar to the methodology used to
estimate the light-duty rebound effect,
the heavy-duty rebound effect could be
modeled econometrically by estimating
truck demand as a function of economic
activity (e.g., GDP) and different input
prices (e.g., vehicle prices, driver wages,
and fuel costs per mile). This type of
econometric model could be estimated
for either truck VMT or ton-miles as a
measure of demand. The resulting
elasticity estimates could then be used
to determine the change in trucking
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demand, given the change in fuel cost
and truck prices per mile from these
standards.
(iv) Other Modeling Approaches
Regulation of the heavy-duty industry
has been studied in more detail in
Europe, as the European Commission
(EC) has considered allowing longer and
heavier trucks for freight transport. Part
of the analysis considered by the EC
relies on country-specific modeling of
changes in the freight sector that would
result from changes in regulations.391
This approach attempts to explicitly
calculate modal shift decisions and
impacts on GHG emissions. Although
similar types of analysis have not been
conducted extensively in the United
States, research is currently underway
that explores the potential for
intermodal shifting in the United States.
For example, Winebrake and Corbett
have developed the Geospatial
Intermodal Freight Transportation
model, which evaluates the potential for
GHG emissions reductions based on
mode shifting, given existing limitations
of infrastructure and other route
characteristics in the United States.392
This model connects multiple road, rail,
and waterway transportation networks
and embeds activity-based calculations
in the model. Within this intermodal
network, the model assigns various
economic, time-of-delivery, energy, and
environmental attributes to real-world
goods movement routes. The model can
then calculate different network
optimization scenarios, based on
changes in prices and policies.393
However, more work is needed in this
area to determine whether this type of
methodology is appropriate for the
purposes of capturing the rebound
effect. We invite comment on this
approach, as well as suggestions on
alternative modeling frameworks that
could be used to assess mode shifting,
fuel consumption, and the GHG
391 Christidis and Leduc, ‘‘Longer and Heavier
Vehicles for freight transport,’’ European
Commission Joint Research Center’s Institute for
Prospective Technology Studies, 2009.
392 Winebrake, James and James J. Corbet (2010).
‘‘Improving the Energy Efficiency and
Environmental Performance of Goods Movement,’’
in Sperling, Daniel and James S. Cannon (2010)
Climate and Transportation Solutions: Findings
from the 2009 Asilomar Conference on
Transportation and Energy Policy. See https://
www.its.ucdavis.edu/events/2009book/
Chapter13.pdf (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162–0011)
393 Winebrake, J. J.; Corbett, J. J.; Falzarano, A.;
Hawker, J. S.; Korfmacher, K.; Ketha, S.; Zilora, S.,
Assessing Energy, Environmental, and Economic
Tradeoffs in Intermodal Freight Transportation,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 58(8), 2008 (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162–0008).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74319
As an alternative, using the
econometric approach, NHTSA has
estimated the rebound effect in the short
run and long run for single unit (Class
4–7) and (Class 8) combination tractors.
As shown in Table VIII–13, the
estimates for the long-run rebound effect
are larger than the estimates in the short
run, which is consistent with the theory
that shippers have more flexibility to
change their behavior (e.g., restructure
contracts or logistics) when they are
given more time. In addition, the
estimates derived from the national data
also showed larger rebound effects
compared to the State data.395 One
possible explanation for the difference
in the estimates is that the national
rebound estimates are capturing some of
the impacts of changes in economic
activity. Historically, large increases in
fuel prices are highly correlated with
economic downturns, and there may not
be enough variation in the national data
to differentiate the impact of fuel price
changes from changes in economic
activity. In contrast, some States may
see an increase in output when energy
prices increase (e.g., large oil producing
States such as Texas and Alaska);
therefore, the State data may be more
accurately isolating the individual
impact of fuel price changes.
long-run elasticities of annual VMT by single-unit
and combination trucks with respect to fuel cost per
mile driven. (Fuel cost per mile driven during each
year is equal to average fuel price per gallon during
that year divided by average fuel economy of the
truck fleet during that same year.) These estimates
are derived from time-series regression of annual
national aggregate VMT for the period 1970–2008
on measures of nationwide economic activity,
including aggregate GDP, the value of durable and
nondurable goods production, and the volume of
U.S. exports and imports of goods, and variables
affecting the price of trucking services (driver wage
rates, truck purchase prices, and fuel costs), and
from regression of VMT for each individual State
over the period 1994–2008 on similar variables
measured at the State level.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
394 Cambridge
Systematics, Inc., 2009.
estimates of the rebound effect are
derived from econometric analysis of national and
state VMT data reported in Federal Highway
Administration, Highway Statistics, various
editions, Tables VM–1 and VM–4. Specifically, the
estimates of the rebound effect reported in Table
VIII–10 are ranges of the estimated short-run and
395 NHTSA’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.067
on factors including the type of demand
measures analyzed (vehicle-miles of
travel, ton-miles, or tons), analysis
geography, trip lengths, markets served,
and commodities transported.’’
Furthermore, the CSI example only
focused on Class 8 combination tractors
and did not attempt to quantify the
potential rebound effect for any other
truck classes. Finally, these scenarios
were characterized as ‘‘sketches’’ and
were not included in the final NAS
report. In fact, the NAS report asserted
that it is ‘‘not possible to provide a
confident measure of the rebound
effect,’’ yet concluded that a rebound
effect likely exists and that ‘‘estimates of
fuel savings from regulatory standards
will be somewhat misestimated if the
rebound effect is not considered.’’
EP30NO10.066
(c) Estimates of the Rebound Effect
The aggregate methodology was used
by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (CSI) to
show several examples of the magnitude
of the rebound effect. 394 In their paper
commissioned by the NAS in support of
the recent medium- and heavy-duty
report, CSI calculated an effective
rebound effect for two different
technology cost and fuel savings
scenarios associated with an example
Class 8 truck. Scenario 1 increased
average fuel economy from 5.59 mpg to
6.8 mpg, with an additional cost of
$22,930. Scenario 2 increased the
average fuel economy to 9.1 mpg, at an
incremental cost of $71,630 per vehicle.
The CSI examples provided estimates
using a range of own-price elasticities
(¥0.5 to ¥1.5) and cross-price
elasticities (0.35 to 0.59) from the
literature. Based on these two scenarios
and a number of simplifying
assumptions to aid the calculations, CSI
found a rebound effect of 11–31% for
Scenario 1 and 5–16% for Scenario 2
when the fuel savings from rail were not
taken into account (‘‘First rebound
effect’’). When the fuel savings from
reduced rail usage were included in the
calculations, the overall rebound effect
was between 9–13% for Scenario 1 and
3–15% for Scenario 2 (‘‘Second Rebound
Effect’’). See Table VIII–12.
CSI included a number of caveats
associated with these calculations.
Namely, the elasticity estimates derived
from the literature are ‘‘heavily reliant
emission implications of these proposed
regulations.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74320
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
As discussed throughout this section,
there are multiple methodologies for
quantifying the rebound effect, and
these different methodologies produce a
large range of potential values of the
rebound effect. However, for the
purposes of quantifying the rebound
effect for this proposal, we have used a
rebound effect with respect to changes
in fuel costs per mile on the lower range
of the long-run estimates. Given the fact
that the long-run State estimates are
generally more consistent with the
aggregate estimates, for this proposal we
have chosen a rebound effect for
vocational vehicles (single unit trucks)
of 15% that is within the range of
estimates from both methodologies.
Similarly, we have chosen a rebound
effect for combination tractors of 5%.
To date, no estimates of the HD
pickup truck and van rebound effect
have been cited in the literature. Since
these vehicles are used for very different
purposes than heavy-duty vehicles, it
does not necessarily seem appropriate to
apply one of the heavy-duty estimates to
the HD pickup trucks and vans. These
vehicles are more similar in use to large
light-duty vehicles, so for the purposes
of our analysis, we have chosen to apply
the light-duty rebound effect of 10% to
this class of vehicles.
For the purposes of this proposal, we
have not taken into account any
potential fuel savings or GHG emission
reductions from the rail sector due to
mode shifting. However, we have
provided CSI’s example calculations
and request comment on these values.
Furthermore, we have made a number
of simplifying assumptions in our
calculations, which are discussed in
more detail in the draft RIA.
Specifically, we have not attempted to
capture how current market failures
might impact the rebound effect. The
direction and magnitude of the rebound
effect in the medium- and heavy-duty
truck market are expected to vary
depending on the existence and types of
market failures affecting the fuel
economy of the trucking fleet. If firms
are already accurately accounting for the
costs and benefits of these technologies
and fuel savings, then these regulations
would increase their net costs, because
trucks would already include all the
cost-effective technologies. As a result,
the rebound effect would actually be
negative and truck VMT would decrease
as a result of these proposed regulations.
However, if firms are not optimizing
their behavior today due to factors such
as lack of reliable information (see
Section VIII.A. for further discussion), it
is more likely that truck VMT would
increase. If firms recognize their lower
net costs as a result of these regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
and pass those costs along to their
customers, then the rebound effect
would increase truck VMT. This
response assumes that trucking rates
include both truck purchase costs and
fuel costs, and that the truck purchase
costs included in the rates spread those
costs over the full expected lifetime of
the trucks. If those costs are spread over
a shorter period, as the expected short
payback period implies, then those
purchase costs will inhibit reduction of
freight rates, and the rebound effect will
be smaller.
As discussed in more detail in Section
VIII.A, if there are market failures such
as split incentives, estimating the
rebound effect may depend on the
nature of the failures. For example, if
the original purchaser cannot fully
recoup the higher upfront costs through
fuel savings before selling the vehicle
nor pass those costs onto the resale
buyer, the firm would be expected to
raise shipping rates. A firm purchasing
the truck second-hand might lower
shipping rates if the firm recognizes the
cost savings after operating the vehicle,
leading to an increase in VMT.
Similarly, if there are split incentives
and the vehicle buyer isn’t the same
entity that purchases the fuel, than there
would theoretically be a positive
rebound effect. In this scenario, fuel
savings would lower the net costs to the
fuel purchaser, which would result in a
larger increase in truck VMT.
If all of these scenarios occur in the
marketplace, the net effect will depend
on the extent and magnitude of their
relative effects, which are also likely to
vary across truck classes (for instance,
split incentives may be a much larger
problem for Class 7 and 8 tractors than
they are for heavy-duty pickup trucks).
Additional details on the rebound effect
are included in the draft RIA. We invite
comment on all of the rebound
estimates and assumptions.
F. Class Shifting and Fleet Turnover
Impacts
The agencies considered two
additional potential indirect costs,
benefits, effects, and externalities which
may lead to unintended consequences
of the proposal to improve the fuel
efficiency and reduce GHG emissions
from HD trucks. The next sections cover
the agencies’ qualitative discussions on
potential class shifting and fleet
turnover effects.
(1) Class Shifting
Heavy-duty vehicles are typically
configured and purchased to perform a
function. For example, a concrete mixer
truck is purchased to transport concrete,
a combination tractor is purchased to
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
move freight with the use of a trailer,
and a Class 3 pickup truck could be
purchased by a landscape company to
pull a trailer carrying lawnmowers. The
purchaser makes decisions based on
many attributes of the vehicle, including
the gross vehicle weight rating of the
vehicle which in part determines the
amount of freight or equipment that can
be carried. If the agencies propose a
regulation that impacts either the
performance of the vehicle or the
marginal cost of the vehicle relative to
the other vehicle classes, then
consumers could choose to purchase a
different vehicle which may result in an
unintended consequence of increased
fuel consumption and GHG emissions
in-use.
The agencies, along with the NAS
panel, found that there is little or no
literature which evaluates class shifting
between trucks.396 The agencies
welcome comments that would help
inform the evaluation of this potential
impact. NHTSA and EPA qualitatively
evaluated the proposed rule in light of
potential class shifting. The agencies
looked at four potential cases of
shifting—from light-duty pickup trucks
to heavy-duty pickup trucks, from
sleeper cabs to day cabs, from
combination tractors to vocational
vehicles, and within vocational
vehicles.
Light-duty pickup trucks, those with
a GVWR of less than 8,500 pounds, are
currently regulated under the existing
CAFE program and will meet GHG
emissions standards beginning in 2012.
The increased stringency of the 2012–
2016 light-duty GHG and CAFE rule has
led some to speculate that vehicle
consumers may choose to purchase
heavy-duty pickup trucks that are
currently unregulated if the cost of the
light-duty regulation is high relative to
the cost to buy the larger heavy-duty
pickup trucks. Since fuel consumption
and GHG emissions rise significantly
with vehicle mass, a shift from lightduty trucks to heavy-duty trucks would
likely lead to higher fuel consumption
and GHG emissions, an untended
consequence of the regulations. Given
the significant price premium of a
heavy-duty truck (often five to ten
thousand dollars more than a light-duty
pickup), we believe that such a class
shift would be unlikely even absent this
proposal. With this proposed regulation,
any incentive for such a class shift is
significantly diminished. The proposed
regulations for the HD pickup trucks,
and similarly for vans, are based on
similar technologies and therefore
reflect a similar expected increase in
396 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
2010 NAS Report, Note 111, page 152.
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
cost when compared to the light-duty
GHG regulation. Hence, the combination
of the two regulations provides little
incentive for a shift from light-duty
trucks to HD trucks. To the extent that
our proposed regulation of heavy-duty
pickups and vans could conceivably
encourage a class shift towards lighter
pickups, this unintended consequence
would in fact be expected to lead to
lower fuel consumption and GHG
emissions as the smaller light-duty
pickups are significantly more efficient
than heavy-duty pickup trucks.
The projected cost increases for our
proposal differ significantly between
Class 8 day cabs and Class 8 sleeper
cabs reflecting our expectation that
compliance with the proposed
standards will lead truck consumers to
specify sleeper cabs equipped with
APUs while day cab consumers will not.
Since Class 8 day cab and sleeper cab
trucks perform essentially the same
function when hauling a trailer, this
raises the possibility that the higher cost
for an APU equipped sleeper cab could
lead to a shift from sleeper cab to day
cab trucks. We do not believe that such
an intended consequence will occur for
the following reasons. The addition of a
sleeper berth to a tractor cab is not a
consumer-selectable attribute in quite
the same way as other vehicle features.
The sleeper cab provides a utility that
long-distance trucking fleets need to
conduct their operations—an on-board
sleeping berth that lets a driver comply
with federally-mandated rest periods, as
required by the Department of
Transportation Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration’s hours-of-service
regulations. The cost of sleeper trucks is
already higher than the cost of day cabs,
yet the fleets that need this utility
purchase them.397 A day cab simply
cannot provide this utility. The need for
this utility would not be changed even
if the marginal costs to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from sleeper
cabs exceed the marginal costs to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from day
cabs.398 A trucking fleet could decide to
put its drivers in hotels in lieu of using
sleeper berths, and switch to day cabs.
However, this is unlikely to occur in
any great number, since the added cost
for the hotel stays would far overwhelm
differences in the marginal cost between
397 A baseline tractor price of a new day cab is
$89,500 versus $113,000 for a new sleeper cab
based on information gathered by ICF in the
‘‘Investigation of Costs for Strategies to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-Road
Vehicles’’, July 2010. Page 3. Docket Identification
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0044.
398 The average marginal cost difference between
sleeper cabs and day cabs in the proposal is nearly
$6,000.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
day and sleeper cabs. Even if some fleets
do opt to buy hotel rooms and switch
to day cabs, they would be highly
unlikely to purchase a day cab that was
aerodynamically worse than the sleeper
cab they replaced, since the need for
features optimized for long-distance
hauling would not have changed. So in
practice, there would likely be little
difference to the environment for any
switching that might occur. Further,
while our projected costs assume the
purchase of an APU for compliance, in
fact our regulatory structure would
allow compliance using a near zero cost
software utility that eliminates tractor
idling after five minutes. Using this
compliance approach, the cost
difference between a Class 8 sleeper cab
and day cab due to our proposed
regulations is small. We are providing
this alternative compliance approach
reflecting that some sleeper cabs are
used in team driving situations where
one driver sleeps while the other drives.
In that situation, an APU is unnecessary
since the tractor is continually being
driven when occupied. When it is
parked, it will automatically eliminate
any additional idling through the
shutdown software. If trucking
companies choose this option, then
costs based on purchase of APUs may
overestimate the costs of this rule to this
sector.
Class shifting from combination
tractors to vocational vehicles may
occur if a customer deems the
additional marginal cost of tractors due
to the regulation to be greater than the
utility provided by the tractor. The
agencies initially considered this issue
when deciding whether to include Class
7 tractors with the Class 8 tractors or
regulate them as vocational vehicles.
The agencies’ evaluation of the
combined vehicle weight rating of the
Class 7 shows that if these vehicles were
treated significantly differently from the
Class 8 tractors, then they could be
easily substituted for Class 8 tractors.
Therefore, the agencies are proposing to
include both classes in the tractor
category. The agencies believe that a
shift from tractors to vocational vehicles
would be limited because of the ability
of tractors to pick up and drop off
trailers at locations which cannot be
done by vocational vehicles.
The agencies do not envision that the
proposed regulatory program will cause
class shifting within the vocational
class. The marginal cost difference due
to the regulation of vocational vehicles
is minimal. The cost of LRR tires on a
per tire basis is the same for all
vocational vehicles so the only
difference in marginal cost of the
vehicles is due to the number of axles.
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74321
The agencies believe that the utility
gained from the additional load carrying
capability of the additional axle will
outweigh the additional cost for heavier
vehicles.399
In conclusion, NHTSA and EPA
believe that the proposed regulatory
structure for HD trucks does not
significantly change the current
competitive and market factors that
determine purchaser preferences among
truck types. Furthermore, even if a small
amount of shifting does occur, any
resulting GHG impacts are likely to be
negligible because any vehicle class that
sees an uptick in sales is also being
regulated for fuel economy. Therefore,
the agencies did not include an impact
of class shifting on the vehicle
populations used to assess the benefits
of the proposal. The agencies welcome
comments to inform the benefits
assessment of the final rule.
(2) Fleet Turnover Effect
A regulation that increases the cost to
purchase and/or operate trucks could
impact whether a consumer decides to
purchase a new truck and the timing of
that purchase. The term pre-buy refers
to the idea that truck purchases may
occur earlier than otherwise planned to
avoid the additional costs associated
with a new regulatory requirement.
Slower fleet turnover, or low-buys, may
occur when owners opt to keep their
existing truck rather than purchase a
new truck due to the incremental cost
of the regulation.
The NAS panel discusses the topics
associated with HD truck fleet turnover.
NAS noted that there is some empirical
evidence of pre-buy behavior in
response to the 2004 and 2007 heavyduty engine emission standards, with
larger impacts occurring in response to
higher costs.400 However, those
regulations increased upfront costs to
firms without any offsetting future cost
savings from reduced fuel purchases. In
summary, NAS stated that
* * * during periods of stable or growing
demand in the freight sector, pre-buy
behavior may have significant impact on
purchase patterns, especially for larger fleets
with better access to capital and financing.
Under these same conditions, smaller
operators may simply elect to keep their
current equipment on the road longer, all the
more likely given continued improvements
in diesel engine durability over time. On the
other hand, to the extent that fuel economy
improvements can offset incremental
purchase costs, these impacts will be
lessened. Nevertheless, when it comes to
399 The proposed rule projects the difference in
costs between the HHD and MHD vocational
vehicle technologies is approximately $30.
400 See NAS Report, Note 111, pp. 150–151.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74322
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
efficiency investments, most heavy-duty fleet
operators require relatively quick payback
periods, on the order of two to three years.401
The proposed regulations are
projected to return fuel savings to the
truck owners that offset the cost of the
regulation within a few years for
vocational vehicles and Class 7 and 8
tractors, the categories where the
potential for prebuy and delayed fleet
turnover are concerns. In the case of
vocational vehicles, the added cost is
small enough that it is unlikely to have
a substantial effect on purchasing
behavior. In the case of Class 7 and 8
trucks, the effects of the regulation on
purchasing behavior will depend on the
nature of the market failures and the
extent to which firms consider the
projected future fuel savings in their
purchasing decisions.
If trucking firms account for the rapid
payback, they are unlikely to
strategically accelerate or delay their
purchase plans at additional cost in
capital to avoid a regulation that will
lower their overall operating costs. As
discussed in Section VIII.A., this
scenario may occur if this proposed rule
reduces uncertainty about fuel-saving
technologies. More reliable information
about ways to reduce fuel consumption
allows truck purchasers to evaluate
better the benefits and costs of
additional fuel savings, primarily in the
original vehicle market, but possibly in
the resale market as well.
Other market failures may leave open
the possibility of some pre-buy or
delayed purchasing behavior. Firms
may not consider the full value of the
future fuel savings for several reasons.
For instance, truck purchasers may not
want to invest in fuel economy because
of uncertainty about fuel prices.
Another explanation is that the resale
market may not fully recognize the
value of fuel savings, due to lack of trust
of new technologies or changes in the
uses of the vehicles. Lack of
coordination (also called split
incentives—see Section VIII.A) between
truck purchasers (who emphasize the
up-front costs of the trucks) and truck
operators, who would like the fuel
savings, can also lead to pre-buy or
delayed purchasing behavior. If these
market failures prevent firms from fully
internalizing fuel savings when
deciding on vehicle purchases, then prebuy and delayed purchase could occur
and could result in a slight decrease in
the GHG benefits of the regulation.
Thus, whether pre-buy or delayed
purchase is likely to play a significant
role in the truck market depends on the
specific behaviors of purchasers in that
401 See
NAS Report, Note 111, page 151.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:46 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
market. Without additional information
about which scenario is more likely to
be prevalent, the Agencies are not
projecting a change in fleet turnover
characteristics due to this regulation.
We welcome comments on all aspects of
this assumption, especially in the
context of our assumed increase in truck
freight shipments due to a VMT
rebound.
G. Benefits of Reducing CO2 Emissions
(1) Social Cost of Carbon
EPA has assigned a dollar value to
reductions in CO2 emissions using
recent estimates of the social cost of
carbon (SCC). The SCC is an estimate of
the monetized damages associated with
an incremental increase in carbon
emissions in a given year. It is intended
to include (but is not limited to) changes
in net agricultural productivity, human
health, property damages from
increased flood risk, and the value of
ecosystem services due to climate
change. The SCC estimates used in this
analysis were developed through an
interagency process that included EPA,
DOT/NHTSA, and other executive
branch entities, and concluded in
February 2010. We first used these SCC
estimates in the benefits analysis for the
final joint EPA/DOT rule to establish
light-duty vehicle GHG emission
standards and CAFE standards; see the
rule’s preamble for discussion about
application of the SCC.402 The SCC
Technical Support Document (SCC
TSD) provides a complete discussion of
the methods used to develop these SCC
estimates.403
The interagency group selected four
SCC values for use in regulatory
analyses, which we have applied in this
analysis: $5, $22, $36, and $66 per
metric ton of CO2 emissions in 2010, in
2008 dollars.404, 405 The first three values
402 See U.S. EPA 2010 LD GHG Rule, Note 6,
docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11424.
403 Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–114577,
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group
on Social Cost of Carbon, with participation by
Council of Economic Advisers, Council on
Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Commerce, Department of Energy,
Department of Transportation, Environmental
Protection Agency, National Economic Council,
Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury
(February 2010). Also available at https://epa.gov/
otaq/climate/regulations.htm.
404 The interagency group decided that these
estimates apply only to CO2 emissions. Given that
warming profiles and impacts other than
temperature change (e.g., ocean acidification) vary
across GHGs, the group concluded ‘‘transforming
gases into CO2-equivalents using GWP, and then
multiplying the carbon-equivalents by the SCC,
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are based on the average SCC from three
integrated assessment models, at
discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5 percent,
respectively. SCCs at several discount
rates are included because the literature
shows that the SCC is quite sensitive to
assumptions about the discount rate,
and because no consensus exists on the
appropriate rate to use in an
intergenerational context. The fourth
value is the 95th percentile of the SCC
from all three models at a 3 percent
discount rate. It is included to represent
higher-than-expected impacts from
temperature change further out in the
tails of the SCC distribution. Low
probability, high impact events are
incorporated into all of the SCC values
through explicit consideration of their
effects in two of the three models as
well as the use of a probability density
function for equilibrium climate
sensitivity. Treating climate sensitivity
probabilistically results in more high
temperature outcomes, which in turn
lead to higher projections of damages.
The SCC increases over time because
future emissions are expected to
produce larger incremental damages as
physical and economic systems become
more stressed in response to greater
climatic change. Note that the
interagency group estimated the growth
rate of the SCC directly using the three
integrated assessment models rather
than assuming a constant annual growth
rate. This helps to ensure that the
estimates are internally consistent with
other modeling assumptions. Table
VIII–14 presents the SCC estimates used
in this analysis.
When attempting to assess the
incremental economic impacts of carbon
dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a
number of serious challenges. A recent
report from the National Academies of
Science points out that any assessment
will suffer from uncertainty,
speculation, and lack of information
about (1) future emissions of greenhouse
gases, (2) the effects of past and future
emissions on the climate system, (3) the
impact of changes in climate on the
physical and biological environment,
and (4) the translation of these
environmental impacts into economic
damages.406 As a result, any effort to
quantify and monetize the harms
would not result in accurate estimates of the social
costs of non-CO2 gases’’ (SCC TSD, pg. 13).
405 The SCC estimates were converted from 2007
dollars to 2008 dollars using a GDP price deflator
(1.021) obtained from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts
Table 1.1.4, Prices Indexes for Gross Domestic
Product.
406 National Research Council (2009). Hidden
Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use. National Academies Press. See
docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11486.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
more difficult. The interagency group
hopes that over time researchers and
modelers will work to fill these gaps
and that the SCC estimates used for
regulatory analysis by the Federal
government will continue to evolve
with improvements in modeling.
Additional details on these limitations
are discussed in the SCC TSD.
In light of these limitations, the
interagency group has committed to
updating the current estimates as the
science and economic understanding of
climate change and its impacts on
society improves over time. Specifically,
the interagency group has set a
preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC
values in the next few years or at such
407 It is possible that other benefits or costs of
proposed regulations unrelated to CO2 emissions
time as substantially updated models
become available, and to continue to
support research in this area.
Applying the global SCC estimates,
shown in Table VIII–14, to the estimated
domestic reductions in CO2 emissions
under this proposed rule, we estimate
the dollar value of the climate related
benefits for each analysis year. For
internal consistency, the annual benefits
are discounted back to net present value
terms using the same discount rate as
each SCC estimate (i.e., 5%, 3%, and
2.5%) rather than 3% and 7%.407 These
estimates are provided in Table VIII–15.
will be discounted at rates that differ from those
used to develop the SCC estimates.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.068
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
associated with climate change will
raise serious questions of science,
economics, and ethics and should be
viewed as provisional.
The interagency group noted a
number of limitations to the SCC
analysis, including the incomplete way
in which the integrated assessment
models capture catastrophic and noncatastrophic impacts, their incomplete
treatment of adaptation and
technological change, uncertainty in the
extrapolation of damages to high
temperatures, and assumptions
regarding risk aversion. The limited
amount of research linking climate
impacts to economic damages makes the
interagency modeling exercise even
74323
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74324
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
H. Non-GHG Health and Environmental
Impacts
This section discusses the non-GHG
health and environmental impacts that
can be expected to occur as a result of
the proposed heavy-duty vehicle GHG
rule. GHG emissions are predominantly
the byproduct of fossil fuel combustion
processes that also produce criteria and
hazardous air pollutants. The vehicles
that are subject to the proposed
standards are also significant sources of
mobile source air pollution such as
direct PM, NOX X, VOCs and air toxics.
The proposed standards would affect
exhaust emissions of these pollutants
from vehicles. They would also affect
emissions from upstream sources
related to changes in fuel consumption.
Changes in ambient ozone, PM2.5, and
air toxics that would result from the
proposed standards are expected to
affect human health in the form of
premature deaths and other serious
human health effects, as well as other
important public health and welfare
effects.
It is important to quantify the health
and environmental impacts associated
with the proposed standard because a
failure to adequately consider these
ancillary co-pollutant impacts could
lead to an incorrect assessment of their
net costs and benefits. Moreover, copollutant impacts tend to accrue in the
near term, while any effects from
reduced climate change mostly accrue
over a time frame of several decades or
longer.
EPA typically quantifies and
monetizes the health and environmental
impacts related to both PM and ozone
in its regulatory impact analyses (RIAs),
when possible. However, EPA was
unable to do so in time for this proposal.
EPA attempts to make emissions and air
quality modeling decisions early in the
analytical process so that we can
complete the photochemical air quality
modeling and use that data to inform
the health and environmental impacts
analysis. Resource and time constraints
precluded the Agency from completing
this work in time for the proposal.
Instead, we provide a characterization of
the health and environmental impacts
that will be quantified and monetized
for the final rulemaking.
EPA bases its analyses on peerreviewed studies of air quality and
health and welfare effects and peerreviewed studies of the monetary values
of public health and welfare
improvements, and is generally
consistent with benefits analyses
performed for the analysis of the final
Ozone NAAQS and the final PM
NAAQS analysis, as well as the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
proposed Portland Cement National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants RIA, and final NO2
NAAQS.408, 409, 410, 411
Though EPA is characterizing the
changes in emissions associated with
toxic pollutants, we will not be able to
quantify or monetize the human health
effects associated with air toxic
pollutants for either the proposal or the
final rule analyses. Please refer to
Section VII for more information about
the air toxics emissions impacts
associated with the proposed standards.
(1) Human Health and Environmental
Impacts
To model the ozone and PM air
quality benefits of the final rule, EPA
will use the Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) model (see VII.C for a
description of the CMAQ model). The
modeled ambient air quality data will
serve as an input to the Environmental
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
(BenMAP).412 BenMAP is a computer
program developed by EPA that
integrates a number of the modeling
elements used in previous RIAs (e.g.,
interpolation functions, population
projections, health impact functions,
valuation functions, analysis and
pooling methods) to translate modeled
air concentration estimates into health
effects incidence estimates and
monetized benefits estimates.
Chapter 8.3 in the draft RIA that
accompanies this proposal lists the copollutant health effect exposureresponse functions EPA will use to
quantify the co-pollutant incidence
impacts associated with the final heavyduty vehicles standard. These include
PM- and ozone-related premature
408 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008).
Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. March.
409 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 2006. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared
by: Office of Air and Radiation.
410 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). 2009. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. April. Available on the
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/
RIAs/portlandcementria_4–20–09.pdf. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0472–0241.
411 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). 2010. Final NO2 NAAQS Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA). Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. April.
Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf.
Accessed March 15. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–
0237.
412 Information on BenMAP, including
downloads of the software, can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mortality, chronic bronchitis, nonfatal
heart attacks, hospital admissions
(respiratory and cardiovascular),
emergency room visits, acute bronchitis,
minor restricted activity days, and days
of work and school lost.
(2) Monetized Impacts
To calculate the total monetized
impacts associated with quantified
health impacts, EPA applies values
derived from a number of sources. For
premature mortality, EPA applies a
value of a statistical life derived from
the mortality valuation literature. For
certain health impacts, such as chronic
bronchitis and a number of respiratoryrelated ailments, EPA applies
willingness-to-pay estimates derived
from the valuation literature. For the
remaining health impacts, EPA applies
values derived from current cost-ofillness and/or wage estimates. Chapter
8.3 in the draft RIA that accompanies
this proposal presents the monetary
values EPA will apply to changes in the
incidence of health and welfare effects
associated with the final standard.
(3) Other Unquantified Health and
Environmental Impacts
In addition to the co-pollutant health
and environmental impacts EPA will
quantify for the analysis of the final
standard, there are a number of other
health and human welfare endpoints
that EPA will not be able to quantify or
monetize because of current limitations
in the methods or available data. These
impacts are associated with emissions of
air toxics (including benzene, 1,3butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,
and acrolein), ambient ozone, and
ambient PM2.5 exposures. Chapter 8.3 of
the draft RIA lists these unquantified
health and environmental impacts.
While there will be impacts
associated with air toxic pollutant
emission changes that result from the
final standard, EPA will not attempt to
monetize those impacts. This is
primarily because currently available
tools and methods to assess air toxics
risk from mobile sources at the national
scale are not adequate for extrapolation
to incidence estimations or benefits
assessment. The best suite of tools and
methods currently available for
assessment at the national scale are
those used in the National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment. The EPA Science
Advisory Board specifically commented
in their review of the 1996 Nationalscale Air Toxics Assessments that these
tools were not yet ready for use in a
national-scale benefits analysis, because
they did not consider the full
distribution of exposure and risk, or
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
address sub-chronic health effects.413
While EPA has since improved the
tools, there remain critical limitations
for estimating incidence and assessing
benefits of reducing mobile source air
toxics. EPA continues to work to
address these limitations; however, EPA
does not anticipate having methods and
tools available for national-scale
application in time for the analysis of
the final rules.414
I. Energy Security Impacts
This proposed rule to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions in
heavy-duty vehicles results in improved
fuel efficiency which, in turn, helps to
reduce U.S. petroleum imports. A
reduction of U.S. petroleum imports
reduces both financial and strategic
risks caused by potential sudden
disruptions in the supply of imported
petroleum to the United States. This
reduction in risk is a measure of
improved U.S. energy security. This
section summarizes our estimates of
U.S. oil import reductions and energy
security benefits of the proposed heavyduty fuel consumption and GHG vehicle
standards. Additional discussion of this
issue can be found in Chapter 9.5 of the
draft RIA.
(1) Implications of Reduced Petroleum
Use on U.S. Imports
In 2008, U.S. petroleum import
expenditures represented 21 percent of
total U.S. imports of all goods and
services.415 In 2008, the United States
imported 66 percent of the petroleum it
consumed, and the transportation sector
accounted for 70 percent of total U.S.
petroleum consumption. This compares
to approximately 37 percent of
petroleum from imports and 55 percent
of consumption from petroleum in the
transportation sector in 1975.416 It is
clear that petroleum imports have a
significant impact on the U.S. economy.
Requiring lower-GHG vehicle
technology in heavy-duty vehicles in
the United States is expected to lower
U.S. oil imports. EPA used the MOVES
model to estimate the fuel savings due
to this proposal. A detailed explanation
of the MOVES model can be found in
Chapter 5 of the draft RIA.
Based on a detailed analysis of
differences in fuel consumption,
petroleum imports, and imports of
refined petroleum products and crude
74325
oil among the Reference Case, High
Economic Growth, and Low Economic
Growth Scenarios presented in the
Energy Information Administration’s
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2009,
EPA and NHTSA estimate that
approximately 50 percent of the
reduction in fuel consumption resulting
from adopting improved fuel GHG
standards and fuel economy standards
is likely to be reflected in reduced U.S.
imports of refined fuel, while the
remaining 50 percent would be
expected to be reflected in reduced
domestic fuel refining. Of this latter
figure, 90 percent is anticipated to
reduce U.S. imports of crude petroleum
for use as a refinery feedstock, while the
remaining 10 percent is expected to
reduce U.S. domestic production of
crude petroleum. Thus, on balance, each
gallon of fuel saved as a consequence of
the heavy-duty GHG standards and fuel
economy standards is anticipated to
reduce total U.S. imports of crude
petroleum or refined fuel by 0.95
gallons.417 EPA estimates of the
reduction in U.S. oil imports from this
proposal for the years 2020, 2030 and
2040, in millions of barrels per day, are
presented in Table VIII–16 below.
the ‘‘demand’’ or ‘‘monopsony’’ costs);
and (2) the risk of reductions in U.S.
economic output and disruption of the
U.S. economy caused by sudden
disruptions in the supply of imported
petroleum to the United States (i.e.,
macroeconomic disruption/adjustment
costs). Maintaining a U.S. military
presence to help secure stable oil supply
from potentially vulnerable regions of
the world was not included in this
analysis because its attribution to
particular missions or activities is hard
to quantify.
413 Science Advisory Board. 2001. NATA—
Evaluating the National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment for 1996—an SAB Advisory. https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html.
414 In April 2009, EPA hosted a workshop on
estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air
pollutants. This workshop built upon the work
accomplished in the June 2000 Science Advisory
Board/EPA Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions
in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, which
generated thoughtful discussion on approaches to
estimating human health benefits from reductions
in air toxics exposure, but no consensus was
reached on methods that could be implemented in
the near term for a broad selection of air toxics.
Please visit https://epa.gov/air/toxicair/
2009workshop.html for more information about the
workshop and its associated materials.
415 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, as
shown on June 24, 2009.
416 Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Annual
Energy Review 2008, Report No. DOE/EIA–0384
(2008), Tables 5.1 and 5.13c, June 26, 2009.
417 This figure is calculated as 0.50 + 0.50*0.9 =
0.50 + 0.45 = 0.95.
418 Leiby, Paul N., ‘‘Estimating the Energy Security
Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil Imports’’ Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, ORNL/TM–2007/028, Final
Report, 2008. (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162).
419 The ORNL study ‘‘The Energy Security
Benefits of Reduced Oil Use, 2006–2015,’’
completed in March 2008, is an update version of
the approach used for estimating the energy
security benefits of U.S. oil import reductions
developed in an ORNL 1997 Report by Leiby, Paul
N., Donald W. Jones, T. Randall Curlee, and Russell
Lee, entitled ‘‘Oil Imports: An Assessment of
Benefits and Costs.’’ (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.069
In order to understand the energy
security implications of reducing U.S.
petroleum imports, EPA worked with
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
which has developed approaches for
evaluating the economic costs and
energy security implications of oil use.
The energy security estimates provided
below are based upon a methodology
developed in a peer-reviewed study
entitled ‘‘The Energy Security Benefits of
Reduced Oil Use, 2006–2015,’’
completed in March 2008. This study is
included as part of the docket for this
proposal.418, 419
When conducting this analysis, ORNL
considered the full economic cost of
importing petroleum into the United
States. The economic cost of importing
petroleum into the United States is
defined to include two components in
addition to the purchase price of
petroleum itself. These are: (1) The
higher costs for oil imports resulting
from the effect of increasing U.S. import
demand on the world oil price and on
the market power of the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (i.e.,
(2) Energy Security Implications
74326
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Although there is clearly a benefit to
the United States when considered from
a domestic perspective, the decrease in
price due to decreased demand in the
United States also represents a loss to
other countries. Given the redistributive
nature of this monopsony effect from a
global perspective, it is excluded in the
energy security benefits calculations for
this proposal. In contrast, the other
portion of the energy security premium,
the U.S. macroeconomic disruption and
adjustment costs that arise from U.S.
petroleum imports, does not have
offsetting impacts outside of the United
States, and, thus, are included in the
energy security benefits estimated for
this proposal. To summarize, the
agencies have included only the
macroeconomic disruption portion of
the energy security benefits to monetize
the total energy security benefits of this
proposal.
The total annual energy security
benefits for the proposed heavy-duty
vehicle rule are reported in Table VIII–
18 for the years 2020, 2030 and 2040.
These estimates include only the
macroeconomic disruption/adjustment
portion of the energy security premium.
J. Other Impacts
and highway noise. Depending on how
the additional travel is distributed
throughout the day and on where it
takes place, additional vehicle use can
contribute to traffic congestion and
delays by increasing traffic volumes on
facilities that are already heavily
traveled during peak periods. These
added delays impose higher costs on
drivers and other vehicle occupants in
the form of increased travel time and
operating expenses, increased costs
associated with traffic accidents, and
increased traffic noise. Because drivers
421 AEO 2009 forecasts energy market trends and
values only to 2035. The energy security premium
estimates post-2035 were assumed to be the 2035
estimate.
(1) Noise, Congestion and Accidents
Increased vehicle use associated with
a positive rebound effect also
contributes to increased traffic
congestion, motor vehicle accidents,
420 Peer Review Report Summary: Estimating the
Energy Security Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil
Imports, ICF, Inc., September 2007.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.071
incorporating the most recent available
AEO 2010 oil price forecasts and market
trends. Energy security premiums for
the years 2020, 2030 and 2040 are
presented in Table VIII–17,421 as well as
a breakdown of the components of the
energy security premiums for each of
these years. The components of the
energy security premiums and their
values are discussed in detail in Chapter
9.4 of the RIA.
EP30NO10.070
In response to peer reviewer comments,
ORNL modified its model by changing
several key parameters involving the
coordinated supply behavior of
petroleum-exporting countries, the
responsiveness of oil demand and
supply to a change in the world oil
price, and the responsiveness of U.S.
economic output to a change in the
world oil price.
For this proposed rule, ORNL
estimated energy security premiums by
The literature on the energy security
for the last two decades has routinely
combined the monopsony and the
macroeconomic disruption components
when calculating the total value of the
energy security premium. However, in
the context of using a global SCC value,
the question arises: how should the
energy security premium be determined
when a global perspective is taken?
Monopsony benefits represent avoided
payments by the United States to oil
producers in foreign countries that
result from a decrease in the world oil
price as the United States decreases its
consumption of imported oil.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
As part of the process for developing
the ORNL energy security estimates,
EPA sponsored an independent, expert
peer review of the 2008 ORNL study. A
report compiling the peer reviewers’
comments is provided in the docket.420
In addition, EPA has worked with
ORNL to address comments raised in
the peer review and to develop
estimates of the energy security benefits
associated with a reduction in U.S. oil
imports for this heavy-duty vehicle rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the additional truck driving are
presented in Table VIII–20.
Study; see https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/
final/index.htm (last accessed July 21, 2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
EP30NO10.073
422 These estimates were developed by FHWA for
use in its 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation
combination tractors. The results of this
analysis potentially overestimate the
costs and provide a conservative
estimate. The agencies welcome
comments on whether the cost
calculations should be done differently
in the final rulemaking.
The agencies are proposing to use
FHWA’s ‘‘Middle’’ estimates for
marginal congestion, accident, and
noise costs caused by increased travel
from trucks. This approach is consistent
with the current methodology used in
the Light-Duty GHG rulemaking
analysis. These costs are multiplied by
the annual increases in vehicle miles
travelled from the positive rebound
effect to yield the estimated cost
increases resulting from increased
congestion, accidents, and noise during
each future year. The values the
agencies used to calculate these
increased costs are included in Table
VIII–19.
30NOP2
EP30NO10.072
rule. The agencies continue to find them
appropriate for this analysis after
reviewing the procedures used by
FHWA to develop them and considering
other available estimates of these values.
FHWA’s congestion cost estimates for
trucks, which are weighted averages
based on the estimated fractions of peak
and off-peak freeway travel for each
class of trucks, already account for the
fact that trucks make up a smaller
fraction of peak period traffic on
congested roads because they try to
avoid peak periods when possible.
FHWA’s congestion cost estimates focus
on freeways because non-freeway effects
are less serious due to lower traffic
volumes and opportunities to re-route
around the congestion. The agencies,
however, applied the congestion cost to
the overall VMT increase, though the
fraction of VMT on each road type used
in MOVES range from 27 to 29 percent
of the vehicle miles on freeways for
vocational vehicles and 53 percent for
In aggregate, the increased costs due
to noise, accidents, and congestion from
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
do not take these added costs into
account in deciding when and where to
travel, they must be accounted for
separately as a cost of the added driving
associated with the rebound effect.
EPA and NHTSA rely on estimates of
congestion, accident, and noise costs
caused by pickup trucks and vans,
single unit trucks, buses, and
combination tractors developed by the
Federal Highway Administration to
estimate the increased external costs
caused by added driving due to the
rebound effect.422 The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) estimates are
intended to measure the increases in
costs from added congestion, property
damages and injuries in traffic
accidents, and noise levels caused by
various types of trucks that are borne by
persons other than their drivers (or
‘‘marginal’’ external costs). EPA and
NHTSA employed estimates from this
source previously in the analysis
accompanying the Light-Duty GHG final
74327
74328
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(2) Savings Due to Reduced Refueling
Time
Reducing the fuel consumption of
heavy-duty trucks may either increase
their driving range before they require
refueling, or motivate truck purchasers
to buy, and manufacturers to offer,
smaller fuel tanks. Keeping the fuel tank
the same size allows truck operators to
reduce the frequency with which
drivers typically refuel their vehicles; it
thus extends the upper limit of the
range they can travel before requiring
refueling. Alternatively, if purchasers
and manufacturers respond to improved
fuel economy by reducing the size of
fuel tanks to maintain a constant driving
range, the smaller tank will require less
time in actual refueling.
Because refueling time represents a
time cost of truck operation, these time
savings should be incorporated into
truck purchasers’ decisions over how
much fuel-saving technology they want
in their vehicles. The savings calculated
here thus raise the same questions
discussed in Preamble VIII.A and draft
RIA Section 9.1: Does the apparent
existence of these savings reflect failures
in the market for fuel economy, or does
it reflect costs not addressed in this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
analysis? The response to these
questions could vary across truck
segment. See those sections for further
analysis of this question.
This analysis estimates the reduction
in the annual time spent filling the fuel
tank; this reduced time could come
either from fewer refueling events, if the
fuel tank stays the same size, or less
time spent during each refueling event,
if the fuel tank is made proportionately
smaller. The refueling savings are
calculated as the savings in the amount
of time that would have been necessary
to pump the fuel. The calculation does
not include time spent searching for a
fuel station or other time spent at the
station; it is assumed that the time
savings occur only during refueling. The
value of the time saved is estimated at
the hourly rate recommended for truck
operators ($22.15 in 2008 dollars) in
DOT guidance for valuing time
savings.423
423 U.S. Department of Transportation, ‘‘Revised
Departmental Guidance for Valuation of Travel
Time in Economic Analysis,’’ February 11, 2003,
Table 4 (which shows a value of $18.10 in 2000
dollars); available at https://ostpxweb.dot.gov/
policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf (last
accessed September 9, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The refueling savings include the
increased fuel consumption resulting
from additional mileage associated with
the rebound effect. However, the
estimate of the rebound effect does not
account for any reduction in net
operating costs from lower refueling
time. As discussed earlier, the rebound
effect should be a measure of the change
in VMT with respect to the net change
in overall operating costs. Ideally,
changes in refueling time would factor
into this calculation, although the effect
is expected to be minor because
refueling time savings are small relative
to the value of reduced fuel
expenditures.
The details of this calculation are
discussed in the draft RIA Chapter 9.3.2.
The savings associated with reduced
refueling time for a truck of each type
throughout its lifetime are shown in
Table VIII–21. The aggregate savings
associated with reduced refueling time
are shown in Table VIII–22 for vehicles
sold in 2014 through 2050. EPA and
NHTSA request comment on whether
reduced refueling time will result from
greater fuel efficiency and how it may
vary by truck segment.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
(3) The Effect of Safety Standards and
Voluntary Safety Improvements on
Vehicle Weight
Safety regulations developed by
NHTSA in previous regulations may
make compliance with the proposed
standards more difficult or may reduce
the projected benefits of the program.
The primary way that safety regulations
can impact fuel efficiency and GHG
emissions is through increased vehicle
weight, which reduces the fuel
efficiency of the vehicle. Using MY 2010
as a baseline, this section discusses the
effects of other government regulations
on MY 2014–2016 medium- and heavyduty vehicle fuel efficiency. At this
time, no known safety standards will
affect new models in MY 2017 or 2018.
The agency’s estimates are based on cost
and weight tear-down studies of a few
vehicles and cannot possibly cover all
the variations in the manufacturers’
fleets. NHTSA requested, and various
manufacturers provided, confidential
estimates of increases in weight
resulting from safety improvements.
Those increases are shown in
subsequent tables.
We have broken down our analysis of
the impact of safety standards that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
might affect the MY 2014–16 fleets into
three parts: (1) Those NHTSA final rules
with known effective dates, (2)
proposed rules or soon to be proposed
rules by NHTSA with or without final
effective dates, and (3) currently
voluntary safety improvements planned
by the manufacturers.
(a) Weight Impacts of Required Safety
Standards
NHTSA has undertaken several
rulemakings in which several standards
would become effective for mediumduty and heavy-duty (MD/HD) vehicles
between MY 2014 and MY 2016. We
will examine the potential impact on
MD/HD vehicle weights for MY 2014–
2016 using MY 2010 as a baseline. The
following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) apply:
• FMVSS 119, Heavy Truck Tires
Endurance and High Speed Tests.
• FMVSS 121, Air Brake Systems
Stopping Distance.
• FMVSS 214, Motor Coach Lap/
Shoulder Belts.
• MD/HD Vehicle Electronic Stability
Control Systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74329
(i) FMVSS 119, Heavy Truck Tires
Endurance and High Speed Tests
The data in the large truck crash
causation study and the agency’s test
results indicate that J and L load range
tires are more likely to fail the proposed
requirements among the targeted F, G,
H, J and L load range tires.424 As such
the J and L load range tires specifically
need to be addressed to meet the
proposed requirements since the other
load range tires are likely to pass the
requirements. Rubber material
improvements such as improving rubber
compounds would be a countermeasure
that reduces heat retention and improve
the durability of the tires. Using high
tensile strength steel chords in tire bead,
carcass and belt would enable a weight
reduction in construction with no
strength penalties. The rubber material
improvements and using high tensile
strength steel would not add any
additional weight to the current
production heavy truck tires. Thus there
may not be an incremental weight per
424 ‘‘Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis,
FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 kg
(10,000 pounds), June 2010.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.074
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
vehicle for the period of MY 2014–2016
compared to the MY 2010 baseline. This
proposal could become a final rule with
an effective date of MY2016.
(ii) FMVSS No. 121, Airbrake Systems
Stopping Distance
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The most recent major final rule was
published on July 27, 2009 and became
effective on November 24, 2009
(MY2009) with different compliance
dates. The final rule requires the vast
majority of new heavy truck tractors
(approximately 99 percent of the fleet)
to achieve a 30 percent reduction in
stopping distance compared to currently
required levels. Three-axle tractors with
GVWRat or below 59,600 pounds must
meet the reduced stopping distance
requirements by August 1, 2011
(MY2011). Two-axle tractors and
tractors with GVWR above 59,600
pounds must meet the reduced stopping
distance requirements by August 1,
2013 (MY2013). There are several brake
systems that can meet the requirements
in the final rule. Those systems include
installation of larger S-cam drum brakes
or disc brake systems at all positions, or
hybrid disc and larger rear S-cam drum
brake systems.
According to the data provided by a
manufacturer (Bendix), the heaviest
drum brakes weigh more than the
lightest disc brakes while the heaviest
disc brakes weigh more than the lightest
drum brakes. For a three-axle tractor
equipped with all disc brakes, the total
weight could increase by 212 pounds or
could decrease by 134 pounds,
compared to an all drum braked tractor
425 Cost and Weight Analysis of Two Motorcoach
Seating Systems: One With and One Without Three-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
depending on which disc or drum
brakes are used for comparison. The
improved brakes may add a small
amount of weight to the affected vehicle
for MY2014–2016 resulting in a slight
increase in fuel consumption.
(iii) FMVSS No. 208, Motor Coach Lap/
Shoulder Belts
Based on preliminary results from the
agency’s cost/weight teardown studies
of motor coach seats, it is estimated that
the weight added by 3-point lap/
shoulder belts ranges from 5.96 to 9.95
pounds per 2-person seat.425 This is the
weight only of the seat belt assembly
itself and does not include changing the
design of the seat, reinforcing the floor,
walls or other areas of the motor coach.
Few current production motor coaches
have been installed with lap/shoulder
belts on their seats, and the number
could be negligible. Assuming a 54
passenger motor coach, the added
weight for the 3-point lap/shoulder belt
assembly is in the range of 161 to 269
pounds (27 * (5.96 to 9.95)) per vehicle.
This proposal could become a final rule
with an effective date of MY2016.
(iv) Electronic Stability Control Systems
for Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty (MD/
HD) Vehicles
Electronic stability control systems
are not currently required in MD/HD
vehicles and could be proposed to be
required in the vehicles by NHTSA.
FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and electric
brake systems, requires multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg
(10,000 pounds) to be equipped with an
antilock brake system. All MD/HD
vehicles have a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds, and these vehicles are
required to be installed with an antilock
brake system by the same standard.
Electronic stability control systems
incorporate yaw rate control into the
antilock brake system. Yaw is a rotation
around the vertical axis. An electronic
stability control system uses several
sensors in addition to the sensors used
in the antilock brake system, which is
required in MD/HD vehicles. Those
additional sensors could include
steering wheel angle sensor, yaw rate
sensor, lateral acceleration sensor and
wheel speed sensor. According to the
data provided by Meritor WABCO, the
weight of the ESC for the model 4S4M
tractor is estimated to be around 55.494
pounds, and the weight of the antilock
brake system only is estimated to be
45.54 pounds. Then the added weight
for an electronic stability control system
for a vehicle is estimated to be 9.954
(55.494¥45.54) pounds.
(b) Summary—Overview of Anticipated
Weight Increases
Table VIII–23 summarizes estimates
made by the agency regarding the
weight added by the above discussed
standards or likely rulemakings. The
agency estimates that weight additions
required by final rules and likely
NHTSA regulations effective in MY
2016 compared to the MY 2010 fleet
will increase motor coach vehicle
weight by 171–279 pounds and will
increase other heavy-duty truck weights
by a minor 10 pounds.
Point Lap/Shoulder Belt Restraints, Ludkes and
Associates, July 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.075
74330
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) Effects of Vehicle Mass Reduction on
Safety
supporting data and research for HD
vehicle weight reduction.
NHTSA and EPA have been
considering the effect of vehicle weight
on vehicle safety for the past several
years in the context of our joint
rulemaking for light-duty vehicle CAFE
and GHG standards, consistent with
NHTSA’s long-standing consideration of
safety effects in setting CAFE standards.
Combining all modes of impact, the
latest analysis by NHTSA for the MYs
2012–2016 final rule found that
reducing the weight of the heavier light
trucks (LT > 3,870) had a positive
overall effect on safety, reducing
societal fatalities.426
In the context of the current
rulemaking for HD fuel consumption
and GHG standards, one would expect
that reducing the weight of mediumduty trucks similarly would, if anything,
have a positive impact on safety.
However, given the large difference in
weight between light-duty vehicles and
medium-duty trucks, and even larger
difference between light-duty vehicles
and heavy-duty vehicles with loads, the
agencies believe that the impact of
weight reductions of medium- and
heavy-duty trucks would not have a
noticeable impact on safety for any of
these classes of vehicles.
However, the agencies recognize that
it is important to conduct further study
and research into the interaction of
mass, size and safety to assist future
rulemakings, and we expect that the
collaborative interagency work currently
on-going to address this issue for the
light-duty vehicle context may also be
able to inform our evaluation of safety
effects for the final HD vehicle rules. We
seek comment regarding potential safety
effects due to weight reduction in the
HD vehicle context, with particular
emphasis on commenters providing
(5) Effects of the Proposal on Safety
Among all of the fuel efficiency
improving technologies the agencies
believe may be needed to achieve the
proposed standards, NHTSA believes
that tires are the only technology that
might affect safety. For loaded trucks,
there is little of no weather related (wet
road) safety issue with reduced tire
rolling resistance because of the high
loads on the contact patch and high
surface area of the contact patch. Within
a fairly broad range (for rubber
compounds) the tread material selection
makes little difference in stopping
distance for fully-loaded trucks. For
unloaded trucks there can be a safety
effect. On the other hand, tire
manufacturers have introduced LRR
steer and drive tires that perform very
well, usually with more expensive
materials and processes. High tensile
steel wire constructions can make a
carcass that is lighter without sacrificing
strength. New grades of carbon black
and other reinforcing fillers continue to
be developed that lower weight and/or
hysteresis without sacrificing other
properties. With a cost increase, tires
can be made lighter and tires can be
made with lower rolling resistance
without sacrificing safety. While the
design of the body or carcass of tires
does affect rolling resistance, because of
market demands, it is unlikely that
manufacturers of tires are going to make
significant changes to the body or
carcass of the tire that would affect
safety. NHTSA is close to issuing an
NPRM on an upgrade to FMVSS No. 119
for heavy truck tires that may result in
better carcass construction.
Related to effects of the proposal on
retread tires, the NPRM only regulates
original equipment (new vehicle) tires.
The proposed rules would not regulate
replacement or retread tires. The only
way the rules would affect retreading of
tires is if the original equipment body or
carcass is modified to improve rolling
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
426 ‘‘Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Corporate
Average Fuel Economy for MY 2012–MY 2016
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks’’, NHTSA, March
2010, (Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0059–0344.1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74331
resistance. Again, because of market
demands, it is unlikely that
manufacturers of tires are going to make
significant changes to the body or
carcass of the tire that would affect
safety. Although not regulated by this
proposal, the tread used for retreaded
tires can be made with lower rolling
resistance without sacrificing safety at a
cost, if the market demands it.
The agency seeks comments on the
safety effects of LRR tires for trucks.
K. Summary of Costs and Benefits From
the Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Perspective
As noted in Section VIII.A, the
primary motivations of this proposal are
improved energy security and GHG
emissions reductions in the United
States. From that perspective, the
benefits of the proposal are the external
effects, and the net effects on truck
owners and operators are the costs. In
this section, the agencies present a
summary of costs, benefits, and net
benefits of the proposal. Section VIII.L
presents the benefits and costs from the
perspective that the motivation of the
program is to improve fuel efficiency.
Table VIII–24 shows the estimated
annual monetized costs of the proposed
program for the indicated calendar
years. The table also shows the net
present values of those costs for the
calendar years 2012–2050 using both 3
percent and 7 percent discount rates.417
In this table, the aggregate value of fuel
savings is calculated using pre-tax fuel
prices since savings in fuel taxes do not
represent a reduction in the value of
economic resources utilized in
producing and consuming fuel. Note
that fuel savings shown here result from
reductions in fleet-wide fuel use. Thus,
they grow over time as an increasing
fraction of the fleet meets the 2018
standards.
417 For the estimation of the stream of costs and
benefits, we assume that after implementation of
the proposed MY 2014–2017 standards, the 2017
standards apply to each year out to 2050.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table VIII–25 presents estimated
annual monetized benefits for the
indicated calendar years. The table also
shows the net present values of those
benefits for the calendar years 2012–
2050 using both 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates. The table shows the
benefits of reduced CO2 emissions—and
consequently the annual quantified
benefits (i.e., total benefits)—for each of
four SCC values estimated by the
interagency working group. As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
discussed in the RIA Section 8.5, there
are some limitations to the SCC
analysis, including the incomplete way
in which the integrated assessment
models capture catastrophic and noncatastrophic impacts, their incomplete
treatment of adaptation and
technological change, uncertainty in the
extrapolation of damages to high
temperatures, and assumptions
regarding risk aversion.
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In addition, these monetized GHG
benefits exclude the value of net
reductions in non-CO2 GHG emissions
(CH4, N2O, HFC) expected under this
proposal. Although EPA has not
monetized the benefits of reductions in
non-CO2 GHGs, the value of these
reductions should not be interpreted as
zero. Rather, the net reductions in nonCO2 GHGs will contribute to this
proposal’s climate benefits, as explained
in Section VI.C.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.076
74332
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
for the calendar years 2012–2050 using
both 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates. The table includes the benefits of
reduced CO2 emissions (and
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consequently the annual net benefits)
for each of four SCC values considered
by EPA.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.077
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Table VIII–26 presents estimated
annual net benefits for the indicated
calendar years. The table also shows the
net present values of those net benefits
74333
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
EPA also conducted a separate
analysis of the total benefits over the
model year lifetimes of the 2014 through
2018 model year trucks. In contrast to
the calendar year analysis presented
above in Table VIII–24 through Table
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
VIII–26, the model year lifetime analysis
below shows the impacts of the
proposed program on vehicles produced
during each of the model years 2014
through 2018 over the course of their
expected lifetimes. The net societal
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
benefits over the full lifetimes of
vehicles produced during each of the
five model years from 2014 through
2018 are shown in Table VIII–27 and
Table VIII–28 at both 3 percent and
7 percent discount rates, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.078
74334
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74335
EP30NO10.079
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
L. Summary of Costs and Benefits From
the Fuel Efficiency Perspective
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The purpose of a program to regulate
fuel efficiency is primarily to save fuel,
as compared to the purpose of a
program to regulate GHG emissions,
which is primarily to reduce the impact
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
of climate change. Considering costs
and benefits from a fuel efficiency
perspective, technology costs occur
when the vehicle is purchased, just as
they do from a GHG emissions
perspective, but fuel savings would be
counted as benefits that occur over the
lifetime of the vehicle as it consumes
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
less fuel, rather than as negative costs
that would be experienced either at the
time of purchase or over the lifetime of
the vehicle. Tables VIII–29 and VIII–30
show the same estimates as provided in
Tables VIII–27 and VIII–28, but with the
categories relabeled to illustrate the fuel
efficiency perspective.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.080
74336
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74337
EP30NO10.081
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
IX. Analysis of Alternatives
The heavy-duty truck segment is very
complex. The sector consists of a
diverse group of impacted parties,
including engine manufacturers, chassis
manufacturers, truck manufacturers,
trailer manufacturers, truck fleet owners
and the air breathing public. The
proposal the agencies have laid out
today is largely shaped to maximize the
environmental and fuel savings benefits
of the program respecting the unique
and varied nature of the regulated
industries. In developing this proposal,
we considered a number of alternatives
that could have resulted in fewer or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
potentially greater GHG and fuel
consumption reductions than the
program we are proposing. This section
summarizes the alternatives we
considered and presents assessments of
technology costs, CO2 reductions, and
fuel savings associated with each
alternative. The agencies request
comments on all of these alternatives,
including whether a specific alternative
could achieve greater net benefits than
the preferred alternative, either for all
regulatory categories, or for any
individual regulatory category. The
agencies also request comments on
whether any specific additional
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
analyses could provide information that
could further inform the selection
among alternatives for the final rule.
A. What are the alternatives that the
agencies considered?
In developing alternatives, NHTSA
must consider EISA’s requirement for
the MD/HD fuel efficiency program
noted above. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and
(3) contain the following three
requirements specific to the MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program: (1) The program must be
‘‘designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement’’; (2) the various
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.082
74338
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
required aspects of the program must be
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for MD/HD
vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted
under the program must provide not
less than four model years of lead time
and three model years of regulatory
stability. In considering these various
requirements, NHTSA will also account
for relevant environmental and safety
considerations.
Each of the alternatives proposed by
NHTSA and EPA represents, in part, a
different way the agencies could
establish a HD program pursuant to
EISA and the CAA. The agencies are
proposing Alternative 6. The
alternatives below represent a broad
range of approaches under
consideration for setting proposed HD
vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG
emissions standards. A simplified table
describing the alternatives is included
in Table IX–1, in Section IX. A. (9)
below. The alternatives that the agencies
are proposing, in order of increasing
fuel efficiency and GHG emissions
reductions, are:
(1) Alternative 1: No Action
A ‘‘no action’’ alternative assumes that
the agencies would not issue rules
regarding a MD/HD fuel efficiency
improvement program, and is
considered to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
to provide an analytical baseline against
which to compare environmental
impacts of the other regulatory
alternatives.418 The agencies refer to this
as the ‘‘No Action Alternative’’ or as a
‘‘no increase’’ or ‘‘baseline’’ alternative.
(2) Alternative 2: Engine Only
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The EPA currently regulates heavyduty engines, i.e., engine manufacturers,
rather than the vehicle as a whole, in
order to control criteria emissions.429
418 NEPA requires agencies to consider a ‘‘no
action’’ alternative in their NEPA analyses and to
compare the effects of not taking action with the
effects of the reasonable action alternatives to
demonstrate the different environmental effects of
the action alternatives. See 40 CFR 1502.2(e) and
1502.14(d). CEQ has explained that ‘‘[T]he
regulations require the analysis of the no action
alternative even if the agency is under a court order
or legislative command to act. This analysis
provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to
compare the magnitude of environmental effects of
the action alternatives. It is also an example of a
reasonable alternative outside the jurisdiction of the
agency which must be analyzed. (See 40 CFR
1502.14(c).) * * * Inclusion of such an analysis in
the EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public,
and the President as intended by NEPA. (See 40
CFR 1500.1(a).) ‘‘Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy
Act Regulations,’’ 46 FR 18026 (emphasis added).
429 There are several reasons for this approach. In
many cases the engine and chassis are produced by
different manufacturers and it is more efficient to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Under Alternative 2, the agencies would
similarly set engine performance
standards for each vehicle class, Class
2b through Class 8, and would specify
an engine cell test procedure, as EPA
currently does for criteria pollutants.
HD engine manufacturers would be
responsible for ensuring that each
engine could meet the applicable
vehicle class engine performance
standard when tested in accordance
with the specified engine cell test
procedure. Engine manufacturers could
improve HD engines by applying the
combinations of fuel efficiency
improvements and GHG emissions
reduction technologies to the engine
that they deem best achieve that result.
(3) Alternative 3: Class 8 Combination
Tractors
Combination tractors consume the
largest fraction of fuel within the heavyduty truck segment. Tractors also offer
significant potential for fuel savings due
to the high annual mileage and high
vehicle speed of typical trucks within
this segment, as compared to annual
mileage and average speeds/duty cycles
of other vehicle categories. This
alternative would set performance
standards for both the engine of Class 8
vehicles and the overall vehicle
efficiency performance for the Class 8
combination tractor segment. Under
Alternative 3, the agencies would set an
engine performance standard, as
discussed under Alternative 2, for Class
8 tractors. In addition, Class 8
combination tractor manufacturers
would be required to meet an overall
vehicle performance standard by
making various non-engine fuel saving
technology improvements. These nonengine fuel efficiency and GHG
emissions improvements could be
accomplished, for example, by a
combination of improvements to
aerodynamics, lowering tire rolling
resistance, decreasing vehicle mass
(weight), reducing fuel use at idle, or by
adding intelligent vehicle
technologies.430 Compliance with the
overall vehicle standard could be
determined using a computer model
that would simulate overall vehicle fuel
efficiency given a set of vehicle
component inputs. Using this
compliance approach, the Class 8
vehicle manufacturer would supply
certain vehicle characteristics (relating
to the categories of technologies noted
hold a single entity responsible. Also, testing an
engine cell is more accurate and repeatable than
testing a whole vehicle.
430 See the NAS Report, Note 111, above, at
Chapter 5, for discussions of the potential fuel
efficiency improvement technologies that can be
applied to each of these vehicle components.
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74339
immediately above) that would serve as
model inputs. The agency would supply
a standard Class 8 vehicle engine’s
contribution to overall vehicle
efficiency, making the engine
component a constant for purposes of
compliance with the overall vehicle
performance standard, such that
compliance with the overall vehicle
standard could only be achieved via
efficiency improvements to non-engine
vehicle components. Thus, vehicle
manufacturers could make any
combination of improvements of the
non-engine technologies that they
believe would best achieve the Class 8
overall vehicle performance standard.
(4) Alternative 4: Engines and Class 7
and 8 Tractors
This alternative combines Alternative
2 with Alternative 3, and additionally
would set an overall vehicle efficiency
performance standard for Class 7
tractors. This alternative would, thus,
set standards for all HD engines and
would set overall vehicle performance
standards for Class 7 and 8 tractors, as
described for Class 8 combination
tractors under Alternative 3. Class 7
tractors make up a small percent of the
tractor market, approximately 9
percent.431 Though the segment is
currently small, the agencies believe the
inclusion of this subcategory of vehicles
would help prevent a potential class
shifting, as noted in the NAS panel
report.432
(5) Alternative 5: Engines, Class 7 and
8 Tractors, and HD Pickup Trucks and
Vans
This alternative builds on Alternative
4 through the addition of an overall
vehicle efficiency performance standard
for HD Pickup Trucks and Vans (or
work trucks). Therefore, under this
alternative, the agencies would set
engine performance standards for each
HD vehicle class, and would also set
overall vehicle performance standards
for Class 7 and 8 tractors, as well as for
HD Pickup Trucks and Vans.
Compliance for the HD pickup trucks
and vans would be determined through
a fleet averaging process similar to
determining passenger car and light
truck compliance with CAFE standards.
(6) Alternative 6: Engines, Tractors, and
Class 2b Through 8 Trucks
Alternative 6 represents the agencies’
preferred approach. This alternative
would set engine efficiency standards,
engine GHG emissions standards,
431 MJ Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market
Analysis. May 2009.
432 See NAS Report, Note 111, above, at page 152.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74340
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
overall vehicle fuel efficiency standards,
and overall vehicle GHG emissions
standards for HD pickup trucks and
vans and the remaining Class 2b
through Class 8 vehicles and the engines
installed in them. This alternative
essentially sets fuel efficiency and GHG
emissions performance standards for
both the engines and the overall
vehicles in the entire heavy-duty truck
sector. Compliance with each vehicle
category’s engine performance standard
would be determined as discussed in
the description of Alternative 2.
Compliance with the tractor and
vocational vehicle categories’ overall
vehicle performance standard (Class 2b
through 8 vehicles) would be
determined as discussed in the
description of Alternative 3.
Compliance for the HD pickup trucks
and vans as described in Alternative 5.
The agencies also evaluated two
scenarios related to Alternative 6 but
with stringency levels which were 20
percent more and less stringent. These
alternatives are referred to as
Alternatives 6a and 6b. The agencies
welcome comment on other approaches
to develop and present additional
stringency alternatives.
(a) Alternative 6a: Engines, Tractors,
and Class 2b Through 8 Trucks
Alternative 6a represents an
alternative stringency level to the
agencies’ preferred approach. Like
Alternative 6, this alternative would set
GHG emissions and fuel efficiency
standards for HD pickup trucks and
vans and for Class 2b through 8
vocational vehicles and combination
tractors and the engines installed in
them. The difference between
Alternative 6 and 6a is the level of
stringency for each of the proposed
standards. Alternative 6a represents a
stringency level which is
approximately15 percent less stringent
than the preferred approach. The
agencies calculated the stringency level
in order to meet two goals. First, we
desired to create an alternative that was
closely related to the proposal (within
10–20 percent of the preferred
alternative). Second, we wanted an
alternative that reflected removal of the
last technology we believed
manufacturers would add in order to
meet the preferred alternative. In other
words, we wanted an alternative that as
closely as possible reflected the last
increment in stringency prior to
reaching our preferred alternative. In
general, this could be thought of as
removing the least cost effective (final)
step. The resulting Alternative 6a is
based on the same technologies used in
Alternative 6 except as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Combination tractor standard
would be based removal of the
Advanced SmartWay aerodynamic
package and weight reduction
technologies which reduces the average
combination tractor savings by
approximately 1 percent;
• HD pickup truck and van standard
would be based on removal of
aerodynamics which reduces the
average truck savings by approximately
2 percent; and
• Vocational vehicle standard would
be based on removal of low rolling
resistant tires which reduces the average
vehicle savings by approximately 2
percent.
(b) Alternative 6b: Engines, Tractors,
and Class 2b Through 8 Trucks
Alternative 6b represents an
alternative stringency level to the
agencies’ preferred approach. Like
Alternative 6, this alternative would set
GHG emissions and fuel efficiency
standards for HD pickup trucks and
vans and for Class 2b through 8
vocational vehicles and combination
tractors and the engines installed in
them. The difference between
Alternative 6 and 6b is the level of
stringency for each of the proposed
standards. Alternative 6b represents a
stringency level which is approximately
20 percent more stringent than the
preferred approach. The agencies
calculated the stringency level based on
similar goals as for Alternative 6a.
Specifically, we wanted an alternative
that would reflect an incremental
improvement over the preferred
alternative based on the technologies we
thought most likely to be applied by
manufacturers if a more stringent
standard were set. In general, this could
be thought of as adding the next most
cost effective technology in each of the
categories. However, as discussed in the
feasibility discussions in Section III, we
are not proposing this level of
stringency because we do not believe
that these technologies can be
developed and introduced in the
timeframe of this rulemaking. Reflecting
that given unlimited resources it might
be possible to introduce these
technologies in this timeframe, but our
inability to estimate what those real
costs might be (e.g. to build new
factories in only one to two years), we
have denoted the cost for this
alternative with a +c. The +c is intended
to make clear that the cost estimates we
are showing do not include additional
costs related to pulling ahead the
development and expanding
manufacturing base for these
technologies. The resulting Alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6b is based on the same technologies
used in Alternative 6 except as follows:
• Combination tractor standard
would be based on the addition of
Rankine waste heat recovery to the HD
engines installed in combination
tractors with sleeper cabs;
• HD pickup truck and van standard
would be based on the addition of a 10
percent mass reduction; and
• Vocational vehicle standard would
be based on the addition hybrid
powertrains to 8 percent of the vehicles.
(7) Alternative 7: Engines, Tractors,
Trucks, and Trailers
This alternative builds on Alternative
6 by adding a performance standard for
fuel efficiency and GHG emissions of
commercial trailers. Therefore, this
alternative would include fuel
efficiency performance standards and
GHG emissions standards for Class 2b
and 3 work truck and Class 3 through
Class 8 vocational vehicle engines, and
the performance standards for the
overall fuel efficiency and GHG
emissions of those vehicles, as
described above.
(8) Alternative 8: Engines, Tractors,
Trucks, and Trailers Plus Advanced
Hybrid Powertrain Technology for
Vocational Vehicles, Pickups, and Vans
Alternative 8 includes all elements of
Alternative 7, plus sets standards based
on the application of hybrid powertrains
to heavy-duty pickup trucks, vans, and
vocational vehicles. The application of
hybrids is capped at 10,000 units
annually for model years 2014–2016
(more than double the industry’s sales
projections for 2010) and increases to 50
percent of new vehicles in those
categories starting in 2017, or
approximately 650,000 hybrid
powertrain units annually. The agencies
do not believe that it is possible to
achieve hybrid technology penetration
rates at or even near these levels in the
timeframe of this rulemaking. However,
we believe it is useful to consider what
a future standard based on the use of
such advanced technologies could
achieve. Similarly, we cannot, with
confidence, project the cost of doing so
in this timeframe. Nevertheless for the
purpose of evaluating what additional
benefits could be achieved if such a
program were possible, we believe this
Alternative 8 is useful for consideration.
The assumed standard and
commensurate fuel consumption and
emission reductions for this alternative
are based on a 25 percent reduction in
CO2 and fuel consumption with the
application of hybrid powertrain
technology. The actual benefit realized
through the application of hybrid
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74341
a regulatory requirement, we have made
an estimate of the cost for this approach
based on the estimates from the NAS
report. Specifically we are assuming an
incremental cost of $30,000 per vehicle
for vocational vehicles based again on
the NAS estimate for a refuse truck and
an incremental cost of $9,000 per
vehicle for HD pickup trucks and vans.
As with Alternative 6b, we include a +c
in our cost estimates for this alternative
to reflect additional costs not estimated
by the agencies.
B. How do these alternatives compare in
overall GHG emissions reductions, fuel
efficiency and cost?
The agencies analyzed all ten
alternatives through MOVES to evaluate
the impact of each proposed alternative,
as shown in Table IX–2. The table
contains the annual CO2 and fuel
savings in 2030 and 2050 for each
alternative (relative to the reference
scenario of Alternative 1), presenting
both the total savings across all
regulatory categories, and for each
regulatory category. Table IX–3 presents
the annual technology costs associated
with each alternative (relative to the
reference scenario of Alternative 1) in
2030 and 2050 for each regulatory
category. In addition, the net benefits for
each alternative in 2030 and 2050 are
included in Tables IX–4 and IX–5,
respectively. The agencies request
comment on whether any of these
alternatives could achieve greater net
benefits than the preferred alternative,
either for all regulatory categories, or for
any individual regulatory category.
In analyzing the marginal economic
impact of each of the alternatives
relative to one another, or relative to the
preferred Alternative 6, various
potentially relevant time frames and
frames of reference for analysis could be
employed. For example, it may be
relevant to consider the impacts of an
alternative not only in 2030 and 2050,
but also in 2020. Likewise, it may be
relevant to consider not just total annual
impacts on the entire fleet in a given
year, but also the NPV impacts on the
specific MY vehicles that are to be
directly regulated in this rulemaking
(i.e. MY 2014–2018). The agencies also
request comments on the time frames of
(e.g. 2014–2018, 2030, or 2050), and
frames of reference for, economic
analyses of alternatives that commenters
believe are relevant in evaluating the
incremental impact of the agencies’
preferred alternative 6, relative to the
other alternative examined.
433 See
(9) Summary of Alternatives
A summary of the combination of
vehicles regulated under each proposed
alternative is included in Table IX–1.
NAS Report, Note 111 above, at 77.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.083
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
technology is highly dependent on
vehicle drive cycle and can vary
significantly between different
applications. The 25 percent reduction
assumed here is based on the estimate
of the NAS panel for a hybrid refuse
truck.433 Although the agencies are not
able to conclude that this alternative is
technically feasible and therefore
potentially appropriate to be finalized as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.084
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74342
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74343
EP30NO10.085
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.086
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74344
C. How would the agencies include
commercial trailers, as described in
alternative 7?
A central theme throughout our
proposed HD Program is the recognition
of the diversity and complexity of the
heavy-duty vehicle segment. Trailers are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
an important part of this segment and
are no less diverse in the range of
functions and applications they serve.
They are the primary vehicle for moving
freight in the United States. The type of
freight varies from retail products to be
sold in stores, to bulk goods such as
stones, to industrial liquids such as
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74345
chemicals, to equipment such as
bulldozers. Semi-trailers come in a large
variety of styles—box, refrigerated box,
flatbed, tankers, bulk, dump, grain, and
many others. The most common type of
trailer is the box trailer, but even box
trailers come in many different lengths
ranging from 28 feet to 53 feet or greater,
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.087
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
and in different widths, heights, depths,
materials (wood, composites, and/or
aluminum), construction (curtain side
or hard side), axle configuration (sliding
tandem or fixed tandem), and multiple
other distinct features. NHTSA and EPA
believe trailers impact the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from
combination tractors and the agencies
see opportunities for reductions. Unlike
trucks and engines, EPA and NHTSA
have very limited experience related to
regulating trailers for fuel efficiency or
emissions. Likewise, the trailer
manufacturing industry has only the
most limited experience complying with
regulations related to emissions and
none with regard to EPA or NHTSA
certification and compliance
procedures. We have therefore decided
not to propose regulations for trailers in
this proposal. However in order to
broadly solicit comments on controlling
fuel efficiency and GHG emissions
through trailer regulations we are
describing in an advanced notice of
proposed regulation style a program
which could set the foundation of a
future rulemaking for trailers. We are
soliciting comments on all aspects of the
information shared in this section.
(1) Why are the agencies considering the
regulation of trailers?
Trailers impact the aerodynamic drag,
rolling resistance, and overall weight of
the combination tractor-trailer. TIAX,
LLC performed an evaluation of
SmartWay trailer technologies, and
found that they provide the opportunity
to reduce fuel consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions from tractor
trailers by up to 10 to 12 percent for
aerodynamics and 3 to 6 percent for
lower rolling resistance tires.434
Reductions of this magnitude are larger
than can be readily accomplished from
improvements in engine design and are
roughly of the same magnitude as
reductions possible through
improvements in truck designs. Not
only do trailers represent a significant
opportunity for reductions as discussed
later in this section, but we have strong
reason to believe that these reductions
would not occur absent regulation as
noted in the recent NAS report.
The NAS report notes:
The remaining 6.5percent of the
trailer registrations consisted of
livestock, transfer, hazardous chemical
tanks, hoppers, gooseneck livestock,
lowbed drop deck, beverage, special,
dry bulk tanker, logging, wood chip, and
other types of trailers. Within each of
these main trailer categories there are
distinctions among trailer construction,
materials, dimension, mass, and
functionality, all of which can impact a
trailer’s contribution to truck fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions.
434 TIAX. Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles. November 2009. Pages 4–50 and 4–57.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
A perplexing problem for any option,
regarding Class 8 vehicles, is what to do
about the trailer. The trailer market
represents a clear barrier with split
incentives, where the owner of the trailer
often does not incur fuel costs, and thus has
no incentive to improve aerodynamics of the
435 See
436 See
PO 00000
NAS Report, Note 111, above, at p. 8–8.
MJ Bradley, Note 431.
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
trailer itself or to improve the integration of
the trailer with the tractor or truck.435
In other words, trailers affect the fuel
efficiency of shipping, but they do not
face strong uniform incentives to
coordinate with truck owners. In
principle, if truck owners had the ability
to choose what trailers they accepted,
they could require trailers with fuelsaving technologies; in practice, though,
truck owners have limited practical
ability to be selective about what trailers
they accept.
In this setting, information provision
may be inadequate to address the
related problems of split incentives and
thin markets. Regulation aimed at trailer
manufacturers can contribute fuel
savings and GHG reductions that
otherwise may be difficult to achieve.
(2) What does the trailer industry look
like?
(a) Trailer Types
The commercial trailer market
includes a wide variety of trailer types.
The market is dominated by box (or van)
trailers, which made up approximately
63 percent of the new trailers registered
between 2003 and 2007.436 The top ten
new trailer registrations are included by
type are listed in Table IX–6.
(b) Trailer Fleet Size Relative to the
Tractor Fleet
The industry generally recognizes that
the ratio of the number of trailers in the
fleet relative to the number of tractors is
typically three-to-one.438 Typically at
any one time, two trailers are parked
while one is being transported. For
437 SeeMJ
438 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
Bradley, Note 431.
TIAX at Note 434 above, at p. 4–49.
30NOP2
EP30NO10.088
74346
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
certain private fleets, this ratio can be
greater, as high as six-to-one. This
characteristic of the fleet impacts the
cost effectiveness of trailer technologies
because a trailer on average will only
travel one third of the miles travel ed by
a tractor.
(c) Trailer Owners
Trailer ownership is distinct from that
of the tractors. Trailers are often owned
by shippers or by leasing companies,
not by the trucking fleets. A special type
of ‘‘trailer’’ is a shipping container used
for intermodal surface movement to
transport freight from ocean going liner
vessels to inland destinations via truck,
rail or barge. When hauled by a truck,
the container is loaded on a specialty
piece of equipment called a ‘‘chassis.’’
This consists of a frame and axle/wheel
assemblies on which the container is
mounted, so that when the chassis and
container are assembled the unit serves
the same function as a road trailer (per
46 CFR 340.2). Container chassis are
sometimes owned by specialty
companies and are leased to ports,
fleets, and shippers. Trailers that are
purchased by fleets are typically kept
much longer than are the tractors, so
trucks and trailers have different
purchasing cycles. Because of the
disconnect between owners, the trailer
owners may not benefit directly from
fuel consumption and GHG emission
reductions.
(d) Trailer Builders
The top ten builders with the largest
market share of trailer sales in 2009
include Utility Trailer Manufacturing,
Great Dane, Wabash National, Hyundai
Translead, Timpte, Wilson Trailer,
Stoughton Trailers, Heil Trailer,
Fontaine Trailer, and MANAC.439
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
439 Trailer-Body Builders.com. 2009 North
American Truck Trailer Output. Available at
https://trailer-bodybuilders.com/trailer-output/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
However, nearly half of all trailer
manufacturers are considered small
businesses by the Small Business
Administration definition.440 Therefore,
the agencies will be required to convene
a Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
panel to conduct the proper outreach to
all stakeholders impacted by a proposed
regulation for trailers.
Although trailer manufacturing is an
important sector within the commercial
vehicle manufacturing industry, trailers
are far less mechanically complex than
are the trucks that haul them. This
means that trailer manufacturing has a
low barrier to entry compared to
automotive or truck manufacturers. The
agencies can envision that proposed
regulation would require significant
effort to maintain a level playing field
within the market to reduce the
incentive to work around the regulation.
(3) What technologies are available to
reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions from trailers?
There are opportunities to reduce the
fuel consumption and GHG emissions
impact of the trailer through
aerodynamics, tires, and tare weight
reductions to some extent in most types
of trailers. In addition, refrigerated
trailers have opportunities to both
reduce the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions of the transportation
refrigeration unit and reduce GHG
emissions through reduced refrigerant
leakage. There are additional
opportunities being developed for
improvements in suspension systems,
trailer structure, dump hoists and other
features, depending upon the type of
trailer and its intended function.
output/
2009_trailer_output_table/.
440 Per SBA definition for NAICS 336212,
companies with less than 500 employees are
considered small businesses.
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74347
(a) Aerodynamics
Trailer aerodynamic technologies to
date have focused on the box, van
trailers—the largest segment of the
trailer fleet. This focus on box, van
trailers may also be partially attributed
to the complexity of the shape of the
non-box, van trailers which, in many
cases, transport cargo that is in the
windstream (e.g., flatbeds that carry
heavy equipment, car carriers, and
loggers). For non-box, van trailers you
could have a different aerodynamic
shape with every load. While some
technologies exist to address
aerodynamic drag for non-box, van
trailers, it has been either experimental
or not widely commercially available.
Current trailer aerodynamic
technologies for box trailers are
estimated to provide approximately
10–12 percent reductions in drag when
used as a package.441 For box trailers,
trailer aerodynamic technologies have
addressed drag at the front of the trailer
(i.e., vortex traps, leading edge fairings),
underneath the trailer (i.e., side skirts,
wheel fairings) and the trailer rear (i.e.,
afterbodies). These technologies are
commercially available and have seen
moderate adoption rates. More recent
trailer aerodynamic innovations channel
air flow around the sides and under the
trailer using underbody air deflectors
(‘‘underbelly treatment’’). Table IX–7
lists technologies that the EPA
SmartWay program has evaluated for
use on box, van trailers. In general, the
performance of these technologies is
dependent upon the smooth transition
of airflow from the tractor to the trailer.
Overall shape can be optimized to
minimize trailer aerodynamic drag, just
as shape can reduce tractor aerodynamic
drag.
441 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
TIAX at Note 434, above, at 4–50.
30NOP2
74348
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
developed for the NAS report 442 and
the ICF cost contract.443
Some of these technologies, such as
side skirts, may be applicable to other
trailer types. The agencies are interested
in comments regarding the aerodynamic
improvement opportunities in all types
of trailers.
SmartWay established the maximum
allowable rolling resistance coefficient
for the trailer tire 15% below the
baseline or 5.5 kg/ton. Similar to
combination tractor tires, LRR tires are
available as either dual tires or as single
wide-base tires for trailers.
Research indicates the contribution to
overall vehicle fuel efficiency by tires is
approximately equal to the proportion
of the vehicle weight on them.444 On a
fully loaded typical Class 8 long-haul
tractor and trailer, 42.5 percent of the
total tire energy loss attributed to rolling
resistance is from the trailer tires. The
TIAX assessment of single wide based
tires on the trailer found that they
provide approximately a 3 percent fuel
consumption benefit over a standard
dual tire package.445
Based on the ICF report,446 EPA and
NHTSA estimate the incremental retail
cost for LRR tires as $78 per tire. The
agencies also estimate that the
incremental cost to replace a pair of
dual tires with a single wide based tire
is $216, however, the cost can be
reduced when the wheel replacement
cost is considered, since half the
number of tires and wheels are needed.
The inflation pressure of tires also
impacts the rolling resistance.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(b) Tires
The rolling resistance coefficient
baseline for today’s fleet is 6.5 kg/ton for
the trailer tire, based on sales weighting
of the top three manufacturers based on
market share. This value is based on
new trailer tires, since rolling resistance
decreases as the tread wears. To achieve
the intended emissions benefit,
442 See
TIAX, Note 434 above.
Investigation of Costs for Strategies to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-Duty
On-Road Vehicles. July 2010. Page 96.
443 ICF.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
444 Bridgestone Firestone, North American Tire,
LLC. ‘‘Tires & Truck Fuel Economy,’’ A New
Perspective. Special Edition Four, 2008
445 See TIAX, Note 434 above, at p. 4–56.
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
446 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
ICF, Note 443, above.
30NOP2
EP30NO10.090
represent a high volume retail price of
the components based on information
EP30NO10.089
The agencies’ initial assessment of the
incremental costs of aerodynamics is
included in Table IX–8. The costs
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74349
(c) Weight Reduction
Reduction in trailer tare (or empty)
weight can lead to fuel efficiency
reductions in two ways. For
applications which are not limited by
the weight limit, the overall weight of
the tractor and trailer combination
would be reduced and would lead to
improved fuel efficiency. For the
applications which limit the payload
due to the weight restrictions, the lower
trailer weight would allow additional
payload to be transported during the
truck’s trip. Weight reduction
opportunities in trailers exist in both the
structural components and in the
wheels and tires. Material substitution
(replacing steel with aluminum) is
feasible for components such as roof
posts, bows, side posts, cross members,
floor joists, and floors. Similar material
substitution is feasible for wheels.
Weight reduction opportunities also
exist through the use of single wide
based tires replacing two dual tires.
The agencies’ assessment of the ICF
report 448 indicates that the expected
incremental retail prices of the
lightweighted components are as
included in Table IX–9: Trailer
Lightweighting Costs.
(d) Opportunities in Refrigerated
Trailers
testing approaches describe below or
alternative recommendations.
Refrigeration units are used in van
trailers to transport temperature
sensitive products. A traditional
transportation refrigeration unit is
powered by a nonroad diesel engine.
There are GHG reduction opportunities
in refrigerated trailers through the use of
electrical trailer refrigeration units and
highly reflective trailer coatings.
Highly reflective materials, such as
reflective paints or translucent white
fiberglass roofs, can reflect the solar
radiation and decrease the cooling
demands on the trailer’s refrigeration
unit. A reflective composite roof can
cost approximately $800, the addition of
reflective tape to a trailer roof would
cost approximately $450.
Hybrid trailer refrigeration units
utilize a diesel engine which drives a
generator which in turn powers the
compressor and fans. The cost of this
unit is approximately $4,000.
(a) Metric
developed on the basis of test results for
APUs, and engines that have been
demonstrated to improve fuel efficiency
and reduce emissions.
(4) What approaches could the agencies
propose for evaluating fuel efficiency
and GHG emissions contributions from
trailers?
Building from EPA’s SmartWay
experience, EPA and NHTSA have
considered several options to
demonstrate GHG and fuel consumption
reductions from trailer technologies.
The agencies welcome comments on the
447 See
TIAX, Note 434 above, at p. 4–58.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
There are several metrics that the
agencies envision could be appropriate
used to evaluate the fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions due to trailers. The
agencies are proposing the use of a tonmile metric with a prescribed payload
for the vocational vehicle and tractor
regulatory categories and subcategories.
A similar approach could be applied to
trailer evaluation, which would account
for aerodynamic improvements, tire
improvements, and trailer
lightweighting. However, a ton-mile
metric does not necessarily capture the
capacity aspect of trailers. Box trailers
provide benefits to freight efficiency
through an increase in either cubic
volume or pallet-equivalent. Certain box
van trailers including drop frame
moving van trailers and high cube
trailers are specially designed to
maximize cubic capacity. The agencies
welcome comments regarding the
appropriate metric for trailer efficiency
demonstration.
(b) Potential Approaches to Evaluate
GHG Emissions and Fuel Consumption
Reducing Technologies
(i) Design-Based Specification Approach
The SmartWay certification for
tractors and dry box van trailers began
as a design-based specification,
448 See
PO 00000
(ii) Modeling Approach
As the agencies are proposing for the
evaluation of tractors and vocational
vehicles, a similar simulation model
approach could also be applied to
trailers. A simulation-based model
would require the trailer manufacturer
input parameters similar to the ones
proposed in the tractor program—
coefficient of drag, tire rolling
resistance, and weight. The agencies
envision that a standardized tractor
would be required to fairly assess the
tractor-trailer system. Both agencies
have years of successful experience with
vehicle simulation modeling. EPA, DOE,
DOT, Commerce and others used
vehicle simulation modeling to
jumpstart technology scenarios for the
Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles Program, a large public-private
research program aimed at developing
advanced fuel-efficient passenger
vehicle designs. Those same agencies
used vehicle simulation modeling for a
similar purpose in the 21st Century
Truck Partnership, a sister program to
develop advanced fuel-efficient
commercial truck designs. EPA used
vehicle simulation modeling to
characterize various technology
scenarios for its initial design of the
ICF, Note 443, above.
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.091
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Underinflation causes an increase in
rolling resistance and fuel consumption.
Trailer systems, such as tire pressure
monitoring or automatic tire inflation,
can help drivers insure that they are
traveling with properly inflated tires.
Estimates vary, but TIAX estimates on
average that a trailer automatic tire
inflation system could provide a 0.6%
benefit to fuel consumption for a cost of
approximately $300 to $400.447
74350
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SmartWay program and to conduct
analyses on its test data, test cycles, and
related data. This experience has
demonstrated to the technical staff at
EPA and DOT that vehicle simulation
modeling can be a reliable and feasible
tool to assess vehicle performance. EPA
and NHSTA welcome comments from
trailer manufacturers on their ability to
run simulation models and evaluate the
aerodynamics of the trailers which they
produce.
(iii) Whole Vehicle Testing—Chassis,
Track or On-Road Test
Complete vehicle testing is commonly
conducted on chassis dynamometers,
tracks, or on the road. Light-duty
vehicles are tested on chassis
dynamometers to demonstrate
compliance with EPA and NHTSA
regulations associated with emissions
and fuel efficiency, respectively. Heavyduty truck manufacturers often use
paired truck test, such as prescribed in
SAE J1321,449 to evaluate the difference
between two trucks. The current
SmartWay verification program allows
for a modified SAE J1321 test to be used
to evaluate the fuel consumption
performance of trailers due to
improvements in aerodynamic design.
Heavy-duty truck fleets today
commonly use long term on-road testing
to evaluate trucks, trailers, and
technologies.
A chassis dynamometer test is a test
conducted indoors on a hydrokinetic
chassis dynamometer. The chassis
dynamometer option in this test
procedure incorporates many of the
methods and requirements established
in the Federal light-duty vehicle and
‘light’ heavy-duty vehicle emissions
certification chassis test procedure.
Chassis dynamometers may be found at
vehicle test laboratories; typically,
facilities used for emissions and vehicle
fuel efficiency testing. Because the test
is conducted on a chassis dynamometer,
rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag and
inertial road load power requirements
must be determined ahead of time, with
coastdown tests and calculations to
determine the proper horsepower
absorption setting for the chassis
dynamometer.
A track test is a complete vehicle test
conducted on an outside test track. Test
tracks may be found at vehicle proving
grounds or other facilities specifically
designed for vehicle or tire performance
testing. Because the test involves the
vehicle being operated on a road surface
in a manner similar to that of on-road
449 Society of Automotive Engineers. Joint TMC/
SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure—Type II.
SAE J1321. October 1986.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
driving, rolling resistance, aerodynamic
drag, and inertial road load power
requirements are incorporated in the
test measurement, and do not have to be
determined beforehand with a
coastdown test and calculations.
Although the result of a track test
reflects real-world vehicle performance
better than a chassis dynamometer test,
by directly evaluating the impacts of
road effects such as aerodynamic drag of
tractors and trailers and rolling
resistance effects of tires, variability of
ambient conditions may result in greater
variability of test results.450 Therefore,
any protocol should include
specification of ambient conditions as
well as specifications for measurement
of fuel consumption.
The TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption test
is a standardized on-road test procedure
for comparing the in-service fuel
consumption of two conditions of a test
vehicle or one test vehicle to another.451
The procedure uses an unchanging
control vehicle run in tandem with the
test vehicle. The result of the test is the
percent difference in fuel consumption
between two test vehicles.
The agencies are interested in
comments regarding the advantages and
disadvantages of each approach, along
with any baseline trailer performance.
(5) What actions are already being taken
to improve the efficiency of trailers?
(a) SmartWay Certified Trailers
Beginning in 2007, EPA began
designating certain new dry freight box
van trailers for on the road use of 53 feet
or greater length Certified SmartWay
Trailers. Older or pre-owned trailers
could also be certified if properly
retrofitted. In order for a trailer to be
designated as Certified SmartWay, the
trailer must be equipped with
aerodynamic devices such as trailer
skirts and gap reducers along with
verified LRR trailer tires (either dual or
single-wide). Trailer manufacturers can
also test trailers using a modified J1321
test method to assess the fuel-saving
impact of the aerodynamic features.
Trailers that meet or exceed the
minimum threshold for reduction in
fuel consumption and that are equipped
with SmartWay-verified LRR tires are
eligible for SmartWay designation.
Information about SmartWay certified
trailers, the test methods, and verified
450 However, it has been demonstrated that even
tests conducted in laboratories have differences in
repeatability within a given laboratory and
differences in reproducibility among laboratories.
See ‘‘Interlaboratory Crosscheck of Heavy-duty
Vehicle Chassis Dynamometers’’ Final Report
Coordinating Researth Council Project No. E–55–1,
May 2002.
451 See SAE, Note 449, above.
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
trailer equipment is at the U.S. EPA
SmartWay Web site, https://
www.epa.gov/smartway.
(b) California AB32
The California requirement to reduce
GHG emissions from trailers became
effective in 2010.452 It requires that all
new 2011 model year dry van trailers
are SmartWay certified or demonstrate a
5 percent aerodynamic and a 1.5 percent
tire improvement. Compliance is
demonstrated through the use of
SmartWay certified components or a
SAE paired-truck test to demonstrate
improvements. California is also
requiring retrofit of existing van trailers
phasing in starting in 2011. Information
on the California program can be found
at the California Air Resources Board
Web site, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
hdghg/hdghg.htm.
(6) Why are the agencies delaying
regulation and what are the next steps
for trailer regulation?
It is the intent of both agencies to take
advantage of available and very nearterm technologies to achieve early
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
and fuel consumption. As noted above,
President Obama requested both
agencies to coordinate to create a firstever National Policy to increase fuel
efficiency and decrease greenhouse gas
pollution from medium- and heavy-duty
trucks for model years 2014–2018. To
meet the goals within the time frame
outlined by the President in his
directive, EPA and DOT are moving
expeditiously to develop these proposed
regulations as outlined in this proposal.
The expertise of each agency’s
technical and regulatory staff, along
with critical input from the SmartWay
program, industry and other key
stakeholders, make it feasible to propose
regulations covering commercial heavyduty trucks within this time frame.
However, both EPA and NHTSA
recognize, along with the NAS, the
diversity and complexity of the trailer
industry. There are dozens of trailer
types, dozens of trailer manufacturing
entities, and several diverse trailer end
user groups. In addition to the challenge
of addressing these multiple
complexities, unlike many other vehicle
sectors, this is an industry that has
never before been subject to either
emissions or fuel economy regulation.
Additionally, since a number of trailer
manufacturing entities are small
businesses, EPA and NHTSA need to
allow sufficient time to convene a
452 California Air Resources Board. Available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/ghghdv08/
ghghdv08.htm, accessed September 17, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
SBREFA panel to conduct the proper
outreach to the potentially impacted
stakeholders.
Therefore, EPA and NHTSA propose
to follow their proposals for heavy-duty
truck regulations with a proposal for
regulating trailers, at a future date to be
determined after both agencies conduct
a more comprehensive assessment of the
topics discussed in this section. EPA
and NHTSA welcome comment on
delaying proposing trailer regulations
and on related topics that might affect
the timing of such a proposal.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
X. Recommendations From the 2010
NAS Report
A. Overview
One of the most important resources
for the agencies in developing the HD
National Program was the report
produced by the National Academy of
Sciences in response to Congress’
mandate in EISA. Section 108 of EISA
states that DOT (by delegation, NHTSA)
must execute an agreement with the
NAS ‘‘to develop a report evaluating
MD/HD truck fuel economy standards,
including:
(1) An assessment of technologies and
costs to evaluate fuel economy for MD/
HD trucks;
(2) An analysis of existing and
potential technologies that may be used
practically to improve MD/HD truck
fuel economy;
(3) An analysis of how such
technologies may be practically
integrated into the MD/HD truck
manufacturing process;
(4) An assessment of how such
technologies may be used to meet fuel
economy standards to be prescribed
under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k); and
(5) Associated costs and other impacts
on the operation of MD/HD trucks,
including congestion.
EISA further states that the NAS must
submit the report to DOT, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, and the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce
not later than one year after the date on
which the Secretary executed the
agreement with the NAS. NAS
requested and was granted an additional
six months to complete its report, so
based on the date of execution of the
ultimate agreement, the deadline for the
NAS report was determined to be March
2010.
The NRC Committee to Assess Fuel
Economy Technologies for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Vehicles was formed to
fulfill the contract between NHTSA and
the NAS.453 Interpreting the tasks listed
453 Committee to Assess Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
in Section 108 of EISA, NAS directed
the committee to:
• Consider approaches to measuring
fuel economy for medium- and heavyduty vehicles that would be required for
setting standards;
• Assess current and potential
technologies and estimate
improvements in fuel economy for
medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks
that might be achieved;
• Address how the technologies
identified in the task above may be used
practically to improve medium-duty
and heavy-duty truck fuel economy;
• Address how such technologies
may be practically integrated into the
medium-duty and heavy-duty truck
manufacturing process;
• Assess how such technologies may
be used to meet fuel economy standards;
• Discuss the pros and cons of
approaches to improving the fuel
efficiency of moving goods as opposed
to setting vehicle fuel economy
standards; and
• Identify the potential costs and
other impacts on the operation of
medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.454
The final publication of the NAS
Report ‘‘Technologies and Approaches
to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles’’ (the
‘‘NAS Report’’) was made available to
the public in September 2010.455
Although the NAS Report was
developed and written in terms of
reducing fuel consumption, its findings
and recommendations apply equally to
a program that reduces GHG emissions,
given the close relationship between the
two.
B. What were the major findings and
recommendations of the 2010 NAS
Report, and how is the proposed HD
National Program consistent with them?
The 2010 NAS Report spanned eight
chapters and several hundred pages,
with dozens of major findings and
recommendations. While this preamble
refers frequently throughout to the
various NAS findings and
recommendations as it explains the HD
National Program, this particular section
is designed to provide the reader with
a quick reference guide to the findings
and recommendations and the extent to
Vehicles; National Research Council;
Transportation Research Board (2010).
‘‘Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the
Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles,’’ (‘‘NAS Report’’), at page 9. Washington,
DC, The National Academies Press. Contract
DTNH22–08–H–00222. Available electronically
from the National Academy Press Web site at
https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845
(last accessed September 10, 2010).
454 See Note 453 above, at 10.
455 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74351
which the agencies’ proposed program
is consistent with them. The significant
majority of NAS’ findings and
recommendations have been
implemented directly by the agencies.
Generally speaking, to the extent that
the proposed HD National Program
diverges from the NAS
recommendations, it is often due to
differences in the agencies’ approach as
compared to NAS’ expectations for a HD
regulatory program, which the agencies
think are necessary and beneficial in
order to obtain the greatest GHG and
fuel consumption reductions as rapidly
as possible, and to facilitate the
transition for the industry to a more
holistic regulatory system over a longer
timeframe.
Instead of discussing the NAS Report
findings and recommendations in the
order presented in the Report itself, as
is done in the NHTSA Study
accompanying this NPRM, this section
divides the NAS findings and
recommendations into three categories:
findings and recommendations with
which (1) the HD National Program is
consistent; (2) the HD National Program
is significantly inconsistent; and (3) the
HD National Program is lesssignificantly inconsistent.
(1) NAS Findings and
Recommendations With Which the
Proposed HD National Program Is
Consistent
(a) What metrics should be employed
for regulating fuel consumption/GHG
emissions?
With the light-duty fuel economy and
GHG regulations as a backdrop, the NAS
committee considered 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.456
Noting the non-linear nature of fuel
economy—e.g., that more fuel can be
saved by increasing fuel economy from
14 to 16 mpg than from 30 to 32 mpg—
and its potential to confuse consumers,
the committee concluded that fuel
economy would not be a good metric for
judging the fuel efficiency of a vehicle,
and stated that it would use fuel
consumption throughout the report
instead.457
However, because MD/HD vehicles
are designed to carry loads in an
efficient and timely manner, as opposed
to light-duty vehicles which are
generally used simply for carrying
passengers, the committee suggested
456 See
457 Id.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
Note 453 above, at 20 through 25.
at 24.
30NOP2
74352
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
that normalizing the fuel consumption
to the payload that the vehicle hauls
would be the best way to represent an
appropriate attribute-based fuel
consumption metric.458 The committee
identified this metric as Load-Specific
Fuel Consumption (LSFC), defined as
fuel consumption on a given cycle (in
gallons/100 miles), divided by payload
(in tons).459 The committee thus
recommended that any HD fuel
consumption regulation use LSFC as the
metric and be based on using an average
(or typical) payload based on national
data representative of the classes and
duty cycle of the vehicle.460 The
committee noted that standards might
require different values of LSFC due to
the various functions of the vehicle
classes, e.g., pickup trucks versus utility
trucks versus line-haul trucks.461 The
committee stated that any data reporting
or labeling should state an LSFC at
specified tons of payload.462
The agencies agree that the
appropriate metric for regulating HD
vehicle GHG emissions and fuel
consumption is one tied to the vehicle’s
task and reflects the work done by the
vehicle. Thus, the agencies have
employed different metrics in
developing the proposed standards in
this NPRM, as follows:
The metric for HD engines is grams of CO2
per brake horsepower-hour and gal/100 bhphr, which normalizes CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption based on work done.
The metric for Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors is grams of CO2 per ton-mile and gal/
1,000 ton-mile, which normalizes CO2
emissions and fuel consumption based on the
work done in transporting payload.
The metric for vocational vehicles is also
grams of CO2 per ton-mile and gal/1,000 tonmile, which normalizes CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption based on work done.
The metric for HD pickup trucks and vans
is grams of CO2 per mile and gal/100 mi.
While these metrics are not normalized by
payload, standards are based on the work
done by the vehicles in that the standards are
vehicle attribute based and a function of
payload capacity and towing capacity (and
whether two-wheel drive or four-wheel
drive).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
In establishing measurement driving
cycles and vehicle load settings, the
agencies carefully review reviewed
available data and selected cycles and
vehicle load settings that are judged to
458 See Note 453 above, at 25, and at 189,
Recommendation 8–3.
459 Id.
460 See Note 453 above, at 39, Recommendation
2–1.
461 Id. The committee also stated that regulators
should use a common procedure to develop
baseline LSFC data for various applications, to
determine if separate standards are required for
different vehicles that have a common function.
462 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
be most representative of national
average use.
Thus, as NAS recommended, the
agencies are proposing separate
standards with different metrics—all
based on consideration of the tasks
vehicles perform and the work they do,
which is consistent with the LSFC
concept—for different categories of
vehicles.
The agencies have no plan to require
fuel consumption labeling, or to publish
values for individual vehicles. Because
of the broad range of actual vehicle use,
including the range of payloads carried,
driving cycles and road terrain, and
recognizing that, for individual vehicles,
engines, transmission ratios, final drive
ratios and tire sizes are selected based
on intended use, the agencies judge that
a label or published fuel consumption
value, based on testing under average
conditions, would likely not provide an
accurate assessment of individual
vehicle fuel consumption performance,
and may be misleading.
(b) Which Classes of Vehicles Should be
Regulated?
The committee stated that while it
may seem expedient to initially focus on
those classes of vehicles with the largest
fuel consumption (i.e., Class 8, Class 6,
and Class 2b, which together account for
approximately 90 percent of fuel
consumption of HD vehicles), the
committee believes that selectively
regulating only certain vehicle classes
would lead to very serious unintended
consequences and would compromise
the intent of the regulation.463 The
committee suggested, however, that
within vehicle classes, there may be
certain subclasses of vehicles (e.g., fire
trucks) that could be exempt from the
regulation without creating market
distortions.464
The agencies agree that it is crucial to
avoid unintended consequences such as
class shifting, which might occur as a
result of regulating only certain classes
of trucks. Thus, as NAS recommended,
the agencies are regulating all Classes 2b
through 8 in this first round of
regulations, with different standards
tailored to different groups of vehicles
to maximize fuel savings and emissions
reductions as appropriate for the work
that they perform. In addition, the
agencies agree with the NAS
recommendation that certain subclasses
be exempted from regulation and have
provided flexibilities that include
Averaging, Banking and Trading, and
exemptions for some off-road vehicles.
Related to this recommendation, NAS
also noted that large vehicle
manufacturers with significant
engineering capability design and
manufacture almost all Class 2b, 3, and
8b vehicles, while small companies
with limited engineering resources
make a significant percentage of
vehicles in Classes 4 through 8a,
although in many cases they buy the
complete chassis from larger vehicle
manufacturers.465 The committee
emphasized that regulators will need to
take into account the limitations of
these smaller companies.466
The agencies agree that the impacts
on small manufacturers in Classes 4
through 8a should be considered in
developing HD regulations, and have
done so through the structure of our
standards for those vehicle categories.
See Section II in this preamble for a
fuller discussion. The agencies are
proposing to not set standards at this
time for engine, chassis, and vehicle
manufacturers which meet the small
business definitions.
(c) What Test Procedures Should be
Employed for Evaluating Compliance
With Standards?
The committee emphasized that a
certification test method must be highly
accurate, repeatable, and identical to the
in-use compliance tests, as is the case
with current regulation of light-duty
vehicles tested on a chassis
dynamometer, and for heavy-duty
engine emission standards tested on
engine dynamometers.467 The
committee stated that using the process
and results from existing engine
dynamometer testing for criteria
emissions to certify fuel economy
standards for MD/HD vehicles would
build on proven, accurate, and
repeatable methods, and put less
additional administrative burden on the
industry.468 However, the committee
cautioned that to account for the fuel
consumption benefits of hybrid
powertrains and transmission
technology, the present engine-only
tests for emissions certification will
need to be augmented with other
powertrain components added to the
engine test cell, either as real hardware
or as simulated components.469
Additionally, the vehicle attributes
(aero, tires, mass) would need to be
accounted for, perhaps by using vehiclespecific prescribed loads (via models) in
the test cycle, which the committee
465 Id.,
Finding 8–2.
466 Id.
467 Id.
463 Id.
at 189, Finding 8–1.
464 See Note 453 above.
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
at 190, Finding 8–8.
Finding 8–9.
469 See Note 453 above.
468 Id.,
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
stated would require close cooperation
among component manufacturers and
vehicle manufacturers.470
The committee noted that since there
is currently no established Federal test
method for HD vehicle fuel
consumption, either empirical testing
(whether at the component level or up
to the whole vehicle level) or simulation
modeling or both could be used for the
characterization and certification of
regulated equipment.471 The committee
cautioned that each approach involves
uncertainties that can affect certification
and compliance, and stressed the need
for a pilot regulation program to
examine the potential for these
effects.472
The committee also noted that
significant segments of the MD/HD
vehicle purchasing process are highly
consumer-driven, with many engine,
transmission, and drive axle choice
combinations resulting in a wide array
of completed vehicles for a given
vehicle model.473 The committee
stressed that from a regulatory
standpoint, the use of expensive and
time-consuming chassis testing on each
distinct vehicle variation is
impractical.474 However, the committee
suggested that by knowing the
performance of major subcomponents
on fuel consumption, it may be practical
to demonstrate compliance certification
with vehicle standards by aggregating
the subcomponents into a specified
virtual vehicle for computers to evaluate
fuel consumption of the completed
vehicle.475
The committee stated that further
research will be required to underpin
the protocol used to measure key input
parameters, such as tire rolling
resistance and aerodynamic drag forces,
and to ensure the robustness of
simulations for evaluating vehicle fuel
consumption.476 However, the
committee stated, once determined,
these major components may be
assembled through simulation to
represent a whole-vehicle system, and
models benchmarked to reliable data
may be used to extend the prediction to
a variety of vehicle types, by changing
bodies (aerodynamic measures), tires,
and operating weights associated with
the powertrains.477
Thus, the committee recommended
that the agency consider the use of
470 Id.
471 Id.,
Finding 8–10.
472 Id.
473 Id.,
474 See
Finding 8–11.
Note 453 above.
475 Id.
476 Id.,
simulation modeling with component
test data and additional tested inputs
from powertrain tests as a way of
lowering cost and administrative
burdens yet achieving needed accuracy
of results.478 The committee stated that
this is similar to the approach taken in
Japan, but different in that the program
would represent all of the parameters of
the vehicle (powertrain, aerodynamics,
and tires) and relate fuel consumption
to the vehicle task.479 The committee
further recommended that the combined
vehicle simulation/component testing
approach be supplemented with tests of
complete vehicles for audit purposes.480
The agencies agree that choosing
accurate and repeatable test procedures
that build on existing procedures to the
maximum extent will minimize
administrative burden and be crucial for
the success of the program. Thus, as
NAS recommended, the agencies are
proposing chassis dynamometer testing
for HD pickup trucks and vans, building
off existing criteria pollutant emissions
test programs and manufacturers’
experience with light-duty fuel
economy test procedures; engine
dynamometer testing for HD engines,
building off existing criteria pollutant
emissions test programs; and vehicle
simulation testing for vocational
vehicles and Class 7–8 combination
tractors, which is new for this program
but which, the agencies believe,
minimizes burden while maximizing
accuracy and repeatability. The agencies
have carefully considered measurement
protocols for key simulation input
parameters and have structured the
program to reduce sensitivity to
accuracy and repeatability issues. See
Section V in this preamble for a fuller
discussion. The agencies recognize the
importance of continuing work to
standardize and refine measurement
methods and intend to work with
industry and technical organizations to
improve those measurement methods.
The simulation program includes inputs
for all vehicle parameters that affect fuel
consumption, but the interface allows
manufacturers to enter a limited number
of the inputs for this first program. The
majority of inputs have been preselected
by the agencies to represent typical
vehicle attributes in each regulatory
category. The agencies believe this
approach and the choice of preselected
parameters will reduce the potential for
unintended consequences. The
simulation program also uses vehicle
loads and driving cycles that were
selected based on careful consideration
478 Id.,
Finding 8–12.
479 See
477 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Recommendation 8–4.
Note 453 above.
480 Id.
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00203
of vehicle task, as recommended. And
finally, testing of complete vehicles for
audit purposes has occurred and will
continue to occur during the comment
period, in order to further hone the
accuracy of the simulation approach.
The agencies are thus consistent with
NAS’ recommendations with respect to
test procedures.
The agencies have structured the
program to regulate large manufacturers,
and as such there are fewer regulated
entities than the NAS study envisioned.
The agencies agree with the NAS
expectation that a program would
require close cooperation among
component manufacturers and vehicle
manufacturers. The agencies believe the
regulated manufacturers, and their
suppliers, have sufficient resources to
handle this burden, and in most cases
are already operating with close
cooperation.
(d) How should appropriate
technologies be determined?
The committee emphasized that
technology effectiveness (that is, its fuel
consumption/emissions reduction
potential) is extremely dependent on
application (for example, a hybrid
powertrain applied to a pickup truck
versus line-haul tractor) and drive cycle
(for example, start-stop versus steadystate, variations in load, etc.).481 The
committee also stressed that while some
technologies are economically viable
now, others may require significantly
higher fuel costs or valuations of
environmental/security externalities to
make them cost-beneficial.482
The agencies recognize and agree that
not all technologies are applicable in the
same way to all HD trucks and all drive
cycles, and that not all technologies are
cost-beneficial in the timeframe of this
rulemaking. The agencies divided the
overall HD fleet into unique categories
in order to group generally similar
vehicle types that have generally similar
uses. For vocational vehicles, where
uses and drive cycles are highly varied,
the agencies have structured the
program in a way that should provide
benefits broadly through the separate
regulation of engines and the vehicle
(effectively only the tires, for this first
rulemaking). Measurement of fuel
consumption performance in each
category is based on estimated average
drive cycles and vehicle loading for that
category. Section III discusses these
issues in considerable detail.
481 Id.
at 5, Finding 4/5/6–1.
Finding 4/5/6–2.
482 Id.,
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74353
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74354
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(2) NAS Findings and
Recommendations With Which the
Proposed HD National Program Is Not
Significantly Consistent, and Why the
Agencies Have Chosen a Different Path
(a) Should the Agencies Conduct a Pilot
Program?
In briefings to the agencies following
the completion of the NAS Report, the
committee repeatedly stressed its final
recommendation over all others: That
NHTSA should conduct a pilot program
before beginning to regulate HD fuel
consumption officially, and that the
pilot program should have these
elements:
• NHTSA should ‘‘Gain experience
with certification testing, data gathering,
compiling and reporting. There needs to
be a concerted effort to determine the
accuracy and repeatability of all the test
methods and simulation strategies that
will be used with any proposed
regulatory standards and a willingness
to fix issues that are found.’’
• NHTSA should ‘‘Gather data on fuel
consumption from several
representative fleets of vehicles. This
should continue to provide a real-world
check on the effectiveness of the
regulatory design on the fuel
consumption of trucking fleets in
various parts of the marketplace and
various regions of the country.’’
The committee’s fundamental concern
was that given that HD fuel
consumption had never previously been
regulated, and given the scope of the
regulatory system that the committee
had envisioned, serious unintended
consequences could occur if NHTSA
did not build in extra time to conduct
a pilot program, with negative effects on
the regulated industry and on fuel
savings.
With regard to NAS’ first concern,
that NHTSA must gain experience with
certification testing, data gathering,
compiling and reporting before
initiating a HD fuel consumption
regulatory system, the agencies believe
that the proposed HD National Program
may avoid the risks that NAS identified
because it is based in large part on
existing test protocols and reporting
systems. The agencies’ proposed
certification and compliance programs
for HD pickup trucks and vans, for
example, employ the same testing
procedures and reporting systems as for
light-duty CAFE and GHG regulations,
so both the agencies and the
manufacturers who are regulated
already have much experience with
testing, data collection, and
reporting.483 For HD engine standard
483 See
Section II of this preamble.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
certification and compliance, similarly,
the agencies’ proposed systems rely on
engine testing identical to that already
used by EPA and manufacturers for
criteria pollutant emissions regulations,
and also vehicle modeling.
While it is true that the vehicle testing
for Class 7–8 tractors and for vocational
vehicles is new, the agencies believe
that the proposed modeling approach
will likely avoid NAS’ concerns due to
its degree of simplification, relative to
what NAS considered. The agencies are
not requiring the same level of whole
vehicle simulation for certification and
compliance as envisioned by NAS—
instead, while manufacturers will take
real-world measurements for each
component or system attribute, those
measurements will all be placed into
‘‘bins,’’ and the bin value (which will be
representative and pre-defined) will be
the value actually employed in the
modeling system. The agencies believe
that this approach has considerable
merit in the timeframe of this
rulemaking to initiate the HD National
Program for several reasons. First, since
not all test methodologies have been
firmly established, pre-defined bin
values help to mitigate measurement
uncertainty that might otherwise allow
manufacturers to game the testing
protocol. While there may be some loss
of accuracy due to use of bin values
rather than direct measurement values,
and while the agencies will have to
track vehicle model inputs carefully to
ensure that manufacturers are not
gaming the bins themselves, the
agencies believe that the proposed
levels of stringency should compensate
for these risks. And second, waiting for
a pilot program to gain additional
experience with testing, data gathering,
and reporting would delay our ability to
get highly cost-effective fuel efficiency
and emissions improvements, based on
utilization of existing technologies, as
soon as possible. If a pilot program were
initiated as early as MY 2014, and it
took one year to collect information to
inform rulemaking and an additional
year for finalizing a rule which, by
statute, would provide 4 years lead
time, the first regulated model year
would be 2020. The costs of waiting to
regulate officially, in terms of fuel
savings and emissions reductions,
would likely outweigh the potential
benefits of gaining more experience,
especially given the structure of the first
phase of the proposed HD National
Program.
With regard to NAS’ second concern,
that NHTSA must gather data on fuel
consumption from representative fleets
as a real-world check on the
effectiveness of the regulatory design,
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the agencies believe that the proposed
HD National Program will be much
better able to avoid unintended
consequences than the regulatory
system that NAS envisioned because we
do not propose to regulate the entire
vehicle as a single system. The agencies
believe that the proposed HD National
Program approach has considerable
merit for the timeframe of this
rulemaking because it does not regulate
transmission and final drive ratios and
tire sizes, and thus allows
manufacturers and customers to
continue to specify these attributes in
order to optimize them for specific
vehicle use. This reduces the need for
our regulatory program to define the
real-world drive cycle (in terms of
speed, load, grade, and altitude) exactly
correctly for every individual vehicle, as
envisioned by NAS. Additionally, by
expressly requiring improvements in
engine efficiency, the proposed HD
National Program will require all
vehicles to become more efficient
regardless of their intended use.
Although the agencies will not
document exact real-world measured
improvements in fuel efficiency/
emissions reductions, the program will
achieve percentage improvements that
may be approximately estimated.
Furthermore, while program benefits
may be lower than the full potential
envisioned by NAS if fleets choose to
optimize powertrain specifications for
purposes other than fuel efficiency, the
agencies believe that achieving
improvements sooner outweighs the
less-certain later benefits of undertaking
an initial pilot program as suggested by
NAS.
(b) Should the agencies regulate trailers
in the first phase of the HD National
program?
The NAS committee recommended
that NHTSA include trailers in its
regulatory program to achieve maximum
possible fuel efficiency improvements,
and also to provide an incentive to
manufacturers to optimize the tractor/
trailer interface.484 The committee noted
that commercial trailers are produced by
a separate group of about 12 major
manufacturers that are not associated
with truck manufacturers.485 The
committee stated that trailers represent
an important opportunity for fuel
consumption reduction, and can benefit
from improvements in aerodynamics
and tires.486
484 See
Note 453 above, at 189, Recommendation
8–2.
485 Id.,
Finding 8–3.
486 Id.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
For purposes of the proposed HD
National Program, the agencies intend to
consider regulation of trailers in a
subsequent rulemaking and not in this
initial phase. As the committee
suggested, regulating trailers is very
challenging due to the nature of the
trailer industry, with many small
manufacturers and very long vehicle
lifespans. However, since trailer
production volume is low, the agencies
project that their impact on fuel
consumption and emissions reduction
will be much smaller than for regulating
engines and tractors, as the agencies
intend to do in the first phase of the HD
National Program. The agencies are thus
deferring trailer regulations until a
subsequent phase.487
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(c) Should the agencies include in their
baseline analysis the effect of the
California air resources board SmartWay
mandate?
The committee found that the
legislation passed by California
requiring tractor-trailer combinations to
be SmartWay certified will have a
significant impact on the number of
vehicles in the United States that are
specified with fuel-efficient
technologies beginning in 2010.488 The
agencies are using a 2010 baseline with
an estimate of national sales mix that
includes the sales of SmartWay tractors.
The California trailer mandate is not
reflected in either the baseline or the
proposal estimates because this
proposal does not regulate trailers.
Therefore the agencies believe the
estimated program for this proposal
account for the effects of the California
SmartWay mandate
(d) Should the agencies’ aerodynamic
drag test method include varying yaw
angles?
The committee recommended that a
HD fuel consumption regulation should
require that aerodynamic features be
evaluated on a wind-averaged basis that
takes into account the effects of yaw,
and that tractor and trailer
manufacturers should be required to
certify their drag coefficient results
using a common industry standard.489
The committee stated that yaw-induced
drag can be accurately measured only in
a wind tunnel.490
The agencies are not implementing
this recommendation in the first phase
of the proposed HD National Program.
The current lack of common wind
tunnel facilities precludes using a single
consumption,494 specifically fleet
turnover impacts and pre-buy effects; 495
the rebound effect; 496 vehicle class
shifting effects; 497 environmental cobenefits and costs; 498 congestion; 499
safety;a 500 and incremental weight
impacts.501 While the committee did not
examine any of these effects in depth, it
stated that it believed that a rebound
effect likely exists, and that estimates of
fuel savings from regulatory standards
will be somewhat misestimated if the
rebound effect is not considered.502
In response, while the agencies have
initiated analyses of these unintended
consequences, they have not all been
completed in time to be incorporated
into this NPRM. The NAS committee
(e) Should the agencies complete an
itself noted the lack of available
economic/payback analysis prior to
information on these effects, especially
beginning to regulate, in order to avoid
as compared to the wealth of
unintended consequences?
information available for light-duty fuel
economy and GHG regulatory analysis.
The committee recommended that
Much of this work must simply be done
NHTSA’s study (which it expected
from scratch. The agencies have
would precede the NPRM) include a
included estimates of the rebound effect
careful economic/payback analysis
in this NPRM and draft RIA,503 but we
based on fuel usage by application and
hope to have analyses of other effects
different fuel price scenarios, including
operating and maintenance costs.492 The available for the final rule.
committee stated that standards that
(3) NAS Findings and
differentially affect the capital and
Recommendations With Which the
operating costs of different vehicle
Proposed HD National Program Is Not
classes can cause purchase of vehicles
Entirely Consistent, and Why the
that are not optimized for particular
Agencies Have Chosen a Different Path
operating conditions, and cautioned that
(a) Should the agencies regulate finalthe complexity of truck use and the
stage manufacturers?
variability of duty cycles increase the
probability of these unintended
The committee recommended that
consequences.493
NHTSA regulate the final stage
The agencies have included in this
manufacturers since they have the
NPRM and in the draft RIA a draft
greatest control over the design of the
economic/payback analysis based on
vehicle and its major subsystems that
industry average operating cycles and
affect fuel consumption.504 However,
expectations for ongoing maintenance
this recommendation was predicated on
costs. The agencies seek comment on
a regulatory system that regulated the
the assumptions and analysis presented whole vehicle as a single unit.
in Section VIII of the preamble and
The agencies are proposing to regulate
Chapter 9 of the draft RIA. In particular, final-stage manufacturers for HD pickup
the agencies request comment on the
trucks and vans, but not for vocational
ability of these average assumptions to
494 Id., Finding 6–9.
reflect payback periods for the industry
495 Id., Finding 6–10.
as a whole and what if any changes the
496 Id., Finding 6–11.
agencies should make in the analyses
497 Id. Finding 6–12. Of particular concern is the
for the final rulemaking consistent with
potential for fleets to purchase vehicles classified
the recommendations of the NAS.
for purposes of our regulations as ‘‘vocational’’
vehicles, in order to avoid the significant capital
(f) How should the agencies account
costs associated with the addition of aero
for indirect effects and unintended
improvements, weight reductions, and an APU, and
consequences as a result of the proposed then convert them to a tractor. The agencies believe
HD National Program?
we have addressed this potential loophole, as
discussed in Section V.
The committee stressed the need of
498 See Note 453 above, Finding 6–13.
regulators to consider a number of
499 Id., Finding 6–14.
effects in the development of any
500 Id. at 156–157, Findings 6–16 and 6–17.
proposals to regulate HD fuel
501 Id. at 156, Finding 6–16.
aerodynamic test method at the outset of
the program, which will begin with
EPA’s GHG regulations in 2014. Instead,
the program will allow manufacturers to
continue to use whatever aerodynamic
test method they currently use. This
will ease administrative burden, but the
agencies recognize that it will create
variability in measured aerodynamic
values. To address this, the agencies are
employing a bin system for aerodynamic
drag values, and varying values will be
grouped in the same bin.491 The
agencies anticipate investigating varying
yaw angles in a subsequent rulemaking
for a future phase of the HD National
Program.
502 Id.,
487 See
Section II of this preamble.
488 See Note 453 above, at 50, Finding 3–4.
489 Id. at 128, Recommendation 5–1.
490 Id. at 39, Finding 2–4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
74355
491 See
Section II of this preamble.
492 See Note 453 above at 157, Recommendation
6–1.
493 Id. at 156, Finding 6–12.
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Finding 6–11.
Section VIII of this preamble and Chapter
9 of the draft RIA.
504 See Note 453 above at 189, Recommendation
8–1.
503 See
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74356
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
vehicles or for Class 7–8 combination
tractors. While choosing not to regulate
the whole vehicle as a single unit for
this first phase of the HD National
Program means that the agencies’ initial
rule will not achieve the maximum
potential benefits sought by NAS
through its approach, the agencies
believe that the benefits of
implementing regulations more quickly
outweigh the drawbacks. Additionally,
the proposed HD National Program
approach eliminates dealing with
thousands of final-stage manufacturers
in the first phase of regulations, many
of whom are small businesses and could
be unduly affected by these regulations
in this time frame.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(b) What should the agencies do about
component testing data?
The committee recommended that, in
order to ensure consistent data from
component manufacturers for
certification and compliance modeling,
NHTSA establish a standardized test
protocol and safeguards for the
confidentiality of that component
data.505 To that end, the committee
recommended that NHTSA implement
as soon as possible a major engineering
contract to analyze several actual
vehicles in several applications and
develop an approach to component
testing data in conjunction with vehicle
simulation modeling to arrive at LSFC
data for these vehicles.506
The agencies believe that these
concerns are less of an issue with the
proposed HD National Program. As
discussed above, test protocols for HD
pickup trucks and vans test protocols
are already standardized, and both the
agencies and the manufacturers know
what to expect in the data. Additionally,
for Classes 3 to 8, we know what to
expect in the engine testing and data,
and since the vehicle testing uses a
simplified bin approach, even though
there may be some loss of accuracy and
potential for gaming, the agencies
believe that this is the fastest way to get
regulations implemented while
addressing the problem of a lack of
standardized test protocol/safeguards
for data. The agencies anticipate
addressing this issue on an ongoing
basis in subsequent rulemakings for
later phases of the HD National
Program.
(c) How should the agencies validate a
combined vehicle simulation/
component testing compliance
approach?
The committee recommended that
actual vehicles should also be tested by
appropriate full-scale test procedures to
confirm actual LSFC values and
reductions measured with fuel
consumption reduction technologies, as
compared to the more cost-effective fleet
certification approach.507
As discussed above, the agencies
believe that this is less of a concern for
the proposed HD National Program
since the agencies are not proposing to
regulate the whole vehicle as a single
system. The agencies will continue to
conduct tests of complete vehicles for
audit purposes as the HD National
Program develops and as time and
resources allow.
(d) How should the agencies consider
HD Regulation in Europe and Japan?
The committee suggested that the HD
fuel consumption regulations in Japan,
and those under consideration and
study by the European Commission,
provide valuable input and experience
to the U.S. plans. The committee stated
that in Japan the complexity of HD
vehicle configurations and duty cycles
was determined to lend itself to the use
of computer simulation as a costeffective means to calculate fuel
efficiency, and that the EC studies so far
indicate plans to develop and use
simulations in their expected regulatory
system. The committee noted that Japan
is not using extensive full-vehicle
testing in the certification process,
despite the fact that its HD vehicle
manufacturing diversity is less than in
the United States, with relatively few
HD vehicle manufacturers and no
independent engine companies.
The agencies have reviewed the
Japanese and planned EC HD
regulations to the extent possible given
the time frame for this rulemaking and
considered those approaches. However,
the proposed HD National Program
differs from the Japanese and planned
EC HD programs. The agencies agree
that international harmonization in HD
fuel consumption/GHG regulations is
desirable and expect harmonization may
increase over time, given the global
presence of many HD vehicle
manufacturers.
(e) How much engineering work needs
to be done before HD fuel consumption
regulations can be implemented?
The committee stated that significant
engineering work is needed to produce
a regulatory approach that produces cost
effective and accurate results, which can
provide meaningful data to vehicle
purchasers.508 While the agencies
emphasize that much engineering work
has already been undertaken in support
of this proposed HD National Program,
we believe, as discussed above, that the
need for engineering work perceived by
NAS is reduced somewhat based on the
structure of the proposed program.
Since the agencies are not regulating
transmission ratios, final drive ratio,
and tire size; since the agencies are not
regulating the complete vehicle as a
single unit and instead separating the
engine from the vehicle; and since the
agencies are building off of existing
regulatory programs for light-duty
vehicles and HD criteria pollutant
emissions wherever possible, we believe
that we have created a solid basis for the
HD National Program that will address
NAS’ concerns in this regard.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
(1) Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), this action is an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ because it
is likely to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, the agencies submitted
this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866 and any changes
made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
NHTSA is also subject to the
Department of Transportation’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
These proposed rules are also
significant within the meaning of the
DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. Executive Order 12866
additionally requires NHTSA to submit
this action to OMB for review and
document any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations.
In addition, the agencies prepared an
analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action.
This analysis is contained in the Draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is
available in the docket for this proposal
and at the docket Internet address listed
under ADDRESSES above.
(2) National Environmental Policy Act
Concurrently with this NPRM,
NHTSA is releasing a Draft
505 Id.
506 Id.
at 190, Recommendation 8–5.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
507 Id.
PO 00000
at 190, Recommendation 8–4.
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
508 Id.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
at 190, Finding 8–13.
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
For additional information on
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis, please see the
DEIS.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the agencies’ needs
for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA
has established a public docket for this
proposal, which includes this ICR,
under Docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162. Submit any comments
related to the ICR for this proposal to
EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice
for where to submit comments to EPA.
Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after November 30, 2010, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by December 30, 2010. The final rules
will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(3) Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposal have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared by
EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number
2394.01.
The agencies propose to collect
information to ensure compliance with
the provisions in this proposal. This
includes a variety of testing, reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for
vehicle manufacturers. Section 208(a) of
the CAA requires that vehicle
manufacturers provide information the
Administrator may reasonably require to
determine compliance with the
regulations; submission of the
information is therefore mandatory. We
will consider confidential all
information meeting the requirements of
section 208(c) of the CAA.
It is estimated that this collection
affects approximately 35 engine and
vehicle manufacturers. The information
that is subject to this collection is
collected whenever a manufacturer
applies for a certificate of conformity.
(4) Regulatory Flexibility Act
(a) Overview
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Under section 206 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.
7521), a manufacturer must have a
certificate of conformity before a vehicle
or engine can be introduced into
commerce.
The burden to the manufacturers
affected by this proposal has a range
based on the number of engines and
vehicles a manufacturer produces. The
total estimated burden associated with
this proposal is 25,052 hours annually
(see Table XI–1:). This estimated burden
for engine and vehicle manufacturers is
a total estimate for new reporting
requirements. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install,
and utilize technology and systems for
the purposes of collecting, validating,
and verifying information, processing
and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with
any previously applicable instructions
and requirements; train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposal on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by SBA regulations at 13 CFR
121.201 (see Table XI–2 below); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
Table XI–2 provides an overview of
the primary SBA small business
categories included in the heavy-duty
engine and vehicle sector:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.092
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, and
implementing regulations issued by the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), 40 CFR part 1500, and NHTSA,
49 CFR part 520. NHTSA prepared the
DEIS to analyze and disclose the
potential environmental impacts of the
proposed HD fuel consumption
standards and reasonable alternatives.
The DEIS analyzes direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts and analyzes
impacts in proportion to their
significance.
Because of the link between the
transportation sector and GHG
emissions, the DEIS considers the
possible impacts on climate and global
climate change in the analysis of the
effects of these fuel consumption
standards. The DEIS also describes
potential environmental impacts to a
variety of resources. Resources that may
be affected by the proposed action and
alternatives include water resources,
biological resources, land use and
development, safety, hazardous
materials and regulated wastes, noise,
socioeconomics, and environmental
justice. These resource areas are
assessed qualitatively in the DEIS.
74357
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(b) Summary of Potentially Affected
Small Entities
The agencies have not conducted an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for the proposal because we are
proposing to certify that these rules
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The agencies are proposing to
defer standards for manufacturers
meeting SBA’s definition of small
business as described in 13 CFR 121.201
due to the short lead time to develop
this proposal, the extremely small fuel
savings and emissions contribution of
these entities, and the potential need to
develop a program that would be
structured differently for them (which
would require more time). The agencies
would instead consider appropriate fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
standards for these entities as part of a
future regulatory action. This includes
small entities in several distinct
categories of businesses for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles: chassis
manufacturers, combination tractor
manufacturers, and alternative fuel
engine converters.
Based on preliminary assessment, the
agencies have identified a total of about
17 engine manufacturers, 3 complete
pickup truck and van manufacturers, 11
combination tractor manufacturers and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
43 heavy-duty chassis manufacturers.
Notably, several of these manufacturers
produce vehicles in more than just one
regulatory category (HD pickup trucks/
vans, combination tractors, or
vocational vehicles (i.e. heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers)). Based on the
types of vehicles they manufacture,
these companies, however, would be
subject to slightly different testing and
reporting requirements. Taking this
feature of the heavy-duty trucking sector
into account, the agencies estimate that
although there are fewer than 30
manufacturers covered by the proposal,
there are close to 60 divisions with
these companies that would be subject
to the proposed regulations. Of these,
about 15 entities fit the SBA criteria of
a small business. There are
approximately three engine converters,
two tractor manufacturers, and ten
heavy-duty chassis manufacturers in the
heavy-duty engine and vehicle market
that are small businesses. (No major
heavy-duty engine manufacturers,
heavy-duty chassis manufacturers, or
tractor manufacturers meet the smallentity criteria as defined by SBA). The
agencies estimate that these small
entities comprise less than 0.35 percent
of the total heavy-duty vehicle sales in
the United States, and therefore the
proposed deferment will have a
negligible impact on the fuel
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consumption and GHG emissions
reductions from the proposed standards.
To ensure that the agencies are aware
of which companies would be deferred,
the agencies are proposing that such
entities submit a declaration to the
agencies containing a detailed written
description of how that manufacturer
qualifies as a small entity under the
provisions of 13 CFR 121.201. Some
small entities, such as heavy-duty
tractor and chassis manufacturers, are
not currently covered under criteria
pollutant motor vehicle emissions
regulations. Small engine entities are
currently covered by a number of EPA
motor vehicle emission regulations, and
they routinely submit information and
data on an annual basis as part of their
compliance responsibilities. Because
such entities are not automatically
exempted from other EPA regulations
for heavy-duty engines and vehicles,
absent such a declaration, EPA would
assume that the entity was subject to the
greenhouse gas control requirements in
this GHG proposal. The declaration to
the agencies would need to be
submitted at time of either engine or
vehicle emissions certification under
the Heavy-duty Highway Engine
program. The agencies expect that the
additional paperwork burden associated
with completing and submitting a small
entity declaration to gain deferral from
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.093
74358
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the proposed GHG and fuel
consumption standards would be
negligible and easily done in the context
of other routine submittals to the
agencies. However, the agencies have
accounted for this cost with a nominal
estimate included in the Information
Collection Request completed under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Additional
information can be found in the
Paperwork Reduction Act discussion in
Section XI. (3) Paperwork Reduction
Act. Based on this, the agencies are
proposing to certify that the rules would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The agencies continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the
proposal on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
(c) Conclusions
We therefore certify that this proposal
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(5) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
the agencies generally must prepare a
written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating a rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires the
agencies to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows the
agencies to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator (of either agency)
publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
Before the agencies establish any
regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal
governments, they must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA and NHTSA
regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
This proposal contains no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local, or Tribal governments. The
rules impose no enforceable duty on any
State, local or Tribal governments. The
agencies have determined that this
proposal contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
agencies have determined that this
proposal contains a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100
or more for the private sector in any one
year. The agencies believe that the
proposal represents the least costly,
most cost-effective approach to achieve
the statutory requirements of the rules.
Section VIII.L, above, explains why the
agencies believe that the fuel savings
that would result from this proposal
would lead to lower prices economywide, improving U.S. international
competitiveness. The costs and benefits
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74359
associated with the proposal are
discussed in more detail above in
Section VIII and in the Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis, as required by the
UMRA.
Table XI–3 presents the rule-related
benefits, costs and net benefits in both
present value terms and in annualized
terms. In both cases, the discounted
values are based on an underlying time
varying stream of cost and benefit
values that extend into the future (2012
through 2050). The distribution of each
monetized economic impact over time
can be viewed in the RIA that
accompanies this proposal.
Present values represent the total
amount that a stream of monetized
costs/benefits/net benefits that occur
over time are worth now (in year 2008
dollar terms for this analysis),
accounting for the time value of money
by discounting future values using
either a 3 or 7 percent discount rate, per
OMB Circular A–4 guidance. An
annualized value takes the present value
and converts it into a constant stream of
annual values through a given time
period (2012 through 2050 in this
analysis) and thus averages (in present
value terms) the annual values. The
present value of the constant stream of
annualized values equals the present
value of the underlying time varying
stream of values. The ratio of benefits to
costs is identical whether it is measured
with present values or annualized
values.
It is important to note that annualized
values cannot simply be summed over
time to reflect total costs/benefits/net
benefits; they must be discounted and
summed. Additionally, the annualized
value can vary substantially from the
time varying stream of cost/benefit/net
benefit values that occur in any given
year (e.g., the stream of costs
represented by $0.34B and $0.58B in
Table XI–3 below average $1.5B from
2014 through 2018 and are zero from
2019–2050).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.094
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74360
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(6) Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This proposal
would apply to manufacturers of motor
vehicles and not to State or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.
Although section 6 of Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action, the
agencies did consult with
representatives of State governments in
developing this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA and NHTSA
policy to promote communications
between the agencies and State and
local governments, the agencies
specifically solicit comment on this
proposed action from State and local
officials.
NHTSA notes that EPCA contains a
provision (49 U.S.C. 32919(a)) that
expressly preempts any State or local
government from adopting or enforcing
a law or regulation related to fuel
economy standards or average fuel
economy standards for automobiles
covered by an average fuel economy
standard under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329.
However, commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and
work trucks are not ‘‘automobiles,’’ as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3).
Accordingly, NHTSA has tentatively
concluded that EPCA’s express
preemption provision would not reach
the fuel efficiency standards to be
established in this rulemaking.
NHTSA also considered the issue of
implied or conflict preemption. The
possibility of such preemption is
dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between a standard established
by NHTSA in this rulemaking and a
State or local law or regulation. See
Spriestma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S.
51, 64–65 (2002). At present, NHTSA
has no knowledge of any State or local
law or regulation that would actually
conflict with one of the fuel efficiency
standards to be established in this
rulemaking.
NHTSA seeks public comments on
this issue.
(7) Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
These proposed rules do not have
Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
November 9, 2000). This proposal will
be implemented at the Federal level and
impose compliance costs only on
vehicle manufacturers. Tribal
governments would be affected only to
the extent they purchase and use
regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposal. The agencies specifically
solicit additional comment on this
proposal from Tribal officials.
(8) Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection
of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’
This action is subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is an economically
significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866, and the
agencies believe that the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by this
action may have a disproportionate
effect on children. A synthesis of the
science and research regarding how
climate change may affect children and
other vulnerable subpopulations is
contained in the Technical Support
Document for Endangerment or Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse
Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean
Air Act, which can be found in the
public docket for this proposal.509 A
summary of the analysis is presented
below.
With respect to GHG emissions, the
effects of climate change observed to
date and projected to occur in the future
include the increased likelihood of more
frequent and intense heat waves.
Specifically, EPA’s analysis of the
scientific assessment literature has
determined that severe heat waves are
projected to intensify in magnitude,
frequency, and duration over the
portions of the United States where
these events already occur, with
potential increases in mortality and
morbidity, especially among the young,
elderly, and frail. EPA has estimated
reductions in projected global mean
surface temperatures as a result of
reductions in GHG emissions associated
with the standards proposed in this
action (Section II). Children may receive
benefits from reductions in GHG
emissions because they are included in
the segment of the population that is
most vulnerable to extreme
temperatures.
For non-GHG pollutants, EPA has
determined that climate change is
expected to increase regional ozone
pollution, with associated risks in
respiratory infection, aggravation of
asthma, and premature death. The
directional effect of climate change on
509 See
PO 00000
Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above.
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74361
ambient PM levels remains uncertain.
However, disturbances such as wildfires
are increasing in the United States and
are likely to intensify in a warmer future
with drier soils and longer growing
seasons. PM emissions from forest fires
can contribute to acute and chronic
illnesses of the respiratory system,
particularly in children, including
pneumonia, upper respiratory diseases,
asthma and chronic obstructive
pulmonary diseases.
The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure to the pollutants
addressed by this proposal.
(9) Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Effects)
This proposal is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. In fact, this proposal has a
positive effect on energy supply and
use. Because the proposed GHG
emission standards would result in
significant fuel savings, this proposal
encourages more efficient use of fuels.
Therefore, we have concluded that this
proposal is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects. Our energy
effects analysis is described above in
Section VIII.H.
(10) National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials, specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs the
agencies to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the agencies
decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
For CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions and
fuel consumption from heavy-duty
engines, the agencies are proposing to
collect data over the same tests that are
used for the Heavy-duty Highway
Engine program. This will minimize the
amount of testing done by
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74362
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers, since manufacturers are
already required to run these tests.
For CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions and
fuel consumption from complete pickup
trucks and vans, the agencies are
proposing to collect data over the same
tests that are used for the Heavy-duty
Highway Engine program and California
Air Resources Board. This will
minimize the amount of testing done by
manufacturers, since manufacturers are
already required to run these tests.
For CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption from heavy-duty
combination tractors and vocational
vehicles, the agencies are proposing to
collect data through the use of a
simulation model instead of a fullvehicle chassis dynamometer testing.
This will minimize the amount of
testing done by manufacturers. EPA’s
compliance assessment tool is based
upon well-established engineering and
physics principals that are the basis of
general academic understanding in this
area, and the foundation of any dynamic
vehicle simulation model, including the
models cited by ICCT in its study.510
Therefore, the EPA’s compliance
assessment tool satisfies the description
of a consensus. For the evaluation of tire
rolling resistance input to the model,
EPA is proposing to use the ISO 28580
test, a voluntary consensus
methodology. EPA is proposing to allow
several alternatives for the evaluation of
aerodynamics which allows the
industry to continue to use their own
evaluation tools because EPA does not
know of a single consensus standard
available for heavy-duty truck
aerodynamic evaluation.
For air conditioning standards, EPA is
proposing to use a consensus
methodology developed by the Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(11) Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
510 ICCT. ICCT Evaluation of Vehicle Simulation
Tools. 2009.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
With respect to GHG emissions, EPA
has determined that these proposed
rules will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it
increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
population, including any minority or
low-income population. The reductions
in CO2 and other GHGs associated with
the standards will affect climate change
projections, and EPA has estimated
reductions in projected global mean
surface temperatures (Section VI).
Within communities experiencing
climate change, certain parts of the
population may be especially
vulnerable; these include the poor, the
elderly, those already in poor health, the
disabled, those living alone, and/or
indigenous populations dependent on
one or a few resources.511 In addition,
the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program 512 stated as one of its
conclusions: ‘‘The United States is
certainly capable of adapting to the
collective impacts of climate change.
However, there will still be certain
individuals and locations where the
adaptive capacity is less and these
individuals and their communities will
be disproportionally impacted by
climate change.’’ Therefore, these
specific sub-populations may receive
benefits from reductions in GHGs.
For non-GHG co-pollutants such as
ozone, PM2.5, and toxics, EPA has
concluded that it is not practicable to
determine whether there would be
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority and/or low income
populations from this proposal.
The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure to the pollutants
addressed by this proposal.
XII. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
A. EPA
Statutory authority for the vehicle
controls in this proposal are found in
CAA section 202(a) (which authorizes
standards for emissions of pollutants
511 See
Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above.
(2008) Analyses of the effects of global
change on human health and welfare and human
systems. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research. [Gamble, J.L. (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G.
Sussman, T.J. Wilbanks, (Authors)]. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
USA.
512 CCSP
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
from new motor vehicles which
emissions cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare), sections 202(d), 203–209, 216,
and 301 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a),
7521(d), 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541,
7542, 7543, 7550, and 7601.
B. NHTSA
Statutory authority for the fuel
consumption standards in this proposal
is found in EISA section 103 (which
authorizes a fuel efficiency
improvement program, designed to
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement to be created for
commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks, to
include appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, standards, and
compliance and enforcement protocols
that are appropriate, cost-effective and
technologically feasible) of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007,
49 U.S.C. 32902(k).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 85
Confidential business information,
Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 86
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information,
Environmental protection, Incorporation
by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
40 CFR Part 1068
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
Fuel economy.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Chapter I
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR
chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 85—CONTROL OF AIR
POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 85
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart P—[Amended]
Section 85.1511 is revised to read as
follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 85.1511
Exemptions and exclusions.
(a) Individuals, as well as certificate
holders, shall be eligible for importing
vehicles into the United States under
the provisions of this section, unless
otherwise specified.
(b) Notwithstanding any other
requirements of this subpart, a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine entitled
to a temporary exemption under this
paragraph (b) may be conditionally
admitted into the United States if prior
written approval for such conditional
admission is obtained from the
Administrator. Conditional admission
shall be under bond. A written request
for approval from the Administrator
shall contain the identification required
in § 85.1504(a)(1) (except for
§ 85.1504(a)(1)(v)) and information that
indicates that the importer is entitled to
the exemption. Noncompliance with
provisions of this section may result in
the forfeiture of the total amount of the
bond or exportation of the vehicle or
engine. The following temporary
exemptions are permitted by this
paragraph (b):
(1) Exemption for repairs or
alterations. Vehicles and engines may
qualify for a temporary exemption
under the provisions of 40 CFR
1068.325(a). Such vehicles or engines
may not be registered or licensed in the
United States for use on public roads
and highways.
(2) Testing exemption. Vehicles and
engines may qualify for a temporary
exemption under the provisions of 40
CFR 1068.325(b). Test vehicles or
engines may be operated on and
registered for use on public roads or
highways provided that the operation is
an integral part of the test.
(3) Precertification exemption.
Prototype vehicles for use in applying to
EPA for certification may be imported
by independent commercial importers
subject to applicable provisions of 40
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
CFR 85.1706 and the following
requirements:
(i) No more than one prototype
vehicle for each engine family for which
an independent commercial importer is
seeking certification shall be imported
by each independent commercial
importer.
(ii) Unless a certificate of conformity
is issued for the prototype vehicle, the
total amount of the bond shall be
forfeited or the vehicle must be exported
within 180 days from the date of entry.
(4) Display exemptions. Vehicles and
engines may qualify for a temporary
exemption under the provisions of 40
CFR 1068.325(c). Display vehicles or
engines may not be registered or
licensed for use or operated on public
roads or highways in the United States,
unless an applicable certificate of
conformity has been received.
(c) Notwithstanding any other
requirements of this subpart, a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine may be
finally admitted into the United States
under this paragraph (c) if prior written
approval for such final admission is
obtained from the Administrator.
Conditional admission of these vehicles
is not permitted for the purpose of
obtaining written approval from the
Administrator. A request for approval
shall contain the identification
information required in § 85.1504(a)(1)
(except for § 85.1504(a)(1)(v)) and
information that indicates that the
importer is entitled to the exemption or
exclusion. The following exemptions or
exclusions are permitted by this
paragraph (c):
(1) National security exemption.
Vehicles may be imported under the
national security exemption found at 40
CFR 1068.315(a). Only persons who are
manufacturers may import a vehicle
under a national security exemption.
(2) Hardship exemption. The
Administrator may exempt on a case-bycase basis certain motor vehicles from
Federal emission requirements to
accommodate unforeseen cases of
extreme hardship or extraordinary
circumstances. Some examples are as
follows:
(i) Handicapped individuals who
need a special vehicle unavailable in a
certified configuration;
(ii) Individuals who purchase a
vehicle in a foreign country where
resale is prohibited upon the departure
of such an individual;
(iii) Individuals emigrating from a
foreign country to the U.S. in
circumstances of severe hardship.
(d) Foreign diplomatic and military
personnel may import nonconforming
vehicles without bond. At the time of
admission, the importer shall submit to
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74363
the Administrator the written report
required in § 85.1504(a)(1) (except for
information required by
§ 85.1504(a)(1)(v)). Such vehicles may
not be sold in the United States.
(e) Racing vehicles may be imported
by any person provided the vehicles
meet one or more of the exclusion
criteria specified in § 85.1703. Racing
vehicles may not be registered or
licensed for use on or operated on
public roads and highways in the
United States.
(f) The following exclusions and
exemptions apply based on date of
original manufacture:
(1) Notwithstanding any other
requirements of this subpart, the
following motor vehicles or motor
vehicle engines are excluded from the
requirements of the Act in accordance
with section 216(3) of the Act and may
be imported by any person:
(i) Gasoline-fueled light-duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks originally
manufactured prior to January 1, 1968.
(ii) Diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles
originally manufactured prior to January
1, 1975.
(iii) Diesel-fueled light-duty trucks
originally manufactured prior to January
1, 1976.
(iv) Motorcycles originally
manufactured prior to January 1, 1978.
(v) Gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled
heavy-duty engines originally
manufactured prior to January 1, 1970.
(2) Notwithstanding any other
requirements of this subpart, a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine not
subject to an exclusion under paragraph
(f)(1) of this section but greater than
twenty OP years old is entitled to an
exemption from the requirements of the
Act, provided that it is imported into
the United States by a certificate holder.
At the time of admission, the certificate
holder shall submit to the Administrator
the written report required in
§ 85.1504(a)(1) (except for information
required by § 85.1504(a)(1)(v)).
(g) Applications for exemptions and
exclusions provided for in paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this section shall be mailed
to the Designated Compliance Officer
(see 40 CFR 1068.30).
(h) Vehicles conditionally or finally
admitted under this section must still
comply with all applicable
requirements, if any, of the Energy Tax
Act of 1978, the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act and any other Federal
or State requirements.
PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY
VEHICLES AND ENGINES
3. The authority citation for part 86
continues to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74364
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart A—[Amended]
4. Section 86.007–23 is amended by
adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
§ 86.007–23
Required data.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) The provisions of this paragraph
(o) apply starting with the 2014 model
year. For heavy-duty engines tested over
the transient engine test cycle,
manufacturers must show individual
measurements for cold-start testing and
hot-start testing. For heavy-duty engines
testing over the SET cycle,
manufacturers must show individual
results for each steady-state test mode
for each pollutant except PM.
5. A new § 86.016–1 is added to
subpart A to read as follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 86.016–1
General applicability.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of
this subpart generally apply to 2005 and
later model year new Otto-cycle heavyduty engines used in incomplete
vehicles and vehicles above 14,000
pounds GVWR and 2005 and later
model year new diesel-cycle heavy-duty
engines. In cases where a provision
applies only to a certain vehicle group
based on its model year, vehicle class,
motor fuel, engine type, or other
distinguishing characteristics, the
limited applicability is cited in the
appropriate section or paragraph. The
provisions of this subpart continue to
generally apply to 2000 and earlier
model year new Otto-cycle and dieselcycle light-duty vehicles, 2000 and
earlier model year new Otto-cycle and
diesel-cycle light-duty trucks, and 2004
and earlier model year new Otto-cycle
complete heavy-duty vehicles at or
below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Provisions
generally applicable to 2001 and later
model year new Otto-cycle and dieselcycle light-duty vehicles, 2001 and later
model year new Otto-cycle and dieselcycle light-duty trucks, and 2005 and
later model year Otto-cycle complete
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR are located in subpart S
of this part.
(b) Optional applicability. A
manufacturer may request to certify any
incomplete Otto-cycle heavy-duty
vehicle of 14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle
Weight Rating or less in accordance
with the provisions for Otto-cycle
complete heavy-duty vehicles located in
subpart S of this part. Heavy-duty
engine or heavy-duty vehicle provisions
of this subpart A do not apply to such
a vehicle.
(c) Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. The following requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
apply to Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines
and vehicles:
(1) Exhaust emission standards
according to the provisions of § 86.008–
10 or § 86.1816, as applicable.
(2) On-board diagnostics requirements
according to the provisions of § 86.007–
17 or § 86.1806, as applicable.
(3) Evaporative emission standards as
follows:
(i) Evaporative emission standards for
complete vehicles according to the
provisions of §§ 86.1810 and 86.1816.
(ii) For 2013 and earlier model years,
evaporative emission standards for
incomplete vehicles according to the
provisions of § 86.008–10, or §§ 86.1810
and 86.1816, as applicable.
(iii) For 2014 and later model years,
evaporative emission standards for
incomplete vehicles according to the
provisions of §§ 86.1810 and 86.1816, or
40 CFR part 1037, as applicable.
(4) Refueling emission requirements
for Otto-cycle complete vehicles
according to the provisions of
§§ 86.1810 and 86.1816.
(d) Non-petroleum fueled vehicles.
The standards and requirements of this
part apply to model year 2016 and later
non-petroleum fueled motor vehicles as
follows:
(1) The standards and requirements of
this part apply as specified for vehicles
fueled with methanol, natural gas, and
LPG.
(2) The standards and requirements of
subpart S of this part apply as specified
for light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks.
(3) The standards and requirements of
this part applicable to methanol-fueled
heavy-duty vehicles and engines
(including flexible fuel vehicles and
engines) apply to heavy-duty vehicles
and engines fueled with any oxygenated
fuel (including flexible fuel vehicles and
engines). Most significantly, this means
that the hydrocarbon standards apply as
NMHCE and the vehicles and engines
must be tested using the applicable
oxygenated fuel according to the test
procedures in 40 CFR part 1065
applicable for oxygenated fuels. For
purposes of this paragraph (d),
oxygenated fuel means any fuel
containing at least 50 volume percent
oxygenated compounds. For example, a
fuel mixture of 85 gallons of ethanol and
15 gallons of gasoline is an oxygenated
fuel, while a fuel mixture of 15 gallons
of ethanol and 85 gallons of gasoline is
not an oxygenated fuel.
(4) The standards and requirements of
subpart S of this part applicable to
heavy-duty vehicles under 14,000
pounds GVWR apply to all heavy-duty
vehicles powered solely by electricity,
including plug-in electric vehicles and
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
solar-powered vehicles. Use good
engineering judgment to apply these
requirements to these vehicles,
including applying these provisions to
vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR.
Electric heavy-duty vehicles may not
generate NOX or PM emission credits.
Heavy-duty vehicles powered solely by
electricity are deemed to have zero
emissions of regulated pollutants.
(5) The standards and requirements of
this part applicable to diesel-fueled
heavy-duty vehicles and engines apply
to all other heavy-duty vehicles and
engines not otherwise addressed in this
paragraph (d).
(6) See 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037
for requirements related to greenhouse
gas emissions.
(7) Manufacturers may voluntarily
certify to the standards of paragraphs
(d)(3) through (5) of this section before
model year 2016. Note that other
provisions in this part require
compliance with the standards
described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of
this section for model years before 2016.
(e) Small volume manufacturers.
Special certification procedures are
available for any manufacturer whose
projected combined U.S. sales of lightduty vehicles, light-duty trucks, heavyduty vehicles, and heavy-duty engines
in its product line (including all
vehicles and engines imported under
the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 and
85.1509 of this chapter) are fewer than
10,000 units for the model year in
which the manufacturer seeks
certification. To certify its product line
under these optional procedures, the
small-volume manufacturer must first
obtain the Administrator’s approval.
The manufacturer must meet the
eligibility criteria specified in § 86.092–
14(b) before the Administrator’s
approval will be granted. The smallvolume manufacturer’s certification
procedures are described in § 86.092–
14.
(f) Optional procedures for
determining exhaust opacity. (1) The
provisions of subpart I of this part apply
to tests which are performed by the
Administrator, and optionally, by the
manufacturer.
(2) Measurement procedures, other
than those described in subpart I of this
part, may be used by the manufacturer
provided the manufacturer satisfies the
requirements of § 86.091–23(f).
(3) When a manufacturer chooses to
use an alternative measurement
procedure it has the responsibility to
determine whether the results obtained
by the procedure will correlate with the
results which would be obtained from
the measurement procedure in subpart I
of this part. Consequently, the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Administrator will not routinely
approve or disapprove any alternative
opacity measurement procedure or any
associated correlation data which the
manufacturer elects to use to satisfy the
data requirements for subpart I of this
part.
(4) If a confirmatory test(s) is
performed and the results indicate there
is a systematic problem suggesting that
the data generated under an optional
alternative measurement procedure do
not adequately correlate with data
obtained in accordance with the
procedures described in subpart I of this
part, EPA may require that all
certificates of conformity not already
issued be based on data obtained from
procedures described in subpart I of this
part.
Subpart N—[Amended]
6. Section 86.1305–2010 is amended
by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
§ 86.1305–2010
subpart.
Introduction; structure of
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Use the applicable equipment and
procedures for spark-ignition or
compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR
part 1065 to determine whether engines
meet the duty-cycle emission standards
in subpart A of this part. Measure the
emissions of all regulated pollutants as
specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the
duty cycles and procedures specified in
§§ 86.1333–2010, 86.1360–2007, and
86.1362–2010. Adjust emission results
from engines using aftertreatment
technology with infrequent regeneration
events as described in § 86.004–28.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 86.1362–2010 is amended
by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
§ 86.1362–2010 Steady-state testing with a
ramped-modal cycle.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Starting in the 2014 model year,
use continuous sampling to determine
separate emission rates at each test
mode during the test run for each
pollutant except PM, as described in 40
CFR 1036.501.
PART 1036—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY
HIGHWAY ENGINES
Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
Sec.
1036.1 Does this part apply for my engines?
1036.2 Who is responsible for compliance?
1036.5 Which engines are excluded from
this part’s requirements?
1036.10 How is this part organized?
1036.15 Do any other regulation parts apply
to me?
1036.30 Submission of information.
§ 86.1863–07 Chassis certification for
diesel vehicles.
Subpart B—Emission Standards and
Related Requirements
1036.100 Overview of exhaust emission
standards.
1036.108 Greenhouse gas emission
standards.
1036.115 Other requirements.
1036.130 Installation instructions for
vehicle manufacturers.
1036.135 Labeling.
1036.140 Primary intended service class.
1036.150 Interim provisions.
(a) A manufacturer may optionally
certify heavy-duty diesel vehicles
14,000 pounds GVWR or less to the
standards specified in § 86.1816. Such
vehicles must meet all the requirements
Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families
1036.205 What must I include in my
application?
1036.210 May I get preliminary approval
before I complete my application?
Subpart S—[Amended]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
of subpart S of this part that are
applicable to Otto-cycle vehicles, except
for evaporative, refueling, and OBD
requirements where the diesel-specific
OBD requirements would apply.
(b) For OBD, diesel vehicles
optionally certified under this section
are subject to the OBD requirements of
§ 86.1806.
(c) Diesel vehicles certified under this
section may be tested using the test
fuels, sampling systems, or analytical
systems specified for diesel engines in
subpart N of this part or in 40 CFR part
1065.
(d) Diesel vehicles optionally certified
under this section to the standards of
this subpart may not be included in any
averaging, banking, or trading program
under this part.
(e) The provisions of § 86.004–40
apply to the engines in vehicles certified
under this section.
(f) Diesel vehicles may be certified
under this section to the standards
applicable to model year 2008 in earlier
model years.
(g) Diesel vehicles optionally certified
under this section in model years 2007,
2008, or 2009 shall be included in
phase-in calculations specified in
§ 86.007–11(g).
(h) Diesel vehicles subject to the
standards of 40 CFR 1037.104 are
subject to the provisions of this subpart
as specified in 40 CFR 1037.104.
9. A new part 1036 is added to
subchapter U to read as follows:
8. Section 86.1863–07 is revised to
read as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74365
1036.225 Amending my application for
certification.
1036.230 Selecting engine families.
1036.235 Testing requirements for
certification.
1036.241 Demonstrating compliance with
greenhouse gas pollutant standards.
1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping for
certification.
1036.255 What decisions may EPA make
regarding my certificate of conformity?
Subpart D—[Reserved]
Subpart E—In-Use Testing
1036.401 In-use testing.
Subpart F—Test Procedures
1036.501 How do I run a valid emission
test?
1036.525 Hybrid engines.
1036.530 Calculating greenhouse gas
emission rates.
Subpart G—Special Compliance Provisions
1036.601 What compliance provisions
apply to these engines?
1036.610 Innovative technology credits for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
1036.615 Rankine-cycle engines and hybrid
powertrains.
1036.620 Alternate CO2 standards based on
model year 2011 engines.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
1036.701 General provisions.
1036.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.
1036.710 Averaging and using emission
credits.
1036.715 Banking emission credits.
1036.720 Trading emission credits.
1036.725 What must I include in my
application for certification?
1036.730 ABT reports.
1036.735 Recordkeeping.
1036.740 Restrictions for using emission
credits.
1036.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
1036.750 What can happen if I do not
comply with the provisions of this
subpart?
1036.755 Information provided to the
Department of Transportation.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other Reference
Information
1036.801 Definitions.
1036.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
1036.810 Incorporation by reference.
1036.815 What provisions apply to
confidential information?
1036.820 Requesting a hearing.
1036.825 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
§ 1036.1 Does this part apply for my
engines?
(a) Except as specified in § 1036.5, the
provisions of this part apply to all new
2014 model year and later heavy-duty
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74366
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
engines. This includes engines fueled by
conventional and alternative fuels.
(b) This part does not apply with
respect to exhaust emission standards
for HC, CO, NOX, or PM except that the
provisions of § 1036.601 apply.
§ 1036.2 Who is responsible for
compliance?
The regulations in this part 1036
contain provisions that affect both
engine manufacturers and others.
However, the requirements of this part
are generally addressed to the engine
manufacturer. The term ‘‘you’’ generally
means the engine manufacturer,
especially for issues related to
certification.
§ 1036.5 Which engines are excluded from
this part’s requirements?
(a) The provisions of this part do not
apply to engines used in medium-duty
passenger vehicles that are subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S, except as specified in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart S. For example, this
exclusion applies for engines used in
vehicles certified to the standards of 40
CFR 1037.104.
(b) Engines installed in heavy-duty
vehicles that do not provide motive
power are nonroad engines. The
provisions of this part therefore do not
apply to these engines. See 40 CFR parts
1039, 1048, or 1054 for other
requirements that apply for these
auxiliary engines. See 40 CFR part 1037
for requirements that may apply for
vehicles using these engines, such as the
evaporative emission requirements of 40
CFR 1037.103.
(c) The provisions of this part do not
apply to aircraft or aircraft engines.
Standards apply separately to certain
aircraft engines, as described in 40 CFR
part 87.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.10
How is this part organized?
This part 1036 is divided into the
following subparts:
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the
applicability of part 1036 and gives an
overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the
emission standards and other
requirements that must be met to certify
engines under this part. Note that
§ 1036.150 describes certain interim
requirements and compliance
provisions that apply only for a limited
time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes
how to apply for a certificate of
conformity.
(d) [Reserved]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(e) Subpart E of this part describes
provisions for testing in-use engines.
(f) Subpart F of this part describes
how to test your engines (including
references to other parts of the Code of
Federal Regulations).
(g) Subpart G of this part describes
requirements, prohibitions, and other
provisions that apply to engine
manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers,
owners, operators, rebuilders, and all
others.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes
how you may generate and use emission
credits to certify your engines.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Subpart J of this part contains
definitions and other reference
information.
§ 1036.15 Do any other regulation parts
apply to me?
(a) Part 86 of this chapter describes
additional requirements that apply to
engines that are subject to this part
1036. This part extensively references
portions of 40 CFR part 86. For example,
the regulations of part 86 specify
emission standards and certification
procedures related to criteria pollutants.
(b) Part 1037 of this chapter describes
requirements for controlling evaporative
emissions and greenhouse gas emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles, whether or
not they use engines certified under this
part. It also includes standards and
requirements that apply instead of the
standards and requirements of this part
in some cases.
(c) Part 1065 of this chapter describes
procedures and equipment
specifications for testing engines to
measure exhaust emissions. Subpart F
of this part 1036 describes how to apply
the provisions of part 1065 of this
chapter to determine whether engines
meet the exhaust emission standards in
this part.
(d) Certain provisions of part 1068 of
this chapter apply as specified in
§ 1036.601 to everyone, including
anyone who manufactures, imports,
installs, owns, operates, or rebuilds any
of the engines subject to this part 1036,
or vehicles containing these engines.
Part 1068 of this chapter describes
general provisions, including these
seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for
engine manufacturers, vehicle
manufacturers, and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket
changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for
certain engines.
(4) Importing engines.
PO 00000
Frm 00216
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(5) Selective enforcement audits of
your production.
(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(e) Other parts of this chapter apply
if referenced in this part.
§ 1036.30
Submission of information.
Send all reports and requests for
approval to the Designated Compliance
Officer (see § 1036.801). See § 1036.825
for additional reporting and
recordkeeping provisions.
Subpart B—Emission Standards and
Related Requirements
§ 1036.100 Overview of exhaust emission
standards.
Engines used in vehicles certified to
the applicable chassis standards for
greenhouse gas pollutants described in
40 CFR 1037.104 are not subject to the
standards specified in this part. All
other engines subject to this part must
meet the greenhouse gas standards in
§ 1036.108 in addition to the criteria
pollutant standards of 40 CFR part 86.
§ 1036.108 Greenhouse gas emission
standards.
This section describes the applicable
CO2, N2O, and CH4 standards for
engines. These standards do not apply
for engines used in vehicles subject to
(or voluntarily certified to) the CO2,
N2O, and CH4 standards for vehicles
specified in 40 CFR 1037.104.
(a) Emission standards. Emission
standards apply for engines measured
using the test procedures specified in
subpart F of this part as follows:
(1) CO2 emission standards apply as
specified in this paragraph (a)(1). For
medium and heavy heavy-duty engines
used in tractors, measure emissions
using only the steady-state duty cycle
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N
(referred to as the SET cycle). For
medium and heavy heavy-duty engines
used in both tractors and vocational
applications, measure emissions using
the steady-state duty cycle and the
transient duty cycle (commonly referred
to as the FTP engine cycle) specified in
40 CFR part 86, subpart N. For all other
engines, measure emissions using only
the transient duty cycle specified in 40
CFR part 86, subpart N.
(i) The CO2 standard for model year
2016 and later spark-ignition engines is
627 g/hp-hr.
(ii) The following CO2 standards
apply for compression-ignition engines
and all other engines (in g/hp-hr):
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
(2) The CH4 emission standard for all
model year 2014 and later engines is
0.05 g/hp-hr when measured over the
transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart N. Note that this
standard applies for all fuel types just as
the other standards of this section do.
(3) The N2O emission standard for all
model year 2014 and later engines is
0.05 g/hp-hr when measured over the
transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart N.
(b) Family certification levels. You
must specify a CO2 Family Certification
Level (FCL) for each engine family. The
FCL may not be less than the certified
emission level for the engine family.
The CO2 Family Emission Limit (FEL)
for the engine family is equal to the FCL
multiplied by 1.02.
(c) Averaging, banking, and trading.
You may generate or use emission
credits under the averaging, banking,
and trading (ABT) program described in
subpart H of this part for demonstrating
compliance with CO2 emission
standards. Credits (positive and
negative) are calculated from the
difference between the FCL and the
applicable emission standard. Except as
specified in § 1036.705, you may not
generate or use credits for N2O or CH4
emissions.
(d) Useful life. Your engines must
meet the exhaust emission standards of
this section over their full useful life,
expressed in service miles or calendar
years, whichever comes first. The useful
life values applicable to the criteria
pollutant standards of 40 CFR part 86
apply for the standards of this section.
(e) Applicability for testing. The
emission standards in this subpart apply
as specified in this paragraph (e) to all
duty-cycle testing (according to the
applicable test cycles), including
certification, selective enforcement
audits, and in-use testing. The FCLs
serve as the emission standards for the
engine family with respect to
certification and confirmatory testing
instead of the standards specified in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The
FELs serve as the emission standards for
the engine family with respect to all
other testing.
§ 1036.115
Other requirements.
(a) The warranty and maintenance
requirements, adjustable parameter
provisions, and defeat device
prohibition of 40 CFR part 86 apply
with respect to the standards of this
part.
(b) You must design and produce your
engines to comply with evaporative
emission standards as follows:
(1) For complete heavy-duty vehicles
you produce, you must certify the
vehicles to the emission standards
specified in 40 CFR 1037.103.
(2) For incomplete heavy-duty
vehicles and engines used in vehicles
you do not produce, you do not need to
certify your engines to evaporative
emission standards or otherwise meet
those standards. However, vehicle
manufacturers certifying their vehicles
with your engines may depend on you
to produce your engines according to
their specifications. Also, your engines
must meet applicable exhaust emission
standards in the installed configuration.
§ 1036.130 Installation instructions for
vehicle manufacturers.
(a) If you sell an engine for someone
else to install in a vehicle, give the
engine installer instructions for
installing it consistent with the
requirements of this part. Include all
information necessary to ensure that an
engine will be installed in its certified
configuration.
(b) Make sure these instructions have
the following information:
(1) Include the heading: ‘‘Emissionrelated installation instructions’’.
(2) State: ‘‘Failing to follow these
instructions when installing a certified
engine in a heavy-duty motor vehicle
violates Federal law, subject to fines or
other penalties as described in the Clean
Air Act.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00217
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74367
(3) Provide all instructions needed to
properly install the exhaust system and
any other components.
(4) Describe any necessary steps for
installing any diagnostic system
required under 40 CFR part 86.
(5) Describe how your certification is
limited for any type of application. For
example, if you certify heavy heavyduty engines to the CO2 standards using
only steady-state testing, you must make
clear that the engine may be installed
only in tractors.
(6) Describe any other instructions to
make sure the installed engine will
operate according to design
specifications in your application for
certification. This may include, for
example, instructions for installing
aftertreatment devices when installing
the engines.
(7) State: ‘‘If you install the engine in
a way that makes the engine’s emission
control information label hard to read
during normal engine maintenance, you
must place a duplicate label on the
vehicle, as described in 40 CFR
1068.105.’’
(c) You do not need installation
instructions for engines that you install
in your own vehicles.
(d) Provide instructions in writing or
in an equivalent format. For example,
you may post instructions on a publicly
available Web site for downloading or
printing. If you do not provide the
instructions in writing, explain in your
application for certification how you
will ensure that each installer is
informed of the installation
requirements.
§ 1036.135
Labeling.
Label your engines as described in 40
CFR 86.007–35(a)(3), with the following
additional information:
(a) State the FEL(s) to which the
engines are certified under this part. If
you certify your engines for use in both
vocational and tractor applications,
include both the FEL for the transient
FTP cycle and the SET cycle.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.095
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74368
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(b) Identify the emission control
system. Use terms and abbreviations as
described in 40 CFR 1068.45 or other
applicable conventions.
(c) Identify any limitations on your
certification. For example, if you certify
heavy heavy-duty engines to the CO2
standards using only steady-state
testing, include the statement
‘‘TRACTORS ONLY’’.
(d) You may ask us to approve
modified labeling requirements in this
part 1036 if you show that it is
necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate
label is consistent with the requirements
of this part. We may also specify
modified labeling requirement to be
consistent with the intent of 40 CFR part
1037.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.140
Primary intended service class.
You must identify a single primary
intended service class for each
compression-ignition engine family.
Select the class that best describes the
majority of engines from the engine
family based on the applicable design
and operating characteristics as follows:
(a) Light heavy-duty engines usually
are non-sleeved and not designed for
rebuild; their rated power generally
ranges from 70 to 170 horsepower.
Vehicle body types in this group might
include any heavy-duty vehicle built for
a light-duty truck chassis, van trucks,
multi-stop vans, motor homes and other
recreational vehicles, and some straight
trucks with a single rear axle. Typical
applications would include personal
transportation, light-load commercial
delivery, passenger service, agriculture,
and construction. The GVWR of these
vehicles is normally below 19,500
pounds.
(b) Medium heavy-duty engines may
be sleeved or non-sleeved and may be
designed for rebuild. Rated power
generally ranges from 170 to 250
horsepower. Vehicle body types in this
group would typically include school
buses, straight trucks with dual rear
axles, city tractors, and a variety of
special purpose vehicles such as small
dump trucks, and refuse trucks. Typical
applications would include commercial
short haul and intra-city delivery and
pickup. Engines in this group are
normally used in vehicles whose GVWR
ranges from 19,500 to 33,000 pounds.
(c) Heavy heavy-duty engines are
sleeved and designed for multiple
rebuilds. Their rated power generally
exceeds 250 horsepower. Vehicles in
this group are normally tractors, trucks,
and buses used in inter-city, long-haul
applications. These vehicles normally
exceed 33,000 pounds GVWR.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 1036.150
Interim provisions.
The provisions in this section apply
instead of other provisions in this part.
(a) Early banking of greenhouse gas
emissions. You may generate emission
credits for engines you certify in model
year 2013 to the standards of § 1036.108.
To do so, you must certify your entire
U.S.-directed production volume within
that averaging set to these standards.
Calculate the emission credits as
described in subpart H of this part
relative to the standards that would
apply for model year 2014. We
recommend that you notify us of your
intent to use this provision before
submitting your applications.
(b) Model year 2014 N2O standards. In
model year 2014, manufacturers may
show compliance with the N2O
standards using an engineering analysis.
(c) Engine cycle classification.
Engines meeting the definition of sparkignition, but regulated as diesel engines
under 40 CFR part 86 must be certified
to the requirements applicable to
compression-ignition engines under this
part. Similarly, engines meeting the
definition of compression-ignition, but
regulated as Otto-cycle under 40 CFR
part 86 must be certified to the
requirements applicable to sparkignition engines under this part.
(d) Small manufacturers.
Manufacturers meeting the small
business criteria specified for ‘‘Gasoline
Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing’’
or ‘‘Other Engine Equipment
Manufacturers’’ in 13 CFR 121.201 are
not subject to the greenhouse gas
emission standards in § 1036.108.
Qualifying manufacturers must notify
the Designated Compliance Officer
before importing or introducing
excluded engines into U.S. commerce.
This notification must include a
description of the manufacturer’s
qualification as a small business under
13 CFR 121.201.
Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families
§ 1036.205 What must I include in my
application?
Submit an application for certification
as described in 40 CFR 86.007–21, with
the following additional information:
(a) Describe the engine family’s
specifications and other basic
parameters of the engine’s design and
emission controls as related to
compliance with the requirements of
this part. Describe in detail all system
components for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions, including all auxiliary
emission control devices (AECDs) and
all fuel-system components you will
install on any production or test engine.
Identify the part number of each
PO 00000
Frm 00218
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
component you describe. For this
paragraph (a), treat as separate AECDs
any devices that modulate or activate
differently from each other.
(b) Describe any test equipment and
procedures that you used if you
performed any tests that did not also
involve measurement of criteria
pollutants. Describe any special or
alternate test procedures you used (see
40 CFR 1065.10(c)).
(c) Include the emission-related
installation instructions you will
provide if someone else installs your
engines in their vehicles (see
§ 1036.130).
(d) Describe the label information
specified in § 1036.135.
(e) Identify the FCLs with which you
are certifying engines in the engine
family.
(f) Identify the engine family’s
deterioration factors and describe how
you developed them (see § 1036.245).
Present any test data you used for this.
(g) Present emission data to show that
you meet emission standards, as
follows:
(1) Present exhaust emission data for
CO2, CH4, and N2O on an emission-data
engine to show that your engines meet
the applicable emission standards we
specify in § 1036.108. Show emission
figures before and after applying
deterioration factors for each engine. In
addition to the composite results, show
individual measurements for cold-start
testing and hot-start testing over the
transient test cycle. Also show
individual results by mode for steadystate testing for compression-ignition
engines for each pollutant except PM.
(2) Note that §§ 1036.235 and
1036.245 allow you to submit an
application in certain cases without new
emission data.
(h) State whether your certification is
limited for certain engines. This applies
for engines such as the following:
(1) If you certify heavy heavy-duty
engines to the CO2 standards using only
steady-state testing, the engines may be
installed only in tractors.
(2) If you certify heavy heavy-duty
engines to the CO2 standards using only
transient testing, the engines may be
installed only in vocational vehicles.
(i) Unconditionally certify that all the
engines in the engine family comply
with the requirements of this part, other
referenced parts of the CFR, and the
Clean Air Act. Note that § 1036.235
specifies which engines to test to show
that engines in the entire family comply
with the requirements of this part.
(j) Include the information required
by other subparts of this part. For
example, include the information
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
required by § 1036.725 if you participate
in the ABT program.
(k) Include other applicable
information, such as information
specified in this part or 40 CFR part
1068 related to requests for exemptions.
(l) For imported engines or
equipment, identify the following:
(1) Describe your normal practice for
importing engines. For example, this
may include identifying the names and
addresses of any agents you have
authorized to import your engines.
Engines imported by nonauthorized
agents are not covered by your
certificate.
(2) The location of a test facility in the
United States where you can test your
engines if we select them for testing
under a selective enforcement audit, as
specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart
E.
§ 1036.210 May I get preliminary approval
before I complete my application?
If you send us information before you
finish the application, we may review it
and make any appropriate
determinations, especially for questions
related to engine family definitions,
auxiliary emission control devices,
adjustable parameters, deterioration
factors, testing for service accumulation,
and maintenance. Decisions made under
this section are considered to be
preliminary approval, subject to final
review and approval. We will generally
not reverse a decision where we have
given you preliminary approval, unless
we find new information supporting a
different decision. If you request
preliminary approval related to the
upcoming model year or the model year
after that, we will make best-efforts to
make the appropriate determinations as
soon as practicable. We will generally
not provide preliminary approval
related to a future model year more than
two years ahead of time.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.225 Amending my application for
certification.
Before we issue you a certificate of
conformity, you may amend your
application to include new or modified
engine configurations, subject to the
provisions of this section. After we have
issued your certificate of conformity,
but before the end of the model year,
you may send us an amended
application requesting that we include
new or modified engine configurations
within the scope of the certificate,
subject to the provisions of this section.
You must amend your application if any
changes occur with respect to any
information that is included or should
be included in your application.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(a) You must amend your application
before you take any of the following
actions:
(1) Add an engine configuration to an
engine family. In this case, the engine
configuration added must be consistent
with other engine configurations in the
engine family with respect to the criteria
listed in § 1036.230.
(2) Change an engine configuration
already included in an engine family in
a way that may affect emissions, or
change any of the components you
described in your application for
certification. This includes production
and design changes that may affect
emissions any time during the engine’s
lifetime.
(3) Modify an FEL and FCL for an
engine family as described in paragraph
(f) of this section.
(b) To amend your application for
certification, send the relevant
information to the Designated
Compliance Officer.
(1) Describe in detail the addition or
change in the engine model or
configuration you intend to make.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or
data showing that the amended engine
family complies with all applicable
requirements. You may do this by
showing that the original emission-data
engine is still appropriate for showing
that the amended family complies with
all applicable requirements.
(3) If the original emission-data
engine for the engine family is not
appropriate to show compliance for the
new or modified engine configuration,
include new test data showing that the
new or modified engine configuration
meets the requirements of this part.
(c) We may ask for more test data or
engineering evaluations. You must give
us these within 30 days after we request
them.
(d) For engine families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
we will determine whether the existing
certificate of conformity covers your
newly added or modified engine. You
may ask for a hearing if we deny your
request (see § 1036.820).
(e) For engine families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
you may start producing the new or
modified engine configuration anytime
after you send us your amended
application and before we make a
decision under paragraph (d) of this
section. However, if we determine that
the affected engines do not meet
applicable requirements, we will notify
you to cease production of the engines
and may require you to recall the
engines at no expense to the owner.
Choosing to produce engines under this
paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to
PO 00000
Frm 00219
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74369
recall all engines that we determine do
not meet applicable emission standards
or other requirements and to remedy the
nonconformity at no expense to the
owner. If you do not provide
information required under paragraph
(c) of this section within 30 days after
we request it, you must stop producing
the new or modified engines.
(f) You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in certain cases after
the start of production, but before the
end of the model year. If you change an
FEL for CO2, your FCL for CO2 is
automatically set to your new FEL
divided by 1.02. The changed FEL may
not apply to engines you have already
introduced into U.S. commerce, except
as described in this paragraph (f). If we
approve a changed FEL after the start of
production, you must include the new
FEL on the emission control information
label for all engines produced after the
change. You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in the following
cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for
your engine family at any time. In your
request, you must show that you will
still be able to meet the emission
standards as specified in subparts B and
H of this part. Use the appropriate FELs/
FCLs with corresponding production
volumes to calculate emission credits
for the model year, as described in
subpart H of this part.
(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for
your engine family only if you have test
data from production engines showing
that emissions are below the proposed
lower FEL (or below the proposed FCL
for CO2). The lower FEL/FCL applies
only to engines you produce after we
approve the new FEL/FCL. Use the
appropriate FELs/FCLs with
corresponding production volumes to
calculate emission credits for the model
year, as described in subpart H of this
part.
§ 1036.230
Selecting engine families.
See 40 CFR 86.001–24 for instructions
on how to divide your product line into
families of engines that are expected to
have similar emission characteristics
throughout the useful life. You must
certify your engines to the standards of
§ 1036.108 using the same engine
families you use for criteria pollutants
under 40 CFR part 86, except as follows:
(a) Engines certified as hybrid engines
or power packs may not be included in
an engine family with engines with
conventional powertrains. Note this
does not preclude you from including
engines in a conventional family if they
are used in hybrid vehicles, as long as
you certify them conventionally.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74370
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(b) If you certify engines in the family
for use as both vocational and tractor
engines, you must split your family into
two separate subfamilies. Indicate in the
application for certification that the
engine family is to be split. You may
assign the numbers and configurations
of engines within the respective
subfamilies at any time before
submitting the end-of-year report
required by § 1036.730. You must
identify the type of vehicle in which
each engine is installed, although we
may allow you to use statistical methods
to determine this for a fraction of your
engines. Keep records to document this
determination.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.235 Testing requirements for
certification.
This section describes the emission
testing you must perform to show
compliance with the greenhouse gas
emission standards in § 1036.108.
(a) Select a single emission-data
engine from each engine family as
specified in 40 CFR part 86. The
standards of this part apply only with
respect to emissions measured from this
tested configuration. However, you must
apply the same (or equivalent) emission
controls to all other engine
configurations in the engine family.
(b) Test your emission-data engines
using the procedures and equipment
specified in subpart F of this part. In the
case of dual-fuel and flexible-fuel
engines, measure emissions when
operating with each type of fuel for
which you intend to certify the engine.
If you are certifying the engine for use
only in tractors, you must measure
emissions using the SET cycle. If you
are certifying the engine for use only in
vocational applications, you must
measure emissions using the specified
transient duty cycle, including coldstart and hot-start testing as specified in
40 CFR part 86, subpart N.
(c) We may measure emissions from
any of your emission-data engines.
(1) We may decide to do the testing
at your plant or any other facility. If we
do this, you must deliver the engine to
a test facility we designate. The engine
you provide must include appropriate
manifolds, aftertreatment devices,
electronic control units, and other
emission-related components not
normally attached directly to the engine
block. If we do the testing at your plant,
you must schedule it as soon as possible
and make available the instruments,
personnel, and equipment we need.
(2) If we measure emissions on your
engine, the results of that testing
become the official emission results for
the engine at that test point. Unless we
later invalidate these data, we may
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
decide not to consider your data at that
test point in determining if your engine
family meets applicable requirements.
(3) Before we test one of your engines,
we may set its adjustable parameters to
any point within the physically
adjustable ranges.
(4) Before we test one of your engines,
we may calibrate it within normal
production tolerances for anything we
do not consider an adjustable parameter.
For example, this would apply for an
engine parameter that is subject to
production variability because it is
adjustable during production, but is not
considered an adjustable parameter (as
defined in § 1036.801) because it is
permanently sealed.
(d) You may ask to use carryover
emission data from a previous model
year instead of doing new tests, but only
if all the following are true:
(1) The engine family from the
previous model year differs from the
current engine family only with respect
to model year or other characteristics
unrelated to emissions.
(2) The emission-data engine from the
previous model year remains the
appropriate emission-data engine under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) The data show that the emissiondata engine would meet all the
requirements that apply to the engine
family covered by the application for
certification.
(e) We may require you to test a
second engine of the same configuration
in addition to the engine tested under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(f) If you use an alternate test
procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and
later testing shows that such testing
does not produce results that are
equivalent to the procedures specified
in subpart F of this part, we may reject
data you generated using the alternate
procedure.
§ 1036.241 Demonstrating compliance with
greenhouse gas pollutant standards.
(a) For purposes of certification, your
engine family is considered in
compliance with the emission standards
in § 1036.108 if all emission-data
engines representing the tested
configuration of that engine family have
test results showing official emission
results and deteriorated emission levels
at or below the standards. Note that
your FCLs are considered to be the
applicable emission standards with
which you must comply for
certification.
(b) Your engine family is deemed not
to comply if any emission-data engine
representing the tested configuration of
that engine family has test results
showing an official emission result or a
PO 00000
Frm 00220
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
deteriorated emission level for any
pollutant that is above an applicable
emission standard. Note that you may
increase your FCL if any certification
test results exceed your initial FCL.
(c) Do not apply deterioration factors
to measured low-mileage emission
levels from the emission-data engine
unless good engineering judgment
indicates that significant emission
deterioration will occur during the
useful life. However, where good
engineering judgment indicates that
significant emission deterioration will
occur during the useful life, apply
deterioration factors to the measured
emission levels for each pollutant to
show compliance with the applicable
emission standards. Your deterioration
factors must take into account any
available data from in-use testing with
similar engines. Apply deterioration
factors as follows:
(1) Additive deterioration factor for
greenhouse gas emissions. Except as
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, use an additive deterioration
factor for exhaust emissions. An
additive deterioration factor is the
difference between exhaust emissions at
the end of the useful life and exhaust
emissions at the low-hour test point. In
these cases, adjust the official emission
results for each tested engine at the
selected test point by adding the factor
to the measured emissions. If the factor
is less than zero, use zero. Additive
deterioration factors must be specified
to one more decimal place than the
applicable standard.
(2) Multiplicative deterioration factor
for greenhouse gas emissions. Use a
multiplicative deterioration factor for a
pollutant if good engineering judgment
calls for the deterioration factor for that
pollutant to be the ratio of exhaust
emissions at the end of the useful life to
exhaust emissions at the low-hour test
point. Adjust the official emission
results for each tested engine at the
selected test point by multiplying the
measured emissions by the deterioration
factor. If the factor is less than one, use
one. A multiplicative deterioration
factor may not be appropriate in cases
where testing variability is significantly
greater than engine-to-engine variability.
Multiplicative deterioration factors must
be specified to one more significant
figure than the applicable standard.
(d) Collect emission data using
measurements to one more decimal
place than the applicable standard.
Apply the deterioration factor to the
official emission result, as described in
paragraph (c) of this section, then round
the adjusted figure to the same number
of decimal places as the emission
standard. Compare the rounded
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
emission levels to the emission standard
for each emission-data engine.
§ 1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping
for certification.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) Organize and maintain the
following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any
summary information you send us.
(2) Any of the information we specify
in § 1036.205 that you were not required
to include in your application.
(c) Keep data from routine emission
tests (such as test cell temperatures and
relative humidity readings) for one year
after we issue the associated certificate
of conformity. Keep all other
information specified in this section for
eight years after we issue your
certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format
and on any media, as long as you can
promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them.
You must keep these records readily
available. We may review them at any
time.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.255 What decisions may EPA make
regarding my certificate of conformity?
(a) If we determine your application is
complete and shows that the engine
family meets all the requirements of this
part and the Act, we will issue a
certificate of conformity for your engine
family for that model year. We may
make the approval subject to additional
conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for
certification if we determine that your
engine family fails to comply with
emission standards or other
requirements of this part or the Clean
Air Act. We will base our decision on
all available information. If we deny
your application, we will explain why
in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your
application or suspend or revoke your
certificate if you do any of the
following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing
or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete
information (paragraph (e) of this
section applies if this is fraudulent).
(3) Render inaccurate any test data.
(4) Deny us from completing
authorized activities despite our
presenting a warrant or court order (see
40 CFR 1068.20). This includes a failure
to provide reasonable assistance.
However, you may ask us to reconsider
our decision by showing that your
failure under this paragraph (c)(4) did
not involve engines related to the
certificate or application in question to
a degree that would justify our decision.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(5) Produce engines for importation
into the United States at a location
where local law prohibits us from
carrying out authorized activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested
information or amend your application
to include all engines being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise
circumvents the intent of the Act or this
part.
(d) We may void your certificate if
you do not keep the records we require
or do not give us information as
required under this part or the Act.
(e) We may void your certificate if we
find that you intentionally submitted
false or incomplete information.
(f) If we deny your application or
suspend, revoke, or void your
certificate, you may ask for a hearing
(see § 1036.820).
Subpart D—[Reserved]
Subpart E—In-Use Testing
§ 1036.401
In-use testing.
You must test your in-use engines as
described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart T.
We may perform in-use testing of any
engine family subject to the standards of
this part, consistent with the provisions
of § 1036.235.
Subpart F—Test Procedures
§ 1036.501
test?
How do I run a valid emission
(a) Use the equipment and procedures
specified in 40 CFR 86.1305–2010 to
determine whether engines meet the
emission standards in § 1036.108.
(b) You may use special or alternate
procedures to the extent we allow them
under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(c) This subpart is addressed to you as
a manufacturer, but it applies equally to
anyone who does testing for you, and to
us when we perform testing to
determine if your engines meet emission
standards.
(d) For engines that use aftertreatment
technology with infrequent regeneration
events, invalidate any test interval in
which such a regeneration event occurs
with respect to CO2, N2O, and CH4
measurements.
(e) Test hybrid engines as described in
40 CFR part 1065 and § 1036.525.
(f) For compression-ignition engines,
use continuous sampling to determine
separate emission rates at each test
mode during the test run over the
ramped-modal cycle for each pollutant
except PM. Perform this emission
sampling using good engineering
judgment by measuring emissions
during the whole mode; do not measure
emissions during the transitions
between modes. Calculate emission
PO 00000
Frm 00221
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74371
results for each mode using the
procedures of 40 CFR part 1065.
§ 1036.525
Hybrid engines.
(a) If your engine system includes
features that recover and store energy
during engine motoring operation, we
may allow you to modify the test
procedure calculations of 40 CFR part
1065, consistent with good engineering
judgment, considering especially 40
CFR 1065.10(c)(1). See § 1036.615 for
engine system intended to include
features that recover and store energy
from braking unrelated to engine
motoring operation.
(b) If you produce a hybrid engine
designed with PTO capability and sell
the engine coupled with a transmission,
you may calculate a reduction in CO2
emissions resulting from the PTO
operation as described in 40 CFR
1037.525. Use good engineering
judgment to use the vehicle-based
procedures to quantify the CO2
reduction for your engines.
(c) If your engine system requires
special components for proper testing,
you must provide any such components
to us if we need to test your engine.
§ 1036.530 Calculating greenhouse gas
emission rates.
This section describes how to
calculate official emission results for
CO2, CH4, and N2O.
(a) Calculate brake-specific emission
rates for each applicable duty cycle as
specified in 40 CFR 1065.650. Do not
apply infrequent regeneration
adjustment factors to your results.
(b) Adjust CO2 emission rates
calculated under paragraph (a) of this
section for test fuel properties as
specified in this paragraph (b) to obtain
the official emission results. Note that
the purpose of this adjustment is to
make official emission results
independent of small differences in test
fuels within a fuel type.
(1) For liquid fuels, determine the net
energy content (BTU per pound of fuel)
and carbon weight fraction
(dimensionless) of your test fuel
according to ASTM D240–09
(incorporated by reference in
§ 1036.810). Use good engineering
judgment to determine the net energy
content and carbon weight fraction of
your gaseous test fuel. (Note: Net energy
content is also sometimes known as
lower heating value.) Calculate the test
fuel’s carbon-specific net energy content
(BTU/lbC) by dividing the net energy
content by the carbon fraction and
rounding to the nearest BTU/lbC.
(2) Calculate the adjustment factor for
carbon-specific net energy content by
dividing the carbon-specific net energy
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74372
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
level in the following table and
rounding to five decimal places.
(3) Your official emission result
equals your calculated brake-specific
emission rate multiplied by the
adjustment factor specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. For example, if the
net energy content and carbon fraction
of your diesel test fuel are 18,400 BTU/
lb and 0.870, the carbon-specific net
energy content of the test fuel would be
21,149 BTU/lbC. The adjustment factor
in the example above would be 0.99759
(21,149/21,200). If your brake-specific
CO2 emission rate was 630.0 g/hp-hr,
your official emission result would be
628.5 g/hp-hr.
§ 1036.610 Innovative technology credits
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Subpart G—Special Compliance
Provisions
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.601 What compliance provisions
apply to these engines?
(a) Engine and equipment
manufacturers, as well as owners,
operators, and rebuilders of engines
subject to the requirements of this part,
and all other persons, must observe the
provisions of this part, the provisions of
the Clean Air Act, and the following
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068:
(1) The exemption and importation
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subparts
C and D, apply for engines subject to
this part 1036, except that the hardship
exemption provisions of 40 CFR
1068.245, 1068.250, and 1068.255 do
not apply for motor vehicle engines.
(2) The recall provisions of 40 CFR
part 1068, subpart F, apply for engines
subject to this part 1036.
(b) Engines exempted from the
applicable standards of 40 CFR part 86
are exempt from the standards of this
part without request.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
This section applies for CO2
reductions not reflected by the specified
test procedure and that result from
technologies that were not in common
use before 2010. For model years
through 2018, we may allow you to
generate emission credits consistent
with the provisions of 40 CFR 86.1866–
12(d).
§ 1036.615 Rankine-cycle engines and
hybrid powertrains.
This section specifies how to generate
advanced technology-specific emission
credits for hybrid powertrains that
include energy storage systems and
regenerative braking (including
regenerative engine braking) and for
Rankine-cycle engines.
(a) Hybrid powertrains. Measure the
effectiveness of the hybrid system by
simulating the chassis test procedure
applicable for hybrid vehicles under 40
CFR part 1037, using good engineering
judgment. You need our approval before
you begin testing.
(b) Rankine-cycle engines. Test
Rankine-cycle engines according to the
specified test procedures unless we
approve alternate procedures.
(c) Calculating credits. Calculate
credits as specified in subpart H of this
part. Credits generated from engines and
powertrains certified under this section
may be used in other averaging sets and
under 40 CFR part 1037, consistent with
good engineering judgment.
§ 1036.620 Alternate CO2 standards based
on model year 2011 engines.
For model years 2014 through 2016,
you may certify your engines to the CO2
standards of this section instead of the
CO2 standards in § 1036.108. However,
you may not certify to these alternate
PO 00000
Frm 00222
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standards engines in a given averaging
set that will be produced while you
retain banked credits in that averaging
set.
(a) The standards of this section are
determined from the measured emission
rate of the test engine of the applicable
baseline 2011 engine family. Calculate
the CO2 emission rate of the baseline
test engine using the same equations
used for showing compliance with the
otherwise applicable standard. The
alternate CO2 standard for vocational
engines is equal to the baseline emission
rate multiplied by 0.950. The alternate
CO2 standard for tractor engines is equal
to the baseline emission rate multiplied
by 0.970. The in-use FEL for these
engines is equal to the standard
multiplied by 1.02.
(b) To be considered the baseline
engine family, an engine family must
meet the following criteria:
(1) It must have been certified to all
applicable emission standards in model
year 2011.
(2) The configuration tested for
certification must have the same engine
displacement as the engines in the
engine family being certified to the
alternate standards, and its rated power
must be within 5.00 percent of the
highest rated power in the engine family
being certified to the alternate
standards.
(c) Include the following statement on
the emission control information label:
‘‘THIS ENGINE WAS CERTIFIED TO AN
ALTERNATE CO2 STANDARD UNDER
§ 1036.620.’’
(d) You may not generate or use CO2
emission credits for any engine family
in the same averaging set and model
year in which you certify engines to the
standards of this section, except that
you may use up your banked credits in
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.096
content of your test fuel by the reference
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the same model year, but before you
begin producing engines under this
section.
(e) You need our approval before you
may certify under this section,
especially with respect to the numerical
value of the alternate standards.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.701
General provisions.
(a) You may use averaging, banking,
and trading (ABT) for purposes of
certification as described in this subpart
and in subpart B of this part to show
compliance with the standards of
§ 1036.108. Participation in this
emission credit program is voluntary.
(Note: As described in subpart B of this
part, you must assign an FCL to all
engine families, whether or not they
participate in the ABT provisions of this
subpart.)
(b) [Reserved].
(c) The definitions of subpart I of this
part apply to this subpart. The following
definitions also apply:
(1) Actual emission credits means
emission credits you have generated
that we have verified by reviewing your
final report.
(2) Averaging set means a set of
engines in which emission credits may
be exchanged. Credits generated by one
engine may only be used by other
engines in the same averaging set. See
§ 1036.740.
(3) Broker means any entity that
facilitates a trade of emission credits
between a buyer and seller.
(4) Buyer means the entity that
receives emission credits as a result of
a trade.
(5) Reserved emission credits means
emission credits you have generated
that we have not yet verified by
reviewing your final report.
(6) Seller means the entity that
provides emission credits during a
trade.
(7) Standard means the emission
standard that applies under subpart B of
this part for engines not participating in
the ABT program of this subpart.
(8) Trade means to exchange emission
credits, either as a buyer or seller.
(d) Emission credits may be
exchanged only within an averaging set
as specified in § 1036.740.
(e) You may not use emission credits
generated under this subpart to offset
any emissions that exceed an FCL or
standard. This applies for all testing,
including certification testing, in-use
testing, selective enforcement audits,
and other production-line testing.
However, if emissions from an engine
exceed an FCL or standard (for example,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
during a selective enforcement audit),
you may use emission credits to
recertify the engine family with a higher
FCL that applies only to future
production.
(f) Emission credits may be used in
the model year they are generated or in
future model years. Emission credits
may not be used for past model years,
except as specified in paragraph (i) of
this section.
(g) You may increase or decrease an
FCL during the model year by amending
your application for certification under
§ 1036.225. The new FCL may apply
only to engines you have not already
introduced into commerce. Each
engine’s emission control information
label must include the applicable FELs.
(h) You may trade emission credits
generated from any number of your
engines to the engine purchasers or
other parties so that they may be retired.
Identify any such credits in the reports
described in § 1036.725. Engines must
comply with the applicable FELs even
if you donate or sell the corresponding
emission credits under this paragraph
(h). Those credits may no longer be used
by anyone to demonstrate compliance
with any EPA emission standards.
(i) See § 1036.745 for provisions that
allow you to have a negative credit
balance for up to three consecutive
model years with respect to CO2
emissions.
§ 1036.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.
(a) The provisions of this section
apply separately for calculating
emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family,
calculate positive or negative emission
credits relative to the otherwise
applicable emission standard based on
the engine family’s FCL for greenhouse
gases. Calculate positive emission
credits for a family that has an FCL
below the standard. Calculate negative
emission credits for a family that has an
FCL above the standard. Sum your
positive and negative credits for the
model year before rounding. Round the
sum of emission credits to the nearest
megagram (Mg), using consistent units
throughout the following equations:
(1) For vocational engines:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std¥FCL) ·
(CF) · (Volume) · (UL) · (10¥6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard, in g/hp-hr, that
applies under subpart B of this part for
engines not participating in the ABT
program of this subpart (the ‘‘otherwise
applicable standard’’).
FCL = the Family Certification Level for the
engine family, in g/hp-hr, measured over
the transient duty cycle rounded to the
PO 00000
Frm 00223
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74373
same number of decimal places as the
emission standard.
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor,
calculated by dividing the total
(integrated) horsepower-hour over the
duty cycle by 6.3 miles for spark-ignition
engines and 6.5 miles for compressionignition engines. This represents the
work performed over the mileage
represented by operation over the duty
cycle.
Volume = the number of engines eligible to
participate in the averaging, banking,
and trading program within the given
engine family during the model year, as
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
UL = the useful life for the given engine
family, in miles.
(2) For tractor engines:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std¥FCL) ·
(CF) · (Volume) · (UL) · (10¥6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard, in g/hp-hr, that
applies under subpart B of this part for
engines not participating in the ABT
program of this subpart (the ‘‘otherwise
applicable standard’’).
FCL = the Family Certification Level for the
engine family, in g/hp-hr, measured over
the SET duty cycle rounded to the same
number of decimal places as the
emission standard.
CF = the transient cycle conversion factor
calculated under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
Volume = the number of engines eligible to
participate in the averaging, banking,
and trading program within the given
engine family during the model year, as
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
UL = the useful life for the given engine
family, in miles.
(3) We may allow you to use
statistical methods to estimate the total
production volumes where a small
fraction of the engines cannot be tracked
precisely.
(c) As described in § 1036.730,
compliance with the requirements of
this subpart is determined at the end of
the model year based on actual U.S.directed production volumes. Keep
appropriate records to document these
production volumes. Do not include any
of the following engines to calculate
emission credits:
(1) Engines permanently exempted
under subpart G of this part or under 40
CFR part 1068.
(2) Exported engines.
(3) Engines not subject to the
requirements of this part, such as those
excluded under § 1036.5. For example,
do not include engines used in vehicles
certified to the greenhouse gas standards
of 40 CFR 1037.104.
(4) [Reserved].
(5) Any other engines if we indicate
elsewhere in this part 1036 that they are
not to be included in the calculations of
this subpart.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74374
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(d) You may use CO2 emission credits
to show compliance with CH4 and/or
N2O FELs instead of the otherwise
applicable emission standards. To do
this, calculate the CH4 and/or N2O
emission credits needed (negative
credits) using the equation in paragraph
(b) of this section, using the FEL(s) you
specify for your engines during
certification. You must use 25 Mg of
positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of
negative CH4 credits. You must use 298
Mg of positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg
of negative N2O credits.
§ 1036.710
credits.
Averaging and using emission
(a) Averaging is the exchange of
emission credits among your engine
families. You may average emission
credits only within the same averaging
set.
(b) You may certify one or more
engine families to an FCL above the
applicable standard, subject to the
provisions in subpart B of this part, if
you show in your application for
certification that your projected balance
of all emission-credit transactions in
that model year is greater than or equal
to zero, or that a negative balance is
allowed under § 1036.745.
(c) If you certify an engine family to
an FCL that exceeds the otherwise
applicable standard, you must obtain
enough emission credits to offset the
engine family’s deficit by the due date
for the final report required in
§ 1036.730. The emission credits used to
address the deficit may come from your
other engine families that generate
emission credits in the same model
year, from emission credits you have
banked, or from emission credits you
obtain through trading.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.715
Banking emission credits.
(a) Banking is the retention of
emission credits by the manufacturer
generating the emission credits for use
in future model years for averaging or
trading.
(b) You may designate any emission
credits you plan to bank in the reports
you submit under § 1036.730 as
reserved credits. During the model year
and before the due date for the final
report, you may designate your reserved
emission credits for averaging or
trading.
(c) Reserved credits become actual
emission credits when you submit your
final report. However, we may revoke
these emission credits if we are unable
to verify them after reviewing your
reports or auditing your records.
§ 1036.720
Trading emission credits.
(a) Trading is the exchange of
emission credits between
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
manufacturers. You may use traded
emission credits for averaging, banking,
or further trading transactions. Traded
emission credits may be used only
within the averaging set in which they
were generated.
(b) You may trade actual emission
credits as described in this subpart. You
may also trade reserved emission
credits, but we may revoke these
emission credits based on our review of
your records or reports or those of the
company with which you traded
emission credits. You may trade banked
credits within an averaging set to any
certifying manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit
balance results from a transaction, both
the buyer and seller are liable, except in
cases we deem to involve fraud. See
§ 1036.255(e) for cases involving fraud.
We may void the certificates of all
engine families participating in a trade
that results in a manufacturer having a
negative balance of emission credits.
See § 1036.745.
§ 1036.725 What must I include in my
application for certification?
(a) You must declare in your
application for certification your intent
to use the provisions of this subpart for
each engine family that will be certified
using the ABT program. You must also
declare the FELs/FCL you select for the
engine family for each pollutant for
which you are using the ABT program.
Your FELs must comply with the
specifications of subpart B of this part,
including the FEL caps. FELs/FCL must
be expressed to the same number of
decimal places as the applicable
standards.
(b) Include the following in your
application for certification:
(1) A statement that you will or will
not have a negative balance for any
averaging set when all emission credits
are calculated at the end of the year.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected
emission credits (positive or negative)
based on projected U.S.-directed
production volumes. We may require
you to include similar calculations from
your other engine families to
demonstrate that you will be able to
avoid negative credit balances for the
model year. If you project negative
emission credits for a family, state the
source of positive emission credits you
expect to use to offset the negative
emission credits.
§ 1036.730
ABT reports.
(a) If any of your engine families are
certified using the ABT provisions of
this subpart, you must send an end-ofyear report within 90 days after the end
of the model year and a final report
PO 00000
Frm 00224
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
within 270 days after the end of the
model year. We may waive the
requirement to send the end-of-year
report, conditioned upon you sending
the final report on time. We will not
waive this requirement where you have
a deficit for that model year or an
outstanding deficit for an earlier model
year.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following information
for each engine family participating in
the ABT program:
(1) Engine-family designation and
averaging set.
(2) The emission standards that would
otherwise apply to the engine family.
(3) The FCL for each pollutant. If you
change the FCL after the start of
production, identify the date that you
started using the new FCL and/or give
the engine identification number for the
first engine covered by the new FCL. In
this case, identify each applicable FCL
and calculate the positive or negative
emission credits as specified in
§ 1036.225.
(4) The projected and actual U.S.directed production volumes for the
model year. If you changed an FCL
during the model year, identify the
actual production volume associated
with each FCL.
(5) The transient cycle conversion
factor for each engine configuration as
described in § 1036.705.
(6) Useful life.
(7) Calculated positive or negative
emission credits for the whole engine
family. Identify any emission credits
that you traded, as described in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(c) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following additional
information:
(1) Show that your net balance of
emission credits from all your
participating engine families in each
averaging set in the applicable model
year is not negative, except as allowed
under § 1036.745.
(2) State whether you will reserve any
emission credits for banking.
(3) State that the report’s contents are
accurate.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you
must send us a report within 90 days
after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the
following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer
and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to
the trade.
(iii) The engine families that
generated emission credits for the trade,
including the number of emission
credits from each family.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the
following information in your report:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(i) The corporate names of the seller
and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to
the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the
emission credits, including the number
of emission credits you intend to apply
to each engine family (if known).
(e) Send your reports electronically to
the Designated Compliance Officer
using an approved information format.
If you want to use a different format,
send us a written request with
justification for a waiver.
(f) Correct errors in your end-of-year
report or final report as follows:
(1) You may correct any errors in your
end-of-year report when you prepare the
final report, as long as you send us the
final report by the time it is due.
(2) If you or we determine within 270
days after the end of the model year that
errors mistakenly decreased your
balance of emission credits, you may
correct the errors and recalculate the
balance of emission credits. You may
not make these corrections for errors
that are determined more than 270 days
after the end of the model year. If you
report a negative balance of emission
credits, we may disallow corrections
under this paragraph (f)(2).
(3) If you or we determine anytime
that errors mistakenly increased your
balance of emission credits, you must
correct the errors and recalculate the
balance of emission credits.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.735
Recordkeeping.
(a) You must organize and maintain
your records as described in this
section. We may review your records at
any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this
section for at least eight years after the
due date for the end-of-year report. You
may not use emission credits for any
engines if you do not keep all the
records required under this section. You
must therefore keep these records to
continue to bank valid credits. Store
these records in any format and on any
media, as long as you can promptly
send us organized, written records in
English if we ask for them. You must
keep these records readily available.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we
require in §§ 1036.725 and 1036.730.
(d) Keep records of the engine
identification number for each engine
you produce that generates or uses
emission credits under the ABT
program. You may identify these
numbers as a range. If you change the
FEL after the start of production,
identify the date you started using each
FCL and the range of engine
identification numbers associated with
each FCL. You must also identify the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
purchaser and destination for each
engine you produce to the extent this
information is available.
(e) We may require you to keep
additional records or to send us relevant
information not required by this section
in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
§ 1036.740
credits.
Restrictions for using emission
The following restrictions apply for
using emission credits:
(a) Averaging sets. Emission credits
may be exchanged only within the
following averaging sets:
(1) Spark-ignition engines.
(2) Compression-ignition light heavyduty engines used in vocational
vehicles.
(3) Compression-ignition medium
heavy-duty engines used in vocational
vehicles.
(4) Compression-ignition heavy
heavy-duty engines used in vocational
vehicles.
(5) Compression-ignition medium
heavy-duty engines used in tractors.
(6) Compression-ignition heavy
heavy-duty engines used in tractors.
(b) Emission credits for later tiers of
standards. CO2 credits generated
relative to the standards of this part may
not be used for later tiers of standards,
except that credits generated before
model year 2017 may be used for the
tier of standards that begins in 2017.
(c) Applying credits to prior year
deficits. Where your credit balance for
the previous year is negative (i.e., there
was a credit deficit) you may apply only
credits that are surplus after meeting
your credit obligations for the current
year.
(d) Credits from hybrids and
advanced technologies. Averaging set
restrictions do not apply for credits
generated from hybrid engine power
systems with regenerative braking, or
from other advanced technologies. Such
credits may also be used under 40 CFR
part 1037, provided they are converted
using good engineering judgment to be
equivalent to credits calculated under
that part.
(e) Other restrictions. Other sections
of this part specify additional
restrictions for using emission credits
under certain special provisions.
§ 1036.745
End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
Except as allowed by this section, the
certificate of any engine family certified
to an FCL above the applicable standard
for which you do not have sufficient
credits is void.
(a) Your certificate for an engine
family for which you do not have
sufficient CO2 credits will be not be
void if you remedy the deficit with
PO 00000
Frm 00225
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74375
surplus credits within three model
years. For example, if you have a credit
deficit of 500 Mg for an engine family
at the end of model year 2015, you must
generate (or otherwise obtain) a surplus
of at least 500 Mg in that same averaging
set by the end of model year 2018.
(b) You may not bank or trade away
credits in the averaging set in any model
year in which you have a deficit.
(c) You may only apply surplus
credits to your deficit. You may not
apply credits to a deficit from an earlier
model year if the new credits are
generated in a model year in which you
have a net credit deficit at the end of the
year for that averaging set.
(d) If you do not remedy the deficit
with surplus credits within three model
years, your certificate is void for that
engine family. We may void the
certificate based on your end-of-year
report. Note that voiding a certificate
applies ab initio (i.e., retroactively).
Where the net deficit is less than the
total amount of negative credits
originally generated by the family, we
will only void the certificate with
respect to enough engines to reach the
amount of the net deficit. For example,
if the original engine family generated
500 Mg of negative credits, and the
manufacturer’s net deficit after three
years was 250 Mg, we would void the
certificate with respect to half of the
engines in the family.
§ 1036.750 What can happen if I do not
comply with the provisions of this subpart?
(a) For each engine family
participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditioned
upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and
after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our
satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void
the certificate of conformity for an
engine family if you fail to comply with
any provisions of this subpart.
(b) You may certify your engine
family to an FCL above an applicable
standard based on a projection that you
will have enough emission credits to
offset the deficit for the engine family.
However, we may void the certificate of
conformity if you cannot show in your
final report that you have enough actual
emission credits to offset a deficit for
any pollutant in an engine family.
(c) We may void the certificate of
conformity for an engine family if you
fail to keep records, send reports, or give
us information we request. Note that
failing to keep records, send reports, or
give us information we request is also a
violation of 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74376
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we
void your certificate under this section
(see § 1036.820).
§ 1036.755 Information provided to the
Department of Transportation.
(a) We may require you to submit a
pre-certification compliance report to us
for the upcoming model year or the year
after the upcoming model year.
(b) After receipt of each
manufacturer’s final report as specified
in § 1036.730 and completion of any
verification testing required to validate
the manufacturer’s submitted final data,
we will issue a report to the Department
of Transportation with CO2 emission
information and will verify the accuracy
of the manufacturer’s equivalent fuel
consumption data that must be reported
by NHTSA in 49 CFR 535.8. We will
send a report to DOT for each engine
manufacturer based on each regulatory
category and subcategory, including
sufficient information for NHTSA to
determine fuel consumption and
associated credit values. See 49 CFR
535.8 to determine if NHTSA deems
submission of this information to EPA
to also be a submission to NHTSA.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other
Reference Information
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.801
Definitions.
The following definitions apply to
this part. The definitions apply to all
subparts unless we note otherwise. All
undefined terms have the meaning the
Act gives to them. The definitions
follow:
Act means the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Adjustable parameter means any
device, system, or element of design that
someone can adjust (including those
which are difficult to access) and that,
if adjusted, may affect emissions or
engine performance during emission
testing or normal in-use operation. This
includes, but is not limited to,
parameters related to injection timing
and fueling rate. You may ask us to
exclude a parameter that is difficult to
access if it cannot be adjusted to affect
emissions without significantly
degrading engine performance, or if you
otherwise show us that it will not be
adjusted in a way that affects emissions
during in-use operation.
Aftertreatment means relating to a
catalytic converter, particulate filter, or
any other system, component, or
technology mounted downstream of the
exhaust valve (or exhaust port) whose
design function is to decrease emissions
in the engine exhaust before it is
exhausted to the environment. Exhaustgas recirculation (EGR) and
turbochargers are not aftertreatment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Aircraft means any vehicle capable of
sustained air travel above treetop
heights.
Alcohol-fueled engine mean an engine
that is designed to run using an alcohol
fuel. For purposes of this definition,
alcohol fuels do not include fuels with
a nominal alcohol content below 25
percent by volume.
Auxiliary emission control device
means any element of design that senses
temperature, motive speed, engine RPM,
transmission gear, or any other
parameter for the purpose of activating,
modulating, delaying, or deactivating
the operation of any part of the emission
control system.
Averaging set has the meaning given
in § 1036.701.
Calibration means the set of
specifications and tolerances specific to
a particular design, version, or
application of a component or assembly
capable of functionally describing its
operation over its working range.
Carryover means relating to
certification based on emission data
generated from an earlier model year as
described in § 1036.235(d).
Certification means relating to the
process of obtaining a certificate of
conformity for an engine family that
complies with the emission standards
and requirements in this part.
Certified emission level means the
highest deteriorated emission level in an
engine family for a given pollutant from
either transient or steady-state testing.
Complete vehicle means a vehicle
meeting the definition of complete
vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801 when it is
first sold as a vehicle. For example,
where a vehicle manufacturer sells an
incomplete vehicle to a secondary
manufacturer, the vehicle is not a
complete vehicle under this part, even
after its final assembly.
Compression-ignition means relating
to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine.
Crankcase emissions means airborne
substances emitted to the atmosphere
from any part of the engine crankcase’s
ventilation or lubrication systems. The
crankcase is the housing for the
crankshaft and other related internal
parts.
Criteria pollutants means emissions of
NOX, HC, PM, and CO. Note that these
pollutants are also sometimes described
collectively as ‘‘non-greenhouse gas
pollutants,’’ although they do not
necessarily have negligible global
warming potentials.
Designated Compliance Officer means
the Manager, Heavy-Duty and Nonroad
Engine Group (6405–J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
PO 00000
Frm 00226
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
Designated Enforcement Officer
means the Director, Air Enforcement
Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Deteriorated emission level means the
emission level that results from
applying the appropriate deterioration
factor to the official emission result of
the emission-data engine. Note that
where no deterioration factor applies,
references in this part to the
deteriorated emission level mean the
official emission result.
Deterioration factor means the
relationship between emissions at the
end of useful life and emissions at the
low-hour/low-mileage test point,
expressed in one of the following ways:
(1) For multiplicative deterioration
factors, the ratio of emissions at the end
of useful life to emissions at the lowhour test point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors,
the difference between emissions at the
end of useful life and emissions at the
low-hour test point.
Dual fuel means relating to an engine
designed for operation on two different
types of fuel but not on a continuous
mixture of those fuels.
Emission control system means any
device, system, or element of design that
controls or reduces the emissions of
regulated pollutants from an engine.
Emission-data engine means an
engine that is tested for certification.
This includes engines tested to establish
deterioration factors.
Emission-related maintenance means
maintenance that substantially affects
emissions or is likely to substantially
affect emission deterioration.
Engine configuration means a unique
combination of engine hardware and
calibration within an engine family.
Engines within a single engine
configuration differ only with respect to
normal production variability or factors
unrelated to emissions.
Engine family has the meaning given
in § 1036.230.
Excluded means relating to engines
that are not subject to some or all of the
requirements of this part as follows:
(1) An engine that has been
determined to not be a heavy-duty
engine is excluded from this part.
(2) Certain heavy-duty engines are
excluded from the requirements of this
part under § 1036.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of
this part may exclude a heavy-duty
engine generally subject to this part
from one or more specific standards or
requirements of this part.
Exempted has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1068.30.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Exhaust-gas recirculation means a
technology that reduces emissions by
routing exhaust gases that had been
exhausted from the combustion
chamber(s) back into the engine to be
mixed with incoming air before or
during combustion. The use of valve
timing to increase the amount of
residual exhaust gas in the combustion
chamber(s) that is mixed with incoming
air before or during combustion is not
considered exhaust-gas recirculation for
the purposes of this part.
Family certification level (FCL) means
a CO2 emission level declared by the
manufacturer that is at or above
emission test results for all emissiondata engines. The FCL serves as the
emission standard for the engine family
with respect to certification testing if it
is different than the otherwise
applicable standard. The FCL must be
expressed to the same number of
decimal places as the emission standard
it replaces.
Family emission limit (FEL) means an
emission level declared by the
manufacturer to serve in place of an
otherwise applicable emission standard
(other than CO2 standards) under the
ABT program in subpart H of this part.
The FEL must be expressed to the same
number of decimal places as the
emission standard it replaces. The FEL
serves as the emission standard for the
engine family with respect to all
required testing except certification
testing for CO2. The CO2 FEL is equal to
the CO2 FCL multiplied by 1.02 and
rounded to the appropriate number of
decimal places.
Flexible fuel means relating to an
engine designed for operation on any
mixture of two or more different types
of fuels.
Fuel type means a general category of
fuels such as diesel fuel, gasoline, or
natural gas. There can be multiple
grades within a single fuel type, such as
premium gasoline, regular gasoline, or
gasoline with 10 percent ethanol.
Good engineering judgment has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. See
40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative
process we use to evaluate good
engineering judgment.
Greenhouse gas pollutants and
greenhouse gases means compounds
regulated under this part based
primarily on their impact on the
climate. This includes CO2, CH4, and
N2O.
Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
means the value specified by the vehicle
manufacturer as the maximum design
loaded weight of a single vehicle,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor
vehicle above 8,500 pounds GVWR or
that has a vehicle curb weight above
6,000 pounds or that has a basic vehicle
frontal area greater than 45 square feet.
(1) Curb weight has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 86.1803–01, consistent with
the provisions of 40 CFR 1037.140.
(2) Basic vehicle frontal area has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803–01.
Heavy-duty engine means any engine
which the engine manufacturer could
reasonably expect to be used for motive
power in a heavy-duty vehicle.
Hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain
means an engine or powertrain that
includes energy storage features other
than a conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel. Supplemental
electrical batteries and hydraulic
accumulators are examples of hybrid
energy storage systems. Note that certain
provisions in this part treat hybrid
engines and powertrains intended for
vehicles that include regenerative
braking different than those intended for
vehicles that do not include
regenerative braking.
Hydrocarbon (HC) means the
hydrocarbon group on which the
emission standards are based for each
fuel type. For alcohol-fueled engines,
HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent (NMHCE). For all other
engines, HC means nonmethane
hydrocarbon (NMHC).
Identification number means a unique
specification (for example, a model
number/serial number combination)
that allows someone to distinguish a
particular engine from other similar
engines.
Incomplete vehicle means a vehicle
meeting the definition of incomplete
vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801 when it is
first sold as a vehicle.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) means
a liquid hydrocarbon fuel that is stored
under pressure and is composed
primarily of nonmethane compounds
that are gases at atmospheric conditions.
Low-hour means relating to an engine
that has stabilized emissions and
represents the undeteriorated emission
level. This would generally involve less
than 125 hours of operation.
Manufacture means the physical and
engineering process of designing,
constructing, and assembling a heavyduty engine or a heavy-duty vehicle.
Manufacturer has the meaning given
in section 216(1) of the Act. In general,
this term includes any person who
manufactures an engine, vehicle, or
piece of equipment for sale in the
United States or otherwise introduces a
new engine into commerce in the
United States. This includes importers
PO 00000
Frm 00227
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74377
who import engines or vehicles for
resale.
Medium-duty passenger vehicle has
the meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803–
01.
Model year means the manufacturer’s
annual new model production period,
except as restricted under this
definition. It must include January 1 of
the calendar year for which the model
year is named, may not begin before
January 2 of the previous calendar year,
and it must end by December 31 of the
named calendar year. Manufacturers
may not adjust model years to
circumvent or delay compliance with
emission standards or to avoid the
obligation to certify annually.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 85.1703.
Natural gas means a fuel whose
primary constituent is methane.
New motor vehicle engine means a
motor vehicle engine meeting the
criteria of either paragraph (1) or (2) of
this definition.
(1) A motor vehicle engine for which
the ultimate purchaser has never
received the equitable or legal title is a
new motor vehicle engine. This kind of
engine might commonly be thought of
as ‘‘brand new’’ although a new motor
vehicle engine may include previously
used parts. Under this definition, the
engine is new from the time it is
produced until the ultimate purchaser
receives the title or places it into
service, whichever comes first.
(2) An imported motor vehicle engine
is a new motor vehicle engine if it was
originally built on or after January 1,
1970.
Noncompliant engine means an
engine that was originally covered by a
certificate of conformity, but is not in
the certified configuration or otherwise
does not comply with the conditions of
the certificate.
Nonconforming engine means an
engine not covered by a certificate of
conformity that would otherwise be
subject to emission standards.
Nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC)
means the sum of all hydrocarbon
species except methane, as measured
according to 40 CFR part 1065.
Official emission result means the
measured emission rate for an emissiondata engine on a given duty cycle before
the application of any deterioration
factor, but after the applicability of any
required regeneration adjustment
factors.
Owners manual means a document or
collection of documents prepared by the
engine or vehicle manufacturer for the
owner or operator to describe
appropriate engine maintenance,
applicable warranties, and any other
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74378
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
information related to operating or
keeping the engine. The owners manual
is typically provided to the ultimate
purchaser at the time of sale.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Percent has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1065.1001. Note that this means
percentages identified in this part are
assumed to be infinitely precise without
regard to the number of significant
figures. For example, one percent of
1,493 is 14.93.
Petroleum means gasoline or diesel
fuel or other fuels normally derived
from crude oil. This does not include
methane or LPG.
Placed into service means put into
initial use for its intended purpose.
Primary intended service class has the
meaning given in § 1036.140.
Rated power has the meaning given in
40 CFR part 86.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30.
Round has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1065.1001.
Scheduled maintenance means
adjusting, repairing, removing,
disassembling, cleaning, or replacing
components or systems periodically to
keep a part or system from failing,
malfunctioning, or wearing prematurely.
It also may mean actions you expect are
necessary to correct an overt indication
of failure or malfunction for which
periodic maintenance is not
appropriate.
Spark-ignition means relating to a
gasoline-fueled engine or any other type
of engine with a spark plug (or other
sparking device) and with operating
characteristics significantly similar to
the theoretical Otto combustion cycle.
Spark-ignition engines usually use a
throttle to regulate intake air flow to
control power during normal operation.
Steady-state has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1065.1001.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30.
Test engine means an engine in a test
sample.
Test sample means the collection of
engines selected from the population of
an engine family for emission testing.
This may include testing for
certification, production-line testing, or
in-use testing.
Tractor means a vehicle meeting the
definition of ‘‘tractor’’ in 40 CFR
1037.801, or relating to such a vehicle.
Tractor engine means an engine
certified for use in tractors. Where an
engine family is certified for use in both
tractors and vocational vehicles, ‘‘tractor
engine’’ means an engine that the engine
manufacturer reasonably believes will
be (or has been) installed in a tractor.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Note that the provisions of this part may
require a manufacturer to document
how it determines that an engine is a
tractor engine.
Ultimate purchaser means, with
respect to any new engine or vehicle,
the first person who in good faith
purchases such new engine or vehicle
for purposes other than resale.
United States has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Upcoming model year means for an
engine family the model year after the
one currently in production.
U.S.-directed production volume
means the number of engine units,
subject to the requirements of this part,
produced by a manufacturer for which
the manufacturer has a reasonable
assurance that sale was or will be made
to ultimate purchasers in the United
States. This does not include engines
certified to state emission standards that
are different than the emission
standards in this part.
Vehicle has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1037.801.
Vocational engine means an engine
certified for use in vocational vehicles.
Where an engine family is certified for
use in both tractors and vocational
vehicles, ‘‘vocational engine’’ means an
engine that the engine manufacturer
reasonably believes will be (or has been)
installed in a vocational vehicle. Note
that the provisions of this part may
require a manufacturer to document
how it determines that an engine is a
vocational engine.
Vocational vehicle means a vehicle
meeting the definition of ‘‘vocational’’
vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801.
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
We (us, our) means the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
and any authorized representatives.
§ 1036.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
The following symbols, acronyms,
and abbreviations apply to this part:
ABT averaging, banking, and trading
AECD auxiliary emission control
device
ASTM American Society for Testing
and Materials
BTU British thermal units
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCL Family Certification Level
FEL Family Emission Limit
g/hp-hr grams per brake horsepowerhour
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating
PO 00000
Frm 00228
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
HC hydrocarbon
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
Mg megagrams (106 grams)
N2O nitrous oxide
NARA National Archives and Records
Administration
NHTSA National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
NMHC Nonmethane hydrocarbons
NOX oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2)
NTE not-to-exceed
PM particulate matter
RPM revolutions per minute
SET Supplemental Emission Test (see
40 CFR 86.1362–2010)
THC total hydrocarbon
THCE total hydrocarbon equivalent
U.S.C. United States Code
§ 1036.810
Incorporation by reference.
(a) Documents listed in this section
have been incorporated by reference
into this part. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference as prescribed
in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S.
EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West
Building, Washington, DC 20460, (202)
566–1744, or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202–741–
6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) ASTM material. This paragraph (b)
lists material from the American Society
for Testing and Materials that we have
incorporated by reference. Anyone may
purchase copies of these materials from
the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 or
https://www.astm.com.
(1) ASTM D240–09 Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter; IBR approved for
§ 1036.530(b).
(2) [Reserved].
§ 1036.815 What provisions apply to
confidential information?
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10
apply for information you consider
confidential.
§ 1036.820
Requesting a hearing.
(a) You may request a hearing under
certain circumstances, as described
elsewhere in this part. To do this, you
must file a written request, including a
description of your objection and any
supporting data, within 30 days after we
make a decision.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(b) For a hearing you request under
the provisions of this part, we will
approve your request if we find that
your request raises a substantial factual
issue.
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we
will use the procedures specified in 40
CFR part 1068, subpart G.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1036.825 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) This part includes various
requirements to submit and record data
or other information. Unless we specify
otherwise, store required records in any
format and on any media and keep them
readily available for eight years after
you send an associated application for
certification, or eight years after you
generate the data if they do not support
an application for certification. You may
not rely on anyone else to meet
recordkeeping requirements on your
behalf unless we specifically authorize
it. We may review these records at any
time. You must promptly send us
organized, written records in English if
we ask for them. We may require you to
submit written records in an electronic
format.
(b) The regulations in § 1036.255, 40
CFR 1068.25, and 40 CFR 1068.101
describe your obligation to report
truthful and complete information. This
includes information not related to
certification. Failing to properly report
information and keep the records we
specify violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2),
which may involve civil or criminal
penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for
approval to the Designated Compliance
Officer (see § 1036.801).
(d) Any written information we
require you to send to or receive from
another company is deemed to be a
required record under this section. Such
records are also deemed to be
submissions to EPA. Keep these records
for eight years unless the regulations
specify a different period. We may
require you to send us these records
whether or not you are a certificate
holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office
of Management and Budget approves
the reporting and recordkeeping
specified in the applicable regulations.
The following items illustrate the kind
of reporting and recordkeeping we
require for engines and equipment
regulated under this part:
(1) We specify the following
requirements related to engine
certification in this part 1036:
(i) In § 1036.135 we require engine
manufacturers to keep certain records
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
related to duplicate labels sent to
equipment manufacturers.
(ii) In subpart C of this part we
identify a wide range of information
required to certify engines.
(iii) [Reserved].
(iv) In § 1036.725, 1036.730, and
1036.735 we specify certain records
related to averaging, banking, and
trading.
(2) We specify the following
requirements related to testing in 40
CFR part 1066:
(i) In 40 CFR 1066.2 we give an
overview of principles for reporting
information.
(ii) [Reserved].
10. A new part 1037 is added to
subchapter U to read as follows:
PART 1037—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR
VEHICLES
Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
Sec.
1037.1 Applicability
1037.5 Excluded vehicles.
1037.10 How is this part organized?
1037.15 Do any other regulation parts apply
to me?
1037.30 Submission of information.
Subpart B—Emission Standards and
Related Requirements
1037.101 Overview of emission standards
for heavy-duty vehicles.
1037.102 Exhaust emission standards for
NOX, HC, PM, and CO.
1037.103 Evaporative emission standards.
1037.104 Exhaust emission standards for
CO2, CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR.
1037.105 Exhaust emission standards for
CO2, CH4, and N2O for vocational
vehicles.
1037.106 Exhaust emission standards for
CO2, CH4, and N2O for tractors above
26,000 pounds GVWR.
1037.115 Other requirements.
1037.120 Emission-related warranty
requirements.
1037.125 Maintenance instructions and
allowable maintenance.
1037.135 Labeling.
1037.140 Curb weight and roof height.
1037.141 Determining aerodynamic bins for
tractors.
1037.150 Interim provisions.
Subpart C—Certifying Vehicle Families
1037.201 General requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity.
1037.205 What must I include in my
application?
1037.210 Preliminary approval before
certification.
1037.220 Amending maintenance
instructions.
1037.225 Amending applications for
certification.
1037.230 Vehicle families.
PO 00000
Frm 00229
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74379
1037.241 Demonstrating compliance with
exhaust emission standards for
greenhouse gas pollutants.
1037.243 Demonstrating compliance with
evaporative emission standards.
1037.250 Reporting and recordkeeping.
1037.255 What decisions may EPA make
regarding my certificate of conformity?
Subpart D—[Reserved]
Subpart E—In-Use Testing
1037.401
General provisions.
Subpart F—Test and Modeling Procedures
1037.501 General testing and modeling
provisions.
1037.510 Duty-cycle testing.
1037.520 Modeling CO2 emissions to show
compliance.
1037.525 Special procedures for testing
hybrid vehicles with power take-off.
Subpart G—Special Compliance Provisions
1037.601 What compliance provisions
apply to these vehicles?
1037.610 Hybrid vehicles and other
advanced technologies.
1037.611 Vehicles with innovative
technologies.
1037.620 Shipment of incomplete vehicles
to secondary vehicle manufacturers.
1037.630 Exemption for vehicles intended
for offroad use.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
1037.701 General provisions.
1037.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.
1037.710 Averaging.
1037.715 Banking.
1037.720 Trading.
1037.725 What must I include in my
application for certification?
1037.730 ABT reports.
1037.735 Recordkeeping.
1037.740 What restrictions apply for using
emission credits?
1037.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
1037.750 What can happen if I do not
comply with the provisions of this
subpart?
1037.755 Information provided to the
Department of Transportation.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other Reference
Information
1037.801 Definitions.
1037.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
1037.810 Incorporation by reference.
1037.815 What provisions apply to
confidential information?
1037.820 Requesting a hearing.
1037.825 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Appendix I to Part 1037—Heavy-Duty
Transient Chassis Test Cycle
Appendix II to Part 1037—Power Take-Off
Test Cycle
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74380
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
§ 1037.1
Applicability
The regulations in this part 1037
apply for all new heavy-duty vehicles,
except as provided in § 1037.5. This
includes electric vehicles and vehicles
fueled by conventional and alternative
fuels.
§ 1037.5
Excluded vehicles.
Except for the definitions specified in
§ 1037.801, this part does not apply to
the following vehicles:
(a) Vehicles excluded from the
definition of ‘‘heavy-duty vehicle’’
because of vehicle weight or weight
rating (such as light-duty vehicles and
light-duty trucks).
(b) Medium-duty passenger vehicles.
(c) Vehicles produced in model years
before 2014, unless they are certified
under § 1037.150.
(d) Vehicles not meeting the
definition of ‘‘motor vehicle.’’
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1037.10
How is this part organized?
This part 1037 is divided into
subparts as described in this section.
Note that only subparts A, B and I of
this part apply for vehicles subject to
the standards of § 1037.104, as
described in that section.
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the
applicability of part 1037 and gives an
overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the
emission standards and other
requirements that must be met to certify
vehicles under this part. Note that
§ 1037.150 discusses certain interim
requirements and compliance
provisions that apply only for a limited
time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes
how to apply for a certificate of
conformity for vehicles subject to the
standards of § 1037.105 or § 1037.106.
(d) [Reserved].
(e) [Reserved].
(f) Subpart F of this part describes
how to test your vehicles and perform
emission modeling (including
references to other parts of the Code of
Federal Regulations) for vehicles subject
to the standards of § 1037.105 or
§ 1037.106.
(g) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR
part 1068 describe requirements,
prohibitions, and other provisions that
apply to manufacturers, owners,
operators, rebuilders, and all others. See
§ 1037.601 for a specification of how 40
CFR part 1068 applies for heavy-duty
vehicles.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes
how you may generate and use emission
credits to certify your vehicles for
vehicles subject to the standards of
§ 1037.105 or § 1037.106.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(i) Subpart I of this part contains
definitions and other reference
information.
§ 1037.15 Do any other regulation parts
apply to me?
(a) Parts 1065 and 1066 of this chapter
describe procedures and equipment
specifications for testing engines and
vehicles to measure exhaust emissions.
Subpart F of this part 1037 describes
how to apply the provisions of part 1065
and part 1066 of this chapter to
determine whether vehicles meet the
exhaust emission standards in this part.
(b) As described in § 1037.601, certain
requirements and prohibitions of part
1068 of this chapter apply to everyone,
including anyone who manufactures,
imports, installs, owns, operates, or
rebuilds any of the vehicles subject to
this part 1037. Part 1068 of this chapter
describes general provisions, including
these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for
manufacturers and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket
changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for
certain vehicles.
(4) Importing vehicles.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of
your production.
(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(c) Part 86 of this chapter applies for
certain vehicles as specified in this part.
For example, the test procedures and
most of subpart S of part 86 applies for
vehicles subject to § 1037.104.
(d) Other parts of this chapter apply
if referenced in this part.
§ 1037.30
Submission of information.
Send all reports and requests for
approval to the Designated Compliance
Officer (see § 1037.801). See § 1037.825
for additional reporting and
recordkeeping provisions.
Subpart B—Emission Standards and
Related Requirements
§ 1037.101 Overview of emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
(a) This part specifies emission
standards for certain vehicles and for
certain pollutants. It also summarizes
other standards that apply under 40 CFR
part 86.
(b) The regulated emissions are
addressed in three groups:
(1) Exhaust emissions of NOx, HC,
PM, and CO. These pollutants are
sometimes described collectively as
‘‘criteria pollutants’’ because they are
either criteria pollutants under the
Clean Air Act or precursors to the
criteria pollutant ozone. These
pollutants are also sometimes described
PO 00000
Frm 00230
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
collectively as ‘‘non-greenhouse gas
pollutants,’’ although they do not
necessarily have negligible global
warming potentials. As described in
§ 1037.102, standards for these
pollutants are provided in 40 CFR part
86.
(2) Exhaust emissions of CO2, CH4,
and N2O. These pollutants are described
collectively as ‘‘greenhouse gas
pollutants’’ because they are regulated
primarily based on their impact on the
climate. These standards are provided
in §§ 1037.104 through 1037.106.
(3) Fuel evaporative emissions. These
requirements are described in
§ 1037.103.
(c) The regulated heavy-duty vehicles
are addressed in different groups as
follows:
(1) For criteria pollutants, vehicles are
regulated based on gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR), whether they are
considered ‘‘spark-ignition’’ or
‘‘compression-ignition,’’ and whether
they are first sold as complete or
incomplete vehicles. These groupings
apply as described in 40 CFR part 86.
(2) For greenhouse gas pollutants,
vehicles are regulated in the following
groups:
(i) Complete and certain incomplete
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR (see § 1037.104 for further
specification). Certain provisions of 40
CFR part 86 apply for these vehicles; see
§ 1037.104(i) for a list of provisions in
this part 1037 that also apply for these
vehicles.
(ii) Tractors above 26,000 pounds
GVWR.
(iii) All other vehicles. These other
vehicles are referred to as ‘‘vocational’’
vehicles.
(3) For evaporative emissions,
vehicles are regulated based on the type
of fuel they use. Vehicles fueled with
volatile liquid fuels and gaseous fuels
are subject to evaporative emission
standards, while other vehicles are not.
§ 1037.102 Exhaust emission standards
for NOx, HC, PM, and CO.
See 40 CFR part 86 for the exhaust
emission standards for NOx, HC, PM,
and CO that apply for heavy-duty
vehicles.
§ 1037.103 Evaporative emission
standards.
New vehicles that run on volatile
liquid fuel (such as gasoline or ethanol)
or gaseous fuel (such as natural gas or
LPG) must meet evaporative emission
standards as specified in this section.
The standards specified in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section apply over a
useful life period of 10 years or 110,000
miles, whichever comes first. Note that
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
are based on an engineering analysis
showing that the vehicle design
adequately controls emissions. We
would expect emission control
components and systems to exhibit a
comparable degree of control relative to
vehicles that comply based on testing.
For example, vehicles that comply
under this paragraph (e) should rely on
comparable material specifications to
limit fuel permeation, and components
should be sized and calibrated to
correspond with the appropriate fuel
capacities, fuel flow rates, and vehicle
operating characteristics.
(f) Incomplete vehicles. If you sell
incomplete vehicles, you must identify
the maximum fuel tank capacity for
which you designed the vehicle’s
evaporative emission control system.
(g) Auxiliary engines and separate
fuel systems. The provisions of this
paragraph (g) apply for vehicles with
auxiliary engines. This includes any
engines installed in the final vehicle
configuration that contribute no motive
power through the vehicle’s
transmission.
(1) Auxiliary engines and associated
fuel-system components must be
installed when testing complete
vehicles. If the auxiliary engine draws
fuel from a separate fuel tank, you must
fill the extra fuel tank before the start of
diurnal testing as described for the
vehicle’s main fuel tank. Use good
engineering judgment to ensure that any
nonmetal portions of the fuel system
related to the auxiliary engine have
reached stabilized levels of permeation
emissions. The auxiliary engine must
not operate during the running loss test
or any other portion of testing under
this section.
(2) For testing with incomplete
vehicles, you may omit installation of
auxiliary engines and associated fuelsystem components as long as those
components installed in the final
configuration are certified to meet the
applicable emission standards for Small
SI equipment described in 40 CFR
1054.112 or for Large SI engines in 40
CFR 1048.105. For any fuel-system
(b) Production and in-use CO2
standards. Each vehicle you produce
that is subject to the standards of this
section has an ‘‘in-use’’ CO2 standard
that is calculated from your test result
and that applies for SEA testing and in-
use testing. The in-use CO2 standard for
each vehicle is the deteriorated
emission level applicable for that
vehicle multiplied by 1.10 and rounded
to the nearest 0.1 g/mile.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00231
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
components that you do not install,
your installation instructions must
describe this certification requirement.
§ 1037.104 Exhaust emission standards
for CO2, CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
This section applies for heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR. See paragraphs (f) and (g) of this
section for provisions excluding certain
vehicles from this section.
(a) Fleet-average CO2 emission
standards. Fleet-average CO2 emission
standards apply for each manufacturer
as follows:
(1) First calculate a work factor, WF,
for each vehicle configuration rounded
to the nearest pound using the following
equation:
WF = 0.75 × (GVWR ¥ Curb Weight +
xwd) + 0.25 × (GCWR ¥ GVWR)
Where:
xwd = 500 pounds if the vehicle has fourwheel drive or all-wheel drive; xwd = 0
pounds for all other vehicles.
(2) Using the appropriate work factor,
calculate a target value for each vehicle
configuration (or submodel groups of
configurations we approve) you produce
using the applicable equation of this
paragraph (a)(2), rounding the target
value to the nearest 0.1 g/mile.
(i) For spark-ignition vehicles: CO2
Target (g/mile) = 0.0440 × WF + 339
(ii) For compression-ignition vehicles
and vehicles that operate without
engines (such as electric vehicles and
fuel cell vehicles): CO2 Target (g/mile) =
0.0416 × WF + 320
(3) Calculate a production-weighted
average of the target values and round
it to the nearest 0.1 g/mile. This is your
fleet-average standard. All vehicles
subject to the standards of this section
form a single averaging set. Use the
following equation to calculate your
fleet-average standard from the target
value for each vehicle configuration or
submodel (Targeti) and U.S.-directed
production volume of each vehicle
configuration or submodel for the given
model year (Volumei):
(c) N2Oand CH4 standards. Except as
allowed under this paragraph (c), all
vehicles subject to the standards of this
section must comply with an N2O
standard of 0.05 g/mile and a CH4
standard of 0.05 g/mile. You may
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.097
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
this section and § 1037.243 allow you to
certify without testing in certain
circumstances. Evaporative emission
standards do not apply for diesel-fueled
vehicles.
(a) Diurnal and hot soak emissions.
Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions may
not exceed the following standards
when measured using the test
procedures specified in § 1037.501:
(1) The sum of diurnal and hot soak
measurements from the full three-day
diurnal test sequence described in 40
CFR 86.1230–96 may not exceed 1.4 g
for vehicles with GVWR at or below
14,000 pounds, and may not exceed 1.9
g for vehicles with GVWR above 14,000
pounds.
(2) The sum of diurnal and hot soak
measurements from the two-day diurnal
test sequence described in 40 CFR
86.1230–96 may not exceed 1.75 g for
vehicles with GVWR at or below 14,000
pounds, and may not exceed 2.3 g for
vehicles with GVWR above 14,000
pounds. The standards in this paragraph
(a)(2) do not apply for vehicles that run
on natural gas or LPG.
(b) Running loss. Running losses may
not exceed 0.05 g/mile when measured
using the test procedures specified in
§ 1037.501. The running loss standard
does not apply for vehicles that run on
natural gas or LPG.
(c) Fuel spitback. Fuel spitback
emissions from vehicles with GVWR at
or below 14,000 pounds may not exceed
1.0 g when measured using the test
procedures specified in § 1037.501. This
standard does not apply for vehicles
with GVWR above 14,000 pounds or any
vehicles that run on natural gas or LPG.
The fuel spitback standard applies only
to newly assembled vehicles.
(d) Refueling emissions. Complete
vehicles with GVWR at or below 10,000
pounds must meet refueling emission
standards as specified in 40 CFR part
86, subpart S. Incomplete heavy-duty
vehicles are not subject to refueling
emission standards.
(e) Compliance demonstration for
vehicles with GVWR above 26,000
pounds. For vehicles with GVWR above
26,000 pounds, the standards described
74381
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74382
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
specify CH4 and/or N2O FELs and use
CO2 emission credits to show
compliance with those FELs instead of
these otherwise applicable emission
standards for one or more test groups.
To do this, calculate the CH4 and/or
N2O emission credits needed (negative
credits) using the equation in this
paragraph (c) based on the FEL(s) you
specify for your vehicles during
certification. You must adjust the
calculated emissions by the relative
global warming potential (RGWP):
RGWP equals 25 for CH4 and 298 for
N2O. This means you must use 25 Mg
of positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of
negative CH4 credits and 298 Mg of
positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of
negative N2O credits. Note that 40 CFR
86.1818–08(f)(2) does not apply for
vehicles subject to the standards of this
section. Calculate credits using the
following equation:
CO2 Credits Needed (Mg) = [(Std¥FEL)
× (U.S.-directed production volume)
× (Useful Life)] × (RGWP) ÷
1,000,000
(d) Compliance provisions. Except as
specified in this paragraph (d) or
elsewhere in this section, the provisions
of 40 CFR part 86, describing
compliance with the greenhouse gas
standards of subpart S of that part apply
with respect to the standards of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
(1) The CO2 standards of this section
apply with respect to CO2 emissions
instead of carbon-related exhaust
emissions (CREE).
(2) Vehicles subject to the standards
of this section are included in a single
greenhouse gas averaging set separate
from any averaging sets otherwise
included in 40 CFR part 86.
(3) Special credit and incentive
provisions related to flexible-fuel
vehicles and air conditioning in 40 CFR
part 86 do not apply for vehicles subject
to the standards of this section.
(4) The CO2, N2O, and CH4 standards
apply for a weighted average of the city
(55%) and highway (45%) test cycle
results as specified for light-duty
vehicles in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
Note that this differs from the way the
criteria pollutant standards apply for
heavy-duty vehicles.
(5) Apply an additive deterioration
factor of zero to measured CO2
emissions unless good engineering
judgment indicates that emissions are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
likely to deteriorate in actual use. Use
good engineering judgment to develop
separate deterioration factors for N2O
and CH4.
(6) Credits are calculated using the
useful life value (in miles) in place of
the ‘‘vehicle lifetime miles’’ specified in
subpart S of 40 CFR part 86.
(7) Credits generated from hybrid
vehicles with regenerative braking or
vehicles with advanced technologies
may be used to show compliance with
any standards of this part or 40 CFR part
1036, provided they are converted using
good engineering judgment to be
equivalent to credits calculated under
that part.
(8) The provisions of 40 CFR 86.1818
do not apply.
(e) Useful life. The useful life values
for the standards of this section are
those that apply for criteria pollutants
under 40 CFR part 86.
(f) Rolling chassis exclusion. The
standards of this section apply for each
vehicle that is in a complete or cabcomplete configuration when first sold
as a vehicle. The standards of this
section do not apply for other vehicles.
The vehicle standards and requirements
of § 1037.105 apply for the excluded
vehicles. The GHG standards of 40 CFR
part 1036 also apply for engines used in
these excluded vehicles. If you are not
the engine manufacturer, you must
notify the engine manufacturers that
their engines are subject to 40 CFR part
1036 because you intend to use their
engines in your excluded vehicles.
(g) Low-volume exclusion. You may
exclude a limited number of vehicles
from the standards of this section, as
specified in this paragraph (g). The
number of excluded vehicles may not
exceed 2,000 in any model year, unless
your total production of vehicles in this
category for that model year is greater
than 100,000 vehicles and your
excluded vehicles are not more than
2.000 percent of your actual U.S.directed production volume in this
category for any model year. For
example, a vehicle manufacturer
producing 200,000 vehicles in a given
model year could exclude up to 4,000
vehicles under this paragraph (g). The
vehicle standards and requirements of
§ 1037.105 apply for the excluded
vehicles. The GHG standards of 40 CFR
part 1036 also apply for engines used in
these excluded vehicles. We may
require you to submit a pre-production
PO 00000
Frm 00232
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
plan describing how you will use the
provisions of this paragraph (g). If you
are not the engine manufacturer, you
must notify the engine manufacturers
that their engines are subject to 40 CFR
part 1036 because you intend to use
their engines in your excluded vehicles.
(h) Cab-complete vehicles. The
provisions of this section apply to cabcomplete vehicles in the same manner
as they apply to complete vehicles,
except as specified in this paragraph (h).
Calculate the target value based on the
same work factor value that applies for
the most similar complete vehicle you
certify. Test these cab-complete vehicles
using the same test weight and other
dynamometer settings that apply for the
complete vehicle from which you used
the work factor value. For certification,
you may submit the test data from that
similar vehicle instead of performing
the test on the cab-complete vehicle.
(i) Applicability of part 1037
provisions. Except as specified in this
section, the requirements of this part do
not apply to vehicles certified to the
standards of this section. The following
provisions are the only provisions of
this part that apply to vehicles certified
under this section:
(1) The provisions of this section.
(2) The evaporative emission
standards in § 1037.103.
(3) The air conditioning standards in
§ 1037.115.
(3) The curb weight provisions of
§ 1037.140.
(4) The interim provisions of
§ 1037.150.
(5) The reporting provisions of
§ 1037.755.
(6) The definitions of § 1037.801.
§ 1037.105 Exhaust emission standards
for CO2, CH4, and N2O for vocational
vehicles.
(a) The standards of this section apply
for the following vehicles:
(1) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds
GVWR but at or below 26,000 pounds
GVWR.
(2) Vehicles above 26,000 pounds
GVWR that are not tractors.
(3) Vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR that are excluded from
the standards in § 1037.104 under
§ 1037.104(f) or (g).
(b) The CO2 standards of this section
are given in Table 1 to this section. The
provisions of § 1037.241 specify how to
comply with these standards.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(b) No CH4 or N2O standards apply
under this section. See 40 CFR part 1036
for CH4 or N2O standards that apply to
engines used in these vehicles.
(c) You may generate or use emission
credits under the ABT program, as
described in subpart H of this part. This
requires that you specify a Family
Emission Limit (FEL) for each pollutant
you include in the ABT program for
each vehicle family. The FEL may not
be less than the result of emission
modeling from § 1037.520. These FELs
serve as the emission standards for the
specific vehicle family instead of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00233
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(f) See § 1037.630 for provisions that
exempt certain vehicles used in offroad
operation from the standards of this
section.
§ 1037.106 Exhaust emission standards
for CO2, CH4, and N2O for tractors above
26,000 pounds GVWR.
The following CO2 standards apply
for tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR:
standards specified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(d) The useful life values for the
standards of this section are those that
apply to the engine or vehicle for
criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86.
(e) See § 1037.630 for provisions that
exempt certain vehicles use in offroad
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.099
be less than the result of emission
modeling from § 1037.520. These FELs
serve as the emission standards for the
vehicle family instead of the standards
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(e) The useful life values for the
standards of this section are those that
apply for criteria pollutants under 40
CFR part 86.
EP30NO10.098
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(c) No CH4 or N2O standards apply
under this section. See 40 CFR part 1036
for CH4 or N2O standards that apply to
engines used in these vehicles.
(d) You may generate or use emission
credits under the ABT program, as
described in subpart H of this part. This
requires that you specify a Family
Emission Limit (FEL) for each pollutant
you include in the ABT program for
each vehicle family. The FEL may not
74383
74384
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
operation from the standards of this
section.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1037.115
Other requirements.
Vehicles required to meet the
emission standards of this part must
meet the following additional
requirements, except as noted elsewhere
in this part:
(a) Adjustable parameters. Vehicles
that have adjustable parameters must
meet all the requirements of this part for
any adjustment in the physically
adjustable range. We may require that
you set adjustable parameters to any
specification within the adjustable range
during any testing. See 40 CFR part 86
for information related to determining
whether or not an operating parameter
is considered adjustable. You must
ensure safe vehicle operation
throughout the physically adjustable
range of each adjustable parameter,
including consideration of production
tolerances. Note that adjustable roof
fairings are deemed to not be adjustable
parameters.
(b) Prohibited controls. You may not
design your vehicles with emission
control devices, systems, or elements of
design that cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare, or safety while operating. For
example, this would apply if the vehicle
emits a noxious or toxic substance it
would otherwise not emit that
contributes to such an unreasonable
risk.
(c) Air conditioning leakage. Loss of
refrigerant from your air conditioning
systems may not exceed 1.50 percent
per year. Calculate the absolute leakage
rate in g/year as specified in 40 CFR
86.166–12. Calculate the percent leakage
rate as: [absolute leakage rate (g/yr)] ÷
[total refrigerant capacity (g)] × 100. See
§ 1037.150 for vocational vehicles.
(1) For purpose of this requirement,
‘‘refrigerant capacity’’ is the total mass of
refrigerant recommended by the vehicle
manufacturer as representing a full
charge. Where full charge is specified as
a pressure, use good engineering
judgment to convert the pressure and
system volume to a mass.
(2) If your system uses a refrigerant
other than HFC–134a, adjust your
leakage rate by multiplying it by the
global warming potential of your
refrigerant and dividing the product by
124 (which is the global warming
potential of HFC–134a). Determine
global warming potentials consistent
with 40 CFR 86.1866–12.
§ 1037.120 Emission-related warranty
requirements.
(a) General requirements. You must
warrant to the ultimate purchaser and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
each subsequent purchaser that the new
vehicle, including all parts of its
emission control system, meets two
conditions:
(1) It is designed, built, and equipped
so it conforms at the time of sale to the
ultimate purchaser with the
requirements of this part.
(2) It is free from defects in materials
and workmanship that may keep it from
meeting these requirements.
(b) Warranty period. Your emissionrelated warranty with respect to
greenhouse gas and evaporative
emissions must be valid for at least as
long as the minimum periods specified
in 40 CFR part 86 for the engine used
in the vehicle. You may offer an
emission-related warranty more
generous than we require. The emissionrelated warranty for the vehicle may not
be shorter than any published warranty
you offer with or without charge for the
vehicle. Similarly, the emission-related
warranty for any component may not be
shorter than any published warranty
you offer with or without charge for that
component. The warranty period begins
when the vehicle is placed into service.
(c) Components covered. The
emission-related warranty covers
vehicle speed limiters, idle shutdown
systems, fairings, hybrid system
components, and all components whose
failure would increase a vehicle’s
evaporative emissions. The emissionrelated warranty covers these
components even if another company
produces the component. Your
emission-related warranty does not need
to cover components whose failure
would not increase a vehicle’s
emissions of any regulated pollutant.
(d) Limited applicability. You may
deny warranty claims under this section
if the operator caused the problem
through improper maintenance or use,
as described in 40 CFR 1068.115.
(e) Owners manual. Describe in the
owners manual the emission-related
warranty provisions from this section
that apply to the vehicle.
§ 1037.125 Maintenance instructions and
allowable maintenance.
Give the ultimate purchaser of each
new vehicle written instructions for
properly maintaining and using the
vehicle, including the emission control
system. The maintenance instructions
also apply to service accumulation on
any of your emission-data vehicles. See
paragraph (i) of this section for
requirements related to tire
replacement.
(a) Critical emission-related
maintenance. Critical emission-related
maintenance includes any adjustment,
cleaning, repair, or replacement of
PO 00000
Frm 00234
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
critical emission-related components.
This may also include additional
emission-related maintenance that you
determine is critical if we approve it in
advance. You may schedule critical
emission-related maintenance on these
components if you demonstrate that the
maintenance is reasonably likely to be
done at the recommended intervals on
in-use vehicles. We will accept
scheduled maintenance as reasonably
likely to occur if you satisfy any of the
following conditions:
(1) You present data showing that, if
a lack of maintenance increases
emissions, it also unacceptably degrades
the vehicle’s performance.
(2) You present survey data showing
that at least 80 percent of vehicles in the
field get the maintenance you specify at
the recommended intervals.
(3) You provide the maintenance free
of charge and clearly say so in your
maintenance instructions.
(4) You otherwise show us that the
maintenance is reasonably likely to be
done at the recommended intervals.
(b) Recommended additional
maintenance. You may recommend any
additional amount of maintenance on
the components listed in paragraph (a)
of this section, as long as you state
clearly that these maintenance steps are
not necessary to keep the emissionrelated warranty valid. If operators do
the maintenance specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, but not the
recommended additional maintenance,
this does not allow you to disqualify
those vehicles from in-use testing or
deny a warranty claim. Do not take
these maintenance steps during service
accumulation on your emission-data
vehicles.
(c) Special maintenance. You may
specify more frequent maintenance to
address problems related to special
situations, such as atypical vehicle
operation. You must clearly state that
this additional maintenance is
associated with the special situation you
are addressing. We may disapprove your
maintenance instructions if we
determine that you have specified
special maintenance steps to address
vehicle operation that is not atypical, or
that the maintenance is unlikely to
occur in use. If we determine that
certain maintenance items do not
qualify as special maintenance under
this paragraph (c), you may identify this
as recommended additional
maintenance under paragraph (b) of this
section.
(d) Noncritical emission-related
maintenance. Subject to the provisions
of this paragraph (d), you may schedule
any amount of emission-related
inspection or maintenance that is not
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
covered by paragraph (a) of this section
(that is, maintenance that is neither
explicitly identified as critical emissionrelated maintenance, nor that we
approve as critical emission-related
maintenance). Noncritical emissionrelated maintenance generally includes
maintenance on the components we
specify in 40 CFR part 1068, Appendix
I, that is not covered in paragraph (a) of
this section. You must state in the
owners manual that these steps are not
necessary to keep the emission-related
warranty valid. If operators fail to do
this maintenance, this does not allow
you to disqualify those vehicles from inuse testing or deny a warranty claim. Do
not take these inspection or
maintenance steps during service
accumulation on your emission-data
vehicles.
(e) Maintenance that is not emissionrelated. For maintenance unrelated to
emission controls, you may schedule
any amount of inspection or
maintenance. You may also take these
inspection or maintenance steps during
service accumulation on your emissiondata vehicles, as long as they are
reasonable and technologically
necessary. This might include adding
engine oil, changing air, fuel, or oil
filters, servicing engine-cooling systems,
and adjusting idle speed, governor,
engine bolt torque, valve lash, or
injector lash. You may perform this
nonemission-related maintenance on
emission-data vehicles at the least
frequent intervals that you recommend
to the ultimate purchaser (but not the
intervals recommended for severe
service).
(f) Source of parts and repairs. State
clearly on the first page of your written
maintenance instructions that a repair
shop or person of the owner’s choosing
may maintain, replace, or repair
emission control devices and systems.
Your instructions may not require
components or service identified by
brand, trade, or corporate name. Also,
do not directly or indirectly condition
your warranty on a requirement that the
vehicle be serviced by your franchised
dealers or any other service
establishments with which you have a
commercial relationship. You may
disregard the requirements in this
paragraph (f) if you do one of two
things:
(1) Provide a component or service
without charge under the purchase
agreement.
(2) Get us to waive this prohibition in
the public’s interest by convincing us
the vehicle will work properly only
with the identified component or
service.
(g) [Reserved]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(h) Owners manual. Explain the
owner’s responsibility for proper
maintenance in the owners manual.
(i) Tire maintenance and
replacement. Include instructions that
will enable the owner to replace tires so
that the vehicle conforms to the original
certified vehicle configuration.
§ 1037.135
Labeling.
(a) Assign each vehicle a unique
identification number and permanently
affix, engrave, or stamp it on the vehicle
in a legible way. For example, the
vehicle identification number (VIN)
serves this purpose.
(b) At the time of manufacture, affix
a permanent and legible label
identifying each vehicle. The label must
be—
(1) Attached in one piece so it is not
removable without being destroyed or
defaced.
(2) Secured to a part of the vehicle
needed for normal operation and not
normally requiring replacement.
(3) Durable and readable for the
vehicle’s entire life.
(4) Written in English.
(c) The label must—
(1) Include the heading ‘‘VEHICLE
EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION’’.
(2) Include your full corporate name
and trademark. You may identify
another company and use its trademark
instead of yours if you comply with the
branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(3) Include EPA’s standardized
designation for the vehicle family (and
subfamily, where applicable).
(4) State the regulatory sub-category
that determines the applicable emission
standards for the vehicle family (see
definition in § 1037.801).
(5) State the date of manufacture
[DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR].
You may omit this from the label if you
keep a record of the vehiclemanufacture dates and provide it to us
upon request.
(6) State the FELs to which the
vehicles are certified if certification
depends on the ABT provisions of
subpart H of this part.
(7) Identify the emission control
system. Use terms and abbreviations as
described in 40 CFR 1068.45 or other
applicable conventions.
(8) Identify any requirements for fuel
and lubricants that do not involve fuelsulfur levels.
(9) State: ‘‘THIS VEHICLE COMPLIES
WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR
[MODEL YEAR] HEAVY-DUTYVEHICLES.’’
(10) Include the following statement,
if applicable: ‘‘THIS VEHICLE IS
DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
PO 00000
Frm 00235
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74385
STANDARDS WITH UP TO x
GALLONS OF FUEL TANK
CAPACITY.’’ Complete this statement by
identifying the maximum specified fuel
tank capacity associated with your
certification.
(d) You may add information to the
emission control information label to
identify other emission standards that
the vehicle meets or does not meet (such
as European standards). You may also
add other information to ensure that the
vehicle will be properly maintained and
used. However, if you provide
additional information on the label, you
may not omit any required information
on the basis that a label containing all
of the required information will not fit
on the vehicle.
(e) You may ask us to approve
modified labeling requirements in this
part 1037 if you show that it is
necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate
label is consistent with the requirements
of this part.
§ 1037.140
Curb weight and roof height.
(a) Where applicable, a vehicle’s curb
weight and roof height are determined
from nominal design specifications, as
provided in this section. Round the
weight to the nearest pound and height
to the nearest inch.
(b) The nominal design specifications
must be within the range of the actual
weights and roof heights of production
vehicles considering normal production
variability. If after production begins it
is determined that your nominal design
specifications do not represent
production vehicles, we may require
you to amend your application for
certification under § 1037.225.
(c) If your vehicle is equipped with an
adjustable roof fairing, measure the roof
height with the fairing in its lowest
setting.
§ 1037.141 Determining aerodynamic bins
for tractors.
Demonstrating compliance with the
emission standards in § 1037.106
depends on computer modeling as
described in § 1037.520, which in turn
depends on establishing a vehicle’s drag
coefficient. This section differentiates
vehicles into apparent bin categories
based on vehicle design characteristics
that affect aerodynamic drag. These
apparent bin categories are used to
verify drag coefficients determined
under § 1037.520. Each of these
apparent bin categories is associated
with a range of expected drag coefficient
values. Section 1037.520 describes how
to establish input values for emission
modeling based on the empirical value
for a specific vehicle and how that value
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
relates to the apparent bin category as
described in this section. Determine the
apparent bin category for your vehicle
as follows:
(a) Your vehicle is in the ‘‘Classic’’
category if either of the following is
true:
(1) It includes an external air cleaner
and/or a B-pillar exhaust stack.
(2) It includes two or more of the
following: Bug deflectors, custom
sunshades, external horns, external
lights, or more than two external mirrors
that are not streamlined (i.e.,
aerodynamically efficient).
(b) Your vehicle is in the
‘‘Conventional’’ category if it does not
meet the criteria specified for any other
apparent bin category.
(c) Your vehicle is in the ‘‘Smartway’’
category if it does not meet the criteria
for ‘‘Advanced Smartway’’ or ‘‘Advanced
Smartway II’’ and either of the following
is true:
(1) The vehicle has all of the
following:
(i) A fully enclosed roof fairing.
(ii) Side extending gap reducers.
(iii) Fuel tank fairings or aerodynamic
fuel tanks.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
To implement the phase-in under this
paragraph (b)(2), the standards in
§ 1037.104 apply as specified for model
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:46 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(iv) Streamlined grill, hood, mirrors,
and bumper.
(2) The vehicle has a low-roof or midroof design and has all the features
identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section except for the roof fairing.
(d) Your vehicle is in the ‘‘Advanced
Smartway’’ category if it meets the
criteria of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2)
of this section but not the criteria for
‘‘Advanced Smartway II’’, and the
vehicle incorporates at least two of the
following features:
(1) Underbody airflow treatment.
(2) Down exhaust.
(3) Lowered ride height.
(e) Your vehicle is in the ‘‘Advanced
Smartway II’’ category if it meets the
criteria of either paragraph (c)(1) or (2)
of this section; it meets all the criteria
of paragraph (d)(1) through (3) of this
section; and it incorporates
aerodynamic improvements not in
commercial use in 2010.
§ 1037.150
Interim provisions.
Manufacturers may voluntarily certify
in model year 2013 (or earlier model
years for electric vehicles) to the
greenhouse gas standards of this part.
To do so for any vehicles other than
electric vehicles, you must certify your
entire U.S.-directed production volume
within the averaging set to these
standards. Calculate credits relative to
the standard that would apply in model
year 2014 using the equations in subpart
H of this part. These credits may be
used to show compliance with the
standards of this part for 2014 and later
model years. We recommend that you
notify EPA of your intent to use this
provision before submitting your
applications.
(b) Phase-in provisions. Each
manufacturer must choose one of the
following options for phasing in the
standards of § 1037.104:
(1) To implement the phase-in under
this paragraph (b)(1), the standards in
§ 1037.104 apply as specified for model
year 2018, with compliance for those
vehicles in model years 2014 through
2017 based on the CO2 target values
specified in the following table:
The provisions in this section apply
instead of other provisions in this part.
(a) Incentives for early introduction.
The provisions of this paragraph (a)
apply with respect to vehicles produced
in model years before 2014.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
year 2019, with compliance for those
vehicles in model years 2014 through
2018 based on the CO2 target values
specified in the following table:
PO 00000
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Frm 00236
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.100
74386
(c) Provisions for small
manufacturers. Manufacturers meeting
the small business criteria specified in
13 CFR 121.201 for ‘‘Heavy Duty Truck
Manufacturing’’ are not subject to the
greenhouse gas standards of §§ 1037.104
through 1037.106, as specified in this
paragraph (c). Qualifying manufacturers
must notify the Designated Compliance
Officer before introducing these
excluded vehicles into U.S. commerce.
This notification must include a
description of the manufacturer’s
qualification as a small business under
13 CFR 121.201.
(d) Air conditioning leakage for
vocational vehicles. The air
conditioning leakage standard of
§ 1037.115 does not apply for vocational
vehicles.
(e) Approval of alternate methods to
determine drag coefficients. For model
years before 2017, you must obtain
preliminary approval before using any
methods other than coastdown testing to
determine drag coefficients under
§ 1037.520.
(f) Model year 2014 N2O standards. In
model year 2014, manufacturers may
show compliance with the N2O
standards using an engineering analysis.
(g) Electric vehicles. All electric
vehicles are deemed to have zero
emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. No
emission testing is required for such
electric vehicles.
Subpart C—Certifying Vehicle Families
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1037.201 General requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity.
(a) You must send us a separate
application for a certificate of
conformity for each vehicle family. A
certificate of conformity is valid from
the indicated effective date until
December 31 of the model year for
which it is issued. You must renew your
certification annually for any vehicles
you continue to produce.
(b) The application must contain all
the information required by this part
and must not include false or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
incomplete statements or information
(see § 1037.255).
(c) We may ask you to include less
information than we specify in this
subpart, as long as you maintain all the
information required by § 1037.250.
(d) You must use good engineering
judgment for all decisions related to
your application (see 40 CFR 1068.5).
(e) An authorized representative of
your company must approve and sign
the application.
(f) See § 1037.255 for provisions
describing how we will process your
application.
(g) We may require you to deliver
your test vehicles to a facility we
designate for our testing. Alternatively,
you may choose to deliver another
vehicle that is identical in all material
respects to the test vehicle. Where
certification is based on testing
components such as tires, we may
require you to deliver test components
to a facility we designate for our testing.
§ 1037.205 What must I include in my
application?
This section specifies the information
that must be in your application, unless
we ask you to include less information
under § 1037.201(c). We may require
you to provide additional information to
evaluate your application. Note that
references to testing and emission-data
vehicles refer to testing vehicles to
measure aerodynamic drag, assess
hybrid vehicle performance, and/or
measure evaporative emissions.
(a) Describe the vehicle family’s
specifications and other basic
parameters of the vehicle’s design and
emission controls. List the fuel type on
which your vehicles are designed to
operate (for example, ultra low-sulfur
diesel fuel). List each distinguishable
vehicle configuration in the vehicle
family.
(b) Explain how the emission control
system operates. As applicable, describe
in detail all system components for
controlling greenhouse gas and
evaporative emissions, including all
PO 00000
Frm 00237
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74387
auxiliary emission control devices
(AECDs) and all fuel-system
components you will install on any
production vehicle. Identify the part
number of each component you
describe. For this paragraph (b), treat as
separate AECDs any devices that
modulate or activate differently from
each other.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Describe any vehicles you selected
for testing and the reasons for selecting
them.
(e) Describe any test equipment and
procedures that you used, including any
special or alternate test procedures you
used (see § 1037.501).
(f) Describe how you operated any
emission-data vehicle before testing,
including the duty cycle and the
number of vehicle operating miles used
to stabilize emission levels. Explain
why you selected the method of service
accumulation. Describe any scheduled
maintenance you did.
(g) List the specifications of any test
fuel to show that it falls within the
required ranges we specify in 40 CFR
part 1065.
(h) Identify the vehicle family’s useful
life.
(i) Include the maintenance
instructions you will give to the
ultimate purchaser of each new vehicle
(see § 1037.125).
(j) Describe your emission control
information label (see § 1037.135).
(k) Identify the emission standards or
FELs to which you are certifying
vehicles in the vehicle family. For
families containing multiple
subfamilies, identify the FELs for each
subfamily.
(l) Where applicable, identify the
vehicle family’s deterioration factors
and describe how you developed them.
Present any emission test data you used
for this.
(m) Where applicable, state that you
operated your emission-data vehicles as
described in the application (including
the test procedures, test parameters, and
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.101
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74388
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
test fuels) to show you meet the
requirements of this part.
(n) Present evaporative test data to
show your vehicles meet the
evaporative emission standards we
specify in subpart B of this part, if
applicable. Report all test results,
including test results from invalid tests
or from any other tests, whether or not
they were conducted according to the
test procedures of subpart F of this part.
We may ask you to send other
information to confirm that your tests
were valid under the requirements of
this part and 40 CFR part 86.
(o) Report modeling results for each
subfamily. Include modeling inputs and
detailed descriptions of how they were
derived.
(p) Describe all adjustable operating
parameters (see § 1037.115(e)),
including production tolerances. You do
not need to include parameters that do
not affect emissions covered by your
application. Include the following in
your description of each parameter:
(1) The nominal or recommended
setting.
(2) The intended physically adjustable
range.
(3) The limits or stops used to
establish adjustable ranges.
(4) Information showing why the
limits, stops, or other means of
inhibiting adjustment are effective in
preventing adjustment of parameters on
in-use vehicles to settings outside your
intended physically adjustable ranges.
(q) [Reserved]
(r) Unconditionally certify that all the
vehicles in the vehicle family comply
with the requirements of this part, other
referenced parts of the CFR, and the
Clean Air Act.
(s) Include good-faith estimates of
U.S.-directed production volumes.
Include a justification for the estimated
production volumes if they are
substantially different than actual
production volumes in earlier years for
similar vehicle models.
(t) Include the information required
by other subparts of this part. For
example, include the information
required by § 1037.725 if you participate
in the ABT program.
(u) Include other applicable
information, such as information
specified in this part or 40 CFR part
1068 related to requests for exemptions.
(v) Name an agent for service located
in the United States. Service on this
agent constitutes service on you or any
of your officers or employees for any
action by EPA or otherwise by the
United States related to the
requirements of this part.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 1037.210 Preliminary approval before
certification.
If you send us information before you
finish the application, we may review it
and make any appropriate
determinations. Decisions made under
this section are considered to be
preliminary approval, subject to final
review and approval. We will generally
not reverse a decision where we have
given you preliminary approval, unless
we find new information supporting a
different decision. If you request
preliminary approval related to the
upcoming model year or the model year
after that, we will make best-efforts to
make the appropriate determinations as
soon as practicable. We will generally
not provide preliminary approval
related to a future model year more than
two years ahead of time.
§ 1037.220 Amending maintenance
instructions.
You may amend your emissionrelated maintenance instructions after
you submit your application for
certification as long as the amended
instructions remain consistent with the
provisions of § 1037.125. You must send
the Designated Compliance Officer a
written request to amend your
application for certification for a vehicle
family if you want to change the
emission-related maintenance
instructions in a way that could affect
emissions. In your request, describe the
proposed changes to the maintenance
instructions. If operators follow the
original maintenance instructions rather
than the newly specified maintenance,
this does not allow you to disqualify
those vehicles from in-use testing or
deny a warranty claim.
(a) If you are decreasing or
eliminating any specified maintenance,
you may distribute the new
maintenance instructions to your
customers 30 days after we receive your
request, unless we disapprove your
request. This would generally include
replacing one maintenance step with
another. We may approve a shorter time
or waive this requirement.
(b) If your requested change would
not decrease the specified maintenance,
you may distribute the new
maintenance instructions anytime after
you send your request. For example,
this paragraph (b) would cover adding
instructions to increase the frequency of
filter changes for vehicles in severe-duty
applications.
(c) You need not request approval if
you are making only minor corrections
(such as correcting typographical
mistakes), clarifying your maintenance
instructions, or changing instructions
for maintenance unrelated to emission
PO 00000
Frm 00238
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
control. We may ask you to send us
copies of maintenance instructions
revised under this paragraph (c).
§ 1037.225 Amending applications for
certification.
Before we issue you a certificate of
conformity, you may amend your
application to include new or modified
vehicle configurations, subject to the
provisions of this section. After we have
issued your certificate of conformity,
you may send us an amended
application requesting that we include
new or modified vehicle configurations
within the scope of the certificate,
subject to the provisions of this section.
You must amend your application if any
changes occur with respect to any
information that is included or should
be included in your application.
(a) You must amend your application
before you take any of the following
actions:
(1) Add a vehicle configuration to a
vehicle family. In this case, the vehicle
configuration added must be consistent
with other vehicle configurations in the
vehicle family with respect to the
criteria listed in § 1037.230.
(2) Change a vehicle configuration
already included in a vehicle family in
a way that may affect emissions, or
change any of the components you
described in your application for
certification. This includes production
and design changes that may affect
emissions any time during the vehicle’s
lifetime.
(3) Modify an FEL for a vehicle family
as described in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(b) To amend your application for
certification, send the relevant
information to the Designated
Compliance Officer.
(1) Describe in detail the addition or
change in the vehicle model or
configuration you intend to make.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or
data showing that the amended vehicle
family complies with all applicable
requirements. You may do this by
showing that the original emission-data
vehicle is still appropriate for showing
that the amended family complies with
all applicable requirements.
(3) If the original emission-data
vehicle or emission modeling for the
vehicle family is not appropriate to
show compliance for the new or
modified vehicle configuration, include
new test data or emission modeling
showing that the new or modified
vehicle configuration meets the
requirements of this part.
(c) We may ask for more test data or
engineering evaluations. You must give
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
us these within 30 days after we request
them.
(d) For vehicle families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
we will determine whether the existing
certificate of conformity covers your
newly added or modified vehicle. You
may ask for a hearing if we deny your
request (see § 1037.820).
(e) For vehicle families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
you may start producing the new or
modified vehicle configuration anytime
after you send us your amended
application and before we make a
decision under paragraph (d) of this
section. However, if we determine that
the affected vehicles do not meet
applicable requirements, we will notify
you to cease production of the vehicles
and may require you to recall the
vehicles at no expense to the owner.
Choosing to produce vehicles under this
paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to
recall all vehicles that we determine do
not meet applicable emission standards
or other requirements and to remedy the
nonconformity at no expense to the
owner. If you do not provide
information required under paragraph
(c) of this section within 30 days after
we request it, you must stop producing
the new or modified vehicles.
(f) You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in certain cases after
the start of production. The changed
FEL may not apply to vehicles you have
already introduced into U.S. commerce,
except as described in this paragraph (f).
If we approve a changed FEL after the
start of production, you must include
the new FEL on the emission control
information label for all vehicles
produced after the change. You may ask
us to approve a change to your FEL in
the following cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for
your vehicle family at any time. In your
request, you must show that you will
still be able to meet the emission
standards as specified in subparts B and
H of this part. Use the appropriate FELs
with corresponding production volumes
to calculate emission credits for the
model year, as described in subpart H of
this part.
(2) Where testing applies, you may
ask to lower the FEL for your vehicle
family only if you have test data from
production vehicles showing that
emissions are below the proposed lower
FEL. Otherwise, you may ask to lower
your FEL for your vehicle family at any
time. The lower FEL applies only to
vehicles you produce after we approve
the new FEL. Use the appropriate FELs
with corresponding production volumes
to calculate emission credits for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
model year, as described in subpart H of
this part.
§ 1037.230
Vehicle families.
(a) For purposes of certifying your
vehicles to greenhouse gas standards,
divide your product line into families of
vehicles that have similar basic
structures and are subject to the same
standards. Your vehicle family is
limited to a single model year. Group
vehicles in the same vehicle family if
they are the same in all the following
aspects:
(1) The regulatory sub-category, as
follows:
(i) Vocational vehicles at or below
19,500 pounds GVWR.
(ii) Vocational vehicles above 19,500
pounds GVWR but at or below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(iii) Vocational vehicles above 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(iv) Low-roof and mid-roof day cab
tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR but
at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(v) High-roof tractors above 26,000
pounds GVWR but at or below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(vi) Low-roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(vii) Low-roof sleeper cab tractors
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(viii) Mid-roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(ix) Mid-roof sleeper cab tractors
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(x) High-roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(xi) High-roof sleeper cab tractors
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(2) Vehicle width (as measured from
hub to hub on the front axle).
(3) Basic design of the vehicle
passenger and engine compartments.
For purposes of this criterion, consider
only those features from the B-pillar
forward.
(4) Whether or they are certified using
the provisions of this part for hybrid
vehicles or other advanced technologies.
(b) Subdivide your greenhouse gas
vehicle families into subfamilies that
include vehicles from identical bins for
the aerodynamic drag coefficient for
each modeling input, as specified in
§ 1037.520(b). For example, all vehicles
within a tractor vehicle family would be
included in the same subfamily if they
are all in the ‘‘SmartWay’’ aerodynamic
bin and in the ‘‘Automatic Engine ShutOff Only’’ bin, none of them include
weight reduction or vehicle speed
limiters, and they all use the same tires.
(c) For a vehicle model that straddles
a roof-height division, you may include
all the vehicles in the same vehicle
family if you certify the vehicle family
to the more stringent standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00239
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74389
(d) Divide your vehicles that are
subject to evaporative emission
standards into groups of vehicles with
similar physical features expected to
affect evaporative emissions. Group
vehicles in the same evaporative
emission family if they are the same in
all the following aspects, unless we
approve a better way of grouping
vehicles into families that have similar
emission control characteristics:
(1) Method of vapor storage, including
the number of vapor storage devices, the
working material, and the total working
capacity of vapor storage (as determined
under 40 CFR 86.1232–96(h)(1)(iv)).
You may consider the working capacity
to be the same if the values differ by 20
grams or less.
(2) Method of purging stored vapors.
(3) Material for liquid fuel hose.
§ 1037.241 Demonstrating compliance with
exhaust emission standards for greenhouse
gas pollutants.
(a) For purposes of certification, your
vehicle family is considered in
compliance with the emission standards
in § 1037.105 or § 1037.106 if all vehicle
configurations in that family have
modeled CO2 emission rates (as
specified in subpart F of this part) at or
below the applicable standards. See 40
CFR part 86, subpart S, for showing
compliance with the standards of
§ 1037.104. Note that your FELs are
considered to be the applicable
emission standards with which you
must comply if you participate in the
ABT program in subpart H of this part.
(b) Your vehicle family is deemed not
to comply if any vehicle configuration
in that family has a modeled CO2
emission rate that is above its FEL.
(c) We may require you to provide an
engineering analysis showing that the
performance of your emission controls
will not deteriorate during the useful
life with proper maintenance. If we
determine that your emission controls
are likely to deteriorate during the
useful life, we may require you to
develop and apply deterioration factors
(DFs) consistent with good engineering
judgment. For example, you may need
to apply a DF to address deterioration of
battery performance for a hybrid-electric
vehicle.
§ 1037.243 Demonstrating compliance with
evaporative emission standards.
(a) For purposes of certification, your
evaporative emission family is
considered in compliance with the
evaporative emission standards in
subpart B of this part if you do either
of the following:
(1) You have test results showing
emission levels at or below the
standards in § 1037.103.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74390
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(2) For vehicles above 26,000 pounds
GVWR, you prepare an engineering
analysis showing that your vehicles in
the family will comply with applicable
standards throughout the useful life.
(b) Your evaporative emission family
is deemed not to comply if any vehicle
representing the family has test results
showing emission levels above any of
the standards in § 1037.103, with or
without deterioration factors. For
vehicles above 26,000 pounds GVWR,
your evaporative emission family is
deemed not to comply if your
engineering analysis is not adequate to
show that all the vehicles in the family
will comply with applicable emission
standards throughout the useful life.
(c) To compare emission levels with
emission standards, apply deterioration
factors to the measured emission levels.
Establish an additive deterioration
factor for the vehicle family, as
described in 40 CFR 86.007–23(b).
(1) For vehicles at or below 26,000
pounds GVWR, establish the
deterioration factor based on testing
before and after service accumulation.
Collect emission data using
measurements to one more decimal
place than the applicable standard. Use
good engineering judgment to perform
service accumulation in a way that
incorporates the effects of ambient
conditions and engine and vehicle
operation to ensure that emission
measurements represent actual
degradation of emission controls from
in-use vehicles over the useful life.
(2) For vehicles above 26,000 pounds
GVWR, establish the deterioration factor
based on an engineering analysis that
takes into account the expected aging
from in-use vehicles. Your analysis
must take into account your testing to
establish deterioration factors under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(d) You may ask us to approve
deterioration factors for a vehicle family
based on emission measurements from
similar highway vehicles if you have
already given us these data for certifying
the other vehicles in the same or earlier
model years. Use good engineering
judgment to decide whether the two
vehicles are similar. We will approve
your request if you show us that the
emission measurements from other
vehicles reasonably represent in-use
deterioration for the vehicle family for
which you have not yet determined
deterioration factors.
(e) Apply the deterioration factor to
the official emission result, as described
in paragraph (c) of this section, then
round the adjusted figure to the same
number of decimal places as the
emission standard. Compare the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
rounded emission levels to the emission
standard for each emission-data vehicle.
§ 1037.250
Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) Within 45 days after the end of the
model year, send the Designated
Compliance Officer a report including
the total U.S.-directed production
volume of vehicles you produced in
each vehicle family during the model
year. Report the volumes by vehicle
configuration, and identify the
transmission, axle ratio, and engine in
addition to subfamily identifiers. Small
manufacturers may omit this
requirement.
(b) Organize and maintain the
following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any
summary information you send us.
(2) Any of the information we specify
in § 1037.205 that you were not required
to include in your application.
(3) A detailed history of each
emission-data vehicle, if applicable.
(4) Production figures for each vehicle
family divided by assembly plant.
(5) Keep a list of vehicle identification
numbers for all the vehicles you
produce under each certificate of
conformity.
(c) Keep data from routine emission
tests (such as test cell temperatures and
relative humidity readings) for one year
after we issue the associated certificate
of conformity. Keep all other
information specified in this section for
eight years after we issue your
certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format
and on any media, as long as you can
promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them.
You must keep these records readily
available. We may review them at any
time.
§ 1037.255 What decisions may EPA make
regarding my certificate of conformity?
(a) If we determine your application is
complete and shows that the vehicle
family meets all the requirements of this
part and the Act, we will issue a
certificate of conformity for your vehicle
family for that model year. We may
make the approval subject to additional
conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for
certification if we determine that your
vehicle family fails to comply with
emission standards or other
requirements of this part or the Clean
Air Act. We will base our decision on
all available information. If we deny
your application, we will explain why
in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your
application or suspend or revoke your
certificate if you do any of the
following:
PO 00000
Frm 00240
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing
or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete
information (paragraph (e) of this
section applies if this is fraudulent).
(3) Render any test data inaccurate.
(4) Deny us from completing
authorized activities despite our
presenting a warrant or court order (see
40 CFR 1068.20). This includes a failure
to provide reasonable assistance.
(5) Produce vehicles for importation
into the United States at a location
where local law prohibits us from
carrying out authorized activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested
information or amend your application
to include all vehicles being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise
circumvents the intent of the Act or this
part.
(d) We may void your certificate if
you do not keep the records we require
or do not give us information as
required under this part or the Act.
(e) We may void your certificate if we
find that you intentionally submitted
false or incomplete information.
(f) If we deny your application or
suspend, revoke, or void your
certificate, you may ask for a hearing
(see § 1037.820).
Subpart D—[Reserved]
Subpart E—In-Use Testing
§ 1037.401
General provisions.
We may perform in-use testing of any
vehicle subject to the standards of this
part.
Subpart F—Test and Modeling
Procedures
§ 1037.501 General testing and modeling
provisions.
This subpart specifies how to perform
emission testing and emission modeling
required elsewhere in this part.
(a) Use the equipment and procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart M,
to determine whether vehicles meet the
diurnal, running loss, hot soak, and
spitback standards specified in
§ 1037.103. For certification vehicles
only, you may ask us to approve
subtraction of nonfuel emissions (such
as from off-gassing plastic components)
from your measured test results. In your
request, describe the sources of nonfuel
emissions and estimate the decay rate.
Quantify the nonfuel emissions based
on separate testing.
(b) Where emission testing is
required, use the equipment and
procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 to
determine whether your vehicles meet
the duty-cycle emission standards in
subpart B of this part. Measure the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(a) General modeling provisions. To
run the GEM model, enter all applicable
inputs as specified by the model. All
seven of the following inputs apply for
sleeper cab tractors, while some do not
apply for other regulatory subcategories:
(1) Regulatory class (such as ‘‘Class 8
Combination—Sleeper Cab—High
Roof’’).
(2) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag, as
described in paragraph (b) of this
section. Leave this field blank for
vocational vehicles.
(3) Steer tire rolling resistance, as
described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(4) Drive tire rolling resistance, as
described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(5) Vehicle speed limit, as described
in paragraph (d) of this section. Leave
this field blank for vocational vehicles.
§ 1037.520 Modeling CO2 emissions to
show compliance.
This section describes how to use the
GEM computer model (incorporated by
reference in § 1037.810) to show
compliance with the CO2 standards of
§§ 1037.105 and 1037.106. Use good
engineering judgment when
demonstrating compliance using the
GEM model.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00241
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
use an amount equivalent to a standard
payload of 25,000 pounds for Class 7
and 38,000 pounds for Class 8.
§ 1037.510
Duty-cycle testing.
This section applies where exhaust
emission testing is required, such as
when applying the provisions of
§ 1037.610.
(a) Where applicable, measure
emissions by testing the vehicle on a
dynamometer with the applicable test
cycles. Each test cycle consists of a
series of speed commands over time:
Variable speeds for the transient test
and constant speed for the cruise tests.
None of these cycles include vehicle
starting or warmup; each test cycle
begins with a running, warmed-up
vehicle. Start sampling emissions at the
start of each cycle. The transient cycle
is specified in Appendix I to this part.
The 55 mph and 65 mph Cruise cycles
are 300 second cycles with constant
vehicle speeds of 55.0 mph and 65.0
mph, respectively. The tolerance around
these speed setpoints is ±1.0 mph.
(b) Calculate the official emission
result from the following weighting
factors:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
(6) Vehicle weight reduction, as
described in paragraph (e) of this
section. Leave this field blank for
vocational vehicles.
(7) Extended idle reduction credit, as
described in paragraph (f) of this
section. Leave this field blank for
vehicles other than Class 8 sleeper cabs.
(b) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag.
Determine the appropriate drag
coefficient as follows:
(1) Use the recommended method or
an alternate method to establish a value
for the vehicle’s drag coefficient,
rounded to two decimal places as
follows:
(i) Recommended method. Perform
coastdown testing as described in this
paragraph (b)(1)(i) to establish the drag
coefficient. Use the procedures specified
in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart C, with a
standard trailer.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.102
of standard trailers. A tolerance of ± 2
inches applies for all trailer dimensions.
Manufacturers may test with longer
trailers. For coastdown testing, load
trailers as necessary to reach test weight.
(1) The standard trailer for high-roof
tractors is a two-axle dry van box trailer
with dimensions of 53.0 feet long, by
102 inches wide, by 162 inches high.
The standard trailer has a minimized
trailer gap (maximum of 45 inches) and
does not include any aerodynamic
features such as side fairings, boat tails,
or gap reducers.
(2) The standard trailer for mid-roof
tractors is a two-axle tanker trailer with
dimensions of 40.0 feet long by 124
inches high, and having a 7200 ± 7
gallon tank capacity. The standard
trailer does not include any
aerodynamic features such as side
fairings.
(3) The standard trailer for low-roof
tractors is a two-axle flat bed trailer with
dimensions of 48.0 feet long and 102
inches wide. The standard trailer does
not include any aerodynamic features
such as side fairings. It includes a
payload of dense material (such as steel
plate) covered completely with one or
more tarps. For aerodynamic modeling,
(c) For transient testing, compare
actual second-by-second vehicle speed
with the speed specified in the test
cycle and ensure any differences are
consistent with the criteria as specified
in 40 CFR part 1066. If the speeds do
not conform to these criteria, the test is
not valid and must be repeated.
(d) Run test cycles as specified in 40
CFR part 86. For cruise cycle testing of
vehicles equipped with cruise control,
use the vehicle’s cruise control to
control the vehicle speed.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
emissions of all the exhaust constituents
subject to emission standards as
specified in 40 CFR part 1066. Use the
applicable duty cycles specified in
§ 1037.510.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Use the applicable fuels specified
40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid tests.
(1) For service accumulation, use the
test fuel or any commercially available
fuel that is representative of the fuel that
in-use vehicles will use.
(2) For diesel-fueled vehicles, use the
appropriate diesel fuel specified for
emission testing. Unless we specify
otherwise, the appropriate diesel test
fuel is the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel.
(3) For gasoline-fueled vehicles, use
the gasoline specified for ‘‘General
Testing’’.
(e) You may use special or alternate
procedures to the extent we allow them
under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(f) This subpart is addressed to you as
a manufacturer, but it applies equally to
anyone who does testing for you, and to
us when we perform testing to
determine if your vehicles meet
emission standards.
(g) Apply the specification of this
paragraph (g) whenever we specify use
74391
74392
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
vehicle’s bin category as described in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
EP30NO10.105
modeling input for drag coefficient from
the following table, based on the
EP30NO10.106
(ii) Alternate methods. You may
determine a drag coefficient using an
alternate method, consistent with good
engineering judgment, based on wind
tunnel testing, computational fluid
dynamic modeling, or constant-speed
road load testing. See 40 CFR 1068.5 for
provisions describing how we may
evaluate your engineering judgment.
Use (or assume) a standard trailer for
tractor testing and modeling.
(2) Determine the bin category for
your vehicle based on the drag
coefficient from paragraph (b)(1) of this
section as shown in the following table:
(3) Except as specified in paragraph
(b)(4) of this section, determine the
r = standard air density. Use r = 1.167 kg/
m3.
A = standard frontal area, in m2, as shown
in the following table:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00242
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.103
EP30NO10.104
Where:
D = a coefficient derived from the coastdown
procedures in 40 CFR part 1066, as
described in paragraph (b)(1)(i)(B) of this
section.
(B) Determine the value of D
analytically from the data collected
during coastdown testing as specified in
40 CFR 1066.210, based on one of the
following equations:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(A) Calculate the drag coefficient, CD,
from the following equation:
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74393
ensure the limiter is tamper proof. We
may require you to obtain preliminary
approval for your designs.
(e) Vehicle weight reduction. Vehicle
weight reduction inputs are specified
relative to dual-wide tires with
conventional steel wheels. For purposes
of this paragraph (e), a light-weight
aluminum wheel is one that weighs at
least 21 lb less than a comparable
conventional steel wheel, and a highstrength steel wheel is one that weighs
at least 8 lb less than a comparable
conventional steel wheel. The inputs are
listed in Table 4 to this section. For
example, a tractor with aluminum steer
wheels and eight (4 × 2) dual-wide
aluminum drive wheels would have an
input of 210 lb (2 × 21 + 8 × 21).
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
§ 1037.525 Special procedures for testing
hybrid vehicles with power take-off.
section to allow testing non-electric
hybrid vehicles, consistent with good
engineering judgment.
(a) Select two vehicles for testing as
follows:
(1) Select a vehicle with a hybrid
powertrain to represent the vehicle
family. If your vehicle family includes
(f) Extended idle reduction credit. If
your vehicle is equipped with idle
reduction technology that will
automatically shut off the main engine
after 300 seconds or less, use 5 g/tonmile as the input. Otherwise leave this
field blank.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
This section describes the procedure
for quantifying the reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions as a result of
running power take-off (PTO) devices
with a hybrid powertrain. You may ask
us to modify the provisions of this
PO 00000
Frm 00243
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.108
(including size), measure rolling
resistance of at least three different tires
of that specific design and perform the
test three times for each tire (for a total
of at least nine tests per tire design). Use
the arithmetic mean of these results. If
you obtain your test results from the tire
manufacturer or another third party, you
must obtain a signed statement from
them verifying the tests were conducted
according to the requirements of this
part. Such statements are deemed to be
submissions to EPA.
(d) Vehicle speed limit. If the vehicles
will be equipped with a tamper-proof
vehicle speed limiter, input the
maximum vehicle speed to which the
vehicle will be limited, in miles per
hour. Otherwise leave this field blank.
Use good engineering judgment to
EP30NO10.107
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(4) If your drag coefficient from
paragraph (b)(1) of this section is below
the range of drag coefficient values
specified for the applicable bin category
in § 1037.141, you may use the drag
coefficient determined in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section only with our
approval. We will approve your request
if you demonstrate that you developed
your drag coefficient consistent with
good engineering judgment. If we deny
your request, you must use the drag
coefficient corresponding to your
vehicle’s apparent bin category.
(c) Steer and drive tire rolling
resistance. Measure tire rolling
resistance in kg per metric ton as
specified in ISO test method 28580:2009
(incorporated by reference in
§ 1037.810). For each tire design
74394
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(3) Use the provisions of 40 CFR part
1066 to collect and measure emissions.
Calculate emission rates in grams per
test without rounding.
(4) Continue testing over the three
vehicle drive cycles, as otherwise
required by this part.
(5) Calculate combined cycleweighted emissions of the four cycles as
specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(c) Measure PTO emissions from the
hybrid vehicle as follows:
(1) Prepare the vehicle for testing by
operating it as needed to stabilize the
battery at a full state of charge.
(2) Turn the vehicle ‘‘on’’ such that the
PTO system is functional, whether it
draws power from the engine or a
battery.
(3) Operate the vehicle over the PTO
cycle(s) and measure emissions as
described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of
this section. Use good engineering
judgment to minimize the variability in
testing between the two types of
vehicles.
(4) Continue testing over the three
vehicle drive cycles, as otherwise
required by this part.
(5) Calculate combined cycleweighted emissions of the four cycles as
specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(d) Calculate combined cycleweighted emissions of the four cycles
for vocational vehicles as follows:
Where:
payload = the standard payload, in tons, as
specified in § 1037.705.
m1 = grams of CO2 emitted over the PTO test
cycle.
m2 = grams of CO2 emitted over the transient
test cycle.
m3 = grams of CO2 emitted over the 55 mph
cruise test cycle.
m4 = grams of CO2 emitted over the 65 mph
cruise test cycle.
part without request. Similarly, vehicles
are exempt without request if the
installed engine is exempted from the
applicable standards in 40 CFR part 86.
(c) The prohibitions of 40 CFR
86.1854–12 apply for vehicles subject to
the requirements of this part.
(d) Except as specifically allowed by
this part, it is a violation of section
203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(1)) to introduce into U.S.
commerce a tractor containing an engine
not certified for use in tractors or to
introduce into U.S. commerce a
vocational vehicle containing an engine
not certified for use in vocational
vehicles. This prohibition generally
applies to the vehicle manufacturer.
aerodynamic drag, and other factors not
directly related to the hybrid
powertrain. If you do not produce an
equivalent vehicle, you may create and
test a prototype equivalent vehicle. The
conventional vehicle is considered
Vehicle A and the hybrid vehicle is
considered Vehicle B. We may specify
an alternate cycle if your vehicle
includes a power take-off.
(2) Calculate an improvement factor
and g/ton-mile benefit using the
following equations and parameters:
(i) Improvement Factor = [(Emission
Rate A)¥(Emission Rate B)]/
(Emission Rate A)
(ii) g/ton-mile benefit = Improvement
Factor × (Modeling Result B)
(iii) Emission Rates A and B are the
g/ton-mile CO2 emission rates of the
conventional and hybrid vehicles,
respectively, as measured under the test
procedures specified in this section.
Modeling Result B is the g/ton-mile CO2
emission rate resulting from emission
modeling of the hybrid vehicle as
specified in § 1037.520.
(3) Use the equations of § 1037.705 to
convert the g/ton-mile benefit to
emission credits (in Mg). Use the g/tonmile benefit in place of the (Std-FEL)
term.
(c) See § 1037.525 for special testing
provisions related to hybrid vehicles
equipped with power take-off units.
(d) You may use an engineering
analysis to calculate an improvement
factor for fuel cell vehicles based on
measured emissions from the fuel cell
vehicle.
(e) For electric vehicles, calculate CO2
credits using an FEL of 0 g/ton-mile.
(e) Follow the provisions of
§ 1037.610 to calculate improvement
factors and benefits for advanced
technologies.
Subpart G—Special Compliance
Provisions
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1037.601 What compliance provisions
apply to these vehicles?
(a) Engine and vehicle manufacturers,
as well as owners and operators of
vehicles subject to the requirements of
this part, and all other persons, must
observe the provisions of this part, the
provisions of the Clean Air Act, and the
following provisions of 40 CFR part
1068:
(1) The exemption and importation
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subparts
C and D, apply for vehicles subject to
this part 1037, except that the hardship
exemption provisions of 40 CFR
1068.245, 1068.250, and 1068.255 do
not apply for motor vehicles.
(2) The recall provisions of 40 CFR
part 1068, subpart F, apply for vehicles
subject to this part 1037. The recall
provisions of 40 CFR part 85, subpart S
do not apply.
(b) Vehicles exempted from the
applicable standards of 40 CFR part 86
are exempt from the standards of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 1037.610 Hybrid vehicles and other
advanced technologies.
(a) This section applies for hybrid
vehicles with regenerative braking,
vehicles equipped with Rankine-cycle
engines, electric vehicles, and fuel cell
vehicles. You may not generate credits
for engine features for which the
engines generate credits under 40 CFR
part 1036.
(b) Generate advanced technology
emission credits for hybrid vehicles that
include regenerative braking (or the
equivalent) and energy storage systems
and vehicles equipped with Rankinecycle engines as follows:
(1) Measure the effectiveness of the
hybrid system by chassis testing a
vehicle equipped with the hybrid
system and an equivalent conventional
vehicle. For purposes of this paragraph
(b), a conventional vehicle is considered
to be equivalent if it has the same
footprint, intended service class,
PO 00000
Frm 00244
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.109
more than one vehicle model, use good
engineering judgment to select the
vehicle type with the maximum number
of PTO circuits that has the smallest
potential reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions.
(2) Select an equivalent conventional
vehicle as specified in § 1037.610.
(b) Measure PTO emissions from the
conventional vehicle as follows:
(1) Start the engine.
(2) Operate the vehicle over the PTO
duty cycle(s) specified in Appendix II of
this part. If there is only one PTO
circuit, use duty cycle #1; if there are
two PTO circuits, use both specified
duty cycles. Collect CO2 emissions
during operation over the specified duty
cycle(s).
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(f) Credits generated under this
section may be used outside of the
averaging set in which they were
generated, or you may convert the
credits into engine-based credits for use
under 40 CFR part 1036, consistent with
good engineering judgment.
§ 1037.611 Vehicles with innovative
technologies.
This section applies for CO2
reductions resulting from technologies
that were not in common use before
2010 that are not reflected in the
specified test procedures and emission
models. We may allow you to generate
emission credits for model years
through 2018 consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.1866–12(d).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1037.620 Shipment of incomplete
vehicles to secondary vehicle
manufacturers.
This section specifies how
manufacturers may introduce partially
complete vehicles into U.S. commerce.
(a) The provisions of this section
allow manufacturers to ship partially
complete vehicles to secondary vehicle
manufacturers or otherwise introduce
them into U.S. commerce in the
following circumstances:
(1) Tractors. Manufacturers may
introduce partially complete tractors
into U.S. commerce if they are covered
by a certificate of conformity for tractors
and will be in their certified tractor
configuration before they reach the
ultimate purchasers. Note that delegated
assembly provisions may apply.
(2) Vehicles meeting the definition of
‘‘tractor’’ intended for vocational use. A
manufacturer may introduce into U.S.
commerce a partially complete vehicle
meeting the definition of ‘‘tractor’’ that is
covered by a certificate of conformity for
vocational vehicles only as allowed by
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) Other vocational vehicles.
Manufacturers may introduce partially
complete vocational vehicles (not
meeting the definition of ‘‘tractor’’) into
U.S. commerce if they are covered by a
certificate of conformity for vocational
vehicles and will be in their certified
vocational configuration before they
reach the ultimate purchasers. Note that
delegated assembly provisions may
apply.
(4) Uncertified vehicles that will be
certified by secondary vehicle
manufacturers. Manufacturers may
introduce into U.S. commerce partially
complete vehicles for which they do not
hold a certificate of conformity only as
allowed by paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Manufacturers introducing
partially complete vehicles into U.S.
commerce under paragraph (a)(2) of this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
section must have a written request for
such vehicles from the manufacturer
that will complete assembly of the
vehicle. The written request must
include a statement that the
manufacturer completing assembly is
aware that the vehicle must not be
delivered to an ultimate purchaser in a
configuration that meets the definition
of a tractor.
(c) The provisions of this paragraph
(c) generally apply where the secondary
vehicle manufacturer has substantial
control over the design and assembly of
emission controls. In determining
whether a manufacturer has substantial
control over the design and assembly of
emission controls, we would consider
the degree to which the secondary
manufacturer would be able to ensure
that the engine and vehicle will conform
to the regulations in their final
configurations.
(1) Secondary manufacturers may
finish assembly of partially complete
vehicles in the following cases:
(i) You obtain a vehicle that is not
fully assembled with the intent to
manufacture a complete vehicle.
(ii) You obtain a vehicle with the
intent to modify it before it reaches the
ultimate purchaser. For example, this
may apply for converting a gasolinefueled vehicle to operate on natural gas.
(2) Manufacturers may introduce
partially complete vehicles into U.S.
commerce as described in this section if
they have a written request for such
vehicles from a secondary vehicle
manufacturer that has certified the
vehicle and will finish the vehicle
assembly. The written request must
include a statement that the secondary
manufacturer has a certificate of
conformity for the vehicle and identify
a valid vehicle family name associated
with each vehicle model ordered (or the
basis for an exemption). The original
vehicle manufacturer must apply a
removable label meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 1068.45 that
identifies the corporate name of the
original manufacturer and states that the
vehicle is exempt under the provisions
of § 1037.620. The name of the
certifying manufacturer must also be on
the label or, alternatively, on the bill of
lading that accompanies the vehicles
during shipment. The original
manufacturer may not apply a
permanent emission control information
label identifying the vehicle’s eventual
status as a certified vehicle.
(3) The manufacturer that will hold
the certificate must include the
following information in its application
for certification:
PO 00000
Frm 00245
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74395
(i) Identify the original manufacturer
of the partially complete vehicle or of
the complete vehicle you will modify.
(ii) Describe briefly how and where
final assembly will be completed.
Specify how you have the ability to
ensure that the vehicles will conform to
the regulations in their final
configuration. (Note: This section
prohibits using the provisions of this
section unless you have substantial
control over the design and assembly of
emission controls.)
(iii) State unconditionally that you
will not distribute the vehicles without
conforming to all applicable regulations.
(4) If you are a certificate holder, you
may receive shipment of partially
complete vehicles after you apply for a
certificate of conformity but before the
certificate’s effective date. This
exemption allows the original
manufacturer to ship vehicles after you
have applied for a certificate of
conformity. Manufacturers may
introduce partially complete vehicles
into U.S. commerce as described in this
paragraph (c)(4) if they have a written
request for such vehicles from a
secondary manufacturer stating that the
application for certification has been
submitted (instead of the information
we specify in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section). We may set additional
conditions under this paragraph (c)(4) to
prevent circumvention of regulatory
requirements.
(5) The provisions of this section also
apply for shipping partially complete
vehicles if the vehicle is covered by a
valid exemption and there is no valid
vehicle family name that could be used
to represent the vehicle model. Unless
we approve otherwise in advance, you
may do this only when shipping
vehicles to secondary manufacturers
that are certificate holders. In this case,
the secondary manufacturer must
identify the regulatory cite identifying
the applicable exemption instead of a
valid vehicle family name when
ordering vehicles from the original
manufacturer.
(6) Both original and secondary
manufacturers must keep the records
described in this section for at least five
years, including the written request for
vehicles and the bill of lading for each
shipment (if applicable). The written
request is deemed to be a submission to
EPA.
(7) These provisions are intended
only to allow you to obtain or transport
vehicles in the specific circumstances
identified in this section so any
exemption under this section expires
when the vehicle reaches the point of
final assembly identified in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) of this section.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74396
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(8) For purposes of this section, an
allowance to introduce partially
complete vehicles into U.S. commerce
includes a conditional allowance to sell,
introduce, or deliver such vehicles into
commerce in the United States or
import them into the United States. It
does not include a general allowance to
offer such vehicles for sale because this
exemption is intended to apply only for
cases in which the certificate holder
already has an arrangement to purchase
the vehicles from the original
manufacturer. This exemption does not
allow the original manufacturer to
subsequently offer the vehicles for sale
to a different manufacturer who will
hold the certificate unless that second
manufacturer has also complied with
the requirements of this part. The
exemption does not apply for any
individual vehicles that are not labeled
as specified in this section or which are
shipped to someone who is not a
certificate holder.
(9) We may suspend, revoke, or void
an exemption under this section, as
follows:
(i) We may suspend or revoke your
exemption if you fail to meet the
requirements of this section. We may
suspend or revoke your exemption for a
specific secondary manufacturer if that
manufacturer sells vehicles that are in
not in a certified configuration in
violation of the regulations. We may
disallow this exemption for future
shipments to the affected secondary
manufacturer or set additional
conditions to ensure that vehicles will
be assembled in the certified
configuration.
(ii) We may void your exemption for
all the affected vehicles if you
intentionally submit false or incomplete
information or fail to keep and provide
to EPA the records required by this
section.
(iii) The exemption is void for a
vehicle that is shipped to a company
that is not a certificate holder or for a
vehicle that is shipped to a secondary
manufacturer that is not in compliance
with the requirements of this section.
(d) Provide instructions along with
partially complete vehicles including all
information necessary to ensure that an
engine will be installed in its certified
configuration.
§ 1037.630 Exemption for vehicles
intended for offroad use.
This section provides an exemption
from the greenhouse gas standards of
this part for certain vehicles intended to
be used extensively in offroad
environments such as forests, oil fields,
and construction sites. This exemption
does not exempt the engine from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
standards of 40 CFR part 86 or part
1036.
(a) Vocational vehicles. Vocational
vehicles meeting both of the following
criteria are exempt without request,
subject to the provisions of this section:
(1) The tires installed on the vehicle
must be lug tires or contain a speed
rating at or below 60 mph. For purposes
of this section, a lug tire is one for
which the elevated portion of the tread
covers less than one-half of the tread
surface.
(2) The vehicle must include a vehicle
speed limiter governed to 55 mph or
less.
(b) Tractors. Tractors meeting all the
following criteria are exempt without
request, subject to the provisions of this
section:
(1) The tires installed on the vehicle
must be lug tires or contain a speed
rating at or below 60 mph. For purposes
of this section, a lug tire is one for
which the elevated portion of the tread
covers less than one-half of the tread
surface.
(2) The vehicle must include a vehicle
speed limiter governed to 55 mph or
less.
(3) The vehicle must either—
(i) Contain PTO controls; or
(ii) Have GVWR greater than 57,000
pounds and have axle configurations
other than 4×2, 6×2, or 6×4 (axle
configurations are expressed as total
number of wheel hubs by number of
drive wheel hubs).
(4) The frame of the vehicle must have
a resisting bending moment (RBM)
greater than 2,000,000 inch-pounds. Use
good engineering judgment to determine
the RBM for the frame.
(c) Recordkeeping and reporting. (1)
You must keep records to document that
your exempted vehicle configurations
meet all applicable requirements of this
section. Keep these records for at least
eight years after you stop producing the
exempted vehicle model. We may
review these records at any time.
(2) You must also keep records of the
individual exempted vehicles you
produce, including the vehicle
identification number and a description
of the vehicle configuration.
(3) Within 90 days after the end of
each model year, you must send to the
Designated Compliance Officer a report
with the following information:
(i) A description of each exempted
vehicle configuration, including an
explanation of why it qualifies for this
exemption.
(ii) The number of vehicles exempted
for each vehicle configuration.
(d) Preapproval. You may ask for
preliminary approval that your vehicles
qualify for this exemption. We may also
PO 00000
Frm 00246
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
require you to ask for preliminary
approval for this exemption if we
determine that you have not acted in
good faith when applying this
exemption in earlier model years.
(e) Other vehicles. In unusual
circumstances, you may ask us to
approve an exemption under this
section for vehicles not fully meeting
the criteria of either paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section. We will approve your
request only where we determine
conclusively that the vehicles will be
used primarily in offroad applications
and cannot practically incorporate the
greenhouse gas reducing design
features.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
§ 1037.701
General provisions.
(a) You may average, bank, and trade
(ABT) emission credits for purposes of
certification as described in this subpart
to show compliance with the standards
of §§ 1037.105 and 1037.106.
Participation in this program is
voluntary.
(b) Section 1037.740 restricts the use
of emission credits to certain averaging
sets.
(c) The definitions of subpart I of this
part apply to this subpart. The following
definitions also apply:
(1) Actual emission credits means
emission credits you have generated
that we have verified by reviewing your
final report.
(2) Averaging set means a set of
vehicles in which emission credits may
be exchanged. Credits generated by one
vehicle may only be used by other
vehicles in the same averaging set. Note
that an averaging set may comprise
more than one regulatory subcategory.
See § 1037.740.
(3) Broker means any entity that
facilitates a trade of emission credits
between a buyer and seller.
(4) Buyer means the entity that
receives emission credits as a result of
a trade.
(5) Reserved emission credits means
emission credits you have generated
that we have not yet verified by
reviewing your final report.
(6) Seller means the entity that
provides emission credits during a
trade.
(7) Standard means the emission
standard that applies under subpart B of
this part for vehicles not participating in
the ABT program of this subpart.
(8) Trade means to exchange emission
credits, either as a buyer or seller.
(d) You may not use emission credits
generated under this subpart to offset
any emissions that exceed an FEL or
standard.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(e) [Reserved]
(f) Emission credits may be used in
the model year they are generated.
Surplus emission credits may be used
for past model years or banked for
future model years.
(g) You may increase or decrease an
FEL during the model year by amending
your application for certification under
§ 1037.225. The new FEL may apply
only to vehicles you have not already
introduced into commerce. Each
vehicle’s emission control information
label must include the applicable FELs.
§ 1037.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.
The provisions of this section apply
separately for calculating emission
credits by pollutant.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) For each participating family or
subfamily, calculate positive or negative
emission credits relative to the
otherwise applicable emission standard.
Calculate positive emission credits for a
family or subfamily that has an FEL
below the standard. Calculate negative
emission credits for a family or
subfamily that has an FEL above the
standard. Sum your positive and
negative credits for the model year
before rounding. Round the sum of
emission credits to the nearest
megagram (Mg), using consistent units
throughout the following equations:
(1) For vocational vehicles:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std ¥ FEL) ×
(Payload Tons) × (Volume) × (UL) ×
(10¥6)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific tractor regulatory subcategory
(g/ton-mile).
FEL = the family emission limit for the
vehicle subfamily (g/ton-mile).
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each class in tons (2.85 tons for light
heavy-duty vehicles, 5.6 tons for
medium heavy-duty vehicles, and 19
tons for heavy heavy-duty vehicles).
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the vehicle subfamily.
UL = useful life of the vehicle (110,000 miles
for light heavy-duty vehicles, 185,000
miles for medium heavy-duty vehicles,
and 435,000 miles for heavy heavy-duty
vehicles).
(2) For tractors:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std ¥ FEL) ×
(Payload tons) × (Volume) × (UL) ×
(10¥6)
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific tractor regulatory subcategory
(g/ton-mile).
FEL = the family emission limit for the
vehicle subfamily (g/ton-mile).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each class in tons (12.5 tons for Class 7
and 19 tons for Class 8).
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the vehicle subfamily.
UL = useful life of the tractor (435,000 miles
for Class 8 and 185,000 miles for
Class 7).
(c) As described in § 1037.730,
compliance with the requirements of
this subpart is determined at the end of
the model year based on actual values
for U.S.-directed production volumes.
See § 1037.745 for provisions allowing
you to continue production in cases
where you have (or expect to have) a
negative credit balance at the end of the
year. Do not include any of the
following vehicles to calculate emission
credits:
(1) Vehicles that you do not certify
because they are exempted under
subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR
part 1068.
(2) Exported vehicles.
(3) Vehicles not subject to the
requirements of this part, such as those
excluded under § 1037.5.
(4) Any other vehicles, where we
indicate elsewhere in this part 1037 that
they are not to be included in the
calculations of this subpart.
§ 1037.710
Averaging.
(a) Averaging is the exchange of
emission credits among your vehicle
families. You may average emission
credits only within the same averaging
set.
(b) You may certify one or more
vehicle families to an FEL above the
applicable standard, subject to any
applicable FEL caps and other
provisions in subpart B of this part, if
you show in your application for
certification that your projected balance
of all emission-credit transactions in
that model year is greater than or equal
to zero (or is otherwise allowed by this
part).
(c) If you certify a vehicle family to an
FEL that exceeds the otherwise
applicable standard, you must obtain
enough emission credits to offset the
vehicle family’s deficit by the applicable
due date: The due date for the final
report required in § 1037.730. The
emission credits used to address the
deficit may come from your other
vehicle families that generate emission
credits in the same model year (or from
later model years as specified in
§ 1037.745), from emission credits you
have banked, or from emission credits
you obtain through trading.
§ 1037.715
Banking.
(a) Banking is the retention of surplus
emission credits by the manufacturer
PO 00000
Frm 00247
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74397
generating the emission credits for use
in future model years for averaging or
trading.
(b) You may designate any emission
credits you plan to bank in the reports
you submit under § 1037.730 as
reserved credits. During the model year
and before the due date for the final
report, you may designate your reserved
emission credits for averaging or
trading.
(c) Reserved credits become actual
emission credits when you submit your
final report. However, we may revoke
these emission credits if we are unable
to verify them after reviewing your
reports or auditing your records.
§ 1037.720
Trading.
(a) Trading is the exchange of
emission credits between
manufacturers. You may use traded
emission credits for averaging, banking,
or further trading transactions. Traded
emission credits may be used only
within the averaging set in which they
were generated.
(b) You may trade actual emission
credits as described in this subpart. You
may also trade reserved emission
credits, but we may revoke these
emission credits based on our review of
your records or reports or those of the
company with which you traded
emission credits. You may trade banked
credits within an averaging set to any
certifying manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit
balance results from a transaction, both
the buyer and seller are liable, except in
cases we deem to involve fraud. See
§ 1037.255(e) for cases involving fraud.
We may void the certificates of all
vehicle families participating in a trade
that results in a manufacturer having a
negative balance of emission credits.
See § 1037.745.
§ 1037.725 What must I include in my
application for certification?
(a) You must declare in your
application for certification your intent
to use the provisions of this subpart for
each vehicle family that will be certified
using the ABT program. You must also
declare the FELs you select for the
vehicle family or subfamily for each
pollutant for which you are using the
ABT program. Your FELs must comply
with the specifications of subpart B of
this part, including the FEL caps. FELs
must be expressed to the same number
of decimal places as the applicable
standards.
(b) Include the following in your
application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of
your belief, you will not have a negative
balance of emission credits for any
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74398
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
averaging set when all emission credits
are calculated at the end of the year; or
a statement that you will have a
negative balance of emission credits for
one or more averaging sets but that it is
allowed under § 1037.745.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected
emission credits (positive or negative)
based on projected U.S.-directed
production volumes. We may require
you to include similar calculations from
your other vehicle families to project
your net credit balance for the model
year. If you project negative emission
credits for a family or subfamily, state
the source of positive emission credits
you expect to use to offset the negative
emission credits.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1037.730
ABT reports.
(a) If any of your vehicle families are
certified using the ABT provisions of
this subpart, you must send an end-ofyear report within 90 days after the end
of the model year and a final report
within 270 days after the end of the
model year. We may waive the
requirement to send the end-of year
report, conditioned upon you sending
the final report on time. We will not
waive this requirement where you have
a deficit for that model year or an
outstanding deficit for a prior model
year.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following information
for each vehicle family participating in
the ABT program:
(1) Vehicle-family and subfamily
designations.
(2) The emission standards that would
otherwise apply to the vehicle family.
(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you
change the FEL after the start of
production, identify the date that you
started using the new FEL and/or give
the vehicle identification number for the
first vehicle covered by the new FEL. In
this case, identify each applicable FEL
and calculate the positive or negative
emission credits as specified in
§ 1037.225.
(4) The projected and actual U.S.directed production volumes for the
model year. If you changed an FEL
during the model year, identify the
actual production volume associated
with each FEL.
(5) Useful life.
(6) Calculated positive or negative
emission credits for the whole vehicle
family. Identify any emission credits
that you traded, as described in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(7) If you have a negative credit
balance for the averaging set in the
given model year, specify whether the
vehicle family (or certain subfamilies
with the vehicle family) have a credit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
deficit for the year. Consider for
example, a manufacturer with three
vehicle families (‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’) in a
given averaging set. If family A
generates enough credits to offset the
negative credits of family B but not
enough to also offset the negative credits
of family C (and the manufacturer has
no banked credits in the averaging set),
the manufacturer may designate families
A and B as having no deficit for the
model year, provided it designates
family C as having a deficit for the
model year.
(c) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following additional
information:
(1) Show that your net balance of
emission credits from all your
participating vehicle families in each
averaging set in the applicable model
year is not negative (or is negative but
allowed under § 1037.745).
(2) State whether you will reserve any
emission credits for banking.
(3) State that the report’s contents are
accurate.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you
must send us a report within 90 days
after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the
following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer
and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to
the trade.
(iii) The vehicle families that
generated emission credits for the trade,
including the number of emission
credits from each family.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the
following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller
and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to
the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the
emission credits, including the number
of emission credits you intend to apply
to each vehicle family (if known).
(e) Send your reports electronically to
the Designated Compliance Officer
using an approved information format.
If you want to use a different format,
send us a written request with
justification for a waiver.
(f) Correct errors in your end-of-year
report or final report as follows:
(1) You may correct any errors in your
end-of-year report when you prepare the
final report, as long as you send us the
final report by the time it is due.
(2) If you or we determine within 270
days after the end of the model year that
errors mistakenly decreased your
balance of emission credits, you may
correct the errors and recalculate the
balance of emission credits. You may
not make these corrections for errors
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that are determined more than 270 days
after the end of the model year. If you
report a negative balance of emission
credits, we may disallow corrections
under this paragraph (f)(2).
(3) If you or we determine anytime
that errors mistakenly increased your
balance of emission credits, you must
correct the errors and recalculate the
balance of emission credits.
§ 1037.735
Recordkeeping.
(a) You must organize and maintain
your records as described in this
section. We may review your records at
any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this
section for at least eight years after the
due date for the end-of-year report. You
may not use emission credits for any
vehicles if you do not keep all the
records required under this section. You
must therefore keep these records to
continue to bank valid credits. Store
these records in any format and on any
media, as long as you can promptly
send us organized, written records in
English if we ask for them. You must
keep these records readily available. We
may review them at any time.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we
require in §§ 1037.725 and 1037.730.
(d) Keep records of the vehicle
identification number for each vehicle
you produce that generates or uses
emission credits under the ABT
program. You may identify these
numbers as a range. If you change the
FEL after the start of production,
identify the date you started using each
FEL and the range of vehicle
identification numbers associated with
each FEL. You must also identify the
purchaser and destination for each
vehicle you produce to the extent this
information is available.
(e) We may require you to keep
additional records or to send us relevant
information not required by this section
in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
§ 1037.740 What restrictions apply for
using emission credits?
The following restrictions apply for
using emission credits:
(a) Averaging sets. Emission credits
may be exchanged only within an
averaging set. There are eleven principal
averaging sets for vehicles subject to this
subpart.
(1) Vocational vehicles at or below
19,500 pounds GVWR.
(2) Vocational vehicles above 19,500
pounds GVWR but at or below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(3) Vocational vehicles over 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(4) Low and mid roof day cab tractors
at or above 26,000 pounds GVWR but
below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(5) High roof tractors at or above
26,000 pounds GVWR but below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(6) Low roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(7) Low roof sleeper cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(8) Mid roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(9) Mid roof sleeper cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(10) High roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(11) High roof sleeper cab tractors at
or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(12) Note that other separate averaging
sets also apply for emission credits not
related to this subpart. For example,
under § 1037.104, an additional
averaging set comprises all vehicles
subject to the standards of that section.
Separate averaging sets also apply for
engines under 40 CFR part 1036,
including engines used in vehicles
subject to this subpart.
(b) Emission credits for later tiers of
standards. CO2 credits generated
relative to the standards of this part may
not be used for later tiers of standards,
except that credits generated before
model year 2017 may be used for the
tier of standards that begins in 2017.
(c) Applying credits to prior year
deficits. Where your credit balance for
the prior year is negative (i.e., there was
a credit deficit) you may apply only
credits that are surplus after meeting
your current year credit obligations.
(d) Other restrictions. Other sections
of this part specify additional
restrictions for using emission credits
under certain special provisions.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1037.745
End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
Except as allowed by this section, the
certificate of any vehicle family certified
to an FEL above the applicable standard
for which you do not have sufficient
credits for the model year when you
submit your end-of-year report is void.
(a) Your certificate for a vehicle
family for which you do not have
sufficient CO2 credits will be not be
void if you remedy the deficit with
surplus credits within three model
years. For example, if you have a credit
deficit of 500 Mg for a vehicle family at
the end of model year 2015, you must
generate (or otherwise obtain) a surplus
of at least 500 Mg in that same averaging
set by the end of model year 2018.
(b) You may apply only surplus
credits to your deficit. You may not
apply credits to a prior-year deficit if
they were generated in a model year for
which any of your vehicle families for
that averaging set had an end-of-year
credit deficit.
(c) If you do not remedy the deficit
with surplus credits within three model
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
years, your certificate is void for that
vehicle family. Note that voiding a
certificate applies ab initio (that is,
retroactively). Where the net deficit is
less than the total amount of negative
credits originally generated by the
family, we will void the certificate only
with respect to the number of vehicles
needed to reach the amount of the net
deficit. For example, if the original
vehicle family generated 500 Mg of
negative credits, and the manufacturer’s
net deficit after three years was 250 Mg,
we would void the certificate with
respect to half of the vehicles in the
family.
§ 1037.750 What can happen if I do not
comply with the provisions of this subpart?
(a) For each vehicle family
participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditional
upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and
after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our
satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void
the certificate of conformity for a
vehicle family if you fail to comply with
any provisions of this subpart.
(b) You may certify your vehicle
family or subfamily to an FEL above an
applicable standard based on a
projection that you will have enough
emission credits to offset the deficit for
the vehicle family. However, we may
void the certificate of conformity if you
cannot show in your final report that
you have enough actual emission credits
to offset a deficit for any pollutant in a
vehicle family and the deficit is not
allowed under § 1037.745.
(c) We may void the certificate of
conformity for a vehicle family if you
fail to keep records, send reports, or give
us information we request.
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we
void your certificate under this section
(see § 1037.820).
§ 1037.755 Information provided to the
Department of Transportation.
(a) We may require you to submit a
pre-certification compliance report to us
for the upcoming model year or the year
after the upcoming model year.
(b) After receipt of each
manufacturer’s final report as specified
in § 1037.730 and completion of any
verification testing required to validate
the manufacturer’s submitted final data,
we will issue a report to the Department
of Transportation with CO2 emission
information and will verify the accuracy
of manufacturers’ equivalent fuel
consumption data that is required to be
reported by NHTSA in 49 CFR 535.8.
We will send a report to DOT for each
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74399
vehicle manufacturer based on each
regulatory category and subcategory,
including sufficient information for
NHTSA to determine fuel consumption
and associated credit values. See 49 CFR
535.8 to determine if NHTSA deems
submission of this information to EPA
to also be a submission to NHTSA.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other
Reference Information
§ 1037.801
Definitions.
The following definitions apply to
this part. The definitions apply to all
subparts unless we note otherwise. All
undefined terms have the meaning the
Act gives to them. The definitions
follow:
Act means the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Adjustable parameter means any
device, system, or element of design that
someone can adjust (including those
which are difficult to access) and that,
if adjusted, may affect emissions or
vehicle performance during emission
testing or normal in-use operation. You
may ask us to exclude a parameter that
is difficult to access if it cannot be
adjusted to affect emissions without
significantly degrading vehicle
performance, or if you otherwise show
us that it will not be adjusted in a way
that affects emissions during in-use
operation.
Aftertreatment means relating to a
catalytic converter, particulate filter, or
any other system, component, or
technology mounted downstream of the
exhaust valve (or exhaust port) whose
design function is to decrease emissions
in the vehicle exhaust before it is
exhausted to the environment. Exhaustgas recirculation (EGR) and
turbochargers are not aftertreatment.
Alcohol-fueled vehicle means a
vehicle that is designed to run using an
alcohol fuel. For purposes of this
definition, alcohol fuels do not include
fuels with a nominal alcohol content
below 25 percent by volume.
Auxiliary emission control device
means any element of design that senses
temperature, motive speed, engine RPM,
transmission gear, or any other
parameter for the purpose of activating,
modulating, delaying, or deactivating
the operation of any part of the emission
control system.
Averaging set has the meaning given
in § 1037.701.
B-pillar means the first vertical
structure to the rear of the windshield
or rear-most part of the driver’s seat,
whichever is further to the rear. Note:
The first vertical structure to the rear of
the windshield is generally the structure
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74400
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of the body into which the driver’s door
closes.
Cab-complete vehicle means a vehicle
that is first sold as an incomplete
vehicle that substantially includes its
cab. Vehicles known commercially as
chassis-cabs, cab-chassis, box-deletes,
bed-deletes, cut-away vans are
considered cab-complete vehicles. For
purposes of this definition, a cab
includes a steering column and
passenger compartment. Note a vehicle
lacking some components of the cab is
a cab-complete vehicle if it substantially
includes the cab.
Calibration means the set of
specifications and tolerances specific to
a particular design, version, or
application of a component or assembly
capable of functionally describing its
operation over its working range.
Carbon-related exhaust emissions
(CREE) has the meaning given in 40 CFR
600.002. Note that CREE represents the
combined mass of carbon emitted as HC,
CO, and CO2, expressed as having a
molecular weight equal to that of CO2.
Carryover means relating to
certification based on emission data
generated from an earlier model year.
Certification means relating to the
process of obtaining a certificate of
conformity for a vehicle family that
complies with the emission standards
and requirements in this part.
Certified emission level means the
highest deteriorated emission level in a
vehicle family for a given pollutant from
either transient or steady-state testing.
Class means relating to GVWR
classes, as follows:
(1) Class 2B means heavy-duty motor
vehicles at or below 10,000 pounds
GVWR.
(2) Class 3 means heavy-duty motor
vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR
but at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
(3) Class 4 means heavy-duty motor
vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR
but at or below 16,000 pounds GVWR.
(4) Class 5 means heavy-duty motor
vehicles above 16,000 pounds GVWR
but at or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(5) Class 6 means heavy-duty motor
vehicles above 19,500 pounds GVWR
but at or below 26,000 pounds GVWR.
(6) Class 7 means heavy-duty motor
vehicles above 26,000 pounds GVWR
but at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(7) Class 8 means heavy-duty motor
vehicles above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
Complete vehicle has the meaning
given in the definition of vehicle in this
section.
Compression-ignition means relating
to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Curb weight has the meaning given in
40 CFR 86.1803, consistent with the
provisions of § 1037.140.
Day cab means a type of tractor cab
that is not a sleeper cab.
Designated Compliance Officer means
the Manager, Heavy-Duty and Nonroad
Engine Group (6405–J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
Designated Enforcement Officer
means the Director, Air Enforcement
Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Deteriorated emission level means the
emission level that results from
applying the appropriate deterioration
factor to the official emission result of
the emission-data vehicle. Note that
where no deterioration factor applies,
references in this part to the
deteriorated emission level mean the
official emission result.
Deterioration factor means the
relationship between emissions at the
end of useful life and emissions at the
low-hour test point, expressed in one of
the following ways:
(1) For multiplicative deterioration
factors, the ratio of emissions at the end
of useful life to emissions at the lowhour test point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors,
the difference between emissions at the
end of useful life and emissions at the
low-hour test point.
Electric vehicle means a vehicle that
does not include an engine, and is
powered solely by an external source of
electricity and/or solar power. Note that
this does not include hybrid-electric or
fuel-cell vehicles that use a chemical
fuel such as gasoline, diesel fuel, or
hydrogen. Electric vehicles may also be
referred to as all-electric vehicles to
distinguish them from hybrid-electric
vehicles.
Emission control system means any
device, system, or element of design that
controls or reduces the emissions of
regulated pollutants from a vehicle.
Emission-data vehicle means a
vehicle that is tested for certification.
This includes a vehicle tested to
establish deterioration factors.
Emission-related maintenance means
maintenance that substantially affects
emissions or is likely to substantially
affect emission deterioration.
Excluded means relating to vehicles
that are not subject to some or all of the
requirements of this part as follows:
(1) A vehicle that has been
determined to not be a motor vehicle is
excluded from this part.
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Certain vehicles are excluded from
the requirements of this part under
§ 1037.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of
this part may exclude a vehicle
generally subject to this part from one
or more specific standards or
requirements of this part.
Exempted has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1068.30.
Family emission limit (FEL) means an
emission level declared by the
manufacturer to serve in place of an
otherwise applicable emission standard
under the ABT program in subpart H of
this part. The family emission limit
must be expressed to the same number
of decimal places as the emission
standard it replaces.
Fuel system means all components
involved in transporting, metering, and
mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the
combustion chamber(s), including the
fuel tank, fuel pump, fuel filters, fuel
lines, carburetor or fuel-injection
components, and all fuel-system vents.
It also includes components for
controlling evaporative emissions, such
as fuel caps, purge valves, and carbon
canisters.
Fuel type means a general category of
fuels such as diesel fuel or natural gas.
There can be multiple grades within a
single fuel type, such as high-sulfur or
low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Good engineering judgment has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. See
40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative
process we use to evaluate good
engineering judgment.
Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
means the value specified by the vehicle
manufacturer as the maximum design
loaded weight of a single vehicle,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
Gross combined weight rating (GCWR)
means the value specified by the vehicle
manufacturer as the maximum weight of
a loaded vehicle and trailer, consistent
with good engineering judgment.
Heavy-duty engine means any engine
used for (or for which the engine
manufacturer could reasonably expect
to be used for) motive power in a heavyduty vehicle.
Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor
vehicle above 8,500 pounds GVWR or
that has a vehicle curb weight above
6,000 pounds or that has a basic vehicle
frontal area greater than 45 square feet.
Hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain
means an engine or powertrain that
includes energy storage features other
than a conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel. Supplemental
electrical batteries and hydraulic
accumulators are examples of hybrid
energy storage systems Note that certain
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
provisions in this part treat hybrid
engines and powertrains intended for
vehicles that include regenerative
braking different than those intended for
vehicles that do not include
regenerative braking.
Hybrid vehicle means a vehicle that
includes energy storage features (other
than a conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel) in addition to an
internal combustion engine or other
engine using consumable chemical fuel.
Supplemental electrical batteries and
hydraulic accumulators are examples of
hybrid energy storage systems Note that
certain provisions in this part treat
hybrid vehicles that include
regenerative braking different than those
that do not include regenerative braking.
Hydrocarbon (HC) means the
hydrocarbon group on which the
emission standards are based for each
fuel type. For alcohol-fueled vehicles,
HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent (NMHCE) for exhaust
emissions and total hydrocarbon
equivalent (THCE) for evaporative
emissions. For all other vehicles, HC
means nonmethane hydrocarbon
(NMHC) for exhaust emissions and total
hydrocarbon (THC) for evaporative
emissions.
Identification number means a unique
specification (for example, a model
number/serial number combination)
that allows someone to distinguish a
particular vehicle from other similar
vehicles.
Incomplete vehicle has the meaning
given in the definition of vehicle in this
section.
Light-duty truck means any motor
vehicle rated at or below 8,500 pounds
GVWR with a curb weight at or below
6,000 pounds and basic vehicle frontal
area at or below 45 square feet, which
is:
(1) Designed primarily for purposes of
transportation of property or is a
derivation of such a vehicle; or
(2) Designed primarily for
transportation of persons and has a
capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(3) Available with special features
enabling off-street or off-highway
operation and use.
Light-duty vehicle means a passenger
car or passenger car derivative capable
of seating 12 or fewer passengers.
Low-mileage means relating to a
vehicle with stabilized emissions and
represents the undeteriorated emission
level. This would generally involve
approximately 4000 miles of operation.
Manufacture means the physical and
engineering process of designing,
constructing, and assembling a vehicle.
Manufacturer has the meaning given
in section 216(1) of the Act. In general,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
this term includes any person who
manufactures a vehicle or vehicle for
sale in the United States or otherwise
introduces a new motor vehicle into
commerce in the United States. This
includes importers who import vehicles
or vehicles for resale.
Model year means the manufacturer’s
annual new model production period,
except as restricted under this definition
and 40 CFR part 85, subpart X. It must
include January 1 of the calendar year
for which the model year is named, may
not begin before January 2 of the
previous calendar year, and it must end
by December 31 of the named calendar
year. Use the date on which a vehicle is
shipped from the factory in which you
finish your assembly process as the date
of manufacture for determining your
model year. For example, where a
certificate holder sells a cab-complete
vehicle to a secondary vehicle
manufacturer, the model year is based
on the date the vehicle leaves the
factory as a cab-complete vehicle.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 85.1703.
New motor vehicle means a motor
vehicle meeting the criteria of either
paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.
New motor vehicles may be complete or
incomplete.
(1) A motor vehicle for which the
ultimate purchaser has never received
the equitable or legal title is a new motor
vehicle. This kind of vehicle might
commonly be thought of as ‘‘brand new’’
although a new motor vehicle may
include previously used parts. Under
this definition, the vehicle is new from
the time it is produced until the
ultimate purchaser receives the title or
places it into service, whichever comes
first.
(2) An imported heavy-duty motor
vehicle originally produced after the
1969 model year is a new motor vehicle.
Noncompliant vehicle means a
vehicle that was originally covered by a
certificate of conformity, but is not in
the certified configuration or otherwise
does not comply with the conditions of
the certificate.
Nonconforming vehicle means a
vehicle not covered by a certificate of
conformity that would otherwise be
subject to emission standards.
Nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC)
means the sum of all hydrocarbon
species except methane, as measured
according to 40 CFR part 1065.
Official emission result means the
measured emission rate for an emissiondata vehicle on a given duty cycle
before the application of any required
deterioration factor, but after the
applicability of regeneration adjustment
factors.
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74401
Owners manual means a document or
collection of documents prepared by the
vehicle manufacturer for the owners or
operators to describe appropriate
vehicle maintenance, applicable
warranties, and any other information
related to operating or keeping the
vehicle. The owners manual is typically
provided to the ultimate purchaser at
the time of sale.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Particulate trap means a filtering
device that is designed to physically
trap all particulate matter above a
certain size.
Placed into service means put into
initial use for its intended purpose.
Power take-off (PTO) means a
secondary engine shaft or other system
on a vehicle that provides substantial
auxiliary power for purposes unrelated
to vehicle propulsion or normal vehicle
accessories such as air conditioning,
power steering, and basic electrical
accessories. A typical PTO uses a
secondary shaft on the engine to
transmit power to a hydraulic pump
that powers auxiliary equipment such as
a boom on a bucket truck.
Regulatory sub-category means one of
following groups:
(1) Spark-ignition vehicles subject to
the standards of § 1037.104. Note that
this category includes most gasolinefueled heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans.
(2) All other vehicles subject to the
standards of § 1037.104. Note that this
category includes most diesel-fueled
heavy-duty pickup trucks and van.
(3) Vocational vehicles at or below
19,500 pounds GVWR.
(4) Vocational vehicles at or above
19,500 pounds GVWR but below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(5) Vocational vehicles over 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(6) Low and mid roof day cab tractors
at or above 26,000 pounds GVWR but
below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(7) High roof tractors at or above
26,000 pounds GVWR but below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(8) Low roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(9) Low roof sleeper cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(10) Mid roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(11) Mid roof sleeper cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(12) High roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(13) High roof sleeper cab tractors at
or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
Relating to as used in this section
means relating to something in a
specific, direct manner. This expression
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74402
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
is used in this section only to define
terms as adjectives and not to broaden
the meaning of the terms.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30.
Roof height means the maximum
height of a vehicle (rounded to the
nearest inch), excluding narrow
accessories such as exhaust pipes and
antennas, but including any wide
accessories such as roof fairings.
Measure roof height of the vehicle
configured to have its maximum height
that will occur during actual use, with
properly inflated tires and no driver,
passengers, or cargo onboard. Roof
height may also refer to the following
categories:
(1) Low roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 120 inches
or less.
(2) Mid roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 121 to 147
inches.
(3) High roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 148 inches
or more.
Round has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1065.1001.
Scheduled maintenance means
adjusting, repairing, removing,
disassembling, cleaning, or replacing
components or systems periodically to
keep a part or system from failing,
malfunctioning, or wearing prematurely.
It also may mean actions you expect are
necessary to correct an overt indication
of failure or malfunction for which
periodic maintenance is not
appropriate.
Sleeper cab means a type of tractor
cab that has a compartment behind the
driver’s seat intended to be used by the
driver for sleeping. This includes cabs
accessible from the driver’s
compartment and those accessible from
outside the vehicle.
Small manufacturer means a
manufacturer meeting the criteria
specified in 13 CFR 121.201. For
manufacturers owned by a parent
company, the production limit applies
to the production of the parent company
and all its subsidiaries and the
employee limit applies to the total
number of employees of the parent
company and all its subsidiaries.
Spark-ignition means relating to a
gasoline-fueled engine or any other type
of engine with a spark plug (or other
sparking device) and with operating
characteristics significantly similar to
the theoretical Otto combustion cycle.
Spark-ignition engines usually use a
throttle to regulate intake air flow to
control power during normal operation.
Standard trailer has the meaning
given in § 1037.501.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Suspend has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30.
Test sample means the collection of
vehicles selected from the population of
a vehicle family for emission testing.
This may include testing for
certification, production-line testing, or
in-use testing.
Test vehicle means a vehicle in a test
sample.
Total hydrocarbon has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This
generally means the combined mass of
organic compounds measured by the
specified procedure for measuring total
hydrocarbon, expressed as a
hydrocarbon with an atomic hydrogento-carbon ratio of 1.85:1.
Total hydrocarbon equivalent has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
This generally means the sum of the
carbon mass contributions of nonoxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and
aldehydes, or other organic compounds
that are measured separately as
contained in a gas sample, expressed as
exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleumfueled vehicles. The atomic hydrogento-carbon ratio of the equivalent
hydrocarbon is 1.85:1.
Tractor means a vehicle capable of
pulling trailers that is not intended to
carry significant cargo other than cargo
in the trailer, or any other vehicle
intended for the primary purpose of
pulling a trailer. For purposes of this
definition, the term ‘‘cargo’’ includes
permanently attached equipment such
as fire-fighting equipment.
(1) The following vehicles are tractors:
(i) Any vehicle sold to an ultimate
purchaser with a fifth wheel coupling
installed.
(ii) Any vehicle sold to an ultimate
purchaser with the rear portion of the
frame exposed where the length of the
exposed portion is 5.0 meters or less.
See § 1037.620 for special provisions
related to vehicles sold to secondary
vehicle manufacturers in this condition.
(2) The following vehicles are not
tractors:
(i) Any vehicle sold to an ultimate
purchaser with an installed cargocarrying feature. For example, this
would include dump trucks and cement
trucks.
(ii) Any vehicle lacking a fifth wheel
coupling sold to an ultimate purchaser
with the rear portion of the frame
exposed where the length of the
exposed portion is more than 5.0
meters.
Ultimate purchaser means, with
respect to any new vehicle, the first
person who in good faith purchases
such new vehicle for purposes other
than resale.
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
United States has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Upcoming model year means for a
vehicle family the model year after the
one currently in production.
U.S.-directed production volume
means the number of vehicle units,
subject to the requirements of this part,
produced by a manufacturer for which
the manufacturer has a reasonable
assurance that sale was or will be made
to ultimate purchasers in the United
States This does not include vehicles
certified to State emission standards
that are different than the emission
standards in this part.
Useful life means the period during
which a vehicle is required to comply
with all applicable emission standards.
Vehicle means equipment intended
for use on highways that meets the
criteria of paragraph (1)(i) or (ii) of this
definition, as follows:
(1) The following equipment are
vehicles:
(i) A piece of equipment that is
intended for self-propelled use on
highways becomes a vehicle when it
includes at least an engine, a
transmission, and a frame. (Note: For
purposes of this definition, any
electrical, mechanical, and/or hydraulic
devices attached to engines for the
purpose of powering wheels are
considered to be transmissions.)
(ii) A piece of equipment that is
intended for self-propelled use on
highways becomes a vehicle when it
includes a passenger compartment
attached to a frame with axles.
(2) Vehicles may be complete or
incomplete vehicles as follows:
(i) A complete vehicle is a functioning
vehicle that has the primary load
carrying device or container (or
equivalent equipment) attached or a
fully functional vehicle that is designed
to pull a trailer.
(ii) An incomplete vehicle is a vehicle
that is not a complete vehicle when it
is first sold as a vehicle. This includes
sales to secondary vehicle
manufacturers. Incomplete vehicles may
also be cab-complete vehicles.
(3) Equipment such as trailers that are
not self-propelled are not ‘‘vehicles’’
under this part 1037, but may be
considered part of a ‘‘motor vehicle’’.
Vehicle configuration means a unique
combination of vehicle hardware and
calibration within a vehicle family.
Vehicles within a vehicle configuration
differ only with respect to normal
production variability or factors
unrelated to emissions.
Vehicle family has the meaning given
in § 1037.230.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Vehicle subfamily or subfamily means
a subset of a vehicle family including
vehicles subject to the same FEL(s).
Vocational means relating to a vehicle
subject to the standards of § 1037.105.
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel
other than diesel or biodiesel that is a
liquid at atmospheric pressure and has
a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 2.0
pounds per square inch.
We (us, our) means the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
and any authorized representatives.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1037.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
The following symbols, acronyms,
and abbreviations apply to this part:
AECD auxiliary emission control
device
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CREE carbon-related exhaust
emissions
DF deterioration factor
DOT Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEL Family Emission Limit
G grams
HC hydrocarbon
ISO International Organization for
Standardization
Kg kilograms
M meter
mph miles per hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NARA National Archives and Records
Administration
NHTSA National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration
NIST National Institute of Standards
and Technology
NMHC nonmethane hydrocarbons
NMHCE nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent
NOX oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2)
NTE not-to-exceed
PM particulate matter
RBM resisting bending moment
RGWP relative global-warming
potential
Rpm revolutions per minute
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SEA Selective enforcement audit
THC total hydrocarbon
THCE total hydrocarbon equivalent
TRU transportation refrigeration unit
U.S.C. United States Code
VIN vehicle identification number
WF work factor
§ 1037.810
Incorporation by reference.
(a) The documents referenced in this
section have been incorporated by
reference in this part. The incorporation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. Copies may be inspected
at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, phone (202)
272–0167, or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202–741–
6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html and is available from
the sources listed below:
(b) ISO Material. This paragraph (b)
lists material from the International
Organization for Standardization that
we have incorporated by reference.
Anyone may purchase copies of these
materials from the International
Organization for Standardization, Case
Postale 56, CH–1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland or https://www.iso.org.
(1) ISO/DIS–28580:2009 ‘‘INSERT
TRR TITLE’’; IBR approved for
§ 1037.520.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) GEM Model. EPA has published
the GEM computer model. The
computer code for this model is
available as noted in paragraph (a) of
this section. A working version of this
software is also available for download
at www.epa.gov. This IBR is approved
for § 1037.520.
§ 1037.815 What provisions apply to
confidential information?
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10
apply for information you consider
confidential.
§ 1037.820
Requesting a hearing.
(a) You may request a hearing under
certain circumstances, as described
elsewhere in this part. To do this, you
must file a written request, including a
description of your objection and any
supporting data, within 30 days after we
make a decision.
(b) For a hearing you request under
the provisions of this part, we will
approve your request if we find that
your request raises a substantial factual
issue.
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we
will use the procedures specified in 40
CFR part 1068, subpart G.
§ 1037.825 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) This part includes various
requirements to submit and record data
or other information. Unless we specify
otherwise, store required records in any
format and on any media and keep them
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74403
readily available for eight years after
you send an associated application for
certification, or eight years after you
generate the data if they do not support
an application for certification. You may
not rely on anyone else to meet
recordkeeping requirements on your
behalf unless we specifically authorize
it. We may review these records at any
time. You must promptly send us
organized, written records in English if
we ask for them. We may require you to
submit written records in an electronic
format.
(b) The regulations in § 1037.255, 40
CFR 1068.25, and 40 CFR 1068.101
describe your obligation to report
truthful and complete information. This
includes information not related to
certification. Failing to properly report
information and keep the records we
specify violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2),
which may involve civil or criminal
penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for
approval to the Designated Compliance
Officer (see § 1037.801).
(d) Any written information we
require you to send to or receive from
another company is deemed to be a
required record under this section. Such
records are also deemed to be
submissions to EPA. Keep these records
for eight years unless the regulations
specify a different period. We may
require you to send us these records
whether or not you are a certificate
holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office
of Management and Budget approves
the reporting and recordkeeping
specified in the applicable regulations.
The following items illustrate the kind
of reporting and recordkeeping we
require for vehicles regulated under this
part:
(1) We specify the following
requirements related to vehicle
certification in this part 1037:
(i) In subpart C of this part we identify
a wide range of information required to
certify vehicles.
(ii) In subpart G of this part we
identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making
demonstrations and getting approval
related to various special compliance
provisions. For example, equipment
manufacturers must submit reports and
keep records related to the flexibility
provisions in § 1037.625.
(iii) In § 1037.725, 1037.730, and
1037.735 we specify certain records
related to averaging, banking, and
trading.
(2) We specify the following
requirements related to testing in 40
CFR part 1066:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74404
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(i) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an
overview of principles for reporting
information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we
specify information needs for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
establishing various changes to
published test procedures.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish
basic guidelines for storing test
information.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify
data that may be appropriate for
PO 00000
Frm 00254
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
collecting during testing of in-use
vehicles using portable analyzers.
Appendix I to Part 1037—Heavy-Duty
Transient Chassis Test Cycle
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00255
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74405
ep30NO10.110
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00256
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
ep30NO10.111
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74406
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00257
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74407
ep30NO10.112
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00258
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
ep30NO10.113
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74408
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00259
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74409
ep30NO10.114
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00260
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
ep30NO10.115
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74410
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00261
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74411
ep30NO10.116
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Appendix II to Part 1037—Power TakeOff Test Cycle
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00262
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
ep30NO10.117
74412
PART 1065—ENGINE-TESTING
PROCEDURES
11. The authority citation for part
1065 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Subpart A—[Amended]
12. Section 1065.1 is amended by
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 1065.1
*
PO 00000
*
Applicability.
*
Frm 00263
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
74413
(h) 40 CFR part 1066 describes how to
measure emissions vehicles that are
subject to standards in g/mile or g/
kilometer. Those vehicle testing
provisions extensively reference
portions of this part 1065. See 40 CFR
part 1066 and the standard-setting part
for additional information.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.118
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Subpart K—[Amended]
§ 1065.1005 Symbols, abbreviations,
acronyms, and units of measure.
13. Section 1065.1005 is amended by
revising paragraph (f)(2) to read as
follows:
*
*
1066.135 Speed verification procedure.
1066.140 Torque transducer verification
and calibration.
1066.145 Response time verification.
1066.150 Base inertia verification.
1066.155 Parasitic loss verification.
1066.160 Parasitic friction compensation
evaluation.
1066.165 Acceleration and deceleration
verification.
1066.170 Unloaded coastdown verification.
1066.180 Driver’s aid.
*
*
*
*
14. A new part 1066 is added to
subchapter U to read as follows:
PART 1066—VEHICLE-TESTING
PROCEDURES
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Subpart A—Applicability and General
Provisions
Sec.
1066.1 Applicability.
1066.2 Submitting information to EPA
under this part.
1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its
relationship to the standard-setting part.
1066.10 Other procedures.
1066.15 Overview of test procedures.
1066.20 Units of measure and overview of
calculations.
1066.25 Recordkeeping.
Subpart B—Equipment, Fuel, and Gas
Specifications
1066.101 Overview.
1066.110 Dynamometers.
1066.115 Summary of verification and
calibration procedures for chassis
dynamometers.
1066.120 Linearity verification.
1066.125 Roll runout and diameter
verification procedure.
1066.130 Time verification procedure.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
*
*
(f) * * *
*
*
Subpart C—Coastdown
1066.201 Overview of coastdown
procedures.
1066.210 Coastdown procedures for heavyduty vehicles.
Subpart D—Vehicle Preparation and
Running a Test
1066.301 Overview.
1066.304 Road load power and test weight
determination.
1066.307 Vehicle preparation and
preconditioning.
1066.310 Dynamometer test procedure.
1066.320 Pre-test verification procedures
and pre-test data collection.
1066.325 Engine starting and restarting.
1066.330 Performing emission tests.
PO 00000
Frm 00264
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) This part uses the following molar
masses or effective molar masses of
chemical species:
Subpart E—Hybrids
1066.401 Overview.
Subpart F—[Reserved]
Subpart G—Calculations
1066.601 Overview.
1066.610 Mass-based and molar-based
exhaust emission calculations.
Subpart H—Definitions and Other
Reference Material
1066.701 Definitions.
1066.705 Symbols, abbreviations,
acronyms, and units of measure.
1066.710 Reference materials.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart A—Applicability and General
Provisions
§ 1066.1
Applicability.
(a) This part describes the procedures
that apply to testing we require for the
following vehicles:
(1) Model year 2014 and later heavyduty highway vehicles we regulate
under 40 CFR part 1037.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The procedures of this part may
apply to other types of vehicles, as
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.119
74414
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
described in this part and in the
standard-setting part.
(c) The term ‘‘you’’ means anyone
performing testing under this part other
than EPA.
(1) This part is addressed primarily to
manufacturers of vehicles, but it applies
equally to anyone who does testing
under this part for such manufacturers.
(2) This part applies to any
manufacturer or supplier of test
equipment, instruments, supplies, or
any other goods or services related to
the procedures, requirements,
recommendations, or options in this
part.
(d) Paragraph (a) of this section
identifies the parts of the CFR that
define emission standards and other
requirements for particular types of
vehicles. In this part, we refer to each
of these other parts generically as the
‘‘standard-setting part.’’ For example, 40
CFR part 1037 is the standard-setting
part for heavy-duty highway vehicles.
(e) Unless we specify otherwise, the
terms ‘‘procedures’’ and ‘‘test
procedures’’ in this part include all
aspects of vehicle testing, including the
equipment specifications, calibrations,
calculations, and other protocols and
procedural specifications needed to
measure emissions.
(f) For additional information
regarding these test procedures, visit our
Web site at https://www.epa.gov, and in
particular https://www.epa.gov/nvfel/
testing/regulations.htm.
§ 1066.2 Submitting information to EPA
under this part.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) You are responsible for statements
and information in your applications for
certification, requests for approved
procedures, selective enforcement
audits, laboratory audits, productionline test reports, field test reports, or any
other statements you make to us related
to this part 1066. If you provide
statements or information to someone
for submission to EPA, you are
responsible for these statements and
information as if you had submitted
them to EPA yourself.
(b) In the standard-setting part and in
40 CFR 1068.101, we describe your
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
obligation to report truthful and
complete information and the
consequences of failing to meet this
obligation. See also 18 U.S.C. 1001 and
42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2). This obligation
applies whether you submit this
information directly to EPA or through
someone else.
(c) We may void any certificates or
approvals associated with a submission
of information if we find that you
intentionally submitted false,
incomplete, or misleading information.
For example, if we find that you
intentionally submitted incomplete
information to mislead EPA when
requesting approval to use alternate test
procedures, we may void the certificates
for all engine families certified based on
emission data collected using the
alternate procedures. This would also
apply if you ignore data from
incomplete tests or from repeat tests
with higher emission results.
(d) We may require an authorized
representative of your company to
approve and sign the submission, and to
certify that all of the information
submitted is accurate and complete.
This includes everyone who submits
information, including manufacturers
and others.
(e) See 40 CFR 1068.10 for provisions
related to confidential information. Note
however that under 40 CFR 2.301,
emission data is generally not eligible
for confidential treatment.
(f) Nothing in this part should be
interpreted to limit our ability under
Clean Air Act section 208 (42 U.S.C.
7542) to verify that vehicles conform to
the regulations.
§ 1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its
relationship to the standard-setting part.
(a) This part specifies procedures that
can apply generally to testing various
categories of vehicles. See the standardsetting part for directions in applying
specific provisions in this part for a
particular type of vehicle. Before using
this part’s procedures, read the
standard-setting part to answer at least
the following questions:
(1) What drive schedules must I use
for testing?
PO 00000
Frm 00265
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74415
(2) Should I warm up the test vehicle
before measuring emissions, or do I
need to measure cold-start emissions
during a warm-up segment of the duty
cycle?
(3) Which exhaust constituents do I
need to measure? Measure all exhaust
constituents that are subject to emission
standards, any other exhaust
constituents needed for calculating
emission rates, and any additional
exhaust constituents as specified in the
standard-setting part. We may approve
your request to omit measurement of
N2O and CH4 for a vehicle, provided it
is not subject to an N2O or CH4 emission
standard and we determine that other
information is available to give us a
reasonable basis for estimating or
approximating the vehicle’s emission
rates.
(4) Do any unique specifications
apply for test fuels?
(5) What maintenance steps may I
take before or between tests on an
emission-data vehicle?
(6) Do any unique requirements apply
to stabilizing emission levels on a new
vehicle?
(7) Do any unique requirements apply
to test limits, such as ambient
temperatures or pressures?
(8) Is field testing required or allowed,
and are there different emission
standards or procedures that apply to
field testing?
(9) Are there any emission standards
specified at particular operating
conditions or ambient conditions?
(10) Do any unique requirements
apply for durability testing?
(b) The testing specifications in the
standard-setting part may differ from the
specifications in this part. In cases
where it is not possible to comply with
both the standard-setting part and this
part, you must comply with the
specifications in the standard-setting
part. The standard-setting part may also
allow you to deviate from the
procedures of this part for other reasons.
(c) The following table shows how
this part divides testing specifications
into subparts:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74416
Other procedures.
§ 1066.15
(a) Your testing. The procedures in
this part apply for all testing you do to
show compliance with emission
standards, with certain exceptions listed
in this section. In some other sections in
this part, we allow you to use other
procedures (such as less precise or less
accurate procedures) if they do not
affect your ability to show that your
vehicles comply with the applicable
emission standards. This generally
requires emission levels to be far
enough below the applicable emission
standards so that any errors caused by
greater imprecision or inaccuracy do not
affect your ability to state
unconditionally that the engines meet
all applicable emission standards.
(b) Our testing. These procedures
generally apply for testing that we do to
determine if your vehicles comply with
applicable emission standards. We may
perform other testing as allowed by the
Act.
(c) Exceptions. We may allow or
require you to use procedures other than
those specified in this part in the
following cases, which may apply to
laboratory testing, field testing, or both.
We intend to publicly announce when
we allow or require such exceptions.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.10(c)
apply for testing under this part. All of
the test procedures noted there as
exceptions to the specified procedures
are considered generically as ‘‘other
procedures.’’ Note that the terms
‘‘special procedures’’ and ‘‘alternate
procedures’’ have specific meanings;
‘‘special procedures’’ are those allowed
by 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(2) and ‘‘alternate
procedures’’ are those allowed by 40
CFR 1065.10(c)(7). If we require you to
request approval to use other
procedures under this paragraph (c),
you may not use them until we approve
your request.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Overview of test procedures.
This section outlines the procedures
to test vehicles that are subject to
emission standards.
(a) In the standard-setting part, we set
emission standards in g/mile (or g/km),
for the following constituents:
(1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX.
(2) Hydrocarbons (HC), which may be
expressed in the following ways:
(i) Total hydrocarbons, THC.
(ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons,
NMHC, which results from subtracting
methane (CH4) from THC.
(iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent,
THCE, which results from adjusting
THC mathematically to be equivalent on
a carbon-mass basis.
(iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbonequivalent, NMHCE, which results from
adjusting NMHC mathematically to be
equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
(3) Particulate mass, PM.
(4) Carbon monoxide, CO.
(b) Note that some vehicles may not
be subject to standards for all the
emission constituents identified in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) We generally set emission
standards over test intervals and/or
drive schedules, as follows:
(1) Vehicle operation. Testing may
involve measuring emissions and miles
travelled in a laboratory-type
environment or in the field. The
standard-setting part specifies how test
intervals are defined for field testing.
Refer to the definitions of ‘‘duty cycle’’
and ‘‘test interval’’ in § 1066.701. Note
that a single drive schedule may have
multiple test intervals and require
weighting of results from multiple test
phases to calculate a composite
distance-based emission value to
compare to the standard.
(2) Constituent determination.
Determine the total mass of each
constituent over a test interval by
selecting from the following methods:
(i) Continuous sampling. In
continuous sampling, measure the
PO 00000
Frm 00266
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
constituent’s concentration
continuously from raw or dilute
exhaust. Multiply this concentration by
the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate
at the emission sampling location to
determine the constituent’s flow rate.
Sum the constituent’s flow rate
continuously over the test interval. This
sum is the total mass of the emitted
constituent.
(ii) Batch sampling. In batch
sampling, continuously extract and
store a sample of raw or dilute exhaust
for later measurement. Extract a sample
proportional to the raw or dilute
exhaust flow rate, as applicable. You
may extract and store a proportional
sample of exhaust in an appropriate
container, such as a bag, and then
measure HC, CO, and NOX
concentrations in the container after the
test phase. You may deposit PM from
proportionally extracted exhaust onto
an appropriate substrate, such as a filter.
In this case, divide the PM by the
amount of filtered exhaust to calculate
the PM concentration. Multiply batch
sampled concentrations by the total
(raw or dilute) flow from which it was
extracted during the test interval. This
product is the total mass of the emitted
constituent.
(iii) Combined sampling. You may use
continuous and batch sampling
simultaneously during a test interval, as
follows:
(A) You may use continuous sampling
for some constituents and batch
sampling for others.
(B) You may use continuous and
batch sampling for a single constituent,
with one being a redundant
measurement, subject to the provisions
of 40 CFR 1065.201.
(d) Refer to the standard-setting part
for calculations to determine g/mile
emission rates.
(e) The regulation highlights several
specific cases where good engineering
judgment is especially relevant. You
must use good engineering judgment for
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.120
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1066.10
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
all aspects of testing under this part, not
only for those provisions where we
specifically re-state this requirement.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1066.20 Units of measure and overview
of calculations.
(a) System of units. The procedures in
this part follows both conventional
English Units and the International
System of Units (SI), as detailed in NIST
Special Publication 811, 1995 Edition,
‘‘Guide for the Use of the International
System of Units (SI),’’ which we
incorporate by reference in § 1066.710.
This document is available on the
Internet at https://www.nist.gov/physlab/
pubs/sp811.
(b) Units conversion. Use good
engineering judgment to convert units
between measurement systems as
needed. The following conventions are
used throughout this document and
should be used to convert units as
applicable:
(1) 1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf/min = 550
ft·lbf/s = 0.7457 kW.
(2) 1 lbf = 32.174 ft·lbm/s2 = 4.4482
N.
(3) 1 inch = 25.4 mm.
(c) Rounding. Unless the standardsetting part specifies otherwise, round
only final values, not intermediate
values. Round values to the number of
significant digits necessary to match the
number of decimal places of the
applicable standard or specification. For
information not related to standards or
specifications, use good engineering
judgment to record the appropriate
number of significant digits.
(d) Interpretation of ranges. Interpret
a range as a tolerance unless we
explicitly identify it as an accuracy,
repeatability, linearity, or noise
specification. See 40 CFR 1065.1001 for
the definition of tolerance. In this part,
we specify two types of ranges:
(1) Whenever we specify a range by a
single value and corresponding limit
values above and below that value,
target any associated control point to
that single value. Examples of this type
of range include ‘‘± 10% of maximum
pressure’’, or ‘‘(30 ± 10) kPa’’.
(2) Whenever we specify a range by
the interval between two values, you
may target any associated control point
to any value within that range. An
example of this type of range is ‘‘(40 to
50) kPa’’.
(e) Scaling of specifications with
respect to an applicable standard.
Because this part 1066 is applicable to
a wide range of vehicles and emission
standards, some of the specifications in
this part are scaled with respect to a
vehicle’s applicable standard or weight.
This ensures that the specification will
be adequate to determine compliance,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
but not overly burdensome by requiring
unnecessarily high-precision
equipment. Many of these specifications
are given with respect to a ‘‘flowweighted mean’’ that is expected at the
standard or during testing. Flowweighted mean is the mean of a quantity
after it is weighted proportional to a
corresponding flow rate. For example, if
a gas concentration is measured
continuously from the raw exhaust of an
engine, its flow-weighted mean
concentration is the sum of the products
of each recorded concentration times its
respective exhaust flow rate, divided by
the sum of the recorded flow rates. As
another example, the bag concentration
from a CVS system is the same as the
flow-weighted mean concentration,
because the CVS system itself flowweights the bag concentration. Refer to
40 CFR 1065.602 for information needed
to estimate and calculate flow-weighted
means.
§ 1066.25
Recordkeeping.
The procedures in this part include
various requirements to record data or
other information. Refer to the standardsetting part regarding recordkeeping
requirements. If the standard-setting
part does not specify recordkeeping
requirements, store these records in any
format and on any media and keep them
readily available for one year after you
send an associated application for
certification, or one year after you
generate the data if they do not support
an application for certification. You
must promptly send us organized,
written records in English if we ask for
them. We may review them at any time.
Subpart B—Equipment, Fuel, and Gas
Specifications
§ 1066.101
Overview.
(a) This subpart addresses equipment
related to emission testing, as well as
test fuels and analytical gases. This
section addresses emission sampling
and analytical equipment, test fuels, and
analytical gases. The remainder of this
subpart addresses chassis
dynamometers and related equipment.
(b) The provisions of 40 CFR part
1065 specify engine-based procedures
for measuring emissions. Except as
specified otherwise in this part, the
provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for
testing required by this part as follows:
(1) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.140
through 1065.195 specify equipment for
exhaust dilution and sampling systems.
(2) The provisions of 40 CFR part
1065, subparts C and D, specify
measurement instruments and their
calibrations.
PO 00000
Frm 00267
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74417
(3) The provisions of 40 CFR part
1065, subpart H, specify fuels, engine
fluids, and analytical gases.
(4) The provisions of 40 CFR part
1065, subpart J, describe how to
measure emissions from vehicles
operating outside of a laboratory, except
that provisions related to measuring
engine work do not apply.
(c) The provisions of this subpart are
intended to specify systems that can
very accurately and precisely measure
emissions from motor vehicles. We may
waive or modify the specifications and
requirements of this part for testing
highway motorcycles or nonroad
vehicles, consistent with good
engineering judgment. For example, it
may be appropriate to allow the use of
a hydrokinetic dynamometer that is not
able to meet all the performance
specifications described in this subpart.
§ 1066.110
Dynamometers.
(a) General requirements. A chassis
dynamometer typically uses electrically
generated load forces combined with the
rotational inertia of the dynamometer to
recreate the mechanical inertia and
frictional forces that a vehicle exerts on
road surfaces (known as ‘‘road load’’).
Load forces are calculated using vehiclespecific coefficients and response
characteristics. The load forces are
applied to the vehicle tires by rolls
connected to intermediate motor/
absorbers. The dynamometer uses a load
cell to measure the forces the
dynamometer rolls apply to the
vehicle’s tires.
(b) Accuracy and precision. The
dynamometer’s output values for road
load must be NIST-traceable. We may
determine traceability to a specific
international standards organization to
be sufficient to demonstrate NISTtraceability. The force-measurement
system must be capable of indicating
force readings to a resolution of 0.1% of
the maximum forces simulated by the
dynamometer during a test.
(c) Test cycles. The dynamometer
must be capable of fully simulating
applicable test cycles for the vehicles
being tested as referenced in the
corresponding standard-setting part.
(1) For light-duty vehicles and for
heavy-duty vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) at or below
14,000 lbs, the dynamometer must be
able to fully simulate a driving schedule
with a maximum speed of 80.3 mph and
a maximum acceleration rate of 8.0
mph/s in two-wheel drive and fourwheel drive configurations.
(2) For heavy-duty vehicles with
GVWR above 14,000 lbs, the
dynamometer must be able to fully
simulate a driving schedule with a
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74418
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
diameter must be 1.20 to 1.25 meters
(this is commonly referred to as a
48-inch roll dynamometer).
(2) For heavy-duty vehicles with
GVWR above 14,000 lbs, the nominal
roll diameter must be at least 1.20
meters and no great than 1.85 meters.
Use good engineering judgment to
ensure that the dynamometer roll
diameter is large enough to provide
sufficient tire-roll contact area for
avoiding tire overheating and power
losses from tire-roll slippage.
(3) If you measure force and speed at
10 Hz or faster, you may use good
engineering judgment to convert those
measurements to 1-Hz, 2-Hz, or 5-Hz
values.
(4) The load applied by the
dynamometer simulates forces acting on
the vehicle during normal driving
according to the following equation:
Where:
FR = total road load force to be applied at the
surface of the roll. The total force is the
sum of the individual tractive forces
applied at each roll surface.
i = a counter to indicate a point in time over
the driving schedule. For a dynamometer
operating at 10-Hz intervals over a 600second driving schedule, the maximum
value of i is 6,000.
A = constant value representing the vehicle’s
frictional load in lbf or newtons. See
subpart C of this part.
B = coefficient representing load from drag
and rolling resistance, which are a
function of vehicle speed, in lbf/mph or
newtons/kph. See subpart C of this part.
S = linear speed at the roll surfaces as
measured by the dynamometer, in mph
or kph. Let Si¥1 = 0.
C = coefficient representing aerodynamic
effects, which are a function of vehicle
speed squared, in lbf/mph2 or newton/
kph2. See subpart C of this part.
M = mass of vehicle in lbm or kg. Determine
the vehicle’s mass based on the test
weight, taking into account the effect of
rotating axles, as specified in § 1066.304
dividing the weight by the acceleration
due to gravity as specified in 40 CFR
1065.630.
t = elapsed time in the driving schedule as
measured by the dynamometer, in
seconds. Let ti-1 = 0.
recommended procedures, use good
engineering judgment to establish the
additional procedures and
specifications we specify in this part,
unless we specify otherwise. Keep
records to describe these recommended
procedures and how they are consistent
with good engineering judgment.
(5) Measured values of road load force
may not differ from the corresponding
calculated values at any operating
conditions by more than ± 1% or ± 2.2
lbf, whichever is greater.
(e) Dynamometer manufacturer
instructions. This part specifies that you
follow the dynamometer manufacturer’s
recommended procedures for things
such as calibrations and general
operation. If you perform testing with a
dynamometer that you manufactured or
if you otherwise do not have these
§ 1066.115 Summary of verification and
calibration procedures for chassis
dynamometers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00268
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) Overview. This section describes
the overall process for verifying and
calibrating the performance of chassis
dynamometers.
(b) Scope and frequency. The
following table summarizes the required
and recommended calibrations and
verifications described in this subpart
and indicates when these have to be
performed:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.121
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
maximum speed of 65.0 mph and a
maximum acceleration rate of 3.0 mph/
s in either two-wheel drive or fourwheel drive configurations.
(d) Component requirements. The
dynamometer must have an
independent drive roll for each axle
being driven by the vehicle.
(1) For light-duty vehicles and for
heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR at or
below 14,000 lbs, the nominal roll
(c) Automated dynamometer
verifications and calibrations. In some
cases, dynamometers are designed with
internal diagnostic and control features
to accomplish the verifications and
calibrations specified in this subpart.
You may use these automated functions
instead of following the procedures we
specify in this subpart to demonstrate
compliance with applicable
requirements, consistent with good
engineering judgment.
(d) Sequence of verifications and
calibrations. Upon initial installation
and after major maintenance, perform
the verifications and calibrations in the
same sequence as noted in Table 1 of
this section. At other times, you may
need to perform specific verifications or
calibration in a certain sequence, as
noted in this subpart.
(e) Corrections. Unless the regulations
direct otherwise, if the dynamometer
fails to meet any specified calibration or
verification, make any necessary
adjustments or repairs such that the
dynamometer meets the specification
before running a test. Repairs required
to meet specifications are generally
considered major maintenance under
this part.
§ 1066.120
Linearity verification.
(a) Scope and frequency. Perform
linearity verifications as specified in
Table 1 of this section at least as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
frequently as indicated in the table,
consistent with the dynamometer
manufacturer’s recommendations and
good engineering judgment. Note that
these linearity verifications may replace
requirements we previously referred to
as calibrations. The intent of linearity
verification is to determine that a
measurement system responds
accurately and proportionally over the
measurement range of interest. Linearity
verification generally consists of
introducing a series of at least 10
reference values (or the manufacturer’s
recommend number of reference values)
to a measurement system. The
measurement system quantifies each
reference value. The measured values
are then collectively compared to the
reference values by using a least-squares
linear regression and the linearity
criteria specified in Table 1 of this
section.
(b) Performance requirements. If a
measurement system does not meet the
applicable linearity criteria in Table 1 of
this section, correct the deficiency by recalibrating, servicing, or replacing
components as needed. Repeat the
linearity verification after correcting the
deficiency to ensure that the
measurement system meets the linearity
criteria. Before you may use a
measurement system that does not meet
linearity criteria, you must demonstrate
to us that the deficiency does not
PO 00000
Frm 00269
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74419
adversely affect your ability to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable standards.
(c) Procedure. Use the following
linearity verification protocol, or use
good engineering judgment to develop a
different protocol that satisfies the
intent of this section, as described in
paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) In this paragraph (c), the letter ‘‘y’’
denotes a generic measured quantity,
the superscript over-bar denotes an
¯
arithmetic mean (such as y), and the
subscript ‘‘ref’’ denotes the known or
reference quantity being measured.
(2) Operate a dynamometer system at
the specified temperatures and
pressures. This may include any
specified adjustment or periodic
calibration of the dynamometer system.
(3) Set dynamometer speed and
torque to zero and apply the
dynamometer brake to ensure a zerospeed condition.
(4) Span the dynamometer speed or
torque signal.
(5) After spanning, check for zero
speed and torque. Use good engineering
judgment to determine whether or not to
rezero or re-span before continuing.
(6) For both speed and torque, use the
dynamometer manufacturer’s
recommendations and good engineering
judgment to select reference values, yrefi,
that cover a range of values that you
expect would prevent extrapolation
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.122
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74420
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(c)(8) though (10) of this section until
you measure speeds and torques at each
of the reference conditions.
¯
(12) Use the arithmetic means, yi, and
reference values, yrefi, to calculate leastsquares linear regression parameters and
statistical values to compare to the
minimum performance criteria specified
in Table 1 of this section. Use the
calculations described in 40 CFR
1065.602. Using good engineering
judgment, you may weight the results of
¯
individual data pairs (i.e., (yrefi,yi), in the
linear regression calculations.
base assembly or other means of being
securely mounted adjacent to the roll.
The dial indicator must have sufficient
range to measure roll runout at all
points, with a minimum accuracy and
precision of ± 0.025 mm. Calibrate the
dial indicator according to the
instrument manufacturer’s instructions.
(3) Position the dial indicator adjacent
to the roll surface at the desired
measurement location. Position the
shaft of the dial indicator perpendicular
to the roll such that the point of the dial
indicator is slightly touching the surface
of the roll and can move freely through
a full rotation of the roll. Zero the dial
indicator according to the instrument
manufacturer’s instructions. Avoid
distortion of the runout measurement
from the weight of a person standing on
or near the mounted dial indicator.
(4) Slowly turn the roll through a
complete rotation and record the
maximum and minimum values from
the dial indicator. Calculate runout from
the difference between these maximum
and minimum values.
(5) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(c)(3) and (4) of this section for all
measurement locations.
(6) The roll runout must be less than
0.25 mm at all measurement locations.
(d) Diameter procedure. Verify roll
diameter based on the following
procedure, or an equivalent procedure
based on good engineering judgment:
(1) Prepare the laboratory and the
dynamometer as specified in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section.
(2) Measure roll diameter using a Pi
Tape®. Orient the Pi Tape® to the
marker line at the desired measurement
location with the Pi Tape® hook pointed
outward. Temporarily secure the Pi
Tape® to the roll near the hook end with
adhesive tape. Slowly turn the roll,
wrapping the Pi Tape® around the roll
surface. Ensure that the Pi Tape® is flat
and adjacent to the marker line around
the full circumference of the roll. Attach
a 2-kg weight to the hook of the Pi
Tape® and position the roll so that the
weight dangles freely. Remove the
adhesive tape without disturbing the
orientation or alignment of the Pi
Tape®.
(3) Overlap the gage member and the
vernier scale ends of the Pi Tape® to
read the diameter measurement to the
nearest 0.01 mm. Follow the
manufacturer’s recommendation to
correct the measurement to 25 °C, if
applicable.
(4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(d)(2) and (3) of this section for all
measurement locations.
(5) The measured roll diameter must
be within ± 0.25 mm of the specified
nominal value at all measurement
locations. You may revise the nominal
value to meet this specification, as long
as you use the corrected nominal value
for all calculations in this subpart.
(a) Overview. This section describes
the verification procedure for roll
runout and roll diameter. Roll runout is
a measure of the variation in roll radius
around the circumference of the roll.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform
these verifications upon initial
installation and after major
maintenance.
(c) Roll runout procedure. Verify roll
runout as follows:
(1) Perform this verification with
laboratory and dynamometer
temperatures stable and at equilibrium.
Release the roll brake and shut off
power to the dynamometer. Remove any
dirt, rubber, rust, and debris from the
roll surface. Mark measurement
locations on the roll surface using a
permanent marker. Mark the roll at a
minimum of four equally spaced
locations across the roll width; we
recommend taking measurements every
150 mm across the roll. Secure the
marker to the deck plate adjacent to the
roll surface and slowly rotate the roll to
mark a clear line around the roll
circumference. Repeat this process for
all measurement locations.
(2) Measure roll runout using a dial
indicator with a probe that allows for
measuring the position of the roll
surface relative to the roll centerline as
it turns through a complete revolution.
The dial indicator must have a magnetic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00270
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.123
signals; or you may select values to
ascend and then descend to incorporate
the effects of any instrument hysteresis
into the linearity verification.
(8) Set the dynamometer to operate at
a reference condition.
(9) Allow time for the dynamometer
to stabilize while it measures the
reference values.
(10) At a recording frequency of at
least 1 Hz, measure speed and torque
values for 30 seconds and record the
arithmetic mean of the recorded values,
¯
yi. Refer to 40 CFR 1065.602 for an
example of calculating an arithmetic
mean.
§ 1066.125 Roll runout and diameter
verification procedure.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
beyond these values during emission
testing. We recommend selecting zero
speed and zero torque as reference
values for the linearity verification.
(7) Use the dynamometer
manufacturer’s recommendations and
good engineering judgment to select the
order in which you will introduce the
series of reference values. For example,
you may select the reference values
randomly to avoid correlation with
previous measurements or the influence
of hysteresis; you may select reference
values in ascending or descending order
to avoid long settling times of reference
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 1066.130
Time verification procedure.
74421
accuracy and resolution of the
dynamometer speed simulation:
(1) Pulse method. Connect a universal
frequency counter to the output of the
dynamometer’s speed-sensing device in
parallel with the signal to the
dynamometer controller. The universal
frequency counter must be calibrated
according to the instrument
manufacturer’s instructions and be
capable of measuring with enough
accuracy to perform the procedure as
specified in this paragraph (c)(1). Make
sure the instrumentation does not affect
the signal to the dynamometer control
circuits. Determine the speed error as
follows:
(i) Set the dynamometer to speed
control mode. Set the dynamometer
speed to a value between 15 kph and the
maximum speed expected during
testing; record the output of the
frequency counter after 10 seconds.
Determine the roll speed, Sact, using the
following equation:
Where:
f = frequency of the dynamometer speed
sensing device, in hr¥1, accurate to at
least four significant figures.
droll = nominal roll diameter, in km, accurate
to the nearest 0.01 mm, consistent with
§ 1066.125(d).
n = the number of pulses per revolution from
the dynamometer roll speed sensor.
(ii) Compare the calculated roll speed,
Sact, to the corresponding speed set
point, Sref, to determine a value for
speed error, Serror, using the following
equation:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
f = 2.9318 Hz = 2.9318 s¥1 = 10,554
hr¥1
droll = 914.40 mm = 914.40 · 10¥6 km
n = 1 pulse/rev
Sact = 29.986 kph
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 1066.135
Speed verification procedure.
(a) Overview. This section describes
how to verify the accuracy and
resolution of the dynamometer speed
determination.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification upon initial installation,
within 35 days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
(c) Procedure. Use one of the
following procedures to verify the
Where:
Sact = 29.986 kph
Sref = 30.000 kph
Serror = 29.986 ¥ 30.000 = ¥0.014 kph
(2) Frequency method. Use the
method described in this paragraph
(c)(2) only if the dynamometer does not
have a readily available output signal
for speed sensing. Install a single piece
of tape in the shape of an arrowhead on
the surface of the dynamometer roll near
the outer edge. Put a reference mark on
PO 00000
Frm 00271
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the deck plate in line with the arrow.
Install a stroboscope or photo
tachometer on the deck plate and direct
the flash toward the tape on the roll.
The stroboscope or photo tachometer
must be calibrated according to the
instrument manufacturer’s instructions
and be capable of measuring with
enough accuracy to perform the
procedure as specified in this paragraph
(c)(2). Determine the speed error as
follows:
(i) Set the dynamometer to speed
control mode. Set the dynamometer
speed to a value between 15 kph and the
maximum speed expected during
testing. Tune the stroboscope or photo
tachometer until the signal matches the
dynamometer roll speed. Record the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.126
functions of the coastdown timer
circuit. Use the signal generator to start
the verification period.
(ii) After at least 1,000 seconds, use
the signal generator to end the
verification period.
(iii) Compare the measured elapsed
time between trigger signals, yact, to the
corresponding time standard, yref, to
determine the time error, yerror, using
Equation 1066.130–1.
(d) Performance evaluation. The time
error determined in paragraph (c) of this
section may not exceed ± 0.001%.
EP30NO10.125
(2) Ramping method. You may set up
an operator-defined ramp function in
the signal generator to serve as the time
standard as follows:
(i) Set up the signal generator to
output a marker voltage at the peak of
each ramp to trigger the dynamometer
timing circuit. Output the designated
marker voltage to start the verification
period.
(ii) After at least 1,000 seconds,
output the designated marker voltage to
end the verification period.
(iii) Compare the measured elapsed
time between marker signals, yact, to the
corresponding time standard, yref, to
determine the time error, yerror, using
Equation 1066.130–1.
(3) Dynamometer coastdown method.
You may use a signal generator to
output a known speed ramp signal to
the dynamometer controller to serve as
the time standard as follows:
(i) Generate upper and lower speed
values to trigger the start and stop
(a) Overview. This section describes
how to verify the accuracy of the
dynamometer’s timing device.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification upon initial installation and
after major maintenance.
(c) Procedure. Perform this
verification using one of the following
procedures:
EP30NO10.127
error in receiving the time and
frequency signal.
(ii) After at least 1,000 seconds, redial station WWV and listen for the time
announcement. Verify that the trigger
stopped the dynamometer timer.
(iii) Compare the measured elapsed
time, yact, to the corresponding time
standard, yref, to determine the time
error, yerror, using the following
equation:
EP30NO10.124
(1) WWV method. You may use the
time and frequency signal broadcast by
NIST from radio station WWV as the
time standard if the trigger for the
dynamometer timing circuit has a
frequency decoder circuit, as follows:
(i) Dial station WWV at (303) 499–
7111 and listen for the time
announcement. Verify that the trigger
started the dynamometer timer. Use
good engineering judgment to minimize
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 1066.140 Torque transducer verification
and calibration.
§ 1066.150
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
frequency. Determine the roll speed,
yact, using Equation 1066.135–1, using
the stroboscope or photo tachometer’s
frequency for f.
(ii) Compare the calculated roll speed,
yact, to the corresponding speed set
point, yref, to determine a value for
speed error, yerror, using Equation
1066.135–2.
(d) Performance evaluation. The
speed error determined in paragraph (c)
of this section may not exceed ± 0.050
mph or ± 0.080 kph.
elapsed time to accelerate from 10 to 40
mph, noting the corresponding speed
and time points to the nearest 0.01 mph
and 0.01 s. Also determine average force
over the measurement interval.
(2) Starting from a steady roll speed
of 45 mph, apply a constant force to the
roll to decelerate the roll at a nominal
rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed
time to decelerate from 40 to 10 mph,
noting the corresponding speed and
time points to the nearest 0.01 mph and
0.01 s. Also determine average force
over the measurement interval.
(3) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section for a total
Base inertia verification.
(a) Overview. This section describes
how to verify the dynamometer’s base
inertia.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification upon initial installation and
after major maintenance.
(c) Procedure. Verify the base inertia
using the following procedure:
(1) Warm up the dynamometer
according to the dynamometer
manufacturer’s instructions. Set the
dynamometer’s road load inertia to zero
and motor the rolls to 5 mph. Apply a
constant force to accelerate the roll at a
nominal rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Calibrate torque-measurement
systems as described in 40 CFR
1065.310.
§ 1066.145
Response time verification.
(a) Overview. This section describes
how to verify the dynamometer’s
response time.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification upon initial installation and
after major maintenance.
(c) Procedure. Use the dynamometer’s
automated process to verify response
time. Perform this test at two different
PO 00000
Frm 00272
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inertia settings corresponding
approximately to the minimum and
maximum vehicle weights you expect to
test. Use good engineering judgment to
select road load coefficients
representing vehicles of the appropriate
weight. Determine the dynamometer’s
settling response time based on the
point at which there are no measured
results more than 10% above or below
the final equilibrium value, as
illustrated in Figure 1 of this section.
The observed settling response time
must be less than 100 milliseconds for
each inertia setting.
of five sets of results at the nominal
acceleration rate and the nominal
deceleration rate.
(4) Use good engineering judgment to
select two additional acceleration and
deceleration rates that cover the middle
and upper rates expected during testing.
Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section at each of
these additional acceleration and
deceleration rates.
(5) Determine the base inertia, Ib, for
each measurement interval using the
following equation:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.128
74422
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Where:
F = average dynamometer force over the
measurement interval as measured by
the dynamometer, in ft·lbm/s2.
Sfinal = roll surface speed at the end of the
measurement interval to the nearest 0.01
mph.
Sinitial = roll surface speed at the start of the
measurement interval to the nearest 0.01
mph.
Dt = elapsed time during the measurement
interval to the nearest 0.01 s.
Where:
F = 1.500 lbf = 48.26 ft·lbm/s2
Sfinal = 40.00 mph = 58.67 ft/s
Sinitial = 10.00 mph = 14.67 ft/s
Dt = 30.00 s
Where:
Ibref = 32.96 lbm
Ibact = 33.01 lbm
Iberror = ¥0.15%
within 7 days of testing, and after major
maintenance.
(c) Procedure. Perform this
verification by following the
dynamometer manufacturer’s
specifications to establish a parasitic
loss curve, taking data at fixed speed
intervals to cover the range of vehicle
speeds that will occur during testing.
You may zero the load cell at the
selected speed if that improves your
ability to determine the parasitic loss.
Parasitic loss forces may never be
negative. Note that the torque
transducers must be zeroed and
spanned prior to performing this
procedure.
(d) Performance evaluation. In some
cases, the dynamometer automatically
updates the parasitic loss curve for
further testing. If this is not the case,
compare the new parasitic loss curve to
the original parasitic loss curve from the
dynamometer manufacturer or the most
recent parasitic loss curve you
programmed into the dynamometer.
You may reprogram the dynamometer to
accept the new curve in all cases, and
you must reprogram the dynamometer if
any point on the new curve departs
from the earlier curve by more than ± 0.5
lbf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00273
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(a) Overview. This section describes
how to verify the accuracy of the
dynamometer’s friction compensation.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification upon initial installation,
within 7 days before testing, and after
major maintenance. Note that this
procedure relies on proper verification
or calibration of speed and torque, as
described in §§ 1066.135 and 1066.140.
You must also first verify the
dynamometer’s parasitic loss curve as
specified in § 1066.155.
(c) Procedure. Use the following
procedure to verify the accuracy of the
dynamometer’s friction compensation:
(1) Warm up the dynamometer as
specified by the dynamometer
manufacturer.
(2) Perform a torque verification as
specified by the dynamometer
manufacturer. For torque verifications
relying on shunt procedures, if the
results do not conform to specifications,
recalibrate the dynamometer using
NIST-traceable standards as appropriate
until the dynamometer passes the
torque verification. Do not change the
dynamometer’s base inertia to pass the
torque verification.
(3) Set the dynamometer inertia to the
base inertia with the road load
coefficients A, B, and C set to 0. Set the
dynamometer to speed-control mode
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.132
§ 1066.160 Parasitic friction compensation
evaluation.
EP30NO10.131
Parasitic loss verification.
(a) Overview. Verify and correct the
dynamometer’s parasitic loss. This
procedure determines the
dynamometer’s internal losses that it
must overcome to simulate road load.
These losses are characterized in a
parasitic loss curve that the
dynamometer uses to apply
compensating forces to maintain the
desired road load force at the roll
surface.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification upon initial installation,
Ib = 32.90 lbm
EP30NO10.130
§ 1066.155
(6) Determine the arithmetic mean
value of base inertia from the five
measurements at each acceleration and
deceleration rate. Calculate these six
mean values as described in 40 CFR
1065.602(b).
(7) Calculate the base inertia error,
Iberror, for each measured base inertia, Ib,
by comparing it to the manufacturer’s
stated base inertia, Ibref, using the
following equation:
EP30NO10.129
(8) Calculate the inertia error for each
mean value of base inertia from
paragraph (c)(6) of this section. Use
Equation 1066.165–2, substituting the
mean base inertias associated with each
acceleration and deceleration rate for
the individual base inertias.
(d) Performance evaluation. The
dynamometer must meet the following
specifications to be used for testing
under this part:
(1) The base inertia error determined
under paragraph (c)(7) of this section
may not exceed ± 0.50% relative to any
individual value.
(2) The base inertia error determined
under paragraph (c)(8) of this section
may not exceed ± 0.20% relative to any
mean value.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74423
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
FCerror = -16.5 ft·lbf/s = -0.031 hp
(5) The friction compensation error
may not exceed ±0.10 hp.
§ 1066.165 Acceleration and deceleration
verification.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) Overview. This section describes
how to verify the dynamometer’s ability
to achieve targeted acceleration and
deceleration rates. Paragraph (c) of this
section describes how this verification
applies when the dynamometer is
programmed directly for a specific
acceleration or deceleration rate.
Paragraph (d) of this section describes
how this verification applies when the
dynamometer is programmed with a
calculated force to achieve a targeted
acceleration or deceleration rate.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification upon initial installation and
after major maintenance. Perform this
verification upon initial installation and
after major maintenance.
(c) Verification of acceleration and
deceleration rates. Activate the
Where:
¯
aact =0.999 mph/s
aref = 1 mph/s
aerror = -0.100%
(d) Verification of forces for
controlling acceleration and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Where:
S = the target roll speed, in inches per second
(corresponding to drive speeds of 10
mph or 40 mph).
n = the number of pulses from the
dynamometer’s roll-speed sensor per roll
revolution.
droll = roll diameter, in inches.
(2) Program the dynamometer to
accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of
1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph.
Measure the elapsed time to reach the
target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s.
Repeat this measurement for a total of
five runs. Determine the actual
acceleration rate for each run, aact,
using the following equation:
deceleration. Program the dynamometer
with a calculated force value and
determine actual acceleration and
deceleration rates as the dynamometer
traverses speeds between 10 and 40
mph at various nominal acceleration
and deceleration rates. Verify the
PO 00000
Frm 00274
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Where:
Sinal = 40 mph
Sinit = 10 mph
t = 30.003 s
aact = 0.999 mph/s
(3) Program the dynamometer to
decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of
1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph.
Measure the elapsed time to reach the
target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s.
Repeat this measurement for a total of
five runs. Determine the actual
acceleration rate, aact, using Equation
1066.165–2
(4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(c)(2) and (3) of this section for
additional acceleration and deceleration
rates in 1 mph/s increments up to and
including one increment above the
maximum acceleration rate expected
during testing. Average the five repeat
runs to calculate a mean acceleration
¯
rate, aaact, each setting.
(5) Compare each mean acceleration
¯
rate, aaact, to the corresponding nominal
acceleration rate, aref, to determine
values for acceleration error, aerror,
using the following equation:
dynamometer’s ability to achieve certain
acceleration and deceleration rates with
a given force as follows:
(1) Calculate the force setting, F, using
the following equation:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.138
Where:
I = 2000 lbm = 62.16 lbf· s2/ft
t = 60.0 s
Sfinal = 9.2 mph = 13.5 ft/s
Sinit = 10.0 mph = 14.7 ft/s
Where:
aact = acceleration rate (decelerations have
negative values).
Sfinal = the target value for the final roll speed.
Sinit = the setpoint value for the initial roll
speed.
t = time to accelerate from Sinit to Sfinal.
EP30NO10.137
dynamometer’s function generator for
measuring roll revolution frequency. If
the dynamometer has no such function
generator, set up a properly calibrated
external function generator consistent
with the verification described in this
paragraph (c). Use the function
generator to determine actual
acceleration and deceleration rates as
the dynamometer traverses speeds
between 10 and 40 mph at various
nominal acceleration and deceleration
rates. Verify the dynamometer’s
acceleration and deceleration rates as
follows:
(1) Set up start and stop frequencies
specific to your dynamometer by
identifying the roll-revolution
frequency, f, in revolutions pre second
(or Hz) corresponding to 10 mph and 40
mph vehicle speeds, accurate to at least
four significant figures, using the
following equation:
EP30NO10.136
Where:
I = dynamometer inertia setting, in lbf·s2/ft.
t = duration of the measurement interval,
accurate to at least 0.01 s.
Sfinal = the roll speed corresponding to the
end of the measurement interval,
accurate to at least 0.1 mph.
Sinit = the roll speed corresponding to the
start of the measurement interval,
accurate to at least 0.1 mph.
perfectly, there will be no change in
speed during the measurement interval.
(4) Calculate the friction
compensation error, FCerror, using the
following equation:
EP30NO10.135
control to torque control and allow the
roll to coast for 60 seconds. Record the
initial and final speeds and the
corresponding start and stop times. If
friction compensation is executed
EP30NO10.134
with a target speed of 10 mph or a
higher speed recommended by the
dynamometer manufacturer. Once the
speed stabilizes at the target speed,
switch the dynamometer from speed
EP30NO10.133
74424
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(2) Set the dynamometer to road-load
mode and program it with a calculated
force to accelerate the roll at a nominal
rate of 1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph.
Measure the elapsed time to reach the
target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s.
Repeat this measurement for a total of
five runs. Determine the actual
acceleration rate, aact, for each run using
Equation 1066.165–2. Repeat this step to
determine measured ‘‘negative
acceleration’’ rates using a calculated
force to decelerate the roll at a nominal
rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph.
Average the five repeat runs to calculate
¯
a mean acceleration rate, aaact, at each
setting.
(3) Repeat the steps in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section for additional
acceleration and deceleration rates as
specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section.
(4) Compare each mean acceleration
¯
rate, aaact, to the corresponding nominal
acceleration rate, aref, to determine
values for acceleration error, aerror, using
Equation 1066.165–4
(e) Performance evaluation. The
acceleration error from paragraphs (c)(5)
and (d)(4) of this section may not exceed
± 1.0%.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
Fref = 192 lbf
¯
Fact = 191 lbf
Subpart C—Coastdown
§ 1066.201 Overview of coastdown
procedures.
Ferror = ¥0.5%
(7) Calculate the maximum allowable
error for all speed and inertia settings as
follows:
Ferrormax = Max [±1.0% or (2.2 lbf/Fref) ·
100%]
§ 1066.180
Driver’s aid.
Use good engineering judgment to
provide a driver’s aid that facilitates
compliance with the requirements of
§ 1066.330.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(a) The coastdown procedures
described in this subpart are used to
determine the load coefficients (A, B,
and C) for the simulated road load
equation in § 1066.110(d)(3).
(b) The general procedure for
performing coastdown tests and
calculating load coefficients is described
in SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference
in § 1066.710). This subpart specifies
certain deviations from SAE J2263 for
certain applications.
(c) Use good engineering judgment for
all aspects of coastdown testing. For
example, minimize the effects of grade
PO 00000
Frm 00275
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Where:
F = the average force measured during the
coastdown for each speed and inertia
setting, expressed in lbf · s2/ft and
rounded to four significant figures.
I = the dynamometer’s inertia setting, in lbf
· s2/ft.
Ssi = the speed setting at the start of the
coastdown, expressed in ft/s and
rounded to four significant figures.
t = coastdown time for each speed and inertia
setting, accurate to at least 0.01 s.
Where:
I = 2000 lbm = 65.17 lbf · s2/ft
Ssi = 10 mph = 14.66 ft/s
t = 5.00 s
F = 191 lbf
(5) Calculate the target value of
coastdown force, Fref, based on the
applicable dynamometer parameters for
each speed and inertia setting.
(6) Compare the mean value of the
coastdown force measured for each
¯
speed and inertia setting, Fact, to the
corresponding Fref to determine values
for coastdown force error, Ferror, using
the following equation:
by performing coastdown testing on
reasonably level surfaces and
determining coefficients based on
average values from vehicle operation in
opposite directions over the course.
§ 1066.210 Coastdown procedures for
heavy-duty vehicles.
This section describes coastdown
procedures that are unique to heavyduty motor vehicles.
(a) Determine load coefficients by
performing a minimum of 20 coastdown
runs (10 in each direction).
(b) Follow the provisions of SAE
J2263 (incorporated by reference in
§ 1066.710), except as described in this
paragraph (b). The terms and variables
identified in this paragraph (b) have the
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.143
Ib = 2967 lbm = 92.217 lbf· s2/ft
a = 1 mph/s = 1.4667 ft/s2
F = 135.25 lbf
EP30NO10.142
Where:
(a) Overview. Use force measurements
to verify the dynamometer’s settings
based on coastdown procedures.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification upon initial installation,
within 7 days of testing, and after major
maintenance.
(c) Procedure. This procedure verifies
dynamometer’s settings derived from
coastdowns testing. For dynamometers
that have an automated process for this
procedure, perform this evaluation by
setting the initial speed, final speed,
inertial, and road load coefficients as
required for each test, using good
engineering judgment to ensure that
these values properly represent in-use
operation. Use the following procedure
if your dynamometer does not perform
this verification with have an automated
process:
(1) Warm up the dynamometer as
specified by the dynamometer
manufacturer.
(2) With the dynamometer in
coastdown mode, set the dynamometer
inertia for the smallest vehicle weight
that you expect to test and set A, B, and
C road load coefficients to values typical
of those used during testing. Program
the dynamometer to operate at 10 mph.
Perform a coastdown two times at this
speed setting. Repeat these coastdown
steps in 10 mph increments up to and
including one increment above the
maximum speed expected during
testing. You may stop the verification
before reaching 0 mph, with any
appropriate adjustments in calculating
the results.
EP30NO10.141
Ib = the dynamometer manufacturer’s stated
base inertia, in lbf·s2/ft.
a = nominal acceleration rate, in ft/s2.
EP30NO10.140
Where:
(3) Repeat the steps in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section with the
dynamometer inertia set for the largest
vehicle weight that you expect to test.
(4) Determine the average coastdown
force, F, for each speed and inertia
setting using the following equation:
EP30NO10.139
§ 1066.170 Unloaded coastdown
verification.
74425
74426
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
separately but count them together with
respect to the minimum number of runs
required.
(3) You may perform consecutive runs
in a single direction, followed by
consecutive runs in the opposite
direction, consistent with good
engineering judgment. Harmonize
starting and stopping points to the
extent practicable to allow runs to be
paired.
(4) Section 12.1 of SAE J2263 allows
determination of calibration coefficients
from calibration runs conducted at a
constant 50 mph in each road direction.
(i) We recommend using the following
equation to correct relative wind speed
(Sr) in calibration runs:
(i) Determine Am, Da, and E using a
mixed model technique, with the run
being the random effect.
(ii) Determine the A, B, and C
coefficients identified in § 1066.110 as
follows:
A = Am
B=0
C = Da
direction effects are not statistically
significant. Use the following simplified
equation of motion if wind direction
effects are not statistically significant
and grade effects are negligible:
Subpart D—Vehicle Preparation and
Running a Test
(7) Perform post-test procedures to
verify proper operation of certain
equipment and analyzers.
(8) Weigh PM samples.
(b) An emission test generally consists
of measuring emissions and other
parameters while a vehicle follows the
drive schedules specified in the
standard-setting part. There are two
general types of test cycles:
(1) Transient cycles. Transient test
cycles are typically specified in the
standard-setting part as a second-bysecond sequence of vehicle speed
commands. Operate a vehicle over a
transient cycle such that the speed
follows the target values. Proportionally
sample emissions and other parameters
and use the calculations in 40 CFR part
meaning given in SAE J2263 unless
specified otherwise.
(1) You are not required to reach the
top speed specified in Section 9.3 of
SAE J2263, as long as your top speed for
each run is no lower than 100 km/h
(62.2 mph).
(2) Section 9.3.1 of SAE J2263 allows
split runs, but we recommend whole
runs. If you use split runs, analyze them
(ii) We recommend using the
following equation to correct yaw angle
(Y) in coastdowns:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00276
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.146
EP30NO10.145
Overview.
(a) Use the procedures detailed in this
subpart to measure vehicle emissions
over a specified drive schedule. This
subpart describes how to:
(1) Determine road load power, test
weight, and inertia class.
(2) Prepare the vehicle, equipment,
and measurement instruments for an
emission test.
(3) Perform pre-test procedures to
verify proper operation of certain
equipment and analyzers and to prepare
them for testing.
(4) Record pre-test data.
(5) Sample emissions.
(6) Record post-test data.
86, subpart B, or 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart G, to calculate emissions. The
standard-setting part may specify three
types of transient testing based on the
approach to starting the measurement,
as follows:
(i) A cold-start transient cycle where
you start to measure emissions just
before starting an engine that has not
been warmed up.
(ii) A hot-start transient cycle where
you start to measure emissions just
before starting a warmed-up engine.
(iii) A hot running transient cycle
where you start to measure emissions
after an engine is started, warmed up,
and running.
(2) Cruise cycles. Cruise test cycles are
typically specified in the standard-
EP30NO10.144
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1066.301
(iii) Consistent with good engineering
judgment, set E equal to zero if wind
EP30NO10.147
(5) Use the following equation of
motion instead of the equation specified
in SAE J2263:
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
setting part as a discrete operating point
that has a single speed command.
(i) Start a cruise cycle as a hot running
test, where you start to measure
emissions after the engine is started and
warmed up and the vehicle is running
at the target test speed.
(ii) Sample emissions and other
parameters for the cruise cycle in the
same manner as a transient cycle, with
the exception that reference speed value
is constant. Record instantaneous and
mean speed values over the cycle.
§ 1066.304 Road load power and test
weight determination.
To determine road load power and
test weight, follow SAE J2263 and SAE
J2264 (incorporated by reference in
§ 1066.710), with the following
exceptions:
(a) Test weight. The rotational inertia
of drive-axle and nondrive-axle
components that rotate with the wheels
is expressed as additional ‘‘linear’’ mass.
For Class 7 combination and Class 8
heavy-duty vehicles, without dual drive
tires (or other driveline components
which are likely to increase real
rotational inertia to greater than 1.5%
per axle) and if the actual effective mass
of rotating components is unknown, the
effective mass of all rotating
components may be estimated as 4.0%
of the vehicle test mass.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 1066.307 Vehicle preparation and
preconditioning.
This section describes steps to take
before measuring exhaust emissions for
those vehicles that are subject to
evaporative or refueling emission tests
as specified in subpart F of this part.
Other preliminary procedures may
apply as specified in the standardsetting part.
(a) Prepare the vehicle for testing as
described in 40 CFR 86.131–00.
(b) If testing will include
measurement of refueling emissions,
perform the vehicle preconditioning
steps as described in 40 CFR 86.153–98.
Otherwise, perform the vehicle
preconditioning steps as described in 40
CFR 86.132–00.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1066.310
Dynamometer test procedure.
(a) Dynamometer testing may consist
of multiple drive cycles with both coldstart and hot-start portions, including
prescribed soak times before each test
phase. See the standard-setting part for
test cycles and soak times for the
appropriate vehicle category. A test
phase consists of engine startup (with
accessories operated according to the
standard-setting part), operation over
the drive cycle, and engine shutdown.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(b) During dynamometer operation,
position a road-speed modulated
cooling fan that appropriately directs
cooling air to the vehicle. This generally
requires squarely positioning the fan
within 30 centimeters of the front of the
vehicle and directing the airflow to the
vehicle’s radiator. Use a fan system that
achieves a linear speed of cooling air at
the blower outlet that is within ±3 mph
of the corresponding roll speed when
vehicle speeds are between 5 to 30 mph,
and within ±10 mph of the
corresponding roll speed at higher
vehicle speeds. The fan must provide no
cooling air for vehicle speeds below 5
mph, unless we approve your request to
provide cooling during low-speed
operation based on a demonstration that
this is appropriate to simulate the
cooling experienced by in-use vehicles.
If the cooling specifications in this
paragraph (b) are impractical for special
vehicle designs, such as vehicles with
rear-mounted engines, you may arrange
for an alternative fan configuration that
allows for proper simulation of vehicle
cooling during in-use operation.
(c) Record the vehicle’s speed trace
based on the time and speed data from
the dynamometer. Record speed to at
least the nearest 0.1 mph and time to at
least the nearest 0.1 s.
(d) You may perform practice runs to
for operating the vehicle and the
dynamometer controls to meet the
driving tolerances specified in
§ 1066.330 or adjust the emission
sampling equipment. Verify that
accelerator pedal allows for enough
control to closely follow the prescribed
driving schedule. You may not measure
emissions during a practice run.
(e) Inflate the drive wheel tires
according to the vehicle manufacturer’s
specifications. The drive wheels’ tire
pressure must be the same for
dynamometer operation and for
coastdown procedures for determining
road load coefficients. Report these tire
pressure values with the test results.
(f) Warm up the dynamometer as
recommended by the dynamometer
manufacturer.
(g) Following the test, determine the
actual driving distance by counting the
number of dynamometer roll or shaft
revolutions, or by integrating speed over
the course of testing from a highresolution encoder system.
(h) Use good engineering judgment to
test four-wheel drive and all-wheel
drive vehicles. This may involve testing
on a dynamometer with a separate
dynamometer roll for each drive axle.
This may also involve operation on a
single roll, which would require
disengaging the second set of drive
wheels, either with a switch available to
PO 00000
Frm 00277
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74427
the driver or by some other means;
however, operating such a vehicle on a
single roll may occur only if this does
not decrease emissions or energy
consumption relative to normal in-use
operation.
§ 1066.320 Pre-test verification procedures
and pre-test data collection.
(a) Follow the procedures for PM
sample preconditioning and tare
weighing as described in 40 CFR
1065.590 if your engine must comply
with a PM standard.
(b) Unless the standard-setting part
specifies different tolerances, verify at
some point before the test that ambient
conditions are within the tolerances
specified in this paragraph (b). For
purposes of this paragraph (b), ‘‘before
the test’’ means any time from a point
just prior to engine starting (excluding
engine restarts) to the point at which
emission sampling begins.
(1) Ambient temperature must be (20
to 30) °C. See § 1066.330(m) for
circumstances under which ambient
temperatures must remain within this
range during the test.
(2) Atmospheric pressure must be
(80.000 to 103.325) kPa. You are not
required to verify atmospheric pressure
prior to a hot-start test interval for
testing that also includes a cold start.
(3) Dilution air conditions must meet
the specifications in 40 CFR 1065.140,
except in cases where you preheat your
CVS before a cold-start test. We
recommend verifying dilution air
conditions just before starting each test
phase.
(c) You may test vehicles at any
intake-air humidity and we may test
vehicles at any intake-air humidity.
(d) You may perform a final
calibration of the proportional-flow
control systems, which may include
performing practice runs.
(e) You may perform the following
recommended procedure to
precondition sampling systems:
(1) Operate the vehicle over the test
cycle.
(2) Operate any dilution systems at
their expected flow rates. Prevent
aqueous condensation in the dilution
systems.
(3) Operate any PM sampling systems
at their expected flow rates.
(4) Sample PM for at least 10 min
using any sample media. You may
change sample media during
preconditioning. You must discard
preconditioning samples without
weighing them.
(5) You may purge any gaseous
sampling systems during
preconditioning.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74428
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(6) You may conduct calibrations or
verifications on any idle equipment or
analyzers during preconditioning.
(7) Proceed with the test sequence
described in § 1066.330.
(f) Verify the amount of nonmethane
contamination in the exhaust and
background HC sampling systems
within 8 hours before the start of the
first test drive cycle for each individual
vehicle tested as described in 40 CFR
1065.515(g).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1066.325
Engine starting and restarting.
(a) Start the vehicle’s engine as
follows:
(1) At the beginning of the test cycle,
start the engine according to the
procedure you describe in your owners
manual.
(2) Place the transmission in gear as
described by the test cycle in the
standard-setting part. During idle
operation, you may apply the brakes if
necessary to keep the drive wheels from
turning.
(b) If the vehicle does not start after
your recommended maximum cranking
time, wait and restart cranking
according to your recommended
practice. If you don’t recommend such
a cranking procedure, stop cranking
after 10 seconds, wait for 10 seconds,
then start cranking again for up to 10
seconds. You may repeat this for up to
three start attempts. If the vehicle does
not start after three attempts, you must
determine and record the reason for
failure to start. Shut off sampling
systems and either turn the CVS off, or
disconnect the exhaust tube from the
tailpipe during the diagnostic period.
Reschedule the vehicle for testing from
a cold start.
(c) Repeat the recommended starting
procedure if the engine has a ‘‘false
start’’.
(d) Take the following steps if the
engine stalls:
(1) If the engine stalls during an idle
period, restart the engine immediately
and continue the test. If you cannot
restart the engine soon enough to allow
the vehicle to follow the next
acceleration, stop the driving schedule
indicator and reactivate it when the
vehicle restarts.
(2) If the engine stalls during
operation other than idle, stop the
driving schedule indicator, restart the
engine, accelerate to the speed required
at that point in the driving schedule,
reactivate the driving schedule
indicator, and continue the test.
(3) Void the test if the vehicle will not
restart within one minute. If this
happens, remove the vehicle from the
dynamometer, take corrective action,
and reschedule the vehicle for testing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Record the reason for the malfunction (if
determined) and any corrective action.
See the standard-setting part for
instructions about reporting these
malfunctions.
§ 1066.330
Performing emission tests.
The overall test consists of prescribed
sequences of fueling, parking, and
operating test conditions.
(a) Vehicles are tested for criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions as described in the standardsetting part.
(b) Take the following steps before
emission sampling begins:
(1) For batch sampling, connect clean
storage media, such as evacuated bags or
tare-weighed filters.
(2) Start all measurement instruments
according to the instrument
manufacturer’s instructions and using
good engineering judgment.
(3) Start dilution systems, sample
pumps, and the data-collection system.
(4) Pre-heat or pre-cool heat
exchangers in the sampling system to
within their operating temperature
tolerances for a test.
(5) Allow heated or cooled
components such as sample lines,
filters, chillers, and pumps to stabilize
at their operating temperatures.
(6) Verify that there are no significant
vacuum-side leaks according to 40 CFR
1065.345.
(7) Adjust the sample flow rates to
desired levels, using bypass flow, if
desired.
(8) Zero or re-zero any electronic
integrating devices, before the start of
any test interval.
(9) Select gas analyzer ranges. You
may automatically or manually switch
gas analyzer ranges during a test only if
switching is performed by changing the
span over which the digital resolution of
the instrument is applied. During a test
you may not switch the gains of an
analyzer’s analog operational
amplifier(s).
(10) Zero and span all continuous gas
analyzers using NIST-traceable gases
that meet the specifications of 40 CFR
1065.750. Span FID analyzers on a
carbon number basis of one (1), C1. For
example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of
concentration 200 μmol/mol, span the
FID to respond with a value of 600
μmol/mol. Span FID analyzers
consistent with the determination of
their respective response factors, RF,
and penetration fractions, PF, according
to 40 CFR 1065.365.
(11) We recommend that you verify
gas analyzer responses after zeroing and
spanning by sampling a calibration gas
that has a concentration near one-half of
the span gas concentration. Based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00278
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
results and good engineering judgment,
you may decide whether or not to rezero, re-span, or re-calibrate a gas
analyzer before starting a test.
(12) If you correct for dilution air
background concentrations of associated
engine exhaust constituents, start
measuring (i.e. sampling) and recording
background concentrations.
(13) Turn on cooling fans immediately
prior to the start of the test.
(c) Operate vehicles during testing as
follows:
(1) Where we do not give specific
instructions, operate the vehicle
according to your recommendations in
the owners manual, unless those
recommendations are unrepresentative
of what may reasonably be expected for
in-use operation.
(2) If vehicles have features that
preclude dynamometer testing, modify
these features as necessary to allow
testing, consistent with good
engineering judgment.
(3) Operate vehicles during idle as
follows:
(i) For a vehicle with an automatic
transmission, operate at idle with the
transmission in ‘‘Drive’’ with the wheels
braked, except that you may shift to
‘‘Neutral’’ for the first idle period and for
any idle period longer than one minute.
If you put the vehicle in ‘‘Neutral’’
during an idle, you must shift the
vehicle into ‘‘Drive’’ with the wheels
braked at least 5 seconds before the end
of the idle period.
(ii) For a vehicle with a manual
transmission, operate at idle with the
transmission in gear with the clutch
disengaged, except that you may shift to
‘‘Neutral’’ with the clutch disengaged for
the first idle period and for any idle
period longer than one minute. If you
put the vehicle in ‘‘Neutral’’ during idle,
you must shift to first gear with the
clutch disengaged at least 5 seconds
before the end of the idle period.
(4) If the vehicle cannot accelerate at
the specified rate, operate it at
maximum available power until the
vehicle speed reaches the value
prescribed for that time in the driving
schedule.
(5) Decelerate without changing gears,
using the brakes or accelerator pedal as
necessary to maintain the desired speed.
Keep the clutch engaged on manual
transmission vehicles and do not change
gears after the end of the acceleration
event. Depress manual transmission
clutches when the speed drops below 15
mph (24.1 km/h), when engine
roughness is evident, or when engine
stalling is imminent.
(6) For test vehicles equipped with
manual transmissions, shift gears in a
way that represents reasonable shift
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(1) The upper limit is 2.0 mph higher
than the highest point on the trace
within 1.0 s of the given point in time.
(2) The lower limit is 2.0 mph lower
than the lowest point on the trace
within 1.0 second of the given time.
(3) The same limits apply For vehicle
preconditioning, except that the upper
and lower limits for speed values are
±4.0 mph.
(4) Void the test if you do not
maintain speed values as specified in
this paragraph (e)(4). Speed variations
(such as may occur during gear changes
or braking spikes) may occur as follows,
provided that such variations are clearly
documented, including the time and
speed values and the reason for
deviation:
(i) Speed variations greater than the
specified limits are acceptable for up to
2.0 seconds on any occasion.
PO 00000
Frm 00279
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) For vehicle preconditioning, up to
three additional occurrences of speed
variations outside the specified limits
are acceptable for up to 15 seconds on
any occasion.
(iii) For vehicles that are not able to
maintain acceleration as specified in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, do not
count the insufficient acceleration as
being outside the specified limits.
(f) Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this
section show the range of acceptable
speed tolerances for typical points
during testing. Figure 1 of this section
is typical of portions of the speed curve
that are increasing or decreasing
throughout the 2-second time interval.
Figure 2 of this section is typical of
portions of the speed curve that include
a maximum or minimum value.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.148
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
patterns for in-use operation,
considering vehicle speed, engine
speed, and any other relevant variables.
You may recommend a shift schedule in
your owners manual that differs from
your shift schedule during testing as
long as you include both shift schedules
in your application for certification. In
this case, we may use the shift schedule
you describe in your owners manual.
(d) See the standard-setting part for
drive schedules. These are defined by a
smooth trace drawn through the
specified speed vs. time sequence.
(e) The driver must attempt to follow
the target schedule as closely as
possible, consistent with the
specifications in paragraph (b) of this
section. Instantaneous speeds must stay
within the following tolerances:
74429
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(g) Start testing as follows:
(1) If a vehicle is already running and
warmed up, and starting is not part of
the test cycle, perform the following for
the following types of test cycles:
(i) Transient test cycles. Control
vehicle speeds to follow a drive
schedule consisting of a series of idles,
accelerations, cruises, and
decelerations.
(ii) Cruise test cycles. Control the
vehicle operation to match the speed of
the first phase of the test cycle. Follow
the instructions in the standard-setting
part to determine how long to stabilize
the vehicle during each phase, how long
to sample emissions at each phase, and
how to transition between phases.
(2) If engine starting is part of the test
cycle, initiate data logging, sampling of
exhaust gases, and integrating measured
values before starting the engine. Initiate
the driver’s trace when the engine starts.
(h) At the end of each test interval,
continue to operate all sampling and
dilution systems to allow the response
times to elapse. Then stop all sampling
and recording, including the recording
of background samples. Finally, stop
any integrating devices and indicate the
end of the duty cycle in the recorded
data.
(i) Shut down the vehicle if it is part
of the test cycle or if testing is complete.
(j) If testing involves engine shutdown
followed by another test phase, start a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
timer for the vehicle soak when the
engine shuts down.
(k) Take the following steps after
emission sampling is complete:
(1) For any proportional batch sample,
such as a bag sample or PM sample,
verify that proportional sampling was
maintained according to 40 CFR
1065.545. Void any samples that did not
maintain proportional sampling
according to specifications.
(2) Place any used PM samples into
covered or sealed containers and return
them to the PM-stabilization
environment. Follow the PM sample
post-conditioning and total weighing
procedures in 40 CFR 1065.595.
(3) As soon as practical after the test
cycle is complete, or optionally during
the soak period if practical, perform the
following:
(i) Drift check all continuous gas
analyzers and zero and span all batch
gas analyzers no later than 30 minutes
after the test cycle is complete, or
during the soak period if practical.
(ii) Analyze any conventional gaseous
batch samples no later than 30 minutes
after a test phase is complete, or during
the soak period if practical.
(iii) Analyze background samples no
later than 60 minutes after the test cycle
is complete.
(iv) Analyze gaseous batch samples
requiring off-line analysis, such as
PO 00000
Frm 00280
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ethanol, no later than 30 minutes after
the test cycle is complete.
(4) After quantifying exhaust gases,
verify drift as follows:
(i) For batch and continuous gas
analyzers, record the mean analyzer
value after stabilizing a zero gas to the
analyzer. Stabilization may include time
to purge the analyzer of any sample gas,
plus any additional time to account for
analyzer response.
(ii) Record the mean analyzer value
after stabilizing the span gas to the
analyzer. Stabilization may include time
to purge the analyzer of any sample gas,
plus any additional time to account for
analyzer response.
(iii) Use these data to validate and
correct for drift as described in 40 CFR
1065.550.
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Measure and record ambient
temperature and pressure. Also measure
humidity, as required, such as for
correcting NOX emissions. For testing
vehicles with the following engines, you
must record ambient temperature
continuously to verify that it remains
within the temperature range specified
in § 1066.320(b)(1) throughout the test:
(1) Air-cooled engines.
(2) Engines equipped with emission
control devices that sense and respond
to ambient temperature.
(3) Any other engine for which good
engineering judgment indicates that this
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.149
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74430
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
is necessary to remain consistent with
40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1).
(n) Validate overall driver accuracy by
comparing the expected power
generated, based on measured vehicle
speeds, to the theoretical power that
would have been generated by driving
exactly to the target trace. You may
remove any vehicle speed points and
corresponding target trace speed points
based on insufficient engine power as
Where:
i = An indexing variable that represents one
recorded value of vehicle speed.
N = number of recorded speed values.
A, B, and C = the road load coefficients.
Si = the measured vehicle speed at a given
point in time, accurate to at least the
nearest 0.01 mph. Convert speed values
to ft/s in all cases except for the terms
used with the B and C coefficients. Let
Si-1 = 0.
ti = the measured vehicle speed at a given
point in time, accurate to at least the
nearest 0.01 s. Let ti-1 = 0.
Me = effective vehicle mass, accurate to at
least the nearest 1 lbm, expressed in lbf
· s2/ft. See § 1066.304(a).
allowed in paragraph (e)(5) of this
section.
(1) Calculate the mean power demand
at the wheels, P, based on the measured
vehicle speed as follows:
S0 = 0.00 mph = 0.00 ft/s
S1 = 0.23 mph = 0.34 ft/s
S2 = 0.47 mph = 0.69 ft/s
A = 69.2 lbf
B = -0.424 lbf/mph
C = 0.03089 lbf/mph 2
t2¥t1 = 0.1 s (10 Hz)
N = 6680
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:56 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
Example:
Overview.
To determine State of Charge, Net
Energy Change, and State of Charge
correction for emission results, follow
SAE J1711 and SAE J2711 (incorporated
by reference in § 1066.710).
¯
P= 8.965 hp
Pref = 9.015 hp
Subpart F—[Reserved]
Subpart G—Calculations
Perror = -0.55%
(4) The driver power error may not
exceed ±1.50% for a valid test.
PO 00000
Frm 00281
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1066.601
Overview.
(a) This subpart describes how to—
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.154
EP30NO10.153
§ 1066.401
EP30NO10.152
Subpart E—Hybrids
EP30NO10.151
¯
P = 4931 ft·bf/s = 8.97 hp
(2) Calculate the reference value for
power demand at the wheels, Pref, based
on the target vehicle speed using
Equation 1066.330–1, substituting target
values for actual values.
(3) Calculate the driving power error,
Perror, by comparing the mean power
demand calculated in paragraph (c)(1) of
¯
this section, P, with the reference power
calculated in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, Pref, using the following
equation:
EP30NO10.150
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
EP30NO10.155
Me = 9800 lbm = 304.59 lbf·s2/ft
Example:
74431
74432
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(1) Use the signals recorded before,
during, and after an emission test to
calculate distance-specific emissions of
each regulated pollutant.
(2) Perform calculations for
calibrations and performance checks.
(3) Determine statistical values.
(b) You may use data from multiple
systems to calculate test results for a
single emission test, consistent with
good engineering judgment. You may
also make multiple measurements from
a single batch sample, such as multiple
weighing of a PM filter or multiple
readings from a bag sample. You may
not use test results from multiple
emission tests to report emissions. We
allow weighted means where
appropriate. You may discard statistical
outliers, but you must report all results.
Subpart H—Definitions and Other
Reference Material
§ 1066.701
Definitions.
(b) Symbols for chemical species. This
part uses the following symbols for
chemical species and exhaust
constituents:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 1066.610 Mass-based and molar-based
exhaust emission calculations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00282
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1066.705 Symbols, abbreviations,
acronyms, and units of measure.
The procedures in this part generally
follow either the International System of
Units (SI) or the United States
customary units, as detailed in NIST
Special Publication 811, 1995 Edition,
‘‘Guide for the Use of the International
System of Units (SI),’’ which we
incorporate by reference in § 1066.710.
See 40 CFR 1065.25 for specific
provisions related to these conventions.
This section summarizes the way we
use symbols, units of measure, and
other abbreviations.
Symbols for quantities. This part uses
the following symbols and units of
measure for various quantities:
BILLING CODE 6560–60–P
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.156
(a) General. Calculate your total mass
of emissions over a test cycle as
specified in 40 CFR 86.144–94 or 40
CFR part 1065, subpart G.
(b) Composite emissions over multiple
test cycles. For composite emission
calculations over multiple test phases
and corresponding weighting factors,
see the standard-setting part.
The definitions in this section apply
to this part. The definitions apply to all
subparts unless we note otherwise.
Other terms have the meaning given in
40 CFR part 1065. The definitions
follow:
Base inertia means a value expressed
in mass units to represent the rotational
inertia of the rotating dynamometer
components between the vehicle driving
tires and the dynamometer torquemeasuring device, as specified in
§ 1066.150.
Driving schedule means a series of
vehicle speeds that a vehicle must
follow during a test. Driving schedules
are specified in the standard-setting
part. A driving schedule may consist of
multiple test phases.
Duty cycle means a set of weighting
factors and the corresponding test
cycles, where the weighting factors are
used to combine the results of multiple
test phases into a composite result.
Road load coefficients means sets of
A, B, and C road load force coefficients
that are used in the dynamometer road
load simulation, where road load force
at speed S equals A + B · S + C · S2.
Test phase means a duration over
which a vehicle’s emission rates are
determined for comparison to an
emission standard. For example, the
standard-setting part may specify a
complete duty cycle as a cold-start test
phase and a hot-start test phase. In cases
where multiple test phases occur over a
duty cycle, the standard-setting part
may specify additional calculations that
weight and combine results to arrive at
composite values for comparison against
the applicable standards.
Unloaded coastdown means a
dynamometer coastdown run with the
vehicle wheels off the roll surface.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74433
(c) Superscripts. This part uses the
following superscripts to define a
quantity:
EP30NO10.159
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
EP30NO10.158
(e) Other acronyms and abbreviations.
This part uses the following additional
abbreviations and acronyms:
Frm 00283
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.157
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(d) Subscripts. This part uses the
following subscripts to define a
quantity:
74434
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 1066.710
Reference materials.
(b) SAE material. Table 2 of this
section lists material from the Society of
Automotive Engineering that we have
incorporated by reference. The first
column lists the number and name of
the material. The second column lists
the sections of this part where we
reference it. Anyone may purchase
copies of these materials from the
Society of Automotive Engineers, 400
Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA
15096 or https://www.sae.org. Table 2
follows:
PART 1068—GENERAL COMPLIANCE
PROVISIONS FOR HIGHWAY,
STATIONARY, AND NONROAD
PROGRAMS
using the following engines (including
owners, operators, parts manufacturers,
and persons performing maintenance):
(1) Locomotives we regulate under 40
CFR part 1033.
(2) Heavy-duty motor vehicles and
motor vehicle engines as specified in 40
CFR parts 1036 and 1037.
(3) Land-based nonroad compressionignition engines we regulate under 40
CFR part 1039.
(4) Stationary compression-ignition
engines certified using the provisions of
40 CFR part 1039, as indicated in 40
CFR part 60, subpart IIII.
(5) Marine compression-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
1042.
(6) Marine spark-ignition engines we
regulate under 40 CFR part 1045.
(7) Large nonroad spark-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
1048.
(8) Stationary spark-ignition engines
certified using the provisions of 40 CFR
parts 1048 or 1054, as indicated in 40
CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.
(9) Recreational engines and vehicles
we regulate under 40 CFR part 1051
(such as snowmobiles and off-highway
motorcycles).
(10) Small nonroad spark-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
1054.
(b) This part does not apply to any of
the following engine or vehicle
categories, except as specified in
15. The authority citation for part
1068 continues to read as follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
16. The heading of part 1068 is
revised to read as set forth above.
Subpart A—[Amended]
17. Section 1068.1 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1068.1
Does this part apply to me?
(a) The provisions of this part apply
to everyone with respect to the
following engines and to equipment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00284
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.162
Institute of Standards and Technology
that we have incorporated by reference.
The first column lists the number and
name of the material. The second
column lists the section of this part
where we reference it. Anyone may
purchase copies of these materials from
the Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402 or download
them free from the Internet at https://
www.nist.gov. Table 1 follows:
EP30NO10.161
Washington, DC 20460 or at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(a) NIST material. Table 1 of this
section lists material from the National
EP30NO10.160
Documents listed in this section have
been incorporated by reference into this
part. The Director of the Federal
Register approved the incorporation by
reference as prescribed in 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may
inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Room B102, EPA West Building,
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
paragraph (d) of this section or as
specified in other parts:
(1) Light-duty motor vehicles (see 40
CFR part 86).
(2) Highway motorcycles (see 40 CFR
part 86).
(3) Aircraft engines (see 40 CFR part
87).
(4) Land-based nonroad compressionignition engines we regulate under 40
CFR part 89.
(5) Small nonroad spark-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
90.
(c) Paragraph (a) of this section
identifies the parts of the CFR that
define emission standards and other
requirements for particular types of
engines and equipment. This part 1068
refers to each of these other parts
generically as the ‘‘standard-setting
part.’’ For example, 40 CFR part 1051 is
always the standard-setting part for
snowmobiles. Follow the provisions of
the standard-setting part if they are
different than any of the provisions in
this part.
(d) Specific provisions in this part
1068 start to apply separate from the
schedule for certifying engines to new
emission standards, as follows:
(1) The provisions of §§ 1068.30 and
1068.310 apply for stationary sparkignition engines built on or after January
1, 2004, and for stationary compressionignition engines built on or after January
1, 2006.
(2) The provisions of §§ 1068.30 and
1068.235 apply for the types of engines/
equipment listed in paragraph (a) of this
section beginning January 1, 2004, if
they are used solely for competition.
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Chapter V
In consideration of the foregoing,
under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 32901
and 32902 and delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50, NHTSA proposes to amend
49 CFR chapter V as follows:
PART 523—VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
18. The authority citation for part 523
continues to read as follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
19. Revise § 523.2 to read as follows:
§ 523.2
Definitions.
As used in this part:
Approach angle means the smallest
angle, in a plane side view of an
automobile, formed by the level surface
on which the automobile is standing
and a line tangent to the front tire static
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
loaded radius arc and touching the
underside of the automobile forward of
the front tire.
Axle clearance means the vertical
distance from the level surface on which
an automobile is standing to the lowest
point on the axle differential of the
automobile.
Base tire means the tire specified as
standard equipment by a manufacturer
on each vehicle configuration of a
model type.
Basic vehicle frontal area is used as
defined in 40 CFR 86.1803–01.
Breakover angle means the
supplement of the largest angle, in the
plan side view of an automobile that can
be formed by two lines tangent to the
front and rear static loaded radii arcs
and intersecting at a point on the
underside of the automobile.
Cab-complete vehicle means a vehicle
that is first sold as an incomplete
vehicle that substantially includes the
vehicle cab section as defined in 40 CFR
1037.801. For example, vehicles known
commercially as chassis-cabs, cabchassis, box-deletes, bed-deletes, cutaway vans are considered cab-complete
vehicles. A cab includes a steering
column and passenger compartment.
Note a vehicle lacking some
components of the cab is a cab-complete
vehicle if it substantially includes the
cab.
Cargo-carrying volume means the
luggage capacity or cargo volume index,
as appropriate, and as those terms are
defined in 40 CFR 600.315, in the case
of automobiles to which either of those
terms apply. With respect to
automobiles to which neither of those
terms apply ‘‘cargo-carrying volume’’
means the total volume in cubic feet
rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic feet of
either an automobile’s enclosed
nonseating space that is intended
primarily for carrying cargo and is not
accessible from the passenger
compartment, or the space intended
primarily for carrying cargo bounded in
the front by a vertical plane that is
perpendicular to the longitudinal
centerline of the automobile and passes
through the rearmost point on the
rearmost seat and elsewhere by the
automobile’s interior surfaces.
Class 2b vehicles are vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
ranging from 8,501 to 10,000 pounds.
Class 3 through Class 8 vehicles are
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 10,001 pounds or
more as defined in 49 CFR 565.15.
Commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicle means an onhighway vehicle with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more
as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00285
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74435
Completed vehicle means a vehicle
that requires no further manufacturing
operations to perform its intended
function.
Curb weight is defined the same as
vehicle curb weight in 40 CFR 86.1803–
01.
Departure angle means the smallest
angle, in a plane side view of an
automobile, formed by the level surface
on which the automobile is standing
and a line tangent to the rear tire static
loaded radius arc and touching the
underside of the automobile rearward of
the rear tire.
Final stage manufacturer has the
meaning given in 49 CFR 567.3.
Footprint is defined as the product of
track width (measured in inches,
calculated as the average of front and
rear track widths, and rounded to the
nearest tenth of an inch) times
wheelbase (measured in inches and
rounded to the nearest tenth of an inch),
divided by 144 and then rounded to the
nearest tenth of a square foot. For
purposes of this definition, track width
is the lateral distance between the
centerlines of the base tires at ground,
including the camber angle. For
purposes of this definition, wheelbase is
the longitudinal distance between front
and rear wheel centerlines.
Gross combination weight rating or
GCWR means the value specified by the
manufacturer as the maximum
allowable loaded weight of a
combination vehicle (e.g. tractor plus
trailer).
Gross vehicle weight rating or GVWR
means the value specified by the vehicle
manufacturer as the maximum design
loaded weight of a single vehicle (e.g.
vocational truck).
Heavy-duty truck means a nonpassenger automobile meeting the
criteria in § 523.6.
Heavy-duty off-road truck means a
heavy-duty truck intended to be used
extensively in off-road environments
such as forests, oil fields, and
construction sites. A vehicle may
qualify as a heavy-duty off-road truck by
meeting the criteria for ‘‘Off-road heavyduty vocational trucks’’ or ‘‘Off-road
truck tractors’’ or by getting separate
approval, as follows:
(1) Off-road heavy-duty vocational
trucks are those meeting the following
criteria:
(i) The tires installed on the vehicle
must be lug tires or contain a speed
rating at or below 60 mph. For purposes
of this section, a lug tire is one for
which the elevated portion of the tread
covers less than one-half of the tread
surface.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74436
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(ii) The vehicle must include a
vehicle speed limiter governed to 55
mph or less.
(2) Off-road truck tractors are those
meeting the following criteria:
(i) The tires installed on the vehicle
must be lug tires or contain a speed
rating at or below 60 mph. For purposes
of this section, a lug tire is one for
which the elevated portion of the tread
covers less than one-half of the tread
surface.
(ii) The vehicle must include a
vehicle speed limiter governed to 55
mph or less.
(iii) The vehicle must either:
(A) Contain power take-off (PTO)
controls; or
(B) Have GVWR greater than 57,000
pounds and have axle configurations
other than 4x2, 6x2, or 6x4 (axle
configurations are expressed as total
number of wheel hubs by number of
drive wheel hubs).
(iv) The frame of the vehicle must
have a resisting bending moment (RBM)
greater than 2,000,000 inch-pounds. Use
sound engineering judgment to
determine the RBM for the frame.
(3) Vehicles not meeting the
provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this definition may still be considered
as heavy-duty off-road trucks upon
approval from the Administrators of
NHTSA and EPA.
Incomplete vehicle means an
assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of
chassis (including the frame) structure,
power train, steering system, suspension
system, and braking system, in the state
that those systems are to be part of the
completed vehicle, but requires further
manufacturing operations to become a
completed vehicle.
Light truck means a non-passenger
automobile meeting the criteria in
§ 523.5.
Medium duty passenger vehicle
means a vehicle which would satisfy the
criteria in § 523.5 (relating to light
trucks) but for its gross vehicle weight
rating or its curb weight, which is rated
at more than 8,500 lbs GVWR or has a
vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000
pounds or has a basic vehicle frontal
area in excess of 45 square feet, and
which is designed primarily to transport
passengers, but does not include a
vehicle that:
(1) Is an ‘‘incomplete truck’’’ as
defined in this subpart; or
(2) Has a seating capacity of more
than 12 persons; or
(3) Is designed for more than 9
persons in seating rearward of the
driver’s seat; or
(4) Is equipped with an open cargo
area (for example, a pick-up truck box
or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
or more. A covered box not readily
accessible from the passenger
compartment will be considered an
open cargo area for purposes of this
definition.
Motor home has the meaning given in
49 CFR 571.3.
Passenger-carrying volume means the
sum of the front seat volume and, if any,
rear seat volume, as defined in 40 CFR
600.315, in the case of automobiles to
which that term applies. With respect to
automobiles to which that term does not
apply, ‘‘passenger-carrying volume’’
means the sum in cubic feet, rounded to
the nearest 0.1 cubic feet, of the volume
of a vehicle’s front seat and seats to the
rear of the front seat, as applicable,
calculated as follows with the head
room, shoulder room, and leg room
dimensions determined in accordance
with the procedures outlined in Society
of Automotive Engineers Recommended
Practice J1100a, Motor Vehicle
Dimensions (Report of Human Factors
Engineering Committee, Society of
Automotive Engineers, approved
September 1973 and last revised
September 1975).
(1) For front seat volume, divide 1,728
into the product of the following SAE
dimensions, measured in inches to the
nearest 0.1 inches, and round the
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(i) H61-Effective head room—front.
(ii) W3-Shoulder room—front.
(iii) L34-Maximum effective leg roomaccelerator.
(2) For the volume of seats to the rear
of the front seat, divide 1,728 into the
product of the following SAE
dimensions, measured in inches to the
nearest 0.1 inches, and rounded the
quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(i) H63-Effective head room—second.
(ii) W4-Shoulder room—second.
(iii) L51-Minimum effective leg
room—second.
Pickup truck means a non-passenger
automobile which has a passenger
compartment and an open cargo area
(bed).
Recreational vehicle or RV means a
motor vehicle equipped with living
space and amenities found in a motor
home.
Running clearance means the distance
from the surface on which an
automobile is standing to the lowest
point on the automobile, excluding
unsprung weight.
Static loaded radius arc means a
portion of a circle whose center is the
center of a standard tire-rim
combination of an automobile and
whose radius is the distance from that
center to the level surface on which the
automobile is standing, measured with
the automobile at curb weight, the
PO 00000
Frm 00286
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
wheel parallel to the vehicle’s
longitudinal centerline, and the tire
inflated to the manufacturer’s
recommended pressure.
Temporary living quarters means a
space in the interior of an automobile in
which people may temporarily live and
which includes sleeping surfaces, such
as beds, and household conveniences,
such as a sink, stove, refrigerator, or
toilet.
Van means a vehicle that has an
integral enclosure fully enclosing the
driver compartment and load carrying
compartment. The distance from the
leading edge of the foremost body
section of vans is typically shorter than
that of pickup trucks and sport utility
vehicles.
Vocational vehicle means a vehicle
that is constructed for a particular
industry, trade or occupation such as
construction, heavy hauling, mining,
logging, oil fields and refuse.
Work truck means a vehicle that is
rated at more than 8,500 pounds and
less than or equal to 10,000 pounds
gross vehicle weight, and is not a
medium-duty passenger vehicle as
defined in 40 CFR 86.1803–01 effective
as of December 20, 2007.
20. Add a new § 523.6 to read as
follows:
§ 523.6
Heavy-duty truck.
(a) A heavy-duty truck is any Class 2b
through 8 non-passenger vehicle that is
a commercial medium and heavy duty
on highway vehicle or a work truck, as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7) and
(19). For the purpose of this part, heavyduty trucks are divided into three
regulatory categories as follows:
(1) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans;
(2) Heavy-duty vocational trucks; and
(3) Truck tractors with a GVWR above
26,000 pounds.
(b) The heavy-duty truck
classification does not include:
(1) Vehicles defined as medium duty
passenger vehicles in 40 CFR 86.1803–
01 on December 20, 2007.
(2) Recreational vehicles including
motor homes.
(3) Vehicles excluded from the
definition of ‘‘heavy-duty truck’’ because
of vehicle weight or weight rating (such
as light duty vehicles and light duty
trucks as defined in § 523.5).
(4) Heavy-duty off-road vehicles.
21. Add a new § 523.7 to read as
follows:
§ 523.7
vans.
Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
are pickup trucks and vans with a gross
vehicle weight rating between 8,501
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
pounds and 14,000 pounds (Class 2b
through 3 vehicles) manufactured as
complete vehicles by a single or final
stage manufacturer and include cabcomplete vehicles that are first sold as
incomplete vehicles that substantially
include the vehicle cab section.
22. Add a new § 523.8 to read as
follows:
§ 523.8
Heavy-duty vocational trucks.
Heavy-duty vocational trucks are
vocational vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) above 8,500
pounds excluding:
(a) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans defined in § 523.7;
(b) Medium duty passenger vehicles;
(c) Truck tractors with a GVWR above
26,000 pounds; and
(d) Heavy-duty vocational trucks with
sleeper cabs.
23. Add a new § 523.9 to read as
follows:
§ 523.9
Truck tractors.
Truck tractors for the purpose of this
part are considered as any truck tractor
as defined in 49 CFR part 571 having a
GVWR above 26,000 pounds and
include any heavy-duty vocational truck
with a sleeper cab.
PART 534—RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF
MANUFACTURERS IN THE CONTEXT
OF CHANGES IN CORPORATE
RELATIONSHIPS
24. The authority citation for part 534
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
25. Revise § 534.1 to read as follows:
§ 534.1
Scope.
This part defines the rights and
responsibilities of manufacturers in the
context of changes in corporate
relationships for purposes of the fuel
economy and fuel consumption
programs established by 49 U.S.C.
chapter 329.
26. Revise § 534.2 to read as follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 534.2
Applicability.
This part applies to manufacturers of
passenger automobiles, light trucks,
heavy-duty trucks and the engines
manufactured for use in heavy-duty
trucks as defined in 49 CFR part 523.
27. Revise § 534.4 to read as follows.
§ 534.4
Successors and predecessors.
For purposes of the fuel economy and
fuel consumption programs,
‘‘manufacturer’’ includes ‘‘predecessors’’
and ‘‘successors’’ to the extent specified
in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(a) Successors are responsible for any
civil penalties that arise out of fuel
economy and fuel consumption
shortfalls incurred and not satisfied by
predecessors.
(b) If one manufacturer has become
the successor of another manufacturer
during a model year, all of the vehicles
or engines produced by those
manufacturers during the model year
are treated as though they were
manufactured by the same
manufacturer. A manufacturer is
considered to have become the
successor of another manufacturer
during a model year if it is the successor
on September 30 of the corresponding
calendar year and was not the successor
for the preceding model year.
(c)(1) For passenger automobiles and
light trucks, fuel economy credits
earned by a predecessor before or during
model year 2007 may be used by a
successor, subject to the availability of
credits and the general three-year
restriction on carrying credits forward
and the general three-year restriction on
carrying credits backward. Fuel
economy credits earned by a
predecessor after model year 2007 may
be used by a successor, subject to the
availability of credits and the general
five-year restriction on carrying credits
forward and the general three-year
restriction on carrying credits backward.
(2) For heavy-duty trucks and heavyduty truck engines, available fuel
consumption credits earned by a
predecessor after model year 2015, and
in model years 2014 and 2015 if a
manufacturer voluntarily complies in
those model years, may be used by a
successor, subject to the availability of
credits and without restriction on
carrying credits forward, except for the
heavy-duty pickup truck and van
category that have a 5 year carry forward
expiry date, and the successor may use
excess credits from the predecessor to
offset a successor’s past credit shortfall
within the general three year restriction
specified in the requirements of 49 CFR
535.7.
(d)(1) For passenger automobiles and
light trucks, fuel economy credits
earned by a successor before or during
model year 2007 may be used to offset
a predecessor’s shortfall, subject to the
availability of credits and the general
three-year restriction on carrying credits
forward and the general three-year
restriction on carrying credits backward.
Credits earned by a successor after
model year 2007 may be used to offset
a predecessor’s shortfall, subject to the
availability of credits and the general
five-year restriction on carrying credits
forward and the general three-year
restriction on carrying credits backward.
PO 00000
Frm 00287
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74437
(2) For heavy-duty trucks and heavyduty truck engines, available credits
earned by a successor after model year
2015, and in model years 2014 and
2015, if a manufacturer voluntarily
complies in those model years, may be
used by a predecessor within the
guidelines of the three year provisions
to offset a predecessor’s past credit
shortfall as specified in the
requirements of 49 CFR 535.7.
28. Amend § 534.5 by revising
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) to read as
follows:
§ 534.5 Manufacturers within control
relationships.
(a) If a civil penalty arises out of a fuel
economy or fuel consumption shortfall
incurred by a group of manufacturers
within a control relationship, each
manufacturer within that group is
jointly and severally liable for the civil
penalty.
*
*
*
*
*
(c)(1) For passenger automobiles and
light trucks, fuel economy credits of a
manufacturer within a control
relationship may be used by the group
of manufacturers within the control
relationship to offset shortfalls, subject
to the agreement of the other
manufacturers, the availability of the
credits, and the general three year
restriction on carrying credits forward
or backward prior to or during model
year 2007, or the general five year
restriction on carrying credits forward
and the general three-year restriction on
carrying credits backward after model
year 2007.
(2) For heavy-duty trucks and heavyduty engines, credits of a manufacturer
within a control relationship may be
used by the group of manufacturers
within the control relationship to offset
shortfalls, subject to the agreement of
the other manufacturers, the availability
of the credits to carry forward without
restriction, except for the heavy-duty
pickup truck and van category that have
a 5-year carry forward expiry date, and
the general three year restriction on
offsetting past credit shortfalls as
specified in the requirements of 49 CFR
535.7.
(d)(1) For passenger automobiles and
light trucks, if a manufacturer within a
group of manufacturers is sold or
otherwise spun off so that it is no longer
within that control relationship, the
manufacturer may use credits that were
earned by the group of manufacturers
within the control relationship while
the manufacturer was within that
relationship, subject to the agreement of
the other manufacturers, the availability
of the credits, and the general three-year
restriction on carrying credits forward
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74438
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
or backward prior to or during model
year 2007, or the general five-year
restriction on carrying credits forward
and the general three-year restriction on
carrying credits backward after model
year 2007.
(2) For heavy-duty trucks and heavyduty truck engines, if a manufacturer
within a group of manufacturers is sold
or otherwise spun off so that it is no
longer within that control relationship,
the manufacturer may use credits that
were earned by the group of
manufacturers within the control
relationship while the manufacturer was
within that relationship, subject to the
agreement of the other manufacturers,
the availability of the credits, and the
requirements of 49 CFR 535.7.
*
*
*
*
*
29. Revise § 534.6 to read as follows.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 534.6
Reporting corporate transactions.
Manufacturers who have entered into
written contracts transferring rights and
responsibilities such that a different
manufacturer owns the controlling stock
or exerts control over the design,
production or sale of automobiles or
heavy-duty trucks to which Corporate
Average Fuel Economy or Fuel
Consumption standards apply shall
report the contract to the agency as
follows:
(a) The manufacturers must file a
certified report with the agency
affirmatively stating that the contract
transfers rights and responsibilities
between them such that one
manufacturer has assumed a controlling
stock ownership or control over the
design, production or sale of vehicles.
The report must also specify the first
full model year to which the transaction
will apply.
(b) Each report shall—
(1) Identify each manufacturer;
(2) State the full name, title, and
address of the official responsible for
preparing the report;
(3) Identify the production year being
reported on;
(4) Be written in the English language;
and
(5) Be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
(c) The manufacturers may seek
confidential treatment for information
provided in the certified report in
accordance with 49 CFR part 512.
30. A new part 535 is added to
chapter V to read as follows:
PART 535—MEDIUM- AND HEAVYDUTY VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM
Sec.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
535.1 Scope.
535.2 Purpose.
535.3 Applicability.
535.4 Definitions.
535.5 Standards.
535.6 Measurement and calculation
procedures.
535.7 Averaging, banking, and trading
(ABT) program.
535.8 Reporting requirements.
535.9 Enforcement approach.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
§ 535.1
Scope.
This part establishes fuel
consumption standards pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 32902(k) for work trucks and
commercial medium-duty and heavyduty on-highway vehicles (hereafter
referenced as heavy-duty trucks) and
engines and establishes a credit program
manufacturers may use to comply with
standards and requirements for
manufacturers to provide reports to the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration regarding their efforts to
reduce the fuel consumption of these
vehicles.
§ 535.2
Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to reduce
the fuel consumption of new heavy-duty
trucks by establishing maximum levels
for fuel consumption standards while
providing a flexible credit program to
assist manufacturers in complying with
standards.
§ 535.3
Applicability.
(a) This part applies to vehicle and
chassis manufacturers of all new heavyduty trucks, as defined in 49 CFR part
523, and to the manufacturers of all
engines manufactured for use in the
applicable vehicles (hereafter referenced
as heavy-duty engines).
(b) Vehicle manufacturer, for the
purpose of this part, means a
manufacturer that manufactures heavyduty pickup trucks and vans or truck
tractors as complete vehicles.
(c) Chassis manufacturer, for the
purpose of this part, means a
manufacturer that manufactures the
chassis of a vocational vehicle.
(d) The heavy-duty engines excluded
from the requirements of this part
include:
(1) Engines used in medium-duty
passenger vehicles.
(2) Engines fueled by other than
petroleum fuels, natural gas, liquefied
petroleum gas, and methanol.
(e) Small business manufacturers as
defined by the Small Business
Administration at 13 CFR 121.201, and
as reported to and approved by the
Administrators of EPA and NHTSA, are
exempted from the requirements of this
part.
PO 00000
Frm 00288
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 535.4
Definitions.
The terms manufacture and
manufacturer are used as defined in
section 501 of the Act and the terms
commercial medium-duty and heavyduty on-highway vehicle, fuel and work
truck are used as defined in 49 U.S.C.
32901.
Act means the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act, as
amended by Public Law 94–163 and 96–
425.
Administrator means the
Administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
or the Administrator’s delegate.
Averaging set means, for the purpose
of this part, the collective regulatory
category (or subcategory) of heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans and is made up
of multiple test groups that determine
the manufacturer’s ‘‘fleet average fuel
consumption’’ as defined in this section.
Cab-complete vehicle has the meaning
given in 49 CFR part 523.
Chassis means the incomplete part of
a vehicle that includes a frame, a
completed occupant compartment and
that requires only the addition of cargocarrying, work-performing, or loadbearing components to perform its
intended functions.
Chief Counsel means the NHTSA
Chief Counsel, or his or her designee.
Complete vehicle has the meaning
given in 49 CFR part 523.
Compression-ignition means relating
to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine, such as a diesel
engine, that is not a spark-ignition
engine.
Credits (or fuel consumption credits)
in this part means an earned or
purchased allowance recognizing the
fuel consumption of a particular
manufacturer’s vehicles or engines
within a particular regulatory
subcategory or fleet exceeds (credit
surplus or positive credits) or falls
below (credit shortfall or negative
credits) that manufacturer’s fuel
consumption standard for a regulatory
subcategory or fleet for a given model
year. The value of a credit is calculated
according to § 535.7.
Curb weight has the meaning given in
40 CFR 86.1803–01.
Day cab means a type of truck tractor
cab that is not a ‘‘sleeper cab’’, as defined
in this section.
Dedicated truck has the same
meaning as dedicated automobile as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8).
Dual fueled or flexible-fuel truck has
the same meaning as dual fueled
automobile as defined in 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(9).
Engine family has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1036.230.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Family certification level (FCL) means
the family certification limit for an
engine family as defined in 40 CFR
1036.801.
Family emission limit (FEL) means the
family emission limit for a vehicle
family as defined in 40 CFR 1036.801.
Final-stage manufacturer has the
meaning given in 49 CFR part 523.
Fleet in this part means all the heavyduty trucks or engines within each of
the regulatory sub-categories that are
manufactured by a manufacturer in a
particular model year and that are
subject to fuel consumption standards
under § 535.5.
Fleet average fuel consumption is the
calculated average fuel consumption
performance value for a manufacturer’s
fleet derived from the production
weighted fuel consumption values of
the unique vehicle configurations
within each vehicle model type that
makes up that manufacturer’s vehicle
fleet in a given model year. In this part,
the fleet average fuel consumption value
is determined for each manufacturer’s
fleet of heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans.
Fleet average fuel consumption
standard is the actual average fuel
consumption standard for a
manufacturer’s fleet derived from the
production weighted fuel consumption
standards of each unique vehicle
configuration, based on payload, tow
capacity and drive configuration (2, 4 or
all-wheel drive), of the model types that
makes up that manufacturer’s vehicle
fleet in a given model year. In this part,
the fleet average fuel consumption
standard is determined for each
manufacturer’s fleet of heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans.
Fuel efficiency means the amount of
work performed for each gallon of fuel
consumed.
Gross combination weight rating
(GCWR) has the meaning given in 49
CFR part 523.
Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
has the meaning given in 49 CFR part
523.
Hearing Officer means a NHTSA
employee who has been delegated the
authority to assess civil penalties by the
Administrator.
Heavy-duty truck has the meaning
given in 49 CFR part 523.
Incomplete vehicle has the meaning
given in 49 CFR 567.3.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1036.801.
Model type has the meaning given in
40 CFR 600.002.
Model year means the manufacturer’s
annual new model production period,
except as restricted under this definition
and 40 CFR part 85, subpart X. It must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
include January 1 of the calendar year
for which the model year is named, may
not begin before January 2 of the
previous calendar year, and it must end
by December 31 of the named calendar
year. A manufacturer must use the date
on which a vehicle is shipped from the
factory in which the assembly process is
finished as the date of manufacture for
determining model year. For example,
where a certificate holder (i.e., a
manufacturer that obtains a vehicle
emission certification from EPA) sells a
cab-complete vehicle to a secondary
vehicle manufacturer, the model year is
based on the date the vehicle leaves the
factory as a cab-complete vehicle.
Natural gas has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1036.801.
NHTSA Enforcement means the
NHTSA Associate Administrator for
Enforcement, or his or her designee.
Notice of violation means a
notification of violation and preliminary
assessment of penalty issued by the
Chief Counsel to a party.
Party means the person alleged to
have committed a violation of § 535.9,
and includes manufacturers of vehicles
and manufacturers of engines.
Payload means in this part the
resultant of subtracting the curb weight
from the gross vehicle weight rating.
Petroleum has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1036.801.
Pickup truck has the meaning given in
49 CFR part 523.
Power take-off (PTO) control means a
device used for hybrid applications in
heavy-duty vocational trucks or truck
tractors such as a secondary hybrid
power source to operate secondary
equipment like a utility bucket or dump
bed that would otherwise require the
use of the truck’s engine.
Regulatory category means each of the
three types of heavy-duty trucks defined
in 49 CFR 523.6 and the heavy-duty
engines defined in § 535.3.
Regulatory subcategory means the
sub-groups in each regulatory category
to which fuel consumption
requirements apply, and are defined as
follows:
(1) Heavy-duty pick-up trucks and
vans
(2) Vocational light-heavy vehicles at
or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(3) Vocational medium-heavy vehicles
above 19,500 pounds GVWR but at or
below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(4) Vocational heavy-heavy vehicles
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(5) Low roof day cab tractors above
26,000 pounds GVWR but at or below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(6) Mid roof day cab tractors above
26,000 pounds GVWR but at or below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
PO 00000
Frm 00289
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74439
(7) High roof day cab tractors above
26,000 pounds GVWR but at or below
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(8) Low roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(9) Mid roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(10) High roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(11) Low roof sleeper cab tractors
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(12) Mid roof sleeper cab tractors
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(13) High roof sleeper cab tractors
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(14) Light heavy-duty diesel engines
in Class 2b to 5 trucks with a GVWR
above 8,500 pounds but at or below
19,500 pounds.
(15) Medium heavy-duty diesel
engines in Class 6 and 7 trucks with a
GVWR above 19,500 but at or below
33,000 pounds.
(16) Heavy heavy-duty diesel engines
in Class 8 trucks with a GVWR above
33,000 pounds.
(17) Spark ignition engines in Class 2b
to 8 trucks with a GVWR above 8,500
pounds.
Roof height means the maximum
height of a vehicle (rounded to the
nearest inch), excluding narrow
accessories such as exhaust pipes and
antennas, but including any wide
accessories such as roof fairings.
Measure roof height of the vehicle
configured to have its maximum height
that will occur during actual use, with
properly inflated tires and no driver,
passengers, or cargo onboard. Once the
maximum height is determined, roof
heights are divided into the following
categories:
(1) Low roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 120 inches
or less (includes tractors with adjustable
fairings).
(2) Mid roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 121 to 147
inches.
(3) High roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 148 inches
or more.
Sleeper cab means a type of truck
tractor cab including a compartment
behind the driver’s seat intended to be
used by the driver for sleeping. This
includes both cabs accessible from the
driver’s compartment and those
accessible from outside the vehicle.
Spark-ignition engines means relating
to a gasoline-fueled engine or any other
type of engine with a spark plug (or
other sparking device) and with
operating characteristics significantly
similar to the theoretical Otto
combustion cycle. Spark-ignition
engines usually use a throttle to regulate
intake air flow to control power during
normal operation.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74440
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 535.5
Standards.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans. Each manufacturer of heavy-duty
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
pickup trucks and vans shall comply
with the fuel consumption standards in
this paragraph expressed in gallons per
100 miles.
(1) For model years 2016 and later.
Each manufacturer must comply with
the fleet average standard derived from
the unique vehicle configuration
(payload, towing capacity and drive
configuration) target standards of the
model types that make up the
manufacturer’s fleet in a given model
year. Each vehicle configuration has a
unique attribute-based target standard,
defined by each group of vehicles
having the same payload, towing
capacity and whether the vehicles are
equipped with a 2-wheel or 4-wheel
drive configuration.
(2) Vehicle configuration target
standards. (i) Two alternatives exist for
determining the vehicle configuration
target standards for model years 2016
and later. For each alternative, separate
standards exist for compression-ignition
and spark-ignition vehicles:
(A) The first alternative allows
manufacturers to determine a fixed fuel
consumption standard that is constant
over the model years; and
(B) The second alternative allows
manufacturers to determine standards
that are phased-in gradually each year.
PO 00000
Frm 00290
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Calculate the vehicle configuration
target standards as specified in this
paragraph (a)(2)(ii), using the
appropriate coefficients from Table 1 of
this section to choose between the
alternatives in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A)
and (B) of this section. For electric or
fuel cell heavy-duty trucks, use
compression-ignition vehicle
coefficients ‘‘c and d’’ and for hybrid
(including plug-in hybrid), dedicated
and dual-fueled trucks, use coefficients
‘‘c and d’’ appropriate for the engine type
used. Round each standard to the
nearest 0.1 gallons per 100 miles and
specify all weights in pounds rounded
to the nearest pound. Calculate the
vehicle configuration target standards
using the following equation:
Vehicle Configuration Target Standard
(gallons per 100 miles) = [c × (WF)]
+d
Where:
WF = Work Factor = [0.75 × (Payload
Capacity + Xwd)] + [0.25 × Towing
Capacity]
Xwd = 4wd Adjustment = 500 lbs if the
vehicle group is equipped with 4wd and
all-wheel drive, otherwise equals 0 lbs
for 2wd.
Payload Capacity = GVWR (lbs) ¥ Curb
Weight (lbs) (for each vehicle group)
Towing Capacity = GCWR (lbs) ¥ GVWR
(lbs) (for each vehicle group)
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.163
Test group means the multiple vehicle
lines and model types that share critical
emissions and fuel consumption related
features and that are certified as a group
by a common certificate of conformity
issued by EPA and is used collectively
with other test groups within an
averaging set (a regulatory subcategory)
and is used by NHTSA for determining
the fleet average consumption.
Towing capacity in this part is equal
to the resultant of subtracting the gross
vehicle weight rating from the gross
combined weight rating.
Trade means to exchange fuel
consumption credits, either as a buyer
or a seller.
Truck tractor has the meaning given
in 49 CFR 571.3.
Useful life has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1037.801.
Vehicle configuration has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 600.002.
Vehicle family has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1037.230.
Violation means a failure to comply
with an applicable fuel consumption
standard for a regulatory subcategory of
vehicles or engines, after all flexibilities
available under § 535.7 are taken into
account.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74441
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section,
weighted to production volumes and
averaged using the following equation
combining all the applicable vehicles in
a manufacturer’s fleet (compression-
ignition and spark-ignition vehicles) for
a given model year, rounded to the
nearest 0.1 gallons per 100 miles:
Where:
Vehicle Configuration Target Standardi =
fuel consumption standard for each group of
vehicles with same payload, towing capacity
and drive configuration.
Volumei = production volume of each
unique vehicle configuration of a model type
based upon payload, towing capacity and
drive configuration.
Trading Program, as specified in § 535.7,
to comply with standards; and
(iii) Manufacturers must select an
alternative for vehicle configuration
target standards at the same time they
submit the model year 2016 PreCertification Compliance Report,
specified in § 535.8. Once selected, the
decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer must continue to comply
with the same alternative for subsequent
model years.
(iv) A manufacturer failing to comply
with the provisions specified in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section is
liable to pay civil penalties in
accordance with § 535.9.
(4) Voluntary standards. (i)
Manufacturers may choose voluntarily
to comply early with fuel consumption
standards for model years 2013 through
2015, as determined in paragraphs
(a)(3)(iii) and (iv) in this section, for
example, in order to begin accumulating
credits through over-compliance with
the applicable standard.
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its
intent to voluntarily comply with fuel
consumption standards at the same time
it submits a Pre-Certification
Compliance Report, prior to the
compliance model year beginning as
specified in § 535.8; and, once selected,
the decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer must continue to comply
for each subsequent model year.
(iii) Calculate separate vehicle
configuration target standards for
compression-ignition and spark-ignition
vehicles for model years 2013 through
2015 using the equation in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) in this section, substituting the
appropriate values for the coefficients in
Table 2 of this section as appropriate.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(ii) A manufacturer complies with the
requirements of this part, if at the end
of the model year, it provides reports, as
specified in § 535.8, to the
Administrator by the required deadlines
and meets one of the following
conditions:
(A) The manufacturer’s fleet average
performance, as determined in § 535.6,
is less than the fleet average standard;
or
(B) The manufacturer uses one or
more of the credit flexibilities provided
under NHTSA’s Averaging, Banking and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00291
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.164
(3) Fleet average fuel consumption
standard. (i) Calculate each
manufacturer’s fleet average fuel
consumption standard from the vehicle
configuration target standards specified
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(iv) Calculate the fleet average fuel
consumption standards for model years
2013 through 2015 using the equation in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(5) Cab-complete vehicles. The
provisions of this section apply to
applicable cab-complete vehicles in the
same manner as they apply to complete
vehicles. Calculate the unique vehicle
configuration target standards based on
the same values that would apply for
the most similar complete vehicle to the
cab-complete vehicle.
(6) Low volume exclusion. A
manufacturer may exclude a limited
number of vehicles from the standards
of this section. The number of excluded
vehicles may not exceed 2000 in any
model year, unless the total production
of vehicles in this category for that
model year is greater than 100,000 and
the excluded vehicles are not more than
2.00 percent of the manufacturer’s total
production of vehicles in this
subcategory for any model year. For
example, a vehicle manufacturer
producing 200,000 vehicles in a given
model year could exclude up to 4,000
vehicles under this paragraph (a)(6). The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
vehicle standards and requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section apply for
the excluded vehicles. The standards in
paragraph (d) of this section also apply
for engines used in these excluded
vehicles. Manufacturers must submit
information in their Pre-Certification
Compliance Report, as specified in
§ 535.8, describing how they intend to
use the provisions of this paragraph
(a)(6). If the chassis manufacturer is not
the engine manufacturer, the chassis
manufacturer must notify the engine
manufacturer, as required by EPA in 40
CFR 1037.104, that their engines are
subject to the requirements of paragraph
(d) of this section and are intended for
use in excluded vehicles.
(b) Heavy-duty vocational trucks.
Each manufacturer of heavy-duty
vocational trucks shall comply with the
fuel consumption standards in this
paragraph (b) expressed in gallons per
1000 ton-miles.
(1) For model years 2016 and later.
Each chassis manufacturer of heavyduty vocational trucks must comply
with the fuel consumption standards in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00292
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) The heavy-duty vocational truck
chassis category is subdivided by GVWR
into three regulatory subcategories, each
with its own assigned standard.
(ii) For purposes of certifying vehicles
to fuel consumption standards,
manufacturers must divide their
product lines into vehicle families that
have similar emissions and fuel
consumption features, as specified by
EPA in 40 CFR part 1037, subpart C, and
these families will be subject to the
applicable standards. Each vehicle
family is limited to a single model year.
(iii) Standards for heavy-duty
vocational truck engines are given in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(iv) A manufacturer complies with the
requirements of this part, if at the end
of the model year, it provides reports, as
specified in § 535.8, to the
Administrator by the required deadlines
and meets one of the following
conditions:
(A) The manufacturer’s fuel
consumption performance for each
vehicle family, as determined in § 535.6,
is lower than the applicable standard; or
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.165
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74442
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
74443
manufacturer may choose voluntarily to
comply early with the fuel consumption
standards provided in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section, for each regulatory
subcategory. For example, a
manufacturer may choose to comply
early in order to begin accumulating
credits through over-compliance with
the applicable standard.
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its
intent to voluntarily comply with fuel
consumption standards at the same time
it submits a Pre-Certification
Compliance Report, prior to the
compliance model year beginning as
specified in § 535.8; and, once selected,
the decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer must continue to comply
for each subsequent model year.
(3) Regulatory subcategory standards.
The fuel consumption standards for
heavy-duty vocational trucks are given
in the following table:
(c) Truck tractors. Each manufacturer
of truck tractors with a GVWR above
26,000 pounds shall comply with the
fuel consumption standards in this
paragraph (c) expressed in gallons per
1000 ton-miles.
(1) For model years 2016 and later.
Each manufacturer of truck tractors
must comply with the fuel consumption
standards in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(i) The truck tractor category is
subdivided by roof height and cab
design into nine regulatory
subcategories as shown in Table 4 of
this section, each with its own assigned
standard.
(ii) For purposes of certifying vehicles
to fuel consumption standards,
manufacturers must divide their
product lines into vehicles families that
have similar emissions and fuel
consumption features, as specified by
EPA in 40 CFR part 1037, subpart C, and
these families will be subject to the
applicable standards. Each vehicle
family is limited to a single model year.
(iii) Standards for truck tractor
engines are given in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(iv) A manufacturer complies with the
requirements of this part, if at the end
of the model year, it provides reports, as
specified in § 535.8, to the
Administrator by the required deadlines
and meets one of the following
conditions:
(A) The manufacturer’s fuel
consumption performance for each
vehicle family, as determined in § 535.6,
is lower than the applicable standard; or
(B) The manufacturer uses one or
more of the credit flexibilities provided
under NHTSA’s Averaging, Banking and
Trading Program, specified in § 535.7, to
comply with standards; and
(v) A manufacturer failing to comply
with the provisions specified in
paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section is
liable to pay civil penalties in
accordance with § 535.9.
(2) Voluntary compliance. (i) For
model years 2013 through 2015, a
manufacturer may choose voluntarily to
comply early with the fuel consumption
standards provided in paragraph (c)(3)
of this section, for each regulatory
subcategory. For example, a
manufacturer may choose to comply
early in order to begin accumulating
credits through over-compliance with
the applicable standard.
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its
intent to voluntarily comply with fuel
consumption standards at the same time
it submits a Pre-Certification
Compliance Report, prior to the
compliance model year beginning as
specified in § 535.8; and, once selected,
the decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer must continue to comply
for each subsequent model year.
(3) Regulatory subcategory standards.
The fuel consumption standards for
truck tractors are given in the following
table:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00293
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.166
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(B) The manufacturer uses one or
more of the credit flexibilities provided
under NHTSA’s Averaging, Banking and
Trading Program, specified in § 535.7, to
comply with standards; and
(v) A manufacturer failing to comply
with the provisions specified in
paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section is
liable to pay civil penalties in
accordance with § 535.9.
(2) Voluntary compliance. (i) For
model years 2013 through 2015, a
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(d) Heavy-duty engines. Each
manufacturer of heavy-duty engines
shall comply with the fuel consumption
standards in this paragraph (d)
expressed in gallons per 100 brakehorsepower-hours;
(1) For model years 2017 and later
compression-ignition engines and for
model years 2016 and later sparkignition engines. Each manufacturer
must comply with the fuel consumption
standard in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(i) The heavy-duty engine regulatory
category is divided into four regulatory
subcategories, three compressionignition subcategories and one sparkignition subcategory, as shown in Table
5 of this section.
(ii) Separate standards exist for
engines manufactured for use in heavyduty vocational trucks and in truck
tractors.
(iii) For purposes of certifying engines
to fuel consumption standards,
manufacturers must divide their
product lines into engine families that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
have similar fuel consumption features,
as specified by EPA in 40 CFR part
1036, subpart C, and these families will
be subject to the same standards. Each
engine family is limited to a single
model year.
(iv) A manufacturer complies with the
requirements of this part, if at the end
of the model year, it provides reports, as
specified in § 535.8, to the
Administrator by the required deadlines
and meets one of the following
conditions:
(A) The manufacturer’s fuel
consumption performance of each
engine family as determined in § 535.6
is less than the applicable standard; or
(B) The manufacturer uses one or
more of the flexibilities provided under
NHTSA’s Averaging, Banking and
Trading Program, specified in § 535.7, to
comply with standards; and
(v) A manufacturer failing to comply
with the provisions specified in
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section is
liable to pay civil penalties in
accordance with § 535.9.
PO 00000
Frm 00294
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Voluntary compliance. (i) For
model years 2013 through 2016 for
compression-ignition engines, and for
model years 2013 through 2015 for
spark-ignition engines, a manufacturer
may choose voluntarily to comply with
the fuel consumption standards
provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section. For example, a manufacturer
may choose to comply early in order to
begin accumulating credits through
over-compliance with an applicable
standard.
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its
intent to voluntarily comply with fuel
consumption standards at the same time
it submits a Pre-Certification
Compliance Report, prior to the
compliance model year beginning as
specified in § 535.8; and, once selected,
the decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer must continue to comply
for each subsequent model year.
(3) Regulatory subcategory standards.
The fuel consumption standards for
heavy-duty engines are given in the
following table:
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.167
74444
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 535.6 Measurement and calculation
procedures.
(a) Manufacturers must calculate the
fleet average fuel consumption of heavyduty pickup trucks and vans that are
manufactured in a model year and
compare the value to the fleet average
fuel consumption standard, determined
in § 535.5, as follows:
(1) Manufacturers must calculate the
fleet average fuel consumption from the
average fuel economy of the production
weighted test results for the test groups
that make up the manufacturer’s fleet of
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans as
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S,
and 40 CFR part 600.
(i) Test groups are selected according
to EPA in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(ii) Determine the fuel economy
applicable for each test group, in miles
per gallon, according to EPA in 40 CFR
part 600.
(A) Test conventional gasoline and
diesel fueled vehicle test groups and,
determine the fuel economy values in
accordance with 40 CFR part 600.
(B) Test dual fueled (flexible fueled)
vehicle test groups and determine the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
fuel economy values in accordance with
40 CFR part 600.
(C) Test dedicated (alternative) fueled
vehicle test groups and determine the
fuel economy values in accordance with
40 CFR part 600.
(D) Test advanced technology vehicles
including electric vehicles, fuel cell
vehicles, hybrid vehicles and plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles and determine
the fuel economy values in accordance
with 40 CFR part 600.
(E) Test cab-chassis complete vehicle
test groups and determine the average
fuel economy values in accordance with
40 CFR part 600. Each manufacturer
must determine the fuel economy values
using the same test weight and other
dynamometer settings as apply to that of
complete vehicle from which was used
for the WF value in § 535.5(a). For
certification, a manufacturer may
submit the test data from that similar
vehicle instead of performing the test on
the cab-complete vehicle.
(F) Manufacturers must calculate their
fleet average fuel economy value, in
miles per gallon, from the fuel economy
PO 00000
Frm 00295
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74445
values of the test groups in accordance
with 40 CFR part 600.
(G) Manufacturers must calculate an
equivalent fleet average fuel
consumption value, in gallons per 100
miles, from the average fuel economy
value of the fleet, in miles per gallon,
using the following equation:
Fleet Average Fuel Consumption Value
(gallons per 100 miles) = 1/[Average
Fuel Economy Value of the Fleet
(miles per gallon) × (102)]
(2) The manufacturer must submit
equivalent fuel consumption values for
each test group and its fleet to NHTSA
and EPA in accordance with § 535.8.
After each model year ends, EPA will
verify the manufacturer’s fuel economy
levels for each test group and the fleet
using testing and verify the equivalency
of fuel consumption values. EPA will
prepare a final report with all the
verified values and submit the report to
the NHTSA within three months of
receiving the manufacturer’s end-of-theyear and final year reports as specified
in § 535.8.
(3) NHTSA will use the verified
values provided by EPA in determining
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.168
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74446
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
compliance with fuel consumption
standards in § 535.5 and for verifying
end of year fuel consumption credits
under its ABT program specified in
§ 535.7.
(b) The manufacturer must calculate
the fuel consumption value for each
vehicle family that makes up its fleet of
heavy-duty vocational trucks in each
regulatory subcategory and compare the
results to the applicable fuel
consumption standard, determined in
§ 535.5, as follows:
(1) Manufacturers must determine the
family emission limit (FEL) for each
vocational truck vehicle family in
accordance with 40 CFR part 1037,
subpart F.
(i) Determine the vehicle families in
accordance with 40 CFR 1037.230.
(ii) Use the attribute values in the
GEM Model to determine the fuel
consumption values, in gallons per
1,000 ton-miles, for each vehicle type
within the test groups and the FEL for
each vehicle family as specified in 40
CFR 1037.241 and 40 CFR part 1037,
subpart F.
(iii) Round each fuel consumption
value to the nearest 0.1 gallons per
1,000 ton-miles.
(2) The manufacturer must submit the
vehicle type fuel consumption values
and the FELs for vehicle families to
NHTSA and EPA in accordance with
§ 535.8. After each model year ends,
EPA will verify the manufacturer’s CO2
family emission limit through modeling
and verify the equivalent fuel
consumption values.
(c) Manufacturers must calculate the
fuel consumption value for each vehicle
family that makes up the manufacturer’s
fleet of truck tractors in each regulatory
subcategory and compare the results to
the applicable fuel consumption
standard, determined in § 535.5, as
follows:
(1) Manufacturers must determine the
family emission limit (FEL) for the truck
tractor vehicle family in accordance
with 40 CFR part 1037, subpart F.
(i) Determine the vehicle families in
accordance with 40 CFR 1037.230.
(ii) Use the attribute values in the
GEM Model to determine the fuel
consumption values, in gallons per
1,000 ton-mile, for each vehicle type
within the test groups and the FEL for
each vehicle family as specified in 40
CFR 1037.241 and 40 CFR part 1037,
subpart F.
(iii) Round each fuel consumption
value to the nearest 0.1 gallons per
1,000 ton-miles.
(2) The manufacturer must submit the
vehicle type fuel consumption values
and the FELs for vehicle families to
NHTSA and EPA in accordance with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
§ 535.8. After each model year ends,
EPA will verify the manufacturer’s CO2
family emission limit through modeling
and verify the equivalent fuel
consumption values.
(d) The manufacturer must calculate
the fuel consumption value for each
engine family for engines installed in
vehicles that make up the
manufacturer’s fleet of heavy-duty
trucks in each regulatory subcategory
and compare the results to the
applicable fuel consumption standard,
determined in § 535.5, as follows:
(1) The manufacturer must determine
the CO2 emission values for the family
certification level (FCL) of each engine
family within the heavy-duty engine
regulatory subcategories for each model
year, in accordance with 40 CFR part
1036, subpart C, and then calculate
equivalent fuel consumption values for
each family certification level.
(i) Determine the CO2 family
certification level in grams per bhp-hr.
(ii) Calculate equivalent fuel
consumption values, in gallons per 100
bhp-hr.
(iii) Round each fuel consumption
value to the nearest 0.1 gallon per 100
bhp-hr.
(2) If a manufacturer certifies an
engine family for use both as a
vocational engine and as a tractor
engine, the manufacturer must split the
family into two separate subfamilies.
The manufacturer may assign the
numbers and configurations of engines
within the respective subfamilies at any
time prior to the submission of the endof-year report required by 40 CFR
1036.730 and § 535.8. The manufacturer
must track into which type of vehicle
each engine is installed, although EPA
may allow the manufacturer to use
statistical methods to determine this for
a fraction of its engines.
(3) The following engines are
excluded from the engine families used
to determined FCL values and the
benefit for these engines is determined
as an advanced technology credit under
the ABT provisions provided in
§ 535.7(e):
(i) Engines certified as hybrid engines
or power packs.
(ii) Engines certified as hybrid engines
designed with PTO capability and that
are sold with the engine coupled to a
transmission.
(iii) Engines certified as Rankine-cycle
engines.
(4) Manufacturers must submit the
engine type fuel consumption values
and the FCLs for engine families to
NHTSA and EPA in accordance with
§ 535.8. After each model year ends,
EPA will verify the manufacturer’s CO2
family certification levels through
PO 00000
Frm 00296
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
modeling and verify the equivalent fuel
consumption values.
§ 535.7 Averaging, banking, and trading
(ABT) Program.
(a) Fuel consumption credits (FCC). At
the end of each model year,
manufacturers may earn credits for
exceeding the fuel consumption
standards specified in this regulation.
Manufacturers may average, bank, and
trade fuel consumption credits for
purposes of complying with the
standards as described in this section.
(b) ABT provisions for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans. (1) This
regulatory category consists of one
regulatory subcategory, heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans.
(2) Manufacturers that manufacture
vehicles within this regulatory
subcategory shall calculate credits at the
end of each model year based upon the
final average fleet fuel consumption
standard and final average fleet fuel
consumption performance value within
this one regulatory subcategory as
identified in paragraph (a)(8) of this
section.
(3) Fuel consumption levels below the
standard create a ‘‘credit surplus,’’ while
fuel consumption levels above the
standard create a ‘‘credit shortfall.’’
(4) Surplus credits generated and
calculated within this regulatory
subcategory may only be used to offset
a credit shortfall in this same regulatory
subcategory.
(5) Surplus credits may be traded
among credit holders but must stay
within the same regulatory subcategory.
(6) Surplus credits, if not used to
offset a credit shortfall may be banked
by the manufacturer for use in future
model years, or traded, given the
restriction that the credits have an
expiration date of five model years after
the year in which the credits are earned.
For example, credits earned in model
year 2014 may be utilized through
model year 2019.
(7) Credit shortfalls must be offset by
an available credit surplus within three
model years after the shortfall was
incurred. If the shortfall cannot be
offset, the manufacturer is liable for
civil penalties as discussed in § 535.9.
(8) Calculate the value of credits
generated in a model year for this
regulatory subcategory using the
following equation:
Total MY Fleet FCC (gallons) =
(Std¥Act) × (Volume) × (UL) × (102)
Where:
Std = Fleet average fuel consumption
standard (gal/100 mile).
Act = Fleet average actual fuel consumption
value (gal/100 mile).
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Volume = the total production of vehicles in
the regulatory subcategory.
UL = the useful life for the regulatory
subcategory (120,000 miles).
(9) In model year 2013, if a
manufacturer voluntarily complies, it
may calculate credits for its entire fleet,
as specified in paragraph (b)(8) of this
section, or it may choose to calculate
only advanced technology credits for its
electric and zero emissions vehicles as
specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section.
(c) ABT provisions for vocational
trucks and tractors. (1) The two
regulatory categories for vocational
trucks and tractors consist of 12
regulatory subcategory as follows:
(i) Vocational trucks with a GVWR up
to and including 19,500 pounds (Light
Heavy-Duty (LHD));
(ii) Vocational trucks with a GVWR
above 19,500 pounds and no greater
than 33,000 pounds (Medium HeavyDuty (MHD));
(iii) Vocational trucks with a GVWR
over 33,000 pounds (Heavy Heavy-Duty
(HHD));
(iv) Low roof day cab tractors with a
GVWR above 26,000 pounds and no
greater than 33,000 pounds;
(v) Mid roof day cab tractors with a
GVWR above 26,000 pounds and no
greater than 33,000 pounds;
(vi) High roof day cab tractors with a
GVWR above 26,000 pounds and no
greater than 33,000 pounds;
(vii) Low roof day cab tractors with a
GVWR above 33,000 pounds;
(5) A surplus total credit balance
generated and calculated within a
regulatory subcategory may only be
used to offset credit shortfalls in this
same regulatory subcategory.
(6) Surplus credits may be traded
among credit holders but must stay
within the same regulatory subcategory.
(7) Surplus credits, if not used to
offset past or current model year credit
shortfalls may be banked by the
manufacturer for use in future model
years, or traded.
(8) Credit shortfalls must be offset by
available surplus credits within three
model years after a shortfall has
incurred. If the shortfall cannot be
offset, the manufacturer is liable for
civil penalties as discussed in § 535.9.
(9) The value of credits generated in
a model year is calculated as follows:
(i) Calculate the value of credits
generated in a model year for each
vehicle family within a regulatory
subcategory using the following
equation:
Vehicle Family FCC (gallons) =
(Std¥FEL) × (Payload) × (Volume)
× (UL) × (103)
Where:
Std = the standard for the respective vehicle
family regulatory subcategory (gal/1000
ton-mile).
FEL = family emissions limit for the vehicle
family (gal/1000 ton-mile).
Payload = the prescribed payload in tons for
each regulatory subcategory as shown in
the following table:
EP30NO10.170
UL = the useful life for the regulatory
subcategory (miles) as shown in the
following table:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00297
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.169
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Volume = the number of vehicles in the
corresponding vehicle family.
(viii) Mid roof day cab tractors with
a GVWR above 33,000 pounds;
(ix) High roof day cab tractors with a
GVWR above 33,000 pounds;
(x) Low roof sleeper cab tractors with
a GVWR above 33,000 pounds;
(xi) Mid roof sleeper cab tractors with
a GVWR above 33,000 pounds; and
(xii) High roof sleeper cab tractors
with a GVWR above 33,000 pounds.
(2) Manufacturers that manufacture
vehicles within either of these two
vehicle categories, in one or more of the
regulatory subcategories, shall calculate
a total credit balance within each
regulatory subcategory at the end of
each model year based upon final
production volumes and the sum of the
credit balances derived for each of the
vehicle family groups within each
regulatory subcategory as defined by
EPA.
(3) Each designated vehicle family
group has a ‘‘family emissions limit’’
(FEL) which is compared to the
associated regulatory subcategory
standard. A FEL that falls below the
regulatory subcategory standard creates
‘‘positive credits,’’ while fuel
consumption level of a family group
above the standard creates ‘‘negative
credits.’’
(4) Manufacturers shall sum all
shortfalls and surplus credits for each
vehicle family within a regulatory
subcategory to obtain the total credit
balance for the model year before
rounding. The sum of fuel
consumptions credits must be rounded
to the nearest gallon.
74447
74448
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
which is compared to the associated
regulatory subcategory standard. A FCL
that falls below the regulatory
subcategory standard creates ‘‘positive
credits,’’ while fuel consumption level
of a family group above the standard
creates ‘‘negative credits.’’
(4) Manufacturers shall sum all
surplus and shortfall credits for each
engine family within a regulatory
subcategory to obtain the total credit
balance for the model year before
rounding. Round the sum of fuel
consumptions credits to the nearest
gallon.
(5) A surplus total credit balance
generated and calculated within a
regulatory subcategory may only be
used to offset credit shortfalls in this
same regulatory subcategory.
(6) Surplus credits may be traded
among credit holders but must stay
within the same regulatory subcategory.
(7) Surplus credits, if not used to
offset past or current model year credit
shortfalls may be banked by the
manufacturer for use in future model
years, or traded.
(8) Credit shortfalls must be offset by
available surplus credits within three
model years after shortfall was incurred.
If the shortfall cannot be offset, the
manufacturer is liable for civil penalties
as discussed in § 535.9.
(9) The value of credits generated in
a model year is calculated as follows:
(i) The value of credits generated in a
model year for each engine family
within a regulatory subcategory equals
Engine Family FCC (gallons) =
(Std¥FCL) × (CF) × (Volume) × (UL)
× (102)
(ii) Calculate the total credits
generated in a model year for each
regulatory subcategory using the
following equation:
Total regulatory subcategory MY credits
= S Engine family credits within
each regulatory subcategory
(e) Additional credit provisions—(1)
Advanced technology credits.
Manufacturers of heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans, vocational trucks and
tractors showing improvements in CO2
emissions and fuel consumption using
hybrid vehicles, vehicles equipped with
Rankine-cycle engines, electric vehicles
and fuel cell vehicles are eligible for
advanced technology credits that may
be applied to any heavy-duty vehicle or
engine subcategory consistent with
sound engineering judgment as follows:
(i) Heavy-duty vocational trucks and
truck tractors. (A) For hybrid vehicles
with regenerative braking (or the
equivalent) and energy storage systems
and for hybrids that incorporate power
take-off (PTO) systems, calculate the
advanced technology credits as follows:
(1) Measure the effectiveness of the
hybrid system by simulating the chassis
test procedure applicable for each type
of hybrid vehicle under 40 CFR part
1037.
(2) The effectiveness of the hybrid
system is measured using chassis testing
against an equivalent conventional
vehicle. For purposes of this paragraph
(e), a conventional vehicle is considered
to be equivalent if it has the same
footprint, intended service class,
aerodynamic drag, and other factors not
directly related to the hybrid
powertrain. If there is no equivalent
vehicle, the manufacturer may create
and test a prototype equivalent vehicle.
The conventional vehicle is considered
Vehicle A, and the hybrid vehicle is
considered Vehicle B. EPA may specify
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00298
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
EP30NO10.172
Where:
Std = the standard for the respective engine
regulatory subcategory (gal/100 bhp-hr).
FCL = family certification level for the engine
family (gal/100 bhp-hr).
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor in
bhp-hr/mile which is the integrated total
cycle brake horsepower-hour divided by
the equivalent mileage of the applicable
test cycle. For spark-ignition heavy-duty
engines, the equivalent mileage is 6.3
miles. For compression-ignition heavyduty engines, the equivalent mileage is
6.5 miles.
Volume = the number of engines in the
corresponding engine family.
UL = the useful life of the given engine
family (miles) as shown in the following
table:
EP30NO10.171
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(ii) Calculate the total credits
generated in a model year for each
regulatory subcategory equals using the
following equation:
Total regulatory subcategory MY credits
= S Vehicle family credits within
each regulatory subcategory
(d) ABT provisions for heavy-duty
engines. (1) Heavy-duty engines consist
of four regulatory subcategories as
follows:
(i) Spark-ignition engines.
(ii) Light heavy-duty compressionignition engines.
(iii) Medium heavy-duty
compression-ignition engines.
(iv) Heavy heavy-duty compressionignition engines.
(2) Manufacturers that manufacture
engines within one or more of the
regulatory subcategories, shall calculate
a total credit balance within each
regulatory subcategory at the end of
each model year based upon final
production volumes and the sum of the
credit balances derived for each of the
engine families within each regulatory
subcategory as defined by EPA.
(3) Each designated engine family has
a ‘‘family certification level’’ (FCL)
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
an alternate test if the hybrid vehicle
includes a power take-off system.
(3) The benefit associated with the
hybrid system for fuel consumption is
determined from the weighted fuel
consumption results from the chassis
tests of each vehicle using the following
equation:
Benefit (gallon/1000 ton mile) =
Improvement Factor x GEM Fuel
Consumption Result_B
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where:
Improvement Factor = (Fuel
Consumption_A¥Fuel Consumption_B)/
(Fuel Consumption_A)
Fuel Consumption Rates A and B are the
gallons per 1000 ton-mile of the
conventional and hybrid vehicles,
respectively.
GEM Fuel Consumption Result B is the
estimated gallons per 1000 ton-mile rate
resulting from modeling the emissions of
the hybrid vehicle as specified in 40 CFR
1037.520 and § 535.6(b) and (c).
(4) Calculate the benefit in credits
using the equation in paragraph (d)(9) of
this section and replacing the term (StdFEL) with the benefit.
(B) For Rankine Cycle engines,
determine the emission performance
benefit according to 40 CFR 1036.615
and convert to an equivalent fuel
consumption benefit value. Calculate
fuel consumption credits in gallons
utilizing the credit equation in
paragraph (d)(9) of this section and
replacing the term (Std-FCL) with the
fuel consumption benefit value.
(C) For electric and fuel cell vehicles,
determine the emission performance
benefit according to 40 CFR 1037.610
and convert to an equivalent fuel
consumption benefit value. Calculate
fuel consumption credits in gallons
utilizing the credit equation in
paragraph (d)(9) of this section and
replacing the term (Std-FEL) with the
fuel consumption benefit value.
(ii) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans. (A) For model year 2013,
manufacturers may generate advanced
technology credits for electric and zero
emissions vehicles. Advanced
technology credits for electric and zero
emissions vehicles may be earned
voluntarily as an alternative to
generating credits for the manufacturer’s
entire fleet. Advanced technology
credits for electric and zero emissions
vehicles are not limited for use within
the heavy-duty pickup truck and van
regulatory category. Advanced
technology credits generated for electric
and zero emission vehicles in model
year 2013 are treated as though they
were generated in model year 2014 for
purposes of credit life.
(B) In model years 2014 and later, a
manufacturer may choose to calculate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
credits for its entire fleet as specified in
paragraph (a)(8) of this section or may
choose to exclude its electric vehicles
and zero emissions vehicles from the
fleet and calculate the credits for these
vehicles separately as advanced
technology credits. In this case, the
manufacturer may gain credits for its
fleet without its electric and zero
emissions vehicles and gain the
advanced technology credits for these
vehicles. Advanced technology credits
for electric and zero emissions vehicles
are not limited for use within the heavyduty pickup truck and van regulatory
category.
(2) Innovative technology credits. EPA
allows manufacturers to generate credits
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR
86.1866–12(d) for introducing
innovative technology in heavy-duty
vehicles for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Upon identification from
EPA of a manufacturer seeking to obtain
innovative technology credits in a given
model year, NHTSA may adopt the
same amount of fuel consumption
credits into its program. Such credits
must remain within the same regulatory
subcategory in which the credits were
generated. NHTSA will adopt these fuel
consumption credits depending upon
whether:
(i) The technology has a direct impact
upon reducing fuel consumption
performance;
(ii) The manufacturer has provided
sufficient information to make sound
engineering judgments on the impact of
the technology in reducing fuel
consumption performance; and
(iii) Credits will be accepted on a onefor-one basis expressed in terms of
gallons.
§ 535.8
Reporting requirements.
(a) General Requirements—(1)
Required reports. For the each model
year, manufacturers must submit a precertification compliance report, an endof-the-year report, a final report and
supplemental reports (if needed) to the
Administrator for each regulatory
category and regulatory subcategory of
heavy-duty trucks and engines as
identified in § 535.3.
(2) Report deadlines. Reports required
by this part for each model year must be
submitted by the deadlines specified in
this section and must be based upon all
the information and data available to the
manufacturer 30 days before the report
is submitted to the Administrator.
(i) Pre-certification compliance report
for heavy-duty pickup truck and van.
(A) For model year 2013 through 2015,
a manufacturer choosing to voluntarily
comply must submit a pre-certification
compliance report for the given model
PO 00000
Frm 00299
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74449
year and, to the extent possible, the two
subsequent model years. The report
must be sent before the certification of
any applicable test group and no later
than December 31 of the calendar year
before the given model year. For
example, the pre-certification
compliance report for model year 2014
must be submitted no later than
December 31, 2013 and must contain
fuel consumption information for
vehicles manufactured for model years
2014 to 2016, to the extent possible.
(B) For model years 2016 and later, a
manufacturer complying with
mandatory standards must submit a precertification compliance report for the
given model year and, to the extent
possible, the two subsequent model
years. The report must be sent before the
certification of any applicable test group
and no later than December 31 of the
calendar year two years before the given
model year. No report is required for
model years 2016 and 2017 if the
manufacturer voluntarily complied in
model years 2014 and 2015 and if the
manufacturer has subsequently
provided accurate information regarding
its 2016 and 2017 model year fleets in
its prior submissions. For example, the
pre-certification compliance report for
model year 2016 must be submitted no
later than December 31, 2013 and must
contain fuel consumption information
for vehicles manufactured for model
years 2016 to 2018, to the extent
possible, but if the manufacturer has
already provided the required
information in its model year 2014
report, no submission would be
required for model year 2016.
(ii) Pre-certification compliance report
for heavy-duty vocational trucks, truck
tractors and heavy-duty engines. For
model years 2013 and later, a
manufacturer complying with voluntary
and mandatory standards must submit a
pre-certification compliance report for
the given model year. The report must
be sent before the certification of any
applicable vehicle or engine family and
no later than December 31 of the
calendar year two years before the given
model year. No report is required for
model years 2016 and 2017 if the
manufacturer voluntarily complied in
model years 2014 and 2015 and if the
manufacturer has subsequently
provided accurate information regarding
its model years 2016 and 2017 fleets in
its prior submissions. For example, the
pre-certification compliance report for
model year 2016 must be submitted no
later than December 31, 2013 and must
contain fuel consumption information
for vehicles manufactured for model
years 2016 to 2018, to the extent
possible, but if the manufacturer has
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74450
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
already provided the required
information in its model year 2014
report, no submission would be
required for model year 2016.
(iii) End-of-the-year-report for all
heavy-duty trucks. A manufacturer
complying with voluntary and
mandatory standards must submit an
end-of-the-year report for each model
year. This report must be submitted
within 90 days after the end of the given
model year and no later than April 1 of
the next calendar year. For example, the
end-of-the-year report for model year
2014 must be submitted no later than
April 1, 2015.
(A) Upon notification from EPA,
NHTSA may waive the requirement to
send the end-of-the year report,
conditioned upon the manufacturer
contacting EPA by letter to certify that
the final report will be sent on time.
NHTSA will not waive this requirement
for a manufacturer that has a deficit for
a given model year or an outstanding
deficit from a prior model year.
(B) If a manufacturer expects
differences in the information reported
between the end-of-the-year report and
the final year report, it must provide the
most up-to-date projections in the endof-the-year report and indentify the
information as preliminary.
(C) If the manufacturer cannot provide
any of the required fuel consumption
information, it must state the specific
reason for the insufficiency and identify
the additional testing needed or explain
what analytical methods are believed by
the manufacturer will be necessary to
eliminate the insufficiency and certify
that the results will be available for the
final report.
(iv) Final report for all heavy-duty
trucks. A manufacturer complying with
voluntary and mandatory standards
must submit a final report for each
model year. This report must be
submitted within 270 days after the
given model year and no later than
October 1 of the next calendar year. For
example, the final year report for model
year 2014 must be submitted no later
than October 1, 2015.
(v) Supplemental reports. A
manufacturer must submit a
supplemental report within 30 days
after making a change to an application
for certification with EPA as specified in
40 CFR 1037.225.
(b) General contents of reports. (1)
Each report submitted by a
manufacturer must include the general
information identified in this paragraph
(b) and, for each regulatory category of
vehicles, include the information
required in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)
of this section as applicable to each
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
category. The following general
information is required for each report:
(i) A designation identifying the
report as a pre-certification compliance
report, end-of-the-year report, final year
report or a supplemental report, as
appropriate;
(ii) The name of the manufacturer
submitting the report;
(iii) The full name, title, and address
of the official responsible for preparing
the report;
(iv) The model year; and
(v) The documents the manufacturer
plans to incorporate by reference as
specified in paragraph (g) of this
section.
(2) For model years 2014 and 2015, a
manufacturer must follow the
instructions on the NHTSA Web site at
https://www.nhtsa.gov for submitting
reports electronically or download a
form containing the format and
instructions for each report. Electronic
submissions must be uploaded to the
NHTSA Web site by the required
deadlines specified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(3) For model years 2016 and later,
manufacturers must submit reports
electronically through the NHTSA Web
site at https://www.nhtsa.gov.
(i) Each manufacturer must register
electronically in advance of submitting
its first report to obtain a unique and
private username, password, and
account for accessing the Web site and
entering data.
(ii) Electronic reports submitted
through the NHTSA Web site must
include all the required information
specified in paragraphs (b) through (e)
of this section to be accepted.
(4) Manufacturers must submit a
request for confidentiality with each
electronic report specifying any part of
the information or data in a report that
it believes should be withheld from
public disclosure as trade secret or other
confidential business information. A
form will be available through the
NHTSA Web site to request
confidentiality. Confidential
information shall be treated according to
paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) For any information or data
requested by the manufacturer to be
withheld under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and
15 U.S.C. 2005(d)(1), the manufacturer
shall provide evidence in its request for
confidentiality to justify that:
(A) The item is within the scope of 5
U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C.
2005(d)(1);
(B) The disclosure of such as item
would result in significant competitive
damage;
PO 00000
Frm 00300
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(C) The period during which the item
must be withheld to avoid that damage;
and
(D) How earlier disclosure would
result in that damage.
(ii) NHTSA shall make reports
available to the public as specified in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(c) Pre-certification compliance
report. Each pre-certification
compliance report must comply with
the provisions in this paragraph (c) as
applicable to each regulatory
subcategory of vehicles or, alternatively,
manufacturers may provide copies of
any pre-certification documents
including the applications for
certification and pre-model year reports
that are sent to EPA as a substitute as
long as those documents contain
equivalent fuel consumption
information for each carbon-related
value. In either case, NHTSA may ask a
manufacturer to provide additional
information if necessary to verify the
fuel consumption requirements of this
regulation.
(1) Pre-certification compliance report
for heavy-duty pickups and vans. (i) For
each vehicle configuration (defined by
payload, towing capacity and drivetrain
configuration) that makes up the
manufacturer’s combined fleet of heavyduty pickups and vans as determined by
§ 535.5(a)(2) for a given model year,
identify:
(A) The final fuel consumption
standards;
(B) Final production volumes;
(C) Workfactors;
(D) Payload;
(E) Towing capacity;
(F) Existence of 4-wheel drive
(indicate yes or no);
(G) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating; and
(H) Gross Combined Weight Rating.
(ii) For the manufacturer’s combined
fleet of heavy-duty pickups and vans as
determined by § 535.5(a)(3), for a given
model year, identify the projected final
fleet average fuel consumption standard.
(iii) For each vehicle in the test
groups used to determine the
manufacturer’s fleet average fuel
consumption value as determined by
§ 535.6(a), for a given model year,
identify:
(A) The final fuel consumption value;
(B) Make and model designation;
(C) Final production volumes for each
make and model designation;
(D) Payload;
(E) Towing capacity;
(F) Existence of 4-wheel drive
(indicate yes or no);
(G) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating;
(H) Gross Combined Weight Rating;
(I) Loaded vehicle weight;
(J) Equivalent test weight;
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(K) Engine displacement, liters;
(L) SAE net rated power, kilowatts;
(M) SAE net horsepower;
(N) Engine code;
(O) Fuel system (number of carburetor
barrels or, if fuel injection is used, so
indicate);
(P) Fuel consumption control system;
(Q) Transmission class;
(R) Number of forward speeds;
(S) Existence of overdrive (indicate
yes or no);
(T) Total drive ratio;
(U) Axle ratio; and
(V) If available, any advanced or
innovative technology that reduces fuel
consumption.
(iv) For the manufacturer’s combined
fleet of heavy-duty pickups and vans as
determined by § 535.6(a), for a given
model year, identify the projected fleet
average fuel consumption value.
(v) Identify the projected final U.S.directed production volumes for:
(A) The vehicle configurations that
make up the manufacturer’s combined
fleet of heavy-duty pickups and vans for
a given model year;
(B) The vehicles in each test group
used to determine the manufacturer’s
fleet average fuel consumption value for
a given model year; and
(C) Attest to the authenticity and
accuracy of each projected final
production volume and provide the
signature of an officer (a corporate
executive of at least the rank of Vice
President) designated by the
corporation. The signature of the
designated officer shall constitute a
representation by the required
attestation. Such attestation shall
constitute a representation by the
manufacturer that the manufacturer has
established reasonable, prudent
procedures to ascertain and provide
production data that are accurate and
authentic in all material respects and
that these procedures have been
followed by employees of the
manufacturer involved in the reporting
process.
(vi) For flexible fueled, dedicated fuel
and advanced technology vehicles
including electric vehicles, hybrid
vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles and
fuel cell vehicles identify:
(A) Make and model designation;
(B) Projected final production
volumes; and
(C) The method that will be used to
calculate the fuel consumption values.
(vii) Report information on the
manufacturer’s projected fuel
consumption credits:
(A) Report a projection of the credits
and balances to be generated for the
fleet for each model year;
(B) Report and provide a description
of the various planned credit flexibility
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
options that will be used to comply with
the standards, if necessary, including
the amount of credit the manufacturer
intends to generate from innovative or
advanced technologies, and for
voluntary compliance in model years
2014 or 2015, or by trade; and
(C) If a credit shortfall is generated (or
projected to be generated) at the end of
the model year, a manufacturers must
submit the compliance plan required by
§ 535.9(a)(6) in its pre-certification
compliance report with the most up-todate information demonstrating how the
manufacturer will comply with the fleet
average fuel consumption standard by
the end of the third year after the
shortfall occurs.
(viii) Manufacturers using the low
volume exclusion and exempting 2
percent of their total production in
accordance with § 535.5(a)(6) must
provide a plan describing how the
exclusion will be used, including a
description and a production volume for
each excluded vehicle.
(ix) Manufacturers choosing early
compliance must submit a statement in
the pre-certification compliance report
announcing their intent to comply with
fuel consumption standards and must
attest to understanding that compliance
is mandatory thereafter for each model
year until 2018.
(2) Pre-certification compliance
reports for vocational trucks and truck
tractors. (i) For each regulatory category
and subcategory, describe the annual
fuel consumption credit activities under
NHTSA’s ABT program by:
(A) The balance of credits in each
regulatory category and subcategory;
(B) The fuel consumption credits that
you plan to trade as described in
§ 535.7.
(C) A description of the various
planned credit flexibility options that
will be used to comply with the
standards, if necessary, including the
amount of credit the manufacturer
intends to generate from innovative or
advanced technologies, and for
voluntary compliance in model years
2014 or 2015, or by trade; and
(D) If a credit shortfall is generated (or
projected to be generated) at the end of
the model year, a manufacturer must
submit the compliance plan required by
§ 535.9(a)(6) in its pre-certification
compliance report with the most up-todate information demonstrating how the
manufacturer will comply with the fleet
average fuel consumption standard by
the end of the third year after the
shortfall occurs.
(ii) Identify the projected final U.S.directed production volumes for:
(A) Each of the manufacturer’s
combined fleets of heavy-duty
PO 00000
Frm 00301
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74451
vocational trucks and trucks tractors for
the model year;
(B) Each regulatory subcategory of
heavy-duty vocational trucks and trucks
tractors for the model year;
(C) The vehicles in each vehicle
family used to determine the
manufacturer’s fleet average fuel
consumption value for the model year;
and
(D) Attest to the authenticity and
accuracy of each projected final
production volume and provide the
signature of an officer (a corporate
executive of at least the rank of Vice
President) designated by the
corporation. The signature of the
designated officer shall constitute a
representation by the required
attestation. Such attestation shall
constitute a representation by the
manufacturer that the manufacturer has
established reasonable, prudent
procedures to ascertain and provide
production data that are accurate and
authentic in all material respects and
that these procedures have been
followed by employees of the
manufacturer involved in the reporting
process.
(iii) Report the methodology which
the manufacturer plans to use to comply
with EPA’s N2O and CH4 emission
standards. If the manufacturer plans to
choose an option which could increase
its CO2 emission, it must report any
calculated increases in its emission
values that are associated directly with
these gases. It must also report any
increases in CO2 emissions in
equivalent terms of fuel consumption.
(iv) Manufacturers choosing early
compliance must submit a statement in
the pre-certification compliance report
announcing their intent to comply with
fuel consumption standards and must
attest to understanding that compliance
is mandatory thereafter for each model
year until 2018.
(v) For each regulatory subcategory of
vocational trucks and truck tractors
identify:
(A) The vehicle-family and subfamily
designations selected in accordance
with 40 CFR part 1037, subpart C;
(B) The fuel consumption standards
that would otherwise apply to each
vehicle family;
(C) The vehicle family fuel
consumption FELs (gallons per 1,000
ton-mile);
(D) The projected final U.S.-directed
production volumes for the model year
as a total for the subcategory and for
each vehicle family;
(E) The useful life value for each
vehicle family; and
(F) The calculated projected final
surplus or shortfall fuel consumption
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74452
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
credits for each vehicle family. If you
have a projected shortfall credit balance
for a regulatory subcategory in the given
model year, specify which vehicle
families (or certain subfamilies with the
vehicle family) have a credit shortfall
for the year. Consider for example, a
manufacturer with three vehicle
families (‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’) in a given
regulatory subcategory. If family A
generates enough credits to offset the
shortfall credits of family B but not
enough to also offset the credit shortfall
of family C (and the manufacturer has
no banked credits in the averaging set),
the manufacturer may designate families
A and B as having no shortfall for the
model year, provided it designates
family C as having a shortfall for the
model year.
(vi) For vehicles in each vehicle
family belonging to the vocational
vehicle regulatory subcategories
identify:
(A) The FEL for each family and the
fuel consumption performance for each
vehicle in the family.
(B) Intended commercial use.
(C) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating.
(D) Rolling resistance coefficient for
the tires.
(E) Any aerodynamic features.
(F) Any weight reduction features.
(G) Any drivetrain (i.e., axles,
accessories, and transmission)
improvements that reduce emissions
and fuel consumption.
(H) Any idle reduction technologies.
(I) Any hybrid powertrains including
hydraulic, electric, and plug-in electric.
(J) The model types and projected
final production of all alternate and
dedicated fueled vehicles.
(vii) For vehicles in each vehicle
family belonging to the truck tractor
regulatory subcategories identify:
(A) The FEL for each family and the
fuel consumption performance for each
vehicle in the family.
(B) Aerodynamic drag coefficient
(Cd).
(C) Steer tire rolling resistance (kg/
metric ton).
(D) Drive tire rolling resistance (kg/
metric ton).
(E) Weight reduction (lbs).
(F) Extended idle reduction (g/tonmile).
(G) Vehicle speed limiter.
(viii) For flexible fueled, dedicated
fuel and advanced technology vehicles
including electric vehicles, hybrid
vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles and
fuel cell vehicles in each vehicle family
and regulatory subcategory identify:
(A) Make and model designation;
(B) Projected final production
volumes; and
(C) The method that will be used to
calculate the fuel consumption values.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(3) Pre-certification compliance
reports for heavy-duty engines. (i) For
each regulatory category and
subcategory, describe the annual fuel
consumption credit activities under
NHTSA’s ABT program by:
(A) The balance of credits in each
regulatory category and subcategory;
(B) The fuel consumption credits that
you plan to trade as described in
§ 535.7;
(C) A description of the various
planned credit flexibility options that
will be used to comply with the
standards, if necessary, including the
amount of credit the manufacturer
intends to generate from innovative or
advanced technologies, and for
voluntary compliance in model years
2014 or 2015, or by trade; and
(D) If a credit shortfall is generated (or
projected to be generated) at the end of
the model year, a manufacturer must
submit the compliance plan required by
§ 535.9(a)(6) in its pre-certification
compliance report with the most up-todate information demonstrating how the
manufacturer will comply with the fleet
average fuel consumption standard by
the end of the third year after the
shortfall occurs.
(ii) Identify the projected final U.S.directed production volumes for:
(A) The manufacturer’s combined
fleet of heavy-duty engines for the
model year;
(B) Each regulatory subcategory of
heavy-duty engines for the model year;
(C) The vehicles in each vehicle
family used to determine the
manufacturer’s fleet average fuel
consumption value for the model year;
and
(D) Attest to the authenticity and
accuracy of each projected final
production volume and provide the
signature of an officer (a corporate
executive of at least the rank of Vice
President) designated by the
corporation. The signature of the
designated officer shall constitute a
representation by the required
attestation. Such attestation shall
constitute a representation by the
manufacturer that the manufacturer has
established reasonable, prudent
procedures to ascertain and provide
production data that are accurate and
authentic in all material respects and
that these procedures have been
followed by employees of the
manufacturer involved in the reporting
process.
(iii) Report the methodology which
the manufacturer plans to use to comply
with EPA’s N2O and CH4 emission
standards. If the manufacturer plans to
choose an option which could increase
its CO2 emission, it must report any
PO 00000
Frm 00302
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
calculated increases in its emission
values that are associated directly with
these gases. It must also report any
increases in CO2 emissions in
equivalent terms of fuel consumption.
(iv) Manufacturers choosing early
compliance must submit a statement in
the pre-certification compliance report
announcing their intent to comply with
fuel consumption standards and must
attest to understanding that compliance
is mandatory thereafter for each model
year until 2018.
(v) For each engine regulatory
subcategory, identify:
(A) The engine-family and subfamily
designations selected in accordance
with 40 CFR part 1036, subpart C;
(B) The fuel consumption standards
that would otherwise apply to each
engine family;
(C) The engine family fuel
consumption FCLs (gallons per 100 bhphr);
(D) The projected final U.S.-directed
production volumes for the model year
as a total for the subcategory and for
each engine family;
(E) The useful life value for each
engine family; and
(F) The calculated projected final
surplus or shortfall fuel consumption
credits for each engine family. If you
have a projected shortfall credit balance
for a regulatory subcategory in the given
model year, specify which engine
families (or certain subfamilies with the
vehicle family) have a credit shortfall
for the year. Consider for example, a
manufacturer with three engine families
(‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’) in a given regulatory
subcategory. If family A generates
enough credits to offset the shortfall
credits of family B but not enough to
also offset the credit shortfall of family
C (and the manufacturer has no banked
credits in the averaging set), the
manufacturer may designate families A
and B as having no shortfall for the
model year, provided it designates
family C as having a shortfall for the
model year.
(vi) For each engine in an engine
family, report the following
technologies and information if existing:
(A) Engine friction reduction.
(B) Coupled cam phasing.
(C) Cylinder deactivation.
(D) Diesel engine.
(E) Baseline engine.
(F) Turbochargers.
(G) Low temperature exhaust gas
recirculation.
(H) Engine friction reduction.
(I) Selective catalytic reduction (SCR).
(J) Improved combustion process.
(K) Reduced parasitic loads.
(d) End-of-the-year and final reports.
After the end of each model year,
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers must provide to the
Administrator copies of the end-of-theyear and final reports sent to EPA
specified in 40 CFR 1037.730.
Manufacturer must also provide
equivalent fuel consumption
information for each CO2 value and the
specified information described in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
In either case, NHTSA may ask a
manufacturer to provide additional
information if necessary to verify the
fuel consumption requirements of this
regulation.
(1) Report and provide a description
of the various credit flexibility options
that were used to comply with the
standards and, if necessary, include the
amount of credits the manufacturer
acquired from innovative or advanced
technologies, from voluntary
compliance with model years 2014 or
2015, or by trade.
(2) Report the methodology which the
manufacturer used to comply with N2O
and CH4 emission standards. If the
manufacturer chose an option which
increased its CO2 emission, it must
report the calculated increases in its
emission values that were associated
directly with these gases. It must also
report the increase in CO2 emissions in
equivalent terms of fuel consumption.
(e) Supplemental reports. (1) A
manufacturer must submit a
supplemental report to the
Administrator at any time the
manufacturer amends an application for
certification with EPA, in accordance
with 40 CFR 1036.225 and 40 CFR
1037.225.
(2) The supplemental report must
include the changes that the
manufacturer makes to an application
for certification.
(f) Additional reporting provisions.
(1) Small business exemption. Vehicles
produced by small business
manufacturers are exempted from the
requirements of this regulation but are
required to provide to EPA and NHTSA
a statement explaining how they qualify
as a small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration at 13
CFR 121.201. The statement must be
submitted to the Administrators of EPA
and NHTSA and must be submitted no
later than December 31 of the calendar
year before the model year begins.
(2) Heavy-duty vehicle off-road
exclusion. Heavy-duty vehicles
intended to be used extensively in offroad environments such as forests, oil
fields, and construction sites may be
exempted from the requirements of this
part if EPA and NHTSA approve the
exemption. This provision applies to all
heavy-duty vehicles except for
vocational trucks and truck tractors
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
meeting the qualifications specified in
49 CFR 523.2 that are already exempted.
Manufacturers seeking an exemption
must send the request to the
Administrators of EPA and NHTSA
explaining the basis for defining their
vehicle for exclusive use as an off-road
vehicle.
(g) Incorporation by reference. (1) A
manufacturer may incorporate by
reference in a report required by this
part any document other than a report,
petition, or application, or portion
thereof submitted to any Federal
department or agency more than two
model years before the model year of the
applicable report.
(2) A manufacturer that incorporates
by references a document not previously
submitted to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration shall
append that document to the report.
(3) A manufacturer that incorporates
by reference a document shall clearly
identify the document and, in the case
of a document previously submitted to
the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, indicate the date on
which and the person by whom the
document was submitted to this agency.
(h) Public inspection of information.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (i)
of this section, any person may inspect
the information and data submitted by
a manufacturer under this part in the
docket section of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. Any
person may obtain copies of the
information available for inspection
under this section in accordance with
the regulations of the Secretary of
Transportation in 49 CFR part 7.
(2) In model year 2016, summary
reports containing the electronic data
submitted by manufacturers, except as
provided in paragraph (i) of this section,
will be made publically available.
(i) Confidential information. (1)
Information will not be made available
for public inspection under paragraph
(h) of this section if confidentiality is
granted in accordance with section 505
of the Act and 5 U.S.C. 552(b) or while
the manufacturer’s request in
accordance with paragraph (b)(4) is
under consideration.
(2) When the Administrator denies a
manufacturer’s request under paragraph
(b)(4) of this section for confidential
treatment of information, the
Administrator gives the manufacturer
written notice of the denial and the
reasons for it. Public disclosure of the
information is not made until after the
ten-day period immediately following
the giving of the notice.
(3) After giving written notice to a
manufacturer and allowing ten days,
when feasible, for the manufacturer to
PO 00000
Frm 00303
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74453
respond, the Administrator may make
available for public inspection any
information submitted under this part,
except for information submitted by the
manufacturer on its emission control
and fuel-system operations and the
design of system components including
any information to read, record, and
interpret all the information broadcast
by a vehicle’s onboard computers and
electronic control units, that is relevant
to a proceeding under the Act, including
information that was granted
confidential treatment by the
Administrator pursuant to a request by
the manufacturer under paragraph (b)(4)
of this section.
§ 535.9
Enforcement approach.
(a) Compliance. (1) NHTSA assesses
compliance with fuel consumption
standards each year, utilizing the
certified and reported fuel consumption
data provided by the Environmental
Protection Agency for enforcement of
the heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency
program established pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 32902(k).
(2) Credit values in gallons are
calculated based on the final CO2
emissions and fuel consumption data
submitted by manufacturers and
verified/validated by EPA.
(3) If a manufacturer’s regulatory
subcategory fuel consumption in any
model year is found to exceed the
applicable standard(s), NHTSA
identifies surplus credits in a
manufacturer’s account for that model
year and regulatory subcategory in the
appropriate amount by which the
manufacturer has exceeded the
applicable standard(s).
(4) If a manufacturer’s engines or
vehicles in a particular regulatory
subcategory are found not to meet the
applicable fuel consumption
standard(s), calculated as a credit
shortfall, NHTSA will provide written
notification to the manufacturer that it
has failed to meet a particular regulatory
subcategory standard. The manufacturer
will be required to confirm the
performance shortfall and must either:
Submit a plan indicating how it will
allocate existing credits or earn, and/or
acquire by trade credits; or will be liable
for a civil penalty as determined in
paragraph (b) of this section. The
manufacturer must submit a plan within
60 days of receiving agency notification.
(5) Credit shortfall within a regulatory
subcategory may be carried forward
only three years, and if not offset by
earned or traded credits, the
manufacturer may be liable for a civil
penalty as described in paragraph (b) of
this section.
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
74454
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(6) Credit allocation plans received
from a manufacturer will be reviewed
and approved by NHTSA. NHTSA will
approve a credit allocation plan unless
it determines that the proposed credits
are unavailable or that it is unlikely that
the plan will result in the manufacturer
earning sufficient credits to offset the
subject credit shortfall. If a plan is
approved, NHTSA will revise the
respective manufacturer’s credit account
accordingly by identifying which
existing or traded credits are being used
to address the credit shortfall, or by
identifying the manufacturer’s plan to
earn future credits for addressing the
respective credit shortfall. If a plan is
rejected, NHTSA will notify the
respective manufacturer and request a
revised plan. The manufacturer must
submit a revised plan within 14 days of
receiving agency notification. The
agency will provide a manufacturer one
opportunity to submit a revised credit
allocation plan before it initiates civil
penalty proceedings.
(7) For purposes of this part, NHTSA
will treat the use of future credits for
compliance, as through a credit
allocation plan, as a deferral of civil
penalties for non-compliance with an
applicable fuel consumption standard.
(8) If NHTSA receives and approves a
manufacturer’s credit allocation plan to
earn future credits within the following
three model years in order to comply
with regulatory obligations, NHTSA will
defer levying civil penalties for noncompliance until the date(s) when the
manufacturer’s approved plan indicates
that credits will be earned or acquired
to achieve compliance, and upon
receiving confirmed CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption data from EPA. If the
manufacturer fails to acquire or earn
sufficient credits by the plan dates,
NHTSA will initiate civil penalty
proceedings.
(9) In the event that NHTSA fails to
receive or is unable to approve a plan
for a non-compliant manufacturer due
to insufficiency or untimeliness,
NHTSA will initiate civil penalty
proceedings.
(b) Civil penalties—(1) Generally. The
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 554, 556, and 557
do not apply to any proceedings
conducted pursuant to this section.
(2) Determination of non-compliance.
NHTSA Enforcement will make a
determination of non-compliance with
applicable fuel consumption standards
utilizing the certified and reported CO2
emissions and fuel consumption data
provided by the Environmental
Protection Agency as described in this
part, and after considering all the
flexibilities available under § 535.7. If
NHTSA Enforcement determines that a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
regulatory subcategory of vehicles or
engines fails to comply with the
applicable fuel consumption standard,
the chassis, vehicle or engine
manufacturer shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $37,500.00 per
vehicle or engine. NHTSA may adjust
this civil penalty amount to account for
inflation. Any such violation as defined
in § 535.4 shall constitute a separate
violation with respect to each vehicle or
engine within the applicable regulatory
subcategory.
(3) Maximum civil penalty limit. The
maximum civil penalty under this
section for a related series of violations
shall be determined by multiplying
$37,500.00 times the vehicle or engine
production volume for the model year
in question within the regulatory
subcategory.
(4) Factors for determining proposed
penalty amount. In determining the
amount of any civil penalty proposed to
be assessed under this section, NHTSA
Enforcement shall take into account the
gravity of the violation, the size of the
violator’s business, the violator’s history
of compliance with applicable fuel
consumption standards, the actual fuel
consumption performance related to the
applicable standard, the estimated cost
to comply with the regulation and
applicable standard, the quantity of
vehicles or engines not complying, the
effect of the penalty on the violator’s
ability to continue in business, and civil
penalties paid under Clean Air Act
section 205 (42 U.S.C. 7524) for noncompliance for the same vehicles or
engines.
(5) NHTSA enforcement report of
determination of non-compliance. (i) If
NHTSA Enforcement determines that a
violation has occurred, NHTSA
Enforcement may prepare a report and
send the report to the NHTSA Chief
Counsel.
(ii) The NHTSA Chief Counsel will
review the reports prepared by NHTSA
Enforcement to determine if there is
sufficient information to establish a
likely violation.
(iii) If the Chief Counsel determines
that a violation has likely occurred, the
Chief Counsel may issue a Notice of
Violation to the party.
(iv) If the Chief Counsel issues a
Notice of Violation, he or she will
prepare a case file with recommended
actions. A record of any prior violations
by the same party shall be forwarded
with the case file.
(6) Notice of violation. (i) NHTSA has
authority to assess a civil penalty for
any violation of this part under 49
U.S.C. 32902(k). The penalty may not be
more than $37,500.00 for each violation.
PO 00000
Frm 00304
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ii) The Chief Counsel may issue a
Notice of Violation to a party. The
Notice of Violation will contain the
following information:
(A) The name and address of the
party;
(B) The alleged violation and the
applicable fuel consumption standards
violated;
(C) The amount of the proposed
penalty;
(D) The place to which, and the
manner in which, payment is to be
made;
(E) A statement that the party may
decline the Notice of Violation and that
if the Notice of Violation is declined,
the party has the right to a hearing prior
to a final assessment of a penalty by a
Hearing Officer; and
(F) A statement that failure to either
pay the proposed penalty or to decline
the Notice of Violation and request a
hearing within 30 days of the date
shown on the Notice of Violation will
result in a finding of violation by default
and that NHTSA will proceed with the
civil penalty in the amount proposed on
the Notice of Violation without
processing the violation under the
hearing procedures set forth in this
subpart.
(iii) The Notice of Violation may be
delivered to the party by:
(A) Mailing to the party (certified mail
is not required);
(B) Use of an overnight or express
courier service; or
(C) Facsimile transmission or
electronic mail (with or without
attachments) to the part or an employee
of the party.
(iv) If a party submits a written
request for a hearing as provided in the
Notice of Violation or an amount agreed
on in compromise within 30 days of the
date shown on the Notice of Violation,
a finding of ‘‘resolved with payment’’
will be entered into the case file.
(v) If the party agrees to pay the
proposed penalty, but has not made
payment within 30 days of the date
shown on the Notice of Violation,
NHTSA will enter a finding of violation
by default in the matter and NHTSA
will proceed with the civil penalty in
the amount proposed on the Notice of
Violation without processing the
violation under the hearing procedures
set forth in this subpart.
(vi) If within 30 days of the date
shown on the Notice of Violation a party
fails to pay the proposed penalty on the
Notice of Violation, and fails to request
a hearing, then NHTSA will enter a
finding of violation by default in the
case file, and will assess the civil
penalty in the amount set forth on the
Notice of Violation without processing
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the violation under the hearing
procedures set forth in this subpart.
(vii) NHTSA’s order assessing the
civil penalty following a party’s default
is a final agency action.
(7) Hearing Officer. (i) If a party
timely requests a hearing after receiving
a Notice of Violation, the Hearing
Officer shall hear the case.
(ii) The Hearing Officer is solely
responsible for the case referred to him
or her. The Hearing Officer has no other
responsibility, direct or supervisory, for
the investigation of cases referred for the
assessment of civil penalties.
(iii) The Hearing Officer decides each
case on the basis of the information
before him or her, and must have no
prior connection with the case.
(8) Initiation of action before the
Hearing Officer. (i) After the Hearing
Officer receives the case file from the
Chief Counsel, the Hearing Officer
notifies the party in writing of:
(A) The date, time, and location of the
hearing and whether the hearing will be
conducted telephonically or at the DOT
Headquarters building in Washington,
DC;
(B) The right to be represented at all
stages of the proceeding by counsel as
set forth in the paragraph (b)(9) of this
section;
(C) The right to a free copy of all
written evidence in the case file.
(ii) On the request of a party, or at the
Hearing Officer’s direction, multiple
proceedings may be consolidated if at
any time it appears that such
consolidation is necessary or desirable.
(9) Counsel. A party has the right to
be represented at all stages of the
proceeding by counsel. A party electing
to be represented by counsel must notify
the Hearing Officer of this election in
writing, after which point the Hearing
Officer will direct all further
communications to that counsel. A
party represented by counsel bears all of
its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
(10) Hearing location and costs.
(i) Unless the party requests a hearing at
which the party appears before the
Hearing Officer in Washington, DC, the
hearing shall be held telephonically. In
DC, the hearing is held at the
headquarters of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
(ii) The Hearing Officer may transfer
a case to another Hearing Officer at a
party’s request or at the Hearing
Officer’s direction.
(iii) A party is responsible for all fees
and costs (including attorneys’ fees and
costs, and costs that may be associated
with travel or accommodations)
associated with attending a hearing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
(11) Hearing procedures. (i) There is
no right to discovery in any proceedings
conducted pursuant to this subpart.
(ii) The material in the case file
pertinent to the issues to be determined
by the Hearing Officer is presented by
the Chief Counsel or his or her designee.
(iii) The Chief Counsel may
supplement the case file with
information prior to the hearing. A copy
of such information will be provided to
the party no later than 3 days before the
hearing.
(iv) At the close of the Chief Counsel’s
presentation of evidence, the party has
the right to examine, respond to and
rebut material in the case file and other
information presented by the Chief
Counsel.
(v) In receiving evidence, the Hearing
Officer is not bound by strict rules of
evidence. In evaluating the evidence
presented, the Hearing Officer must give
due consideration to the reliability and
relevance of each item of evidence.
(vi) At the close of the party’s
presentation of evidence, the Hearing
Officer may allow the introduction of
rebuttal evidence that may be presented
by the Chief Counsel. The Hearing
Officer may allow the party to respond
to any such evidence submitted.
(vii) After the evidence in the case has
been presented, the Chief Counsel and
the party may present arguments on the
issues in the case. The party may also
request an opportunity to submit a
written statement for consideration by
the Hearing Officer and for further
review. If granted, the Hearing Officer
shall allow a reasonable time for
submission of the statement and shall
specify the date by which it must be
received. If the statement is not received
within the time prescribed, or within
the limits of any extension of time
granted by the Hearing Officer, the
Hearing Officer prepares the decision in
the case.
(viii) A verbatim transcript of the
hearing will not normally be prepared.
A party may, solely at its own expense,
cause a verbatim transcript to be made.
If a verbatim transcript is made, the
party shall submit two copies to the
Hearing Officer not later than 15 days
after the hearing. The Hearing Officer
shall include such transcript in the
record.
(12) Assessment of civil penalties. (i)
Not later than 30 days following the
close of the hearing, the Hearing Officer
shall issue a written decision on the
Notice of Violation, based on the
hearing record. The decisions shall set
forth the basis for the Hearing Officer’s
assessment of a civil penalty, or
decision not to assess a civil penalty. In
determining the amount of the civil
PO 00000
Frm 00305
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
74455
penalty, the gravity of the violation, the
size of the violator’s business, the
violator’s history of compliance with
applicable fuel consumption standards,
the actual fuel consumption
performance related to the applicable
standard, the estimated cost to comply
with the regulation and applicable
standard, the quantity of vehicles or
engines not complying, the effect of the
penalty on the violator’s ability to
continue in business, and civil penalties
paid under Clean Air Act section 205
(42 U.S.C. 7524) for non-compliance for
the same vehicles or engines shall be
taken into account. The assessment of a
civil penalty by the Hearing Officer
shall be set forth in an accompanying
final order.
(ii) If the Hearing Officer assesses civil
penalties in excess of $250,000,000, the
Hearing Officer’s decision contains a
statement advising the party of the right
to an administrative appeal to the
Administrator. The party is advised that
failure to submit an appeal within the
prescribed time will bar its
consideration and that failure to appeal
on the basis of a particular issue will
constitute a waiver of that issue in its
appeal before the Administrator.
(iii) The filing of a timely and
complete appeal to the Administrator of
a Hearing Officer’s order assessing a
civil penalty shall suspend the
operation of the Hearing Officer’s
penalty.
(iv) There shall be no administrative
appeals of civil penalties of less than
$250,000,000.
(13) Appeals of civil penalties in
excess of $250,000,000. (i) A party may
appeal the Hearing Officer’s order
assessing civil penalties over
$250,000,000 to the Administrator
within 21 days of the date of the
issuance of the Hearing Officer’s order.
(ii) The Administrator will affirm the
decision of the Hearing Officer unless
the Administrator finds that the Hearing
Officer’s decision was unsupported by
the record as a whole.
(iii) If the Administrator finds that the
decision of the Hearing Officer was
unsupported, in whole or in part, then
the Administrator may:
(A) Assess or modify a civil penalty;
(B) Rescind the Notice of Violation; or
(C) Remand the case back to the
Hearing Officer for new or additional
proceedings.
(iv) In the absence of a remand, the
decision of the Administrator in an
appeal is a final agency action.
(14) Collection of assessed or
compromised civil penalties.
(i) Payment of a civil penalty, whether
assessed or compromised, shall be made
by check, postal money order, or
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
74456
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
electronic transfer of funds, as provided
in instructions by the agency. A
payment of civil penalties shall not be
considered a request for a hearing.
(ii) The party must remit payment of
any assessed civil penalty to NHTSA
within 30 days after receipt of the
Hearing Officer’s order assessing civil
penalties, or, in the case of an appeal to
the Administrator, within 30 days after
receipt of the Administrator’s decision
on the appeal.
(iii) The party must remit payment of
any compromised civil penalty to
NHTSA on the date and under such
terms and conditions as agreed to by the
party and NHTSA. Failure to pay may
result in NHTSA entering a finding of
violation by default and assessing a civil
penalty in the amount proposed in the
Notice of Violation without processing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:45 Nov 29, 2010
Jkt 223001
the violation under the hearing
procedures set forth in this part.
(c) Changes in corporate ownership
and control. Manufacturers must inform
NHTSA of corporate relationship
changes to ensure that credit accounts
are identified correctly and credits are
assigned and allocated properly.
(1) In general, if two manufacturers
merge in any way, they must inform
NHTSA how they plan to merge their
credit accounts. NHTSA will
subsequently assess corporate fuel
consumption and compliance status of
the merged fleet instead of the original
separate fleets.
(2) If a manufacturer divides or
divests itself of a portion of its
automobile manufacturing business, it
must inform NHTSA how it plans to
divide the manufacturer’s credit
PO 00000
Frm 00306
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
holdings into two or more accounts.
NHTSA will subsequently distribute
holdings as directed by the
manufacturer, subject to provision for
reasonably anticipated compliance
obligations.
(3) If a manufacturer is a successor to
another manufacturer’s business, it must
inform NHTSA how it plans to allocate
credits and resolve liabilities per 49 CFR
part 534.
Dated: October 25, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency.
Dated: October 25, 2010.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2010–28120 Filed 11–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\30NOP2.SGM
30NOP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74152-74456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28120]
[[Page 74151]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, et al.
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 74152]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
(CO2) 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 (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions
standards would apply to all heavy-duty engines, pickup trucks, and
vans. EPA is also requesting comment on possible alternative
CO2-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:
https://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 https://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
https://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.
[[Page 74153]]
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 CO2-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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.000
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.
[[Page 74154]]
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 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be access at https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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.
[[Page 74155]]
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 https://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 CO2 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 CO2 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
[[Page 74156]]
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
[[Page 74157]]
observed global warming over the last 50 years.\9\ The primary GHGs of
concern are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Mobile sources emitted 31 percent of all U.S. GHGs in 2007
(transportation sources, which do not include certain off-highway
sources, account for 28 percent) and have been the fastest-growing
source of U.S. GHGs since 1990.\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 CO2, CH4,
N2O, 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, CO2 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 https://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 https://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 https://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
CO2 tailpipe emissions. For all vehicles that consume
carbon-based fuels, the amount of CO2 emissions is
essentially constant per gallon for a given type of fuel that is
consumed. The more efficient a heavy-duty truck is in completing its
work, the lower its environmental impact will be, because the less fuel
consumed to move cargo a given distance, the less CO2
emitted into the air. The technologies available for improving fuel
efficiency, and therefore for reducing both CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption, are one and the same.\15\ Because of this close
technical relationship, NHTSA and EPA have been able to rely on
jointly-developed assumptions, analyses, and analytical conclusions to
support the standards and other provisions that NHTSA and EPA are
proposing under our separate legal authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ However, as discussed below, in addition to addressing
CO2, 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
[[Page 74158]]
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[reg]
Transport Partnership program, and extensive technical and engineering
analyses done at the Federal level. This section summarizes some of the
most important of these precursors and foundations for this HD National
Program.
(1) EPA's Traditional Heavy-Duty Regulatory Program
Since the 1980s, EPA has acted several times to address tailpipe
emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics from heavy-duty
vehicles and engines. During the last 18 years, these programs have
primarily addressed emissions of particulate matter (PM) and the
primary ozone precursors, hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX). These programs have successfully achieved significant
and cost-effective reductions in emissions and associated health and
welfare benefits to the nation. They have been structured in ways that
account for the varying circumstances of the engine and truck
industries. As required by the CAA, the emission standards implemented
by these programs include standards that apply at the time that the
vehicle or engine is sold as well as standards that apply in actual
use. As a result of these programs, new vehicles meeting current
emission standards will emit 98% less NOX 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
[[Page 74159]]
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 https://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 CO2 by working with the shipping community
and the freight sector to identify low carbon strategies and
technologies, and by providing technical information, financial
incentives, and partner recognition to accelerate the adoption of these
strategies. Through the SmartWay program, EPA has worked closely with
truck manufacturers and truck fleets to develop test procedures to
evaluate vehicle and component performance in reducing fuel consumption
and has conducted testing and has established test programs to verify
technologies that can achieve these reductions. Over the last six
years, EPA has developed hands-on experience testing the largest heavy-
duty trucks and evaluating improvements in tire and vehicle aerodynamic
performance. In 2010, according to vehicle manufacturers, approximately
five percent of new combination heavy-duty trucks will meet the
SmartWay performance criteria demonstrating that they represent the
pinnacle of current heavy-duty truck reductions in fuel consumption.
In developing this HD National Program, the agencies have drawn
from the SmartWay experience, as discussed in detail both in Sections
II and III below (e.g., developing test procedures to evaluate trucks
and truck components) but also in the 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
[[Page 74160]]
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.001
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
consumptio