Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Certification Template

57106

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, 1033, 1036,
1037, 1039, 1065, 1066, and 1068
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162; NHTSA–2010–
0079; FRL–9455–1]
RIN 2060–AP61; 2127–AK74

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Final Rules.
AGENCY:

EPA and NHTSA, on behalf of
the Department of Transportation, are
each finalizing rules to establish a
comprehensive Heavy-Duty National
Program that will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and fuel consumption for onroad heavy-duty vehicles, responding to
the President’s directive on May 21,
2010, to take coordinated steps to
produce a new generation of clean
vehicles. NHTSA’s final fuel
consumption standards and EPA’s final
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
standards are tailored to each of three
regulatory categories of heavy-duty
vehicles: Combination Tractors; Heavyduty Pickup Trucks and Vans; and
Vocational Vehicles. The rules include
separate standards for the engines that
power combination tractors and
vocational vehicles. Certain rules are
exclusive to the EPA program. These
include EPA’s final hydrofluorocarbon
standards to control leakage from air
conditioning systems in combination
tractors, and pickup trucks and vans.
These also include EPA’s final nitrous
oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4)
emissions standards that apply to all
heavy-duty engines, pickup trucks and
vans.
SUMMARY:

NAICS Code a

Category
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

EPA’s final greenhouse gas emission
standards under the Clean Air Act will
begin with model year 2014. NHTSA’s
final fuel consumption standards under
the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 will be voluntary in model
years 2014 and 2015, becoming
mandatory with model year 2016 for
most regulatory categories. Commercial
trailers are not regulated in this phase
of the Heavy-Duty National Program.
The agencies estimate that the
combined standards will reduce CO2
emissions by approximately 270 million
metric tons and save 530 million barrels
of oil over the life of vehicles sold
during the 2014 through 2018 model
years, providing over $7 billion in net
societal benefits, and $49 billion in net
societal benefits when private fuel
savings are considered.
EPA is also finalizing provisions
allowing light-duty vehicle
manufacturers to use CO2 credits to
meet the light-duty vehicle N2O and
CH4 standards, technical amendments to
the fuel economy provisions for lightduty vehicles, and a technical
amendment to the criteria pollutant
emissions requirements for certain
switch locomotives.
DATES: These final rules are effective on
November 14, 2011. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications
listed in this regulation is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of
November 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA and NHTSA have
established dockets for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162 and NHTSA–2010–0079,
respectively. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the following locations: EPA: EPA
Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West

Industry ....................................................

336111
336112
336120
541514
811112
811198
336111
336112

Industry ....................................................

Industry ....................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Room 3334, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the Air Docket
is (202) 566–1742. NHTSA: Docket
Management Facility, M–30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket
Management Facility is open between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

NHTSA: Lily Smith, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366–2992. EPA:
Lauren Steele, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Assessment and
Standards Division (ASD),
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number: (734) 214–
4788; fax number: (734) 214–4816;
e-mail address: steele.lauren@epa.gov,
or contact the Office of Transportation
and Air Quality at
OTAQPUBLICWEB@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Does this action apply to me?
This action affects companies that
manufacture, sell, or import into the
United States new heavy-duty engines
and new Class 2b through 8 trucks,
including combination tractors, school
and transit buses, vocational vehicles
such as utility service trucks, as well as
3⁄4-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks and
vans. The heavy-duty category
incorporates all motor vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500
pounds or greater, and the engines that
power them, except for medium-duty
passenger vehicles already covered by
the greenhouse gas emissions standards
and corporate average fuel economy
standards issued for light-duty model
year 2012–2016 vehicles. Regulated
categories and entities include the
following:

Examples of potentially affected entities
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Engine and Truck Manufacturers.

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components.

Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters.

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
NAICS Code a

Category

422720
454312
541514
541690
811198
333618
336510

Industry ....................................................

57107

Examples of potentially affected entities

Manufacturers, remanufacturers and importers of locomotives and locomotive engines.

NOTE:
a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely
covered by these rules. This table lists
the types of entities that the agencies are
aware may be regulated by this action.
Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your activities are
regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability
criteria in the referenced regulations.
You may direct questions regarding the
applicability of this action to the
persons listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Table of Contents
A. Does this action apply to me?
I. Overview
A. Introduction
B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-Duty
National Program
C. Summary of the Final EPA and NHTSA
HD National Program
D. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the
HD National Program
E. Program Flexibilities
F. EPA and NHTSA Statutory Authorities
G. Future HD GHG and Fuel Consumption
Rulemakings
II. Final GHG and Fuel Consumption
Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles
A. What vehicles will be affected?
B. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
C. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
D. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
E. Other Standards
III. Feasibility Assessments and Conclusions
A. Class 7–8 Combination Tractor
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
C. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
A. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
Program
B. Additional Flexibility Provisions
V. NHTSA and EPA Compliance,
Certification, and Enforcement
Provisions
A. Overview
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
C. Heavy-Duty Engines
D. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
E. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
F. General Regulatory Provisions
G. Penalties
VI. How will this program impact fuel
consumption, GHG emissions, and
climate change?

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

A. What methodologies did the agencies
use to project GHG emissions and fuel
consumption impacts?
B. MOVES Analysis
C. What are the projected reductions in
fuel consumption and GHG emissions?
D. Overview of Climate Change Impacts
From GHG Emissions
E. Changes in Atmospheric CO2
Concentrations, Global Mean
Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean
pH Associated With the Program’s GHG
Emissions Reductions
VII. How will this final action impact 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 final
program?
A. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating
Impacts
B. Costs Associated With the Final Program
C. Indirect Cost Multipliers
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reductions
E. Impacts of Reduction in Fuel
Consumption
F. Class Shifting and Fleet Turnover
Impacts
G. Benefits of Reducing CO2 Emissions
H. Non-GHG Health and Environmental
Impacts
I. Energy Security Impacts
J. Other Impacts
K. The Effect of Safety Standards and
Voluntary Safety Improvements on
Vehicle Weight
L. Summary of Costs and Benefits
M. Employment Impacts
IX. Analysis of the Alternatives
A. What are the alternatives that the
agencies considered?
B. How do these alternatives compare in
overall GHG emissions reductions and
fuel efficiency and cost?
C. What is the agencies’ decision regarding
trailer standards?
X. Public Participation
XI. NHTSA’s Record of Decision
A. The Agency’s Decision
B. Alternatives Considered by NHTSA in
Reaching Its Decision, Including the
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
C. Factors Balanced by NHTSA in Making
Its Decision
D. How the Factors and Considerations
Balanced by NHTSA Entered Into Its
Decision

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E. The Agency’s Preferences Among
Alternatives Based on Relevant Factors,
Including Economic and Technical
Considerations and Agency Statutory
Missions
F. Mitigation
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
A. EPA
B. NHTSA

I. Overview
A. Introduction
EPA and NHTSA (‘‘the agencies’’) are
announcing a first-ever program to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and fuel consumption in the heavy-duty
highway vehicle sector. This broad
sector—ranging from large pickups to
sleeper-cab tractors—together represent
the second largest contributor to oil
consumption and GHG emissions from
the mobile source sector, after light-duty
passenger cars and trucks. These are the
second joint rules issued by the
agencies, following on the April 1, 2010
standards to sharply reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption from
MY 2012–2016 passenger cars and light
trucks (published on May 7, 2010 at 75
FR 25324).
In a May 21, 2010 memorandum to
the Administrators of EPA and NHTSA
(and the Secretaries of Transportation
and Energy), the President stated that
‘‘America has the opportunity to lead
the world in the development of a new
generation of clean cars and trucks
through innovative technologies and
manufacturing that will spur economic
growth and create high-quality domestic
jobs, enhance our energy security, and
improve our environment.’’ 1 2 In the
1 Improving Energy Security, American
Competitiveness and Job Creation, and
Environmental Protection Through a
Transformation of Our Nation’s Fleet of Cars And
Trucks,’’ Issued May 21, 2010, published at 75 FR
29399, May 26, 2010.
2 The May 2010 Presidential Memorandum also
directed EPA and NHTSA, in close coordination
with the California Air Resources Board, to build
on the National Program for 2012–2016 MY lightduty vehicles by developing and proposing
coordinated light-duty vehicle standards for MY
2017–2025. The agencies have taken an initial step
in this process, releasing a Joint Notice of Intent and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

Continued

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57108

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

May 2010 memorandum, the President
specifically requested the
Administrators of EPA and NHTSA to
‘‘immediately begin work on a joint
rulemaking under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to
establish fuel efficiency and greenhouse
gas emissions standards for commercial
medium-and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and work trucks beginning
with the 2014 model year (MY).’’ In this
final rulemaking, each agency is
addressing this Memorandum by
adopting rules under its respective
authority that together comprise a
coordinated and comprehensive HD
National Program designed to address
the urgent and closely intertwined
challenges of reduction of dependence
on oil, achievement of energy security,
and amelioration of global climate
change.
At the same time, the final program
will enhance American competitiveness
and job creation, benefit consumers and
businesses by reducing costs for
transporting goods, and spur growth in
the clean energy sector.
The HD National Program the
agencies are finalizing today reflects a
collaborative effort between the
agencies, a range of public interest
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
the state of California and the regulated
industry. At the time of the President’s
announcement, a number of major HD
truck and engine manufacturers
representing the vast majority of this
industry, and the California Air
Resources Board (California ARB), sent
letters to EPA and NHTSA supporting
the creation of a HD National Program
based on a common set of principles. In
the letters, the stakeholders committed
to working with the agencies and with
other stakeholders toward a program
consistent with common principles,
including:
Increased use of existing technologies
to achieve significant GHG emissions
and fuel consumption reductions;
A program that starts in 2014 and is
fully phased in by 2018;
A program that works towards
harmonization of methods for
determining a vehicle’s GHG and fuel
efficiency, recognizing the global nature
of the issues and the industry;
Standards that recognize the
commercial needs of the trucking
industry; and
Initial Joint Technical Assessment Report in
September 2010 (75 FR 62739), and a Supplemental
Notice of Intent (75 FR 76337). The agencies plan
to issue a full light-duty vehicle proposal to extend
the National Program to MY 2017–2025 in
September 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Incentives leading to the early
introduction of advanced technologies.
The final rules adopted today reflect
these principles. The final HD National
Program also builds on many years of
heavy-duty engine and vehicle
technology development to achieve
what the agencies believe is the greatest
degree of fuel consumption and GHG
emission reduction appropriate,
technologically and economically
feasible, and cost-effective for model
years 2014–2018. In addition to taking
aggressive steps that are reasonably
possible now, based on the
technological opportunities and
pathways that present themselves
during these model years, the agencies
and industry will also continue learning
about emerging opportunities for this
complex sector to further reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emission
through future regulatory steps.
Similarly, the agencies will
participate in efforts to improve our
ability to accurately characterize the
actual in-use fuel consumption and
emissions of this complex sector. As
technologies progress in the coming
years and as the agencies improve the
regulatory tools to evaluate real world
vehicle performance, we expect that we
will develop a second phase of
regulations to reinforce these initial
rules and achieve further reductions in
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
reduction for the mid- and longer-term
time frame (beyond 2018). The agencies
are committed to working with all
interested stakeholders in this effort and
to the extent possible working towards
alignment with similar programs being
developed in Canada, Mexico, Europe,
China, and Japan. In doing so, we will
continue to evaluate many of the
structural and technical decisions we
are making in today’s final action in the
context of new technologies and the
new regulatory tools that we expect to
realize in the future.
The regulatory program we are
finalizing today is largely unchanged
from the proposal the agencies made on
November 30, 2010 (See 75 FR 741512).
The structure of the program and the
stringency of the standards are
essentially the same as proposed. We
have made a number of changes to the
testing requirements and reporting
requirements to provide greater
regulatory certainty and better align the
NHTSA and EPA portions of the
program. In response to comments, we
have also made some changes to the
averaging, banking and trading (ABT)
provisions of the program that will
make implementation of this final
program more flexible for
manufacturers. We have added

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

provisions to further encourage the
development of advanced technologies
and to provide a more straightforward
mechanism to certify engines and
vehicles using innovative technologies.
Finally in response to comments, we
have made some technical changes to
our emissions compliance model that
results in different numeric standards
for both combination tractors and
vocational vehicles to more accurately
characterize emissions while
maintaining the same overall stringency
and therefore expected costs and
benefits of the program.
Heavy-duty vehicles move much of
the nation’s freight and carry out
numerous other tasks, including utility
work, concrete delivery, fire response,
refuse collection, and many more.
Heavy-duty vehicles are primarily
powered by diesel engines, although
about 37 percent of these vehicles are
powered by gasoline engines.3 Heavyduty trucks 4 have long been an
important part of the goods movement
infrastructure in this country and have
experienced significant growth over the
last decade related to increased imports
and exports of finished goods and
increased shipping of finished goods to
homes through Internet purchases.
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–
2016.5 It also does not include
3 References in this preamble to ‘‘gasoline’’
engines (and the vehicles powered by them)
generally include other Otto-cycle engines as well,
such as those fueled by ethanol and natural gas,
except in contexts that are clearly gasoline-specific.
4 In this rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA use the
term ‘‘truck’’ in a general way, referring to all
categories of regulated heavy-duty highway vehicles
(including buses). As such, the term is generally
interchangeable with ‘‘heavy-duty vehicle.’’
5 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule 75 FR 25323, May 7, 2010.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

motorcycles. Thus, in this rulemaking,
unless specified otherwise, the heavyduty category incorporates all vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating above
8,500 pounds, and the engines that
power them, except for MDPVs.6
The agencies proposed to cover all
segments of the heavy-duty category
above, except with respect to
recreational vehicles (RVs or motor
homes). We note that the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
requires NHTSA to set standards for
‘‘commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks.’’ 7
The standards that EPA is finalizing
today cover recreational on-highway
vehicles, while NHTSA proposed not to
include recreational vehicles based on
an interpretation of the term
‘‘commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway commercial’’ vehicles.
NHTSA stated in the NPRM that
recreational vehicles are noncommercial, and therefore outside of the
term and the scope of its rule.
Oshkosh Corporation commented that
this interpretation did not match the
statutory definition of the term in EISA,
which defines ‘‘commercial mediumand heavy-duty on-highway vehicle’’ by
weight only,8 and that therefore the
agency’s interpretation of the term
should be explicitly broadened to
include all vehicles, and more than only
vehicles that are not engaged in
interstate commerce as defined by the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration in 49 CFR part 202.
Alternatively, Oshkosh suggested that if
NHTSA followed the definition
provided in EISA, which makes no
direct reference to the concept of
‘‘commercial,’’ there would be no
logical reason to exclude RVs based on
that definition.
NHTSA has considered Oshkosh’s
comment and reconsidered its
interpretation that effectively read
words into the statutory definition.
Given the very wide variety of vehicles
contained in the HD fleet, reading those
words into the definition and thereby
excluding certain types of vehicles
could create illogical results, i.e.,
treating similar vehicles differently.
Therefore, NHTSA will adhere to the
6 The CAA defines heavy-duty as a truck, bus or
other motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating exceeding 6,000 pounds (CAA section
202(b)(3)). The term HD as used in this action refers
to a subset of these vehicles and engines.
7 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).
8 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), Note 7 above.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

statutory definition contained in EISA
for this rulemaking. However, as RVs
were not included by NHTSA in the
proposed regulation in the NPRM, they
are not within the scope and must be
excluded in NHTSA’s portion of the
final program. Accordingly, NHTSA
will address this issue in the next
rulemaking. However, as noted, RVs are
subject to the CO2 standards for
vocational vehicles.
Setting fuel consumption standards
for the heavy-duty sector, pursuant to
NHTSA’s EISA authority, will also
improve our energy and national
security by reducing our dependence on
foreign oil, which has been a national
objective since the first oil price shocks
in the 1970s. Net petroleum imports
now account for approximately 49–51
percent of U.S. petroleum consumption.
World crude oil production is highly
concentrated, exacerbating the risks of
supply disruptions and price shocks as
the recent unrest in North Africa and
the Persian Gulf highlights. Recently, oil
prices have been over $100 per barrel,
gasoline and diesel fuel prices in excess
of $4 per gallon, causing financial
hardship for many families and
businesses. The export of U.S. assets in
exchange for oil imports continues to be
an important component of the
historically unprecedented U.S. trade
deficits. Transportation accounts for
about 72 percent of U.S. petroleum
consumption. Heavy-duty vehicles
account for about 17 percent of
transportation oil use, which means that
they alone account for about 12 percent
of all U.S. oil consumption.9
Setting GHG emissions standards for
the heavy-duty sector will help to
ameliorate climate change. The EPA
Administrator found after a thorough
examination of the scientific evidence
on the causes and impact of current and
future climate change, and careful
review of public comments, that the
science compellingly supports a
positive finding that atmospheric
concentrations of six greenhouse gases
taken in combination result in air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger both public
health and welfare and that the
combined emissions of these
greenhouse gases from new motor
vehicles and engines contributes to the
greenhouse gas air pollution that
endangers public health and welfare. In
her finding, the Administrator carefully
studied and relied heavily upon the
major findings and conclusions from the
recent assessments of the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program and the U.N.
9 In 2009 Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook
2010 released May 11, 2010.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57109

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. 74 FR 66496, December 15,
2009. As summarized in the Technical
Support Document for EPA’s
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings under section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act, anthropogenic emissions
of GHGs are very likely (a 90 to 99
percent probability) the cause of most of
the observed global warming over the
last 50 years.10 Primary GHGs of
concern are carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). Mobile sources
emitted 31 percent of all U.S. GHGs in
2007 (transportation sources, which do
not include certain off-highway sources,
account for 28 percent) and have been
the fastest-growing source of U.S. GHGs
since 1990.11 Mobile sources addressed
in EPA’s endangerment and
contribution findings under CAA
section 202(a)—light-duty vehicles,
heavy-duty trucks, buses, and
motorcycles—accounted for 23 percent
of all U.S. GHG emissions in 2007.12
Heavy-duty vehicles emit CO2, CH4,
N2O, and HFCs and are responsible for
nearly 19 percent of all mobile source
GHGs (nearly 6 percent of all U.S.
GHGs) and about 25 percent of section
202(a) mobile source GHGs. For heavyduty vehicles in 2007, CO2 emissions
represented more than 99 percent of all
GHG emissions (including HFCs).13
In developing this HD National
program, the agencies have worked with
a large and diverse group of
stakeholders representing truck and
engine manufacturers, trucking fleets,
environmental organizations, and states
including the State of California.14
Further, it is our expectation based on
our ongoing work with the State of
California that the California ARB will
10 U.S. EPA. (2009). ‘‘Technical Support
Document for Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’’ Washington,
DC, available at Docket: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0171–11645, and at http://epa.gov/climatechange/
endangerment.html.
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990–2007. EPA 430–R–09–004. Available at
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
downloads09/GHG2007entire_report-508.pdf.
12 See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above, at pp.
180–194.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: See Note 11, above.
14 Pursuant to DOT Order 2100.2, NHTSA has
docketed a memorandum recording those meetings
that it attended and documents submitted by
stakeholders which formed a basis for this action
and which can be made publicly available in its
docket for this rulemaking. DOT Order 2100.2 is
available at http://www.reg-group.com/library/
DOT2100–2.PDF.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57110

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

be able to adopt regulations equivalent
in practice to those of this HD National
Program, just as it has done for past EPA
regulation of heavy-duty trucks and
engines. NHTSA and EPA have been
working with California ARB to enable
that outcome.
In light of the industry’s diversity,
and consistent with the
recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) as
discussed further below, the agencies
are adopting a HD National Program that
recognizes the different sizes and work
requirements of this wide range of
heavy-duty vehicles and their engines.
NHTSA’s final fuel consumption
standards and EPA’s final GHG
standards apply to manufacturers of the
following types of heavy-duty vehicles
and their engines; the final provisions
for each of these are described in more
detail below in this section:
• Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and
Vans.
• Combination Tractors.
• Vocational Vehicles.
As in the light-duty 2012–2016 MY
vehicle rule, EPA’s and NHTSA’s final
standards for the heavy-duty sector are
largely harmonized with one another
due to the close and direct relationship
between improving the fuel efficiency of
these vehicles and reducing their CO2
tailpipe emissions. For all vehicles that
consume carbon-based fuels, the
amount of CO2 exhaust emissions is
essentially constant per gallon for a
given type of fuel that is consumed. The
more efficient a heavy-duty truck is in
completing its work, the lower its
environmental impact will be, because
the less fuel consumed to move cargo a
given distance, the less CO2 that truck
emits directly into the air. The
technologies available for improving
fuel efficiency, and therefore for
reducing both CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption, are one and the same.15
Because of this close technical
relationship, NHTSA and EPA have
been able to rely on jointly-developed
assumptions, analyses, and analytical
conclusions to support the standards
and other provisions that NHTSA and
EPA are adopting under our separate
legal authorities.
This program is based on standards
for direct exhaust emissions from
engines and vehicles. In characterizing
the overall emissions impacts, benefits
and costs of the program, analyses of air
pollutant emissions from upstream
sources have been conducted. In this
15 However,

as discussed below, in addition to
addressing CO2, the EPA’s final standards also
include provisions to address other GHGs (nitrous
oxide, methane, and air conditioning refrigerant
emissions). See Section II.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

action, the agencies use the term
upstream to include emissions from the
production and distribution of fuel. A
summary of the analysis of upstream
emissions can be found in Section VI.C
of this preamble, and further details are
available in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
The timelines for the implementation
of the final NHTSA and EPA standards
are also closely coordinated. EPA’s final
GHG emission standards will begin in
model year 2014. In order to provide for
the four full model years of regulatory
lead time required by EISA, as
discussed in Section 0 below, NHTSA’s
final fuel consumption standards will be
voluntary in model years 2014 and
2015, becoming mandatory in model
year 2016, except for diesel engine
standards which will be voluntary in
model years 2014, 2015 and 2016,
becoming mandatory in model year
2017. Both agencies are also allowing
for early compliance in model year
2013. A detailed discussion of how the
final standards are consistent with each
agency’s respective statutory
requirements and authorities is found
later in this preamble.
Allison Transmission stated that
sufficient time must be taken before
issuing the final rules in order to ensure
that the standards are supportable. As
explained in Sections II and III below,
as well as in the RIA, the agencies
believe there is sufficient lead time to
meet all of the standards adopted in
today’s rules. For those areas for which
the agencies have determined that
insufficient time is available to develop
appropriate standards, such as for
trailers, the agencies are not including
regulations as part of this initial
program.
NHTSA received several comments
related to the timing of the
implementation of its fuel consumption
standards. The Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA), the National
Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA), The Volvo Group (Volvo), and
Navistar argued that the timing of
NHTSA’s standards violated the lead
time requirement of 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(3)(A), which states that
standards under the new medium- and
heavy-duty program shall have ‘‘not less
than 4 full model years of regulatory
lead-time.’’ The commenters seemed to
interpret the voluntary program as the
imposition of regulation upon industry.
NADA described NHTSA’s standards
during the voluntary period as
‘‘mandates.’’
NHTSA has reviewed this issue and
believes that the regulatory schedule is
consistent with the lead time
requirement of Section 32902(k)(3). To
clarify, NHTSA will not be imposing a

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

mandatory regulatory program until
2016, and none of the voluntary
standards will be ‘‘mandates.’’ As
described in later sections, the
voluntary standards would only apply
to a manufacturer if it makes the
voluntary and affirmative choice to optin to the program. 16 Mandatory NHTSA
standards will first come into effect in
2016, giving industry four full years of
lead time with the NHTSA fuel
consumption standards.
EMA, NADA, and Navistar also
argued that the proposed standards
would violate the stability requirement
of 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(B), which states
that they shall have ‘‘not less than 3 full
model years of regulatory stability.’’
EMA stated that since there are HD
emission standards taking effect in
2013, the 2014 implementation date for
this rule would violate the stability
requirements. NADA argued that the
MY 2014–2017/2018 phase-in period
was inadequate to fulfill the stability
requirement.
Congress has not spoken directly to
the meaning of the words ‘‘regulatory
stability.’’ NHTSA believes that the
‘‘regulatory stability’’ requirement exists
to ensure that manufacturers will not be
subject to new standards in repeated
rulemakings too rapidly, given that
Congress did not include a minimum
duration period for the MD/HD
standards.17 NHTSA further believes
that standards, which as set provide for
increasing stringency during the period
that the standards are applicable under
this rule to be the maximum feasible
during the regulatory period, are within
the meaning of the statute. In this
statutory context, NHTSA interprets the
phrase ‘‘regulatory stability’’ in Section
32902(k)(3)(B) as requiring that the
standards remain in effect for three
years before they may be increased by
amendment. It does not prohibit
standards which contain predetermined stringency increases.
As laid out in Section II below,
NHTSA’s final standards follow
different phase-in schedules based on
differences between the regulatory
categories. Consistent with NHTSA’s
statutory obligation to implement a
program designed to achieve the
maximum feasible fuel efficiency
improvement, the standards increase in
stringency based upon increasing fleet
penetration rates for the available
technologies. The NPRM proposed
phase-in schedules aligned with EPA’s,
16 Prior to or at the same time that a manufacturer
submits its first application for a certificate of
conformity; See Section V below.
17 In contrast, light-duty standards must remain in
place for ‘‘at least 1, but not more than 5, model
years.’’ 23902(b)(3)(B).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
some of which followed pre-determined
stringency increases. The NPRM also
noted that NHTSA was considering
alternate standards that would not
change in stringency during the time
frame when the regulations are effective
for those standards that increased
throughout the mandatory program. As
described in Section II below, the final
rule includes the proposed alternate
standards for those standards that
follow such a stringency phase-in path.
Therefore, NHTSA believes that the
final rule provides ample stability for
each standard.
Each standard, associated phase-in
schedule, and alternative standard
implemented by this final rule was
noticed in the NPRM. Those fuel
consumption standards that become
mandatory in 2017 will remain in effect
through at least 2019. This further
ensures that the fuel consumption
standards in this rule will remain in
effect for at least three years, providing
the statutorily-mandated three full years
of regulatory stability, and ensuring that
manufacturers will not be subject to
new or amended standards too rapidly.
(The greenhouse gas emission standards
remain in effect unless and until
amended in all later model years in any
case.) Therefore, NHTSA believes the
commenters’ concern about regulatory
stability is addressed in the structure of
the rule.
Neither EPA nor NHTSA is adopting
standards at this time for GHG
emissions or fuel consumption,
respectively, for heavy-duty commercial
trailers or for vehicles or engines
manufactured by small businesses. The
agencies recognize that aerodynamic
and tire rolling resistance improvements
to trailers represent a significant
opportunity to reduce fuel consumption
and GHGs as evidenced, among other
things, by the work of the EPA
SmartWay program. While we are
deferring action today on setting trailer
standards, the agencies are committed to
moving forward to create a regulatory
program for trailers that would
complement the current vehicle
program. See Section IX for more details
on the agencies’ decisions regarding
trailers, and Sections II and XII for more
details on the agencies’ decisions
regarding small businesses.
The agencies have analyzed in detail
the projected costs, fuel savings, and
benefits of the final GHG and fuel
consumption standards. Table I–1
shows estimated lifetime discounted
program costs (including technological
outlays), fuel savings, and benefits for
all heavy-duty vehicles projected to be
sold in model years 2014–2018 over
these vehicles’ lives. Section I.D

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

includes additional information about
this analysis.

57111

B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-Duty
National Program

The standards that are being adopted
in this notice represent the first time
that NHTSA and EPA are regulating the
heavy-duty sector for fuel consumption
and GHG emissions, respectively. The
HD National Program is rooted in EPA’s
prior regulatory history, the SmartWay®
[Billions, 2009$]
Transport Partnership program, and
extensive technical and engineering
Lifetime Present Value c—3% Discount
analyses done at the federal level. This
Rate
section summarizes some of the most
Program Costs ..................................
$8.1 important of these precursors and
Fuel Savings .....................................
50 foundations for this HD National
Benefits .............................................
7.3 Program.

TABLE I–1—ESTIMATED LIFETIME DISCOUNTED COSTS, FUEL SAVINGS,
BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR
2014–2018 MODEL YEAR HEAVYDUTY VEHICLES a b

Net Benefitsd ....................................
Annualized

Value e—3%

49

Discount Rate

Annualized Costs ..............................
Fuel Savings .....................................
Annualized Benefits ..........................
Net Benefits d ....................................

0.4
2.2
0.4
2.2

Lifetime Present Value c—7% Discount
Rate
Program Costs ..................................
Fuel Savings .....................................
Benefits .............................................
Net Benefits d ....................................

8.1
34
6.7
33

Annualized Value e—7% Discount Rate
Annualized Costs ..............................
Fuel Savings .....................................
Annualized Benefits ..........................
Net Benefits d ....................................

0.6
2.6
0.5
2.5

Notes:
a The agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different values of a one ton
CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5% discount rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at
3%), which each increase over time. For the
purposes of this overview presentation of estimated costs and benefits, however, we are
showing the benefits associated with the marginal value deemed to be central by the interagency working group on this topic: the model
average at 3% discount rate, in 2009 dollars.
Section VIII.F provides a complete list of values for the 4 estimates.
b Note that net present value of reduced
GHG emissions is calculated differently than
other benefits. The same discount rate used to
discount the value of damages from future
emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate net present value of SCC for
internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for
more detail.
c Present value is the total, aggregated
amount that a series of monetized costs or
benefits that occur over time is worth now (in
year 2009 dollar terms), discounting future values to the present.
d Net benefits reflect the fuel savings plus
benefits minus costs.
e The annualized value is the constant annual value through a given time period (2012
through 2050 in this analysis) whose summed
present value equals the present value from
which it was derived.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(1) EPA’s Traditional Heavy-Duty
Regulatory Program
Since the 1980s, EPA has acted
several times to address tailpipe
emissions of criteria pollutants and air
toxics from heavy-duty vehicles and
engines. During the last 18 years, these
programs have primarily addressed
emissions of particulate matter (PM) and
the primary ozone precursors,
hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX). These programs have
successfully achieved significant and
cost-effective reductions in emissions
and associated health and welfare
benefits to the nation. They have been
structured in ways that account for the
varying circumstances of the engine and
truck industries. As required by the
CAA, the emission standards
implemented by these programs include
standards that apply at the time that the
vehicle or engine is sold as well as
standards that apply in actual use. As a
result of these programs, new vehicles
meeting current emission standards will
emit 98 percent less NOX and 99 percent
less PM than new trucks 20 years ago.
The resulting emission reductions
provide significant public health and
welfare benefits. The most recent EPA
regulations which were fully phased-in
in 2010, the monetized health and
welfare benefits alone are projected to
be greater than $70 billion in 2030—
benefits far exceeding compliance costs
and not including the unmonetized
benefits resulting from reductions in air
toxics and ozone precursors (66 FR
5002, January 18, 2001).
EPA’s overall program goal has
always been to achieve emissions
reductions from the complete vehicles
that operate on our roads. The agency
has often accomplished this goal for
many heavy-duty truck categories
through the regulation of heavy-duty
engine emissions. A key part of this
success has been the development over
many years of a well-established,
representative, and robust set of engine

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57112

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

test procedures that industry and EPA
now routinely use to measure emissions
and determine compliance with
emission standards. These test
procedures in turn serve the overall
compliance program that EPA
implements to help ensure that
emissions reductions are being
achieved. By isolating the engine from
the many variables involved when the
engine is installed and operated in a HD
vehicle, EPA has been able to accurately
address the contribution of the engine
alone to overall emissions. The agencies
discuss below how the final program
incorporates the existing engine-based
approach used for criteria pollutant
regulations, as well as new vehiclebased approaches.
(2) NHTSA’s Responsibilities To
Regulate Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
under EISA

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

With the passage of the EISA in
December 2007, Congress laid out a
framework developing the first fuel
efficiency regulations for HD vehicles.
As codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), EISA
requires NHTSA to develop a regulatory
system for the fuel efficiency of
commercial medium-duty and heavyduty on-highway vehicles and work
trucks in three steps: a study by NAS,
a study by NHTSA,18 and a rulemaking
to develop the regulations themselves.
Specifically, section 102 of EISA,
codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), states
that not later than two years after
completion of the NHTSA study, DOT
(by delegation, NHTSA), in consultation
with the Department of Energy (DOE)
and EPA, shall develop a regulation to
implement a ‘‘commercial medium-duty
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and
work truck fuel efficiency improvement
program designed to achieve the
maximum feasible improvement.’’
NHTSA interprets the timing
requirements as permitting a regulation
to be developed earlier, rather than as
requiring the agency to wait a specified
period of time.
Congress specified that as part of the
‘‘HD fuel efficiency improvement
program designed to achieve the
maximum feasible improvement,’’
NHTSA must adopt and implement:
Appropriate test methods;
Measurement metrics;
Fuel economy standards; 19 and
18 Factors and Considerations for Establishing a
Fuel Efficiency Regulatory Program for Commercial
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, October 2010,
available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/
rulemaking/pdf/cafe/NHTSA_Study_Trucks.pdf.
19 In the context of 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), NHTSA
interprets ‘‘fuel economy standards’’ as referring not
specifically to miles per gallon, as in the light-duty
vehicle context, but instead more broadly to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 onhighway vehicles and work trucks.
NHTSA notes that these criteria are
different from the ‘‘four factors’’ of 49
U.S.C. 32902(f) 20 that have long
governed NHTSA’s setting of fuel
economy standards for passenger cars
and light trucks, although many of the
same issues are considered under each
of these provisions.
Congress also stated that NHTSA may
set separate standards for different
classes of HD vehicles, which the
agency interprets broadly to allow
regulation of HD engines in addition to
HD vehicles, and provided requirements
new to 49 U.S.C. 32902 in terms of
timing of regulations, stating that the
standards adopted as a result of the
agency’s rulemaking shall provide not
less than four full model years of
regulatory lead time, and three full
model years of regulatory stability.
(3) National Academy of Sciences
Report on Heavy-Duty Technology
In April 2010 as mandated by
Congress in EISA, the National Research
Council (NRC) under NAS issued a
report to NHTSA and to Congress
evaluating medium-duty and heavyduty truck fuel efficiency improvement
opportunities, titled ‘‘Technologies and
Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavyduty Vehicles.’’ 21 This study covers the
same universe of heavy-duty vehicles
that is the focus of this final
account as accurately as possible for MD/HD fuel
efficiency. While it is a metric that NHTSA
considered for setting MD/HD fuel efficiency
standards, the agency recognizes that miles per
gallon may not be an appropriate metric given the
work that MD/HD vehicles are manufactured to do.
NHTSA is thus finalizing alternative metrics as
discussed further below.
20 49 U.S.C. 32902(f) states that ‘‘When deciding
maximum feasible average fuel economy under this
section, [NHTSA] shall consider technological
feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of
other motor vehicle standards of the Government on
fuel economy, and the need of the United States to
conserve energy.’’
21 Committee to Assess Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles; National Research Council;
Transportation Research Board (2010).
‘‘Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the
Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles,’’ (hereafter, ‘‘NAS Report’’). Washington,
DC, The National Academies Press. Available
electronically from the National Academies Press
Website at http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12845 (last accessed
September 10, 2010).

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.
The NAS report is far reaching in its
review of the technologies that are
available and which may become
available in the future to reduce fuel
consumption from medium and heavyduty vehicles. In presenting the full
range of technical opportunities the
report includes technologies which may
not be available until 2020 or even
further into the future. As such, the
report provides not only a valuable list
of off the shelf technologies from which
the agencies have drawn in developing
this near-term 2014–2018 program
consistent with statutory authorities and
with the set of principles set forth by the
President, but the report also provides a
road map the agencies can use as we
look to develop future regulations for
this sector. A review of the technologies
in the NAS report makes clear that there
are not only many technologies readily
available today to achieve important
reductions in fuel consumption, like the
ones we used in developing the 2014–
2018 program, but there are also great
opportunities for even larger reductions
in the future through the development
of advanced hybrid drive systems and
sophisticated engine technologies such
as Rankine waste heat recovery. The
agencies will again make extensive use
of this report when we move forward to
develop the next phase of regulations
for medium and heavy-duty vehicles.
Allison Transmission commented that
NHTSA (implicitly, both agencies) had
improperly relied on the NAS report
and failed to do sufficient independent
analysis, which Allison claimed did not
meet the statutory obligation to provide
an adequate basis for the rule. First, an
agency does not improperly delegate its
authority or judgment merely by using
work performed by outside parties as
the factual basis for its decision making.
See U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359
F.3d 554, 568 (DC Cir. 2004); United
Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647
F.2d 1189, 1216–17 (DC Cir. 1980).
Here, although EPA and NHTSA
carefully considered the NAS report, the
agencies’ consideration and use of the
report was not uncritical and the
agencies exercised reasonable
independent judgment in developing
the proposed and final rules. Consistent
with EISA’s direction, NAS submitted a
report evaluating MD/HD fuel economy
standards to NHTSA in March of 2010.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Indeed, many commenters argued that
the agencies should have adopted more
of the NAS report recommendations.
The agencies reviewed the findings and
recommendations of the NAS report
when developing the proposed rules, as
was clearly intended by Congress, but
also conducted an independent study,
as described throughout the record to
the proposal and summarized in Section
X of the NPRM, 75 FR at 74351–56. In
conducting its analysis of the NAS
report, the agencies found that several
key recommendations, such as the use
of fuel efficiency metrics, were the best
approach to implementing the new
program. However, the agencies rejected
other recommendations of the NAS
report, for example, by proposing
separate regulation of engines and
vehicles and the regulation of large
manufacturers.
(4) The NHTSA and EPA Light-Duty
National GHG and Fuel Economy
Program
On May 7, 2010, EPA and NHTSA
finalized the first-ever National Program
for light-duty cars and trucks, which set
GHG emissions and fuel economy
standards for model years 2012–2016
(See 75 FR 25324). The agencies have
used the light-duty National Program as
a model for this final HD National
Program in many respects. This is most
apparent in the case of heavy-duty
pickups and vans, which are very
similar to the light-duty trucks
addressed in the light-duty National
Program both technologically as well as
in terms of how they are manufactured
(i.e., the same company often makes
both the vehicle and the engine). For
these vehicles, there are close parallels
to the light-duty program in how the
agencies have developed our respective
final standards and compliance
structures, although, as discussed
below, the technologies applied to lightduty trucks are not invariably applicable
to heavy-duty pickups and vans at the
same penetration rates in the lead time
afforded in this heavy-duty action.
Another difference is that each agency
adopts standards based on attributes
other than vehicle footprint, as
discussed below.
Due to the diversity of the remaining
HD vehicles, there are fewer parallels
with the structure of the light-duty
program. However, the agencies have
maintained the same collaboration and
coordination that characterized the
development of the light-duty program.
Most notably, as with the light-duty
program, manufacturers will be able to
design and build vehicles to meet a
closely coordinated, harmonized
national program, and avoid

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

unnecessarily duplicative testing and
compliance burdens.
(5) EPA’s SmartWay Program
EPA’s voluntary SmartWay Transport
Partnership program encourages
shipping and trucking companies to
take actions that reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 by working with
the shipping community and the freight
sector to identify low carbon strategies
and technologies, and by providing
technical information, financial
incentives, and partner recognition to
accelerate the adoption of these
strategies. Through the SmartWay
program, EPA has worked closely with
truck manufacturers and truck fleets to
develop test procedures to evaluate
vehicle and component performance in
reducing fuel consumption and has
conducted testing and has established
test programs to verify technologies that
can achieve these reductions. Over the
last six years, EPA has developed
hands-on experience testing the largest
heavy-duty trucks and evaluating
improvements in tire and vehicle
aerodynamic performance. In 2010,
according to vehicle manufacturers,
approximately five percent of new
combination heavy-duty trucks will
meet the SmartWay performance criteria
demonstrating that they represent the
pinnacle of current heavy-duty truck
reductions in fuel consumption.
In developing this HD National
Program, the agencies have drawn from
the SmartWay experience, as discussed
in detail both in Sections II and III
below (e.g., developing test procedures
to evaluate trucks and truck
components) but also in the RIA
(estimating performance levels from the
application of the best available
technologies identified in the SmartWay
program). These technologies provide
part of the basis for the GHG emission
and fuel consumption standards in this
rulemaking for certain types of new
heavy-duty Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors.
In addition to identifying
technologies, the SmartWay program
includes operational approaches that
truck fleet owners as well as individual
drivers and their freight customers can
incorporate, that the NHTSA and EPA
believe will complement the final
standards. These include such
approaches as improved logistics and
driver training, as discussed in the RIA.
This approach is consistent with the one
of the three alternative approaches that
the NAS recommended be considered.
The three approaches were raising fuel
taxes, relaxing truck size and weight
restrictions, and encouraging incentives
to disseminate information to inform

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57113

truck drivers about the relationship
between driving behavior and fuel
savings. Taxes and truck size and
weight limits are mandated by public
law; as such, these options are outside
EPA’s and NHTSA’s authority to
implement. However, complementary
operational measures like driver
training, which SmartWay does
promote, can complement the final
standards and also provide benefits for
the existing truck fleet, furthering the
public policy objectives of addressing
energy security and climate change.
(6) Environment Canada
The Government of Canada’s
Department of the Environment
(Environment Canada) assisted EPA’s
development of this rulemaking by
conducting emissions testing of heavyduty vehicles at their test facilities to
gather data on a range of possible test
cycles, and to evaluate the impact of
certain emissions reduction
technologies. Environment Canada also
facilitated the evaluation of heavy-duty
vehicle aerodynamic properties at
Canada’s National Research Council
wind tunnel, and during coastdown
testing.
We expect the technical collaboration
with Environment Canada to continue
as we implement testing and
compliance verification procedures for
this rulemaking. We may also begin to
develop a knowledge base enabling
improvement upon this regulatory
framework for model years beyond 2018
(for example, improvements to the
means of demonstrating compliance).
We also expect to continue our
collaboration with Environment Canada
on compliance issues.
Collaboration with Environment
Canada is taking place under the
Canada-U.S. Air Quality Committee.
C. Summary of the Final EPA and
NHTSA HD National Program
When EPA first addressed emissions
from heavy-duty trucks in the 1980s, it
established standards for engines, based
on the amount of work performed
(grams of pollutant per unit of work,
expressed as grams per brake
horsepower-hour or g/bhp-hr).22 This
22 The term ‘‘brake power’’ refers to engine torque
and power as measured at the interface between the
engine’s output shaft and the dynamometer. This
contrasts with ‘‘indicated power’’, which is a
calculated value based on the pressure dynamics in
the combustion chamber, not including internal
losses that occur due to friction and pumping work.
Since the measurement procedure inherently
measures brake torque and power, the final
regulations refer simply to g/hp-hr. This is
consistent with EPA’s other emission control
programs, which generally include standards in g/
kW-hr.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57114

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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
inherent efficiency of the engine as well
as making changes to the vehicles to
reduce the amount of work demanded
from the engine in order to move the
truck down the road. A focus on the
entire vehicle is thus required. For
example, in addition to the basic
emissions and fuel consumption levels
of the engine, the aerodynamics of the
vehicle can have a major impact on the
amount of work that must be performed
to transport freight at common highway
speeds. For this first rulemaking, the
agencies proposed a complementary
engine and vehicle approach in order to
achieve the maximum feasible near-term
reductions.

NHTSA received comments on the
proposal to create complementary
engine and vehicle standards. Volvo and
Daimler argued that EISA limited
NHTSA’s authority to the regulation of
completed vehicles and did not give
NHTSA authority to regulate engines. 49
U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) grants NHTSA broad
authority to regulate this sector, stating
simply that the Secretary ‘‘shall
determine in a rulemaking proceeding
how to implement a commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency
improvement program designed to
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement,’’ considering
appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and
technological feasibility. NHTSA does
not believe that this language precludes
the regulation of engines, but rather
explicitly leaves the regulatory
approach to the agency’s expertise and
discretion. See 75 FR at 74173 n. 36.
Considering the factors described in the
NPRM and in Sections III and IV below,
NHTSA continues to believe that the
separate regulation of engines and
vehicles is both consistent with the
agency’s statutory mandate to determine
how to implement a regulatory program
designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement and facilitates
coordination with EPA’s efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The
Clean Air act, of course, mandates
standards for both ‘‘new motor
vehicles’’ and ‘‘new motor vehicle
engines’’, so there is no issue of
authority for separate engine standards
under the EPA GHG program. CAA
section 202(a)(1).
As described elsewhere in this
preamble, the final standards under the
HD National Program address the
complete vehicle, to the extent
practicable and appropriate under the
agencies’ respective statutory

authorities, through complementary
engine and vehicle standards. The
agencies continue to believe that this
complementary engine and vehicle
approach is the best way to achieve near
term reductions from the heavy-duty
sector. However, we also recognize as
did the NAS committee and a wide
range of industry and environmental
commenters, that in order to fully
capture the multi-faceted synergistic
aspects of engine and vehicle design a
more comprehensive complete vehicle
standard may be appropriate in the
future. The agencies are committed to
fully exploring such a possibility and to
developing the testing and modeling
tools necessary to enable such a
regulatory approach. We intend to work
with all interested stakeholders as we
move forward.
(1) Brief Overview of the Heavy-Duty
Truck Industry
The heavy-duty truck sector spans a
wide range of vehicles with often
unique form and function. A primary
indicator of the extreme diversity among
heavy-duty trucks is the range of loadcarrying capability across the industry.
The heavy-duty truck sector is often
subdivided by vehicle weight
classifications, as defined by the
vehicle’s gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR), which is a measure of the
combined curb (empty) weight and
cargo carrying capacity of the truck.23
Table I–2 below outlines the vehicle
weight classifications commonly used
for many years for a variety of purposes
by businesses and by several federal
agencies, including the Department of
Transportation, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of
Commerce, and the Internal Revenue
Service.

TABLE I–2—VEHICLE WEIGHT CLASSIFICATION
Class

2b

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

GVWR (lb) ......

3

8,501–10,000

4

10,001–14,000

5

14,001–16,000

6

16,001–19,500

7

19,501–26,000

26,001–33,000

8
> 33,001

In the framework of these vehicle
weight classifications, the heavy-duty
truck sector refers to Class 2b through
Class 8 vehicles and the engines that
power those vehicles.24 Unlike 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.
‘‘Vocational’’ vehicles, which may span
Classes 2b through 8, vary widely in
size, including smaller and larger van
trucks, utility ‘‘bucket’’ trucks, tank

23 GVWR describes the maximum load that can be
carried by a vehicle, including the weight of the
vehicle itself. Heavy-duty vehicles also have a gross
combined weight rating (GCWR), which describes
the maximum load that the vehicle can haul,

including the weight of a loaded trailer and the
vehicle itself.
24 Class 2b vehicles designed as passenger
vehicles (Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles,

MDPVs) are covered by the light-duty GHG and fuel
economy standards and not addressed in this
rulemaking.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

trucks, refuse trucks, urban and overthe-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.
EPA and NHTSA have designed our
respective standards in careful
consideration of the diversity and
complexity of the heavy-duty truck
industry, as discussed next.
(2) Summary of Final EPA GHG
Emission Standards and NHTSA Fuel
Consumption Standards
As described above, NHTSA and EPA
recognize the importance of addressing
the entire vehicle in reducing fuel
consumption and GHG emissions. At
the same time, the agencies understand
that the complexity of the industry
means that we will need to use different
approaches to achieve this goal,
depending on the characteristics of each
general type of truck. We are therefore
dividing the industry into three discrete
regulatory categories for purposes of
setting our respective standards—
combination tractors, heavy-duty
pickups and vans, and vocational
vehicles—based on the relative degree
of homogeneity among trucks within
each category. For each regulatory
category, the agencies are adopting
related but distinct program approaches
reflecting the specific challenges that we
see in these segments. In the following
paragraphs, we discuss EPA’s final GHG
emission standards and NHTSA’s final
fuel consumption standards for the
three regulatory categories of heavyduty vehicles and their engines.
The agencies are adopting test metrics
that express fuel consumption and GHG
emissions relative to the most important
measures of heavy-duty truck utility for
each segment, consistent with the
recommendation of the 2010 NAS
Report that metrics should reflect and
account for the work performed by
various types of HD vehicles. This

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 instead consider fuel
consumption as the metric for its
standards. As a result, for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans, EPA and
NHTSA are finalizing standards on a
per-mile basis (g/mile for the EPA
standards, gallons/100 miles for the
NHTSA standards), as explained in
Section 0 below. For heavy-duty trucks,
both combination and vocational, the
agencies are adopting standards
expressed in terms of the key measure
of freight movement, tons of payload
miles or, more simply, ton-miles. Hence,
for EPA the final standards are in the
form of the mass of emissions from
carrying a ton of cargo over a distance
of one mile (g/ton-mi). Similarly, the
final NHTSA standards are in terms of
gallons of fuel consumed over a set
distance (one thousand miles), or gal/
1,000 ton-mile. Finally, for engines, EPA
is adopting standards in the form of
grams of emissions per unit of work (g/
bhp-hr), the same metric used for the
heavy-duty highway engine standards
for criteria pollutants today. Similarly,
NHTSA is finalizing standards for
heavy-duty engines in the form of
gallons of fuel consumption per 100
units of work (gal/100 bhp-hr).
Section II below discusses the final
EPA and NHTSA standards in greater
detail.
(a) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors
and their engines contribute the largest
portion of the total GHG emissions and
fuel consumption of the heavy-duty
sector, approximately 65 percent, due to
their large payloads, their high annual
miles traveled, and their major role in
national freight transport.25 These
vehicles consist of a cab and engine
(tractor or combination tractor) and a
detachable trailer. In general, reducing
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
for these vehicles will involve
25 The on-highway Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors constitute the vast majority of this
regulatory category, and form the backbone of this
HD National Program. A small fraction of
combination tractors are used in off-road
applications and are regulated differently, as
described in Section II.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57115

improvements in 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 not the same entity. We are not
aware of any manufacturer that typically
assembles both the finished truck and
the trailer and introduces the
combination into commerce for sale to
a buyer. The owners of trucks and
trailers are often distinct as well. A
typical truck buyer will purchase only
the tractor. The trailers are usually
purchased and owned by fleets and
shippers. This occurs in part because
trucking fleets on average maintain 3
trailers per tractor and in some cases as
many as 6 or more trailers per tractor.
There are also large differences in the
kinds of manufacturers involved with
producing tractors and trailers. For HD
highway tractors and their engines, a
relatively limited number of
manufacturers produce the vast majority
of these products. The trailer
manufacturing industry is quite
different, and includes a large number
of companies, many of which are
relatively small in size and production
volume. Setting standards for the
products involved—tractors and
trailers—requires recognition of the
large differences between these
manufacturing industries, which can
then warrant consideration of different
regulatory approaches.
Based on these industry
characteristics, EPA and NHTSA believe
that the most straightforward regulatory
approach for combination tractors and
trailers is to establish standards for
tractors separately from trailers. As
discussed below in Section IX, the
agencies are adopting standards for the
tractors and their engines in this
rulemaking, but did not propose and are
not adopting standards for trailers.
As with the other regulatory
categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
and NHTSA have concluded that
achieving reductions in GHG emissions
and fuel consumption from combination
tractors requires addressing both the cab
and the engine, and EPA and NHTSA
each are adopting standards that reflect
this conclusion. The importance of the
cab is that its design determines the
amount of power that the engine must
produce in moving the truck down the
road. As illustrated in Figure I–1, the
loads that require additional power from
the engine include air resistance
(aerodynamics), tire rolling resistance,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

and parasitic losses (including accessory
loads and friction in the drivetrain). The
importance of the engine design is that
it determines the basic GHG emissions
and fuel consumption performance of

the engine for the variety of demands
placed on the engine, regardless of the
characteristics of the cab in which it is
installed. The agencies intend for the
final standards to result in the

application of improved technologies
for lower GHG emissions and fuel
consumption for both the cab and the
engine.

Accordingly, for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors, the agencies are
each finalizing two sets of standards.
For vehicle-related emissions and fuel
consumption, tractor manufacturers are
required to meet vehicle-based
standards. Compliance with the vehicle
standard will typically be determined
based on a customized vehicle
simulation model, called the
Greenhouse gas Emissions Model
(GEM), which is consistent with the
NAS Report recommendations to
require compliance testing for
combination tractors using vehicle
simulation rather than chassis
dynamometer testing. This compliance
model was developed by EPA
specifically for this final action. It is an
accurate and cost-effective alternative to
measuring emissions and fuel
consumption while operating the
vehicle on a chassis dynamometer.
Instead of using a chassis dynamometer
as an indirect way to evaluate 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 also assumes the use of a

representative typical engine, rather
than a vehicle-specific engine, because
engines are regulated separately. Using
these inputs, the model will be used to
quantify the overall performance of the
vehicle in terms of CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption. The model’s
development and design, as well as the
sources for inputs, are discussed in
detail in Section II below and in Chapter
4 of the RIA.

no comments that provided a
compelling reason to change our
approach in this final action.
Thus, the agencies have created nine
subcategories within the Class 7 and 8
combination tractor category based on
the differences in expected emissions
and fuel consumption associated with
the key attributes of GVWR, cab type,
and roof height. The agencies are setting
standards beginning in 2014 model year
with more stringent standards following
in 2017 model year. Table I–3 presents
the agencies’ respective standards for
combination tractor manufacturers for
the 2017 model year. The standards
represent an overall fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions reduction up to 23
percent from the tractors and the
engines installed in them when
compared to a baseline 2010 model year
tractor and engine without idle
shutdown technology. The standard
values shown below differ somewhat
from the proposal, reflecting
refinements made to the GEM in
response to comments. These changes
did not impact our estimates of the
relative effectiveness of the various
control technologies modeled in this
final action nor the overall cost or
benefits or cost effectiveness estimated
for these final vehicle standards.
As proposed, the agencies are
exempting certain types of tractors
which operate off-road to be exempt

26 Adapted from Figure 4.1. Class 8 Truck Energy
Audit, Technology Roadmap for the 21st Century

Truck Program: A Government-Industry Research
Partnership, 21CT–001, December 2000.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(i) Final Standards for Class 7 and 8
Combination Tractors and Their Engines
The vehicle standards that EPA and
NHTSA are adopting for Class 7 and 8
combination tractor manufacturers are
based on several key attributes related to
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
that we believe reasonably represent the
many differences in utility and
performance among these vehicles. The
final standards differ depending on
GVWR (i.e., whether the truck is Class
7 or Class 8), the height of the roof of
the cab, and whether it is a ‘‘day cab’’
or a ‘‘sleeper cab.’’ These later two
attributes are important because the
height of the roof, designed to
correspond to the height of the trailer,
significantly affects air resistance, and a
sleeper cab generally corresponds to the
opportunity for extended duration idle
emission and fuel consumption
improvements. We received a number of
comments supporting this approach and

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.000

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57116

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
in response to public comment. The
agencies have also recognized, again in
response to public comment, that some
combination tractors operate in a
manner essentially the same as
vocational vehicles and have created a

from the combination tractor vehicle
standards (although standards would
still apply to the engines installed in
these vehicles). The criteria for tractors
to be considered off-road have been
amended slightly from those proposed,

57117

subcategory of ‘‘vocational tractors’’ as a
result. Vocational tractors will be
subject to the standards for vocational
vehicles rather than the combination
tractor standards. See Section II.B of this
preamble.

TABLE I–3—HEAVY-DUTY COMBINATION TRACTOR EPA EMISSIONS STANDARDS (G CO2/TON-MILE) AND NHTSA FUEL
CONSUMPTION STANDARDS (GAL/1,000 TON-MILE)
Day cab
Class 7

Sleeper cab
Class 8

Class 8

2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
Low Roof ....................................................................................................................
Mid Roof ....................................................................................................................
High Roof ...................................................................................................................

104
115
120

80
86
89

66
73
72

2017 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Low Roof ....................................................................................................................
Mid Roof ....................................................................................................................
High Roof ...................................................................................................................

In addition, the agencies are finalizing
separate performance standards for the
engines manufactured for use in these
trucks. EPA’s engine-based CO2
standards and NHTSA’s engine-based
fuel consumption standards are
implemented using EPA’s existing test
procedures and regulatory structure for
criteria pollutant emissions from
medium- and heavy-duty engines. As at
proposal, the final engine standards
vary depending on engine size linked to
intended vehicle service class.
Consistent with our proposal, the
agencies are finalizing an interim
alternative compression ignition engine
standard for model years 2014–2016.
This alternative standard is designed to
provide a glide path for legacy diesel
engine products that may not be able to
comply with the final engine standards
for model years 2014–16 given the short
(approximately 2-year) lead time of this
program. We believe this alternative
standard is appropriate for a first-ever
program when the overall baseline
performance of the industry is quite
varied and where the short lead time
means that not every product can be
brought into compliance by 2014. The
alternative standard only applies
through and including model year 2016.
Separately, EPA is adopting standards
for combination tractors that apply in
use. EPA is also finalizing engine-based
N2O and CH4 standards for
manufacturers of the engines used in
these combination tractors. EPA is
finalizing separate engine-based
standards for N2O and CH4 because the
agency believes that emissions of these
GHGs are technologically related solely
to the engine, fuel, and emissions

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

10.2
11.3
11.8

aftertreatment systems, and the agency
is not aware of any influence of vehiclebased technologies on these emissions.
NHTSA is not incorporating standards
for N2O and CH4 because these
emissions do not impact fuel
consumption in a significant way. The
standards that EPA is finalizing for N2O
and CH4 are less stringent than those we
proposed, reflecting new data provided
to EPA in comments on the proposal
showing that the current baseline level
of N2O and CH4 emissions varies more
than EPA had expected. EPA expects
that manufacturers of current engine
technologies will be able to comply with
the final N2O and CH4 ‘‘cap’’ standards
with little or no technological
improvements; the value of the
standards will be to prevent significant
increases in these emissions as
alternative technologies are developed
and introduced in the future.
Compliance with the final EPA enginebased CO2 standards and the final
NHTSA engine-based fuel consumption
standards, as well as the final EPA N2O
and CH4 standards, will be determined
using the appropriate EPA engine test
procedure, as discussed in Sections II.B,
II.D, and II.E below.
As with the other categories of heavyduty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA are
finalizing respective standards that will
apply to Class 7 and 8 tractors at the
time of production (as in Table I–3,
above). In addition, EPA is finalizing
separate standards that will apply for a
specified period of time in use. All of
the standards for these vehicles, as well
as details about the provisions for
certification and implementation of
these standards, are discussed in more

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

7.8
8.4
8.7

6.5
7.2
7.1

detail in Sections II, III, IV, and V below
and in the RIA.
(ii) EPA’s Final Air Conditioning
Leakage Standard for Class 7 and 8
Combination Tractors
In addition to the final EPA tractorand engine-based standards for CO2 and
engine-based standards for N2O, and
CH4 emissions, EPA is finalizing a
separate standard to reduce leakage of
HFC refrigerant from cabin air
conditioning (A/C) systems from
combination tractors, to apply to the
tractor manufacturer. This standard is
independent of the CO2 tractor standard,
as discussed below in Section II.E.5.
Because the current refrigerant used
widely in all these systems has a very
high global warming potential, EPA is
concerned about leakage of refrigerant.27
Because the interior volume to be
cooled for most tractor cabins is similar
to that of light-duty vehicles, the size
and design of current tractor A/C
systems is also very similar. The
compliance approach for Class 7 and 8
tractors is therefore similar to that in the
light-duty rule in that these standards
are design-based. Manufacturers will
choose technologies from a menu of
leak-reducing technologies sufficient to
comply with the standard, as opposed to
using a test to measure performance.
However, the final heavy-duty A/C
provisions differ in two important ways
from those established in the light-duty
rule. First, the light-duty provisions
were established as voluntary ways to
27 The global warming potential for HFC–134a
refrigerant of 1430 used in this program is
consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57118

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

generate credits towards the CO2 g/mi
standard, and EPA took into account the
expected use of such credits in
determining the stringency of the CO2
emissions standards. In the HD National
Program, EPA is requiring that
manufacturers actually meet a
standard—as opposed to having the
opportunity to earn a credit—for A/C
refrigerant leakage. Thus, refrigerant
leakage control is not separately
accounted for in the final heavy-duty
CO2 standards. We are taking this
approach here recognizing that while
the benefits of leakage control are
almost identical between light-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles on a per vehicle
basis, these benefits on a per mile basis
expressed as a percentage of overall
GHG emissions are much smaller for
heavy-duty vehicles due to their much
higher CO2 emissions rates and higher
annual mileage when compared to lightduty vehicles. Hence a credit-based
approach as done for light-duty vehicles
would provide less motivation for
manufacturers to install low leakage
systems even though such systems
represent a highly cost effective means
to control GHG emissions. The second
difference relates to the expression of
the leakage rate. The light-duty A/C
leakage standard is expressed in terms
of grams per year. For EPA’s heavy-duty
program, however, because of the wide
variety of system designs and
arrangements, a one-size-fits-all gram
per year standard would not be
appropriate, so EPA is adopting a
standard in terms of annual mass
leakage rate for A/C systems with
refrigerant capacities less than or equal
to 733 grams and percent of total
refrigerant leakage per year for A/C
systems with refrigerant capacities
greater than 733 grams. The percent of
total refrigerant leakage per year
requires the total refrigerant capacity of
the A/C system to be taken into account
in determining compliance. EPA
believes that this approach—a standard
instead of a credit, and basing the
standard on percent or mass of leakage
over time—is more appropriate for
heavy-duty tractors than the light-duty
vehicle approach and that it will
achieve the desired reductions in
refrigerant leakage. Compliance with the
standard will be determined through a
showing by the tractor manufacturer
that its A/C system incorporates a
combination of low-leak technologies
sufficient to meet the leakage rate of the
applicable standard. The ‘‘menu’’ of
technologies is very similar to that

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

established in the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle rule.28
Finally, the agencies did not propose
and are not adopting an A/C system
efficiency standard in this heavy-duty
rulemaking, although an efficiency
credit was a part of the light-duty rule.
The much larger emissions of CO2 from
a heavy-duty tractor as compared to
those from a light-duty vehicle mean
that the relative amount of CO2 that
could be reduced through A/C
efficiency improvements is very small.
A more detailed discussion of A/C
related issues is found in Section II.E.5
of this preamble.
(b) Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
(Class 2b and 3)
Heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR
between 8,501 and 10,000 lb are
classified in the industry as Class 2b
motor vehicles per the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration
definition. As discussed above, Class 2b
includes MDPVs that are regulated by
the agencies under the light-duty
vehicle rule, and the agencies are not
adopting additional requirements for
MDPVs in this rulemaking. Heavy-duty
vehicles with GVWR between 10,001
and 14,000 lb are classified as Class 3
motor vehicles. Class 2b and Class 3
heavy-duty vehicles (referred to in these
rules as ‘‘HD pickups and vans’’)
together emit about 15 percent of
today’s GHG emissions from the heavyduty vehicle sector.
About 90 percent of HD pickups and
vans are 3⁄4-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks,
12- and 15-passenger vans, and large
work vans that are sold by vehicle
manufacturers as complete vehicles,
with no secondary manufacturer making
substantial modifications prior to
registration and use. These vehicle
manufacturers are companies with
major light-duty markets in the United
States, primarily Ford, General Motors,
and Chrysler. Furthermore, the
technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions from
this segment are similar to the
technologies used on light-duty pickup
trucks, including both engine efficiency
improvements (for gasoline and diesel
engines) and vehicle efficiency
improvements.
28 EPA has approved an alternative refrigerant,
HFO–1234yf, which has a very low GWP, for use
in light-duty vehicle mobile A/C systems. The final
heavy-duty vehicle A/C leakage standard is
designed to account for use of an alternative, lowGWP refrigerant. If in the future this refrigerant is
approved for heavy-duty applications and if it
becomes widespread as a substitute for HFC–134a
in heavy-duty vehicle mobile A/C systems, EPA
may propose to revise or eliminate the leakage
standard.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

For these reasons, EPA believes it is
appropriate to adopt GHG standards for
HD pickups and vans based on the
whole vehicle (including the engine),
expressed as grams per mile, consistent
with the way these vehicles are
regulated by EPA today for criteria
pollutants. NHTSA believes it is
appropriate to adopt corresponding
gallons per 100 mile fuel consumption
standards that are likewise based on the
whole vehicle. This complete vehicle
approach being adopted by both
agencies for HD pickups and vans is
consistent with the recommendations of
the NAS Committee in their 2010
Report. EPA and NHTSA also believe
that the structure and many of the
detailed provisions of the recently
finalized light-duty GHG and fuel
economy program, which also involves
vehicle-based standards, are appropriate
for the HD pickup and van GHG and
fuel consumption standards as well, and
this is reflected in the standards each
agency is finalizing, as detailed in
Section II.C. These commonalities
include a new vehicle fleet average
standard for each manufacturer in each
model year and the determination of
these fleet average standards based on
production volume-weighted targets for
each model, with the targets varying
based on a defined vehicle attribute.
Vehicle testing will be conducted on
chassis dynamometers using the drive
cycles from the EPA Federal Test
Procedure (Light-duty FTP or ‘‘city’’
test) and Highway Fuel Economy Test
(HFET or ‘‘highway’’ test).29
For the light-duty GHG and fuel
economy standards, the agencies
factored in vehicle size by basing the
emissions and fuel economy targets on
vehicle footprint (the wheelbase times
the average track width).30 For those
standards, passenger cars and light
trucks with larger footprints are
assigned higher GHG and lower fuel
economy target levels in
acknowledgement of their inherent
tendency to consume more fuel and
emit more GHGs per mile. For HD
pickups and vans, the agencies believe
that setting standards based on vehicle
attributes is appropriate, but feel that a
work-based metric serves as a better
attribute than the footprint attribute
utilized in the light-duty vehicle
29 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).
30 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\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
rulemaking. Work-based measures such
as payload and towing capability are
key among the parameters that
characterize differences in the design of
these vehicles, as well as differences in
how the vehicles will be utilized.
Buyers consider these utility-based
attributes when purchasing a heavyduty pickup or van. EPA and NHTSA
are therefore finalizing standards for HD
pickups and vans based on a ‘‘work
factor’’ attribute that combines their
payload and towing capabilities, with
an added adjustment for 4-wheel drive
vehicles. The agencies received a
number of comments supporting this
approach arguing, as the agencies had,
that this approach was an effective way
to encourage technology development
and to appropriately reflect the utility of
work vehicles while setting a consistent
metric measure of vehicle performance.
As proposed, the agencies are
adopting provisions such that each
manufacturer’s fleet average standard
will be based on production volumeweighting of target standards for all
vehicles that in turn are based on each
vehicle’s work factor. These target
standards are taken from a set of curves
(mathematical functions), presented in
Section II.C below and in § 1037.104.
EPA is also phasing in the CO2
standards gradually starting in the 2014
model year, at 15–20–40–60–100
percent of the model year 2018
standards stringency level in model
years 2014–2015–2016–2017–2018,
respectively. The phase-in takes the
form of a set of target standard curves,
with increasing stringency in each
model year, as detailed in Section II.C.
The final EPA standards for 2018
(including a separate standard to control
air conditioning system leakage)
represent an average per-vehicle
reduction in GHGs of 17 percent for
diesel vehicles and 12 percent for
gasoline vehicles, compared to a
common baseline, as described in
Sections II.C and III.B of this preamble.
The rule contains separate standards for
diesel and gasoline heavy duty pickups
and vans for reasons described in
Section II.C below. EPA is also
finalizing a compliance alternative
whereby manufacturers can phase in
different percentages: 15–20–67–67–67–
100 percent of the model year 2019
standards stringency level in model
years 2014–2015–2016–2017–2018–
2019, respectively. This compliance
alternative parallels and is equivalent to
NHTSA’s first alternative described
below.
NHTSA is allowing manufacturers to
select one of two fuel consumption
standard alternatives for model years
2016 and later. The first alternative

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

defines individual gasoline vehicle and
diesel vehicle fuel consumption target
curves that will not change for model
years 2016–2018, and are equivalent to
EPA’s 67–67–67–100 percent target
curves in model years 2016–2017–2018–
2019, respectively. The target curves for
this alternative are presented in Section
II.C. The second alternative uses target
curves that are equivalent to the EPA’s
40–60–100 percent target curves in
model years 2016–2017–2018,
respectively. Stringency for the
alternatives has been selected to allow
a manufacturer, through the use of the
credit and deficit carry-forward
provisions that the agencies are also
finalizing, to rely on the same product
plans to satisfy either of these two
alternatives, and also EPA requirements.
If a manufacturer cannot meet an
applicable standard in a given model
year, it may make up its shortfall by
overcomplying in a subsequent year,
called reconciling a credit deficit.
NHTSA is also allowing manufacturers
to voluntarily opt into the NHTSA HD
pickup and van program in model years
2014 or 2015. For these model years,
NHTSA’s fuel consumption target
curves are equivalent to EPA’s target
curves.
The agencies received a number of
comments including from the Senate
authors and supporters of the Ten-inTen Fuel Economy Act suggesting that
the standards for heavy-duty pickups
and vans should be made more stringent
for gasoline vehicles and that the phasein timing of the standards should be
accelerated to the 2016 model year
(from 2018). We also received comments
arguing that the proposed standards
were aggressive and could only be met
given the phase-in schedules proposed
by the agencies. In response to these
comments, we reviewed again the
technology assessments from the 2010
NAS report, our own joint light-duty
2012–2016 rulemaking, and information
provided by the commenters relevant to
the stringency of these standards. After
reviewing all of the information, we
continue to conclude that the proposed
standards and associated phase-in
schedules represent technically
stringent but reasonable standards
considering the available lead time and
costs to bring the necessary technologies
to market and our own assessments of
the efficacy of the technologies when
applied to heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans. Further detail on the
feasibility of the standards and the
agencies’ choices among alternative
standards is found in Section III.C
below.
The Senate authors and supporters of
the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act sent

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57119

a letter to the agencies encouraging the
agencies to finalize a fuel economy
labeling requirement for heavy-duty
pickups and vans.31 The agencies
recognize that consumer information in
the form of a fuel efficiency label can be
a valuable tool to help achieve our
goals, and we note that the agencies
have just recently finalized a new fuel
economy label for passenger cars and
light trucks. See 76 FR at 39478. That
rulemaking effort focused solely on
modifying an existing label and was a
multi-year process with significant
public input. As we did not propose a
consumer label for heavy-duty pickups
and vans in this action and have not
appropriately engaged the public in
developing such a label, we are not
prepared to finalize a consumer-based
label in this action. However, we do
intend to consider this issue as we begin
work on the next phase of regulations,
as we recognize that a consumer label
can play an important role in reducing
fuel consumption and GHG emissions.
The form and stringency of the EPA
and NHTSA standards curves are based
on a set of vehicle, engine, and
transmission technologies expected to
be used to meet the recently established
GHG emissions and fuel economy
standards for model year 2012–2016
light-duty vehicles, with full
consideration of how these technologies
are likely to perform in heavy-duty
vehicle testing and use. All of these
technologies are already in use or have
been announced for upcoming model
years in some light-duty vehicle models,
and some are in use in a portion of HD
pickups and vans as well. The
technologies include:
• Advanced 8-speed automatic
transmissions.
• Aerodynamic improvements.
• Electro-hydraulic power steering.
• Engine friction reductions.
• Improved accessories.
• Low friction lubricants in
powertrain components.
• Lower rolling resistance tires.
• Lightweighting.
• Gasoline direct injection.
• Diesel aftertreatment optimization.
• Air conditioning system leakage
reduction (for EPA program only).
See Section III.B for a detailed
analysis of these and other potential
technologies, including their feasibility,
costs, and effectiveness when employed
for reducing fuel consumption and CO2
emissions in HD pickups and vans.
A relatively small number of HD
pickups and vans are sold by vehicle
manufacturers as incomplete vehicles,
without the primary load-carrying
31 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

15SER2

57120

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

device or container attached. We are
generally regulating these vehicles as
Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles
but are also allowing manufacturers the
option to choose to comply with heavyduty pickup or van standards, as
described in Section I.C.(2)(c).
Although, as with vocational vehicles
generally, we have little information on
baseline aerodynamic performance and
opportunities for improvement, a
sizeable subset of these incomplete
vehicles, often called cab-chassis
vehicles, are sold by the vehicle
manufacturers in configurations with
many of the components that affect GHG
emissions and fuel consumption
identical to those on complete pickup
truck or van counterparts—including
engines, cabs, frames, transmissions,
axles, and wheels. We are including
provisions that will allow
manufacturers to include these vehicles,
as well as some Class 4 and 5 vehicles,
to be regulated under the chassis-based
HD pickup and van program (i.e. subject
to the standards for HD pickups and
vans), rather than the vocational vehicle
program. These provisions are described
in Section V.B(1)(e).
In addition to the EPA CO2 emission
standards and the NHTSA fuel
consumption standards for HD pickups
and vans, EPA is also finalizing
standards for two additional GHGs, N2O
and CH4, as well as standards for air
conditioning-related HFC emissions.
These standards are discussed in more
detail in Section II.E. Finally, EPA is
finalizing standards that will apply to
HD pickups and vans in use. All of the
standards for these HD pickups and
vans, as well as details about the
provisions for certification and
implementation of these standards, are
discussed in Section II.C.
(c) Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles consist
of a wide variety of vehicle types. Some
of the primary applications for vehicles
in this segment include delivery, refuse,
utility, dump, and cement trucks;
transit, shuttle, and school buses;
emergency vehicles, motor homes,32
tow trucks, among others. These
vehicles and their engines contribute
approximately 20 percent of today’s
heavy-duty truck sector GHG emissions.
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
32 NHTSA’s final fuel consumption standards will
not apply to recreational vehicles, as discussed in
earlier in this preamble section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

installed transmission. Both the engine
and transmissions are typically
manufactured by other manufacturers
and the chassis manufacturer purchases
and installs them. Many of the same
companies that build Class 7 and 8
tractors are also in the Class 2b–8
chassis manufacturing market. The
chassis is typically then sent to a body
manufacturer, which completes the
vehicle by installing the appropriate
feature—such as dump bed, delivery
box, or utility bucket—onto the chassis.
Vehicle body manufacturers tend to be
small businesses that specialize in
specific types of bodies or specialized
features.
EPA and NHTSA proposed that in
this vocational vehicle category the
proposed GHG and fuel consumption
standards apply to chassis
manufacturers. Chassis manufacturers
play a central role in the manufacturing
process. The product they produce—the
chassis with engine and transmission—
includes the primary technologies that
affect GHG emissions and fuel
consumption. They also constitute a
much more limited group of
manufacturers for purposes of
developing and implementing a
regulatory program. The agencies
believe that a focus on the body
manufacturers would be much less
practical, since they represent a much
more diverse set of manufacturers, many
of whom are small businesses. Further,
the part of the vehicle that they add
affords very few opportunities to reduce
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
(given the limited role that
aerodynamics plays in many types of
lower speed and stop-and-go operation
typically found with vocational
vehicles.) Therefore, the agencies
proposed that the standards in this
vocational vehicle category would apply
to the chassis manufacturers of all
heavy-duty vehicles not otherwise
covered by the HD pickup and van
standards or Class 7 and 8 combination
tractor standards discussed above. The
agencies requested comment on the
proposed focus on chassis
manufacturers.
Volvo and Daimler commented that
the EISA does not speak to the
regulation of subsystems, such as
engines or incomplete vehicles, and
argued that on the other hand, Section
32902(k)(2) prescribes the regulation of
vehicles. Volvo further stated that
precedent for the regulation of complete
vehicles exists in the light-duty fuel
economy rule. As noted above, NHTSA
does not believe that EISA mandates a
particular regulatory approach, but
rather gives the agency wide latitude
and explicitly leaves that determination

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to the agency. NHTSA also notes that its
heavy-duty rule creates a new fuel
efficiency program for which the lightduty program does not necessarily serve
as a useful precedent for considerations
of its structure. Unlike the light-duty
fuel economy program, MD/HD vehicles
are produced in widely diverse stages.
Further, given the MD/HD market
structure, where the complete vehicle
manufacturers are numerous, diverse,
and often small businesses, the
regulation of complete vehicles would
create unique difficulties for the
application of appropriate and feasible
technologies. These same considerations
justify EPA’s determination, pursuant to
CAA section 202 (a), to regulate only
chassis manufacturers in this first stage
of GHG rules for the heavy-duty sector.
NHTSA also notes that this rule does
not represent the first time that the
agency has regulated incomplete
vehicles. Rather, incomplete vehicles
have a history of regulation under the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards.33 For this first phase of the
HD National Program, NHTSA and EPA
believe that given the complexity of the
manufacturing process for vocational
vehicles, and given the wide range of
entities that participate in that process,
vehicle fuel consumption standards
would be most appropriately applied to
chassis manufacturers and not to body
builders.
The agencies continue to believe that
regulation of the chassis manufacturers
for this vocational vehicle category will
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement in fuel efficiency for
purposes of EISA and appropriate
emissions reductions for purposes of the
CAA. Therefore, consistent with our
proposal the final standards in this
vocational vehicle category apply to the
chassis manufacturers of all heavy-duty
vehicles not otherwise covered by the
HD pickup and van standards or Class
7 and 8 combination tractor standards
discussed above. As discussed above,
EPA and NHTSA have concluded that
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption require addressing both
the vehicle and the engine. As discussed
above for Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors, the agencies are each finalizing
two sets of standards for Class 2b–8
vocational vehicles. For vehicle-related
emissions and fuel consumption, the
agencies are adopting standards for
chassis manufacturers: EPA CO2 (g/tonmile) standards and NHTSA fuel
consumption (gal/1,000 ton-mile)
standards). While the agencies believe
that a freight-based metric is broadly
appropriate for vocational vehicles
33 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

49 U.S.C. 567.5 and 568.4.

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
because the vocational vehicle
population is dominated by freight
trucks and maintain that it is
appropriate for the first phase of the
program, the agencies may consider
other metrics for future phases of a HD
program. Manufacturers will use GEM,
the same customized vehicle simulation
model used for Class 7 and 8 tractors,
to determine compliance with the
vocational vehicle standards finalized in
this action. The primary manufacturergenerated input into the GEM for this
category of trucks will be a measure of
tire rolling resistance, as discussed
further below, because tire
improvements are the primary means of
vehicle improvement available at this
time for vocational vehicles. The model
also assumes the use of a typical
representative, compliant engine in the
simulation, resulting in an overall value
for CO2 emissions and one for fuel
consumption. This is done for the same
reason as for combination tractors. As is
the case for combination tractors, the
manufacturers of the engines intended
for vocational vehicles will be subject to
separate engine-based standards.
(i) Final Standards for Class 2b–8
Vocational Vehicles and Their Engines

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Based on our analysis and research,
the agencies believe that the primary
opportunity for reductions in vocational
vehicle GHG emissions and fuel
consumption will be through improved
engine technologies and improved tire
rolling resistance. For engines, EPA and
NHTSA are adopting separate standards
for the manufacturers of engines used in
Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles (the same
approach as for combination tractors
and engines intended for use in those
tractors). EPA’s final engine-based CO2
standards and NHTSA’s final enginebased fuel consumption standards vary
based on the expected weight class and
usage of the truck into which the engine
will be installed. Tire rolling resistance
is closely related to the weight of the
vehicle. Therefore, we are adopting
vehicle-based standards for these trucks
which vary according to one key
attribute, GVWR. For this initial HD
rulemaking, we are adopting standards
based on the same groupings of truck
weight classes used for the engine

standards—light heavy-duty, medium
heavy-duty, and heavy heavy-duty.
These groupings are appropriate for the
final vehicle-based standards because
they parallel the general divisions
among key engine characteristics, as
discussed in Section II.
The agencies are also finalizing an
interim alternative compression ignition
(diesel) engine standard for model years
2014–2016, again analogous to the
alternative standards for compression
ignition engines use in combination
tractors. The need for this provision and
our considerations in adopting it are the
same for the engines used in vocational
vehicles as for the engines used in
combination tractors. As we proposed,
these alternative standards will only be
available through model year 2016. In
addition, manufacturers that use the
interim alternative diesel engine
standards for model years 2014–2016
under the EPA program must use
equivalent fuel consumption standards
under the NHTSA program.
For the 2014 to 2016 model years,
manufacturers may also choose to meet
alternative engine standards that are
phased-in over the model years to
coincide with new EPA On-Board
Diagnostic (OBD) requirements
applicable for these same model years.
See Sections II.B and II.D below.
The agencies received a significant
number of comments including from the
Senate authors and supporters of the
Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act arguing
that our proposed standards for
vocational vehicles did not reflect all of
the technologies identified in the 2010
NAS report. The commenters
encouraged the agencies to expand the
program to bring in additional
reductions through the use of new
transmission technologies, vehicle
weight reductions and hybrid
drivetrains. In general, the agencies
agree with the commenters’ central
contention that there are additional
technologies to improve the fuel
efficiency of vocational vehicles. As
discussed later, we are finalizing
provisions to allow new technologies to
be brought into the program through the
innovative technology credit program.
More specifically, we are including
provisions to account for and credit the

57121

use of hybrid technology as a
technology that can reduce emissions
and fuel consumption. Hybrid
technology can currently be a costeffective technology in certain specific
vocational applications, and the
agencies want to recognize and promote
the use of this technology. (See Sections
I.E and IV below.) However, we are not
finalizing standards that are premised
on the use of these additional
technologies because we have not been
able to develop the test procedures,
regulatory mechanisms and baseline
performance data necessary to adopt a
more comprehensive approach to
controlling fuel efficiency and GHG
emissions from vocational vehicles. In
concept, the agencies would need to
know the baseline weight, aerodynamic
performance, and transmission
configuration for the wide range of
vocational vehicles produced today. We
do not have this information even for
relatively small portions of this market
(e.g. concrete mixers) nor are we well
informed regarding the potential
tradeoffs to changes to vehicle utility
that might exist for changes to concrete
mixer designs in response to a
regulation. Nor did the commenters
provide any such information. Absent
this information and the necessary
regulatory tools, we believe the
standards we are finalizing for
vocational vehicles represent the most
appropriate standards for this segment
during the model years of the first phase
of the program. We intend to address
fuel consumption and GHG emissions
from these vehicles in a more
comprehensive manner through future
regulation and look forward to working
with all stakeholders on this important
segment in the future.
The agencies are setting standards
beginning in the 2014 model year and
establishing more stringent standards in
the 2017 model year. Table I–4 presents
EPA’s final CO2 standards and NHTSA’s
final fuel consumption standards for
chassis manufacturers of Class 2b
through Class 8 vocational vehicles for
the 2017 model year. The 2017 model
year standards represent a 6 to 9 percent
reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption over a 2010 model year
vehicle.

TABLE I–4—FINAL 2017 CLASS 2b–8 VOCATIONAL VEHICLE EPA CO2 STANDARDS AND NHTSA FUEL CONSUMPTION
STANDARDS
Light heavy-duty
Class 2b–5

Medium heavyduty Class 6–7

Heavy heavy-duty
Class 8

EPA CO2 (gram/ton-mile) Standard Effective 2017 Model Year
CO2 Emissions ...........................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

373

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

225

15SER2

222

57122

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE I–4—FINAL 2017 CLASS 2b–8 VOCATIONAL VEHICLE EPA CO2 STANDARDS AND NHTSA FUEL CONSUMPTION
STANDARDS—Continued
Light heavy-duty
Class 2b–5

Medium heavyduty Class 6–7

Heavy heavy-duty
Class 8

NHTSA Fuel Consumption (gallon per 1,000 ton-mile) Standard Effective 2017 Model Year

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Fuel Consumption ......................................................................................................

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’s final N2O and CH4
standards cover manufacturers of the
engines to be used in vocational
vehicles. EPA did not propose, nor are
we adopting separate vehicle-based
standards for these GHGs. As for the
engines used in Class 7 and 8 tractors,
we are finalizing a somewhat higher
N2O and CH4 emission standards
reflecting new data submitted to the
agencies during the public comment
period. EPA expects that manufacturers
of current engine technologies will be
able to comply with the final ‘‘cap’’
standards with little or no technological
improvements; the value of the
standards is that they will prevent
significant increases in these emissions
as alternative technologies are
developed and introduced in the future.
Compliance with the final EPA enginebased CO2 standards and the final
NHTSA fuel consumption standards, as
well as the final EPA N2O and CH4
standards, will be determined using the
appropriate EPA engine test procedure,
as discussed in Section II below.
As with the other regulatory
categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
and NHTSA are adopting standards that
apply to Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles
at the time of production, and EPA is
adopting standards for a specified
period of time in use. All of the
standards for these trucks, as well as
details about the final provisions for
certification and implementation of
these standards, are discussed in more
detail later in this notice and in the RIA.
EPA did not propose, nor is it
adopting A/C refrigerant leakage
standards for Class 2b–8 vocational
vehicles, primarily because of the
number of entities involved in their
manufacture and thus the potential for
different entities besides the chassis
manufacturer to be involved in the A/
C system production and installation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

36.7

(d) What manufacturers are not covered
by the final standards?
The NPRM proposed to defer
temporarily greenhouse gas emissions
and fuel consumption standards for any
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines,
manufacturers of combination tractors,
and chassis manufacturers for
vocational vehicles that meet the ‘‘small
business’’ size criteria set by the Small
Business Administration (SBA). 13 CFR
121.201 defines a small business by the
maximum number of employees; for
example, this is currently 1,000 for
heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing and
750 for engine manufacturing.34 The
agencies stated that they would instead
consider appropriate GHG and fuel
consumption standards for these entities
as part of a future regulatory action.
This includes both U.S.-based and
foreign small-volume heavy-duty
manufacturers. To ensure that the
agencies are aware of which companies
would be exempt, the agencies proposed
to require that such entities submit a
declaration describing how it qualifies
as a small entity under the provisions of
13 CFR 121.201 to EPA and NHTSA as
prescribed in Section V below.
EPA and NHTSA were not aware of
any manufacturers of HD pickups and
vans that meet these criteria. For each
of the other categories and for engines,
the agencies identified a small number
of manufacturers that would appear to
qualify as small businesses under the
SBA size criterion, which were
estimated to comprise a negligible
percentage of the U.S. market.35
Therefore, the agencies believed that
deferring the standards for these
companies at this time would have a
negligible impact on the GHG emission
reductions and fuel consumption
reductions that the program would
otherwise achieve. The agencies
proposed to consider appropriate GHG
34 See

§ 1036.150 and § 1037.150
heavy-duty combination tractor and ten
chassis manufacturers each comprising less than 0.5
percent of the total tractor and vocational market
based on Polk Registration Data from 2003 through
2007, and three engine manufacturing entities based
on company information included in Hoover’s,
comprising less than 0.1 percent of the total heavyduty engine sales in the United States based on
2009 and 2010 EPA certification information.
35 Two

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

22.1

21.8

emissions and fuel consumption
standards for these entities as part of a
future regulatory action.
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI)
commented that the small business
exemption proposed in the NPRM was
based on the improper framework of
whether the exemption would have a
negligible impact, and did not
adequately explain why the regulation
of small businesses would face special
compliance and administrative burdens.
IPI argued that the only proper basis for
this exemption would be if the agencies
could explain how these burdens create
costs that exceeded the benefits of
regulation.
NHTSA believes that developing
standards that are ‘‘appropriate, costeffective, and technologically feasible’’
under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) includes
the authority to exclude certain
manufacturers if their inclusion would
work against these statutory factors.
Similarly, under section 202(a) of the
CAA, EPA may reasonably choose to
defer regulation of industry segments
based on considerations of cost, costeffectiveness and available lead time for
standards. As noted above, small
businesses make up a very small
percentage of the market and are
estimated to have a negligible impact on
the emissions and fuel consumption
goals of this program. The short lead
time before the CO2 standards take
effect, the extremely small fuel savings
and emissions contribution of these
entities, and the potential need to
develop a program that would be
structured differently for them (which
would require more time to determine
and adopt), all led to the decision that
the inclusion of small businesses would
not be appropriate at this time.
Therefore, the final rule exempts small
businesses as proposed.
Volvo and EMA stated that by
exempting small businesses based on
the definition from SBA, the rules
would create a competitive advantage
for small businesses over larger entities.
EMA commented that the exemption
should not apply to market segments
where a small business has a significant
share of a particular HD market. Volvo
argued that the exempted businesses
could expand their product offerings or

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

sell vehicles on behalf of larger entities,
thereby inappropriately increasing the
scope of the exclusion. The agencies
anticipate that the gain a manufacturer
might achieve by restructuring its
practices and products to circumvent
the standard (which for vocational
vehicles simply means installing low
rolling resistance tires) in the first few
years of this program will be
outweighed by the costs, particularly as
small businesses anticipate their
potential inclusion in the next
rulemaking.
Volvo also commented that the
agencies should elaborate on the
requirements for the exemption in
greater detail. The agencies agree that
this may help to clarify the process. As
suggested by Volvo, the agencies will
consider affiliations to other companies
and evidence of spin-offs for the
purpose of circumventing the standards
in determining whether a business
qualifies as a small entity for this
exclusion. Each declaration must be
submitted in writing to EPA and
NHTSA as prescribed in Section V
below. As the agencies gain more
experience with this exemption, these
clarifications may be codified in the
regulatory text of a future rulemaking.
Volvo further commented that the
agencies were adopting an exemption of
‘‘small businesses’’ in order to avoid
doing a Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
and Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
analysis. The agencies would like to
reiterate that they have decided not to
include small businesses at this time
due to the factors described above. The
discussion on an RFA analysis is laid
out in Section XII(4).
The agencies continue to believe that
deferring the standards for these
companies at this time will have a
negligible impact on the GHG emission
reductions and fuel consumption
reductions that the program would
otherwise achieve. Therefore, the final
rules include the small business
exemption as proposed. The specific
deferral provisions are discussed in
more detail in Section II.
The agencies will consider
appropriate GHG emissions and fuel
consumption standards for these entities
as part of a future regulatory action.
(e) Light-Duty Vehicle CH4 and N2O
Standards Flexibility
After finalization of the N2O and CH4
standards for light-duty vehicles as part
of the 2012–2016 MY program, some
manufacturers raised concerns that they
may have difficulty meeting those
standards across their light-duty vehicle
fleets. In response to these concerns, as

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

part of the same Federal Register notice
as the heavy-duty proposal, EPA
requested comments on additional
options for manufacturers to comply
with light-duty vehicle N2O and CH4
standards to provide additional nearterm flexibility. Commenters providing
comment on this issue supported
additional flexibility for manufacturers.
EPA is finalizing provisions allowing
manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a
CO2-equivalent basis, to meet the N2O
and CH4 standards, which is consistent
with many commenters’ preferred
approach. Manufacturers will have the
option of using CO2 credits to meet N2O
and CH4 standards on a test group basis
as needed for MYs 2012–2016.
(f) Alternative Fuel Engines and
Vehicles
The agencies believe that it is also
appropriate to take steps to recognize
the benefits of flexible-fueled vehicles
(FFVs) and dedicated alternative-fueled
vehicles. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to
determine the emissions performance of
dedicated alternative fuel engines and
pickup trucks and vans by measuring
tailpipe CO2 emissions. NHTSA
proposed to determine fuel
consumption performance of nonelectric dedicated alternative fuel
engines and pickup trucks and vans by
measuring fuel consumption with the
alternative fuel and then calculating a
petroleum equivalent fuel consumption
using a Petroleum Equivalency Factor
(PEF) that is determined by the
Department of Energy. NHTSA
proposed to treat electric vehicles as
having zero fuel consumption,
comparable to the EPA proposal. Both
agencies proposed to determine FFV
performance in the same way as for
GHG emissions for light-duty vehicles,
with a 50–50 weighting of alternative
and conventional fuel test results
through MY 2015, and a weighting
based on demonstrated fuel use in the
real world after MY 2015 (defaulting to
an assumption of 100 percent
conventional fuel use). This approach
was considered to be a reasonable and
logical way to properly credit
alternative fuel use in FFVs in the real
world without imposing a difficult
burden of proof on manufacturers.
However, unlike in the light-duty rule,
the agencies do not believe it is
appropriate to create a provision for
additional incentives similar to the
2012–2015 light-duty incentive program
(See 49 U.S.C. 32904) because the HD
sector does not have the incentives
mandated in EISA for light-duty FFVs,
and so has not relied on the existence
of such credits in devising compliance
strategies for the early model years of

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57123

this program. See 74 FR at 49531. In
fact, manufacturers have not in the past
produced FFV heavy-duty vehicles. On
the other hand, the agencies sought
comment on how to properly recognize
the impact of the use of alternative
fuels, and E85 in particular, in HD
pickups and vans, including the proper
accounting for alternative fuel use in
FFVs in the real world.36 See 75 FR at
74198.
The agencies received several
comments from natural gas vehicle
(NGV) interests arguing for greater
crediting of NGVs than the proposed
approach would have provided. Clean
Energy, Hayday Farms, Border Valley,
AGA, Ryder, Encana, and a group of
NGV interests commented that the
NPRM ignored Congress’ intent to
incentivize the use of NGVs by not
including the conversion factor that
exists in the light-duty statutory
language. The commenters argued that
Congress’ intent to incentivize NGVs is
evident in the formula contained in 49
U.S.C. 32905, which deems a gallon
equivalent of gaseous fuel to have a fuel
content of 0.15 gallon of fuel. The
commenters also argued that Congress
implicitly intended NGVs to be
incentivized in this rulemaking, as
evidenced by the incentives in the lightduty statutory text. AGA and Hayday
suggested that the agencies were not
including the NGV incentive from lightduty because Congress did not explicitly
include it in 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), and
argued that this would contradict the
agencies’ inclusion of other incentives
similar to the light-duty rule.
The American Trucking Association
expressed support for estimating natural
gas fuel efficiency by using carbon
emissions from natural gas rather than
energy content to estimate fuel
consumption. ATA explained that two
vehicles can achieve the same fuel
efficiency, yet one operated on natural
gas would have a lower carbon dioxide
emissions rate. A natural gas conversion
factor that uses carbon content versus
energy content is a more appropriate
method for calculating fuel
consumption, in the commenter’s view.
A number of other groups commented
on the appropriate method to use in
establishing fuel consumption from
alternative fueled vehicles. A group of
NGV interests, Ryder, Border Valley
Trading, Waste Management, Robert
Bosch and the Blue Green Alliance
encouraged the agencies to adopt the
0.15 conversion factor in estimating fuel
consumption for FFVs and alternative
fuel vehicles finalized in the light-duty
36 E85 is a blended fuel consisting of nominally
15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57124

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2012–2016 MY vehicle standards. The
suggested incentive would effectively
reduce the calculated fuel consumption
for FFVs and alternative fuel vehicles by
a factor of 85 percent. The commenters
argued that the incentive is needed for
heavy-duty vehicles to encourage the
use of natural gas and to reduce the
nation’s dependence on petroleum.
The agencies reassessed the options
for evaluating the CO2 and fuel
consumption performance of alternative
fuel vehicles in response to comments
and because the agencies recognized
that the treatment of alternate fuel
vehicles was one of the few provisions
in the proposal where the EPA and
NHTSA programs were not aligned. The
agencies conducted an analysis
comparing fuel consumption calculated
based on CO2 emissions 37 to fuel
consumption calculated based on
gasoline or diesel energy equivalency to
evaluate impacts of a consistent
consumption measurement for all
vehicle classes covered by this program
and to further understand how
alternative fuels would be impacted by
this measurement methodology. In
particular the agencies evaluated how
measuring consumption via CO2
emissions would hinder or benefit the
application of alternative fuels versus
following similar alternative fuel
incentivizing programs provided via
statute for the Agency’s light-duty
programs. The analysis showed
measuring a vehicle’s CO2 output
converted to fuel consumption provided
a fuel consumption measurement
benefit to those vehicles operating on
fuels other than gasoline or diesel. For
CNG, LNG and LPG the benefit is
approximately 19 percent to 24 percent,
for biodiesel and ethanol blends the
benefit is approximately 1 percent to 3
percent, and for electricity and
hydrogen fuels the benefit is 100
percent benefit, as fuel consumption is
zero. The agencies also considered that
the EPA Renewable Fuel Standard,38 a
separate program, requires an increase
in the volume of renewable fuels used
in the U.S. transportation sector. For the
fuels covered by the Renewable Fuels
Standard additional incentives are not
37 Fuel consumption calculated from measured
CO2 using conversion factors of 8,887 g CO2/gallon
for gasoline (for alternative fuel engines that are
derived from gasoline engines), and 10,180 g CO2/
gallon for diesel fuel (for alternative fuel engines
that are derived from diesel engines).
38 EPA is responsible for developing and
implementing regulations to ensure that
transportation fuel sold in the United States
contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The
RFS program was created under the Energy Policy
Act (EPAct) of 2005, and expanded under the
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of
2007.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

needed in this regulation given the large
volume increases required under the
Renewable Fuel Standard.
The agencies continue to believe that
alternative-fueled vehicles, including
NGVs, provide fuel consumption
benefits that should be, and are,
accounted for in this program. However,
the agencies do not agree with the
commenters’ claim that the NGV
incentive contained in EISA, and
reflected in the light-duty program, is an
explicit Congressional directive that
must also be applied to the heavy-duty
program, nor that the light-duty
incentive for NGVs should be
interpreted as an implicit Congressional
directive for NGVs to be comparably
incentivized in the heavy-duty program.
Further, the agencies believe that the
fuel consumption benefits that
alternative fuel vehicles would obtain
through measuring CO2 emissions for
the EPA program and converting CO2
emissions to fuel consumption for the
NHTSA program accurately reflects
their energy benefits. This accurate
accounting, in conjunction with the
volumetric increases required by the
Renewable Fuels Standard, provides
sufficient incentives for these vehicles.
The agencies continue to believe that
the light-duty conversion factor is not
appropriate for this program. Instead,
the agencies are finalizing measuring
the performance of alternative fueled
vehicles by measuring CO2 emissions
for the EPA program and converting CO2
emissions to fuel consumption for the
NHTSA program. The agencies are also
finalizing measuring FFV performance
with a 50–50 weighting of alternative
and conventional fuel test results
through MY 2015, and an agency- or
manufacturer-determined weighting
based on demonstrated fuel use in the
real world after MY 2015 (defaulting to
an assumption of 100 percent
conventional fuel use).
The agencies believe this structure
accurately reflects the fuel consumption
of the vehicles while at the same time
providing an incentive for the
alternative fuel use. (For example,
natural gas heavy duty engines perform
20 to 30 percent better than their diesel
and gasoline counterparts from a CO2
perspective, and so meet the standards
adopted in these rules without cost, and
indeed will be credit generators without
cost.) We believe this is a substantial
enough advantage to spur the market for
these vehicles. The calculation at the
same time does not overestimate the
benefit from these technologies, which
could reduce the effectiveness of the
regulation. Therefore, the final rules do
not include the light-duty 0.15
conversion factor for NGVs. The

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

agencies would like to clarify that the
decision not to include an NGV
incentive was based on this policy
determination, not on a belief that
incentives present in the light-duty rule
could not be developed for the heavyduty sector because they were not
explicitly included in Section 32902(k).
NHTSA recognizes that EPCA/EISA
promotes incentives for alternative
fueled vehicles for different purposes
than does the CAA, and that there may
be additional energy and national
security benefits that could be achieved
through increasing fleet percentages of
natural gas and other alternative-fueled
vehicles. More alternative-fueled
vehicles on road would arguably
displace petroleum-fueled vehicles, and
thereby increase both U.S. energy and
national security by reducing the
nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
However, a rule that adopts identical
incentive provisions reduces industry
reporting burdens and NHTSA’s
monitoring burden. In addition, the
agencies are concerned that providing
greater incentives under EPCA/EISA
might lead to little increased production
of alternative fueled vehicles. If this
were the case, then the benefits of
harmonization could outweigh any
potential gains from providing greater
incentives. It is also consistent with
Executive Order 13563.39
Adopting the same incentive
provisions could also have benefits for
the public, the regulated industries, and
the agencies. This approach allows
manufacturers to project clear benefits
for the application of GHG-reduction
and fuel efficiency technologies, thus
spurring their adoption.
This combined rulemaking by EPA
and NHTSA is designed to regulate two
separate characteristics of heavy duty
vehicles: Greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) and fuel consumption. In the
case of diesel or gasoline powered
vehicles, there is a one-to-one
relationship between these two
characteristics. Each gallon of gasoline
combusted by a truck engine generates
approximately 8,887 grams of CO2; and
each gallon of diesel fuel burned
generates about 10,180 grams of CO2.
Because no available technologies
reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions per
gallon of fuel combusted, any rule that
limits tailpipe CO2 emissions is
39 EO 13563 states that an agency shall ‘‘tailor its
regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the
extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations,’’ and ‘‘promote such coordination,
simplification, and harmonization’’ as will reduce
redundancy, inconsistency, and costs of multiple
regulatory requirements.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
effectively identical to a rule that limits
fuel consumption. Compliance by a
truck manufacturer with the NHTSA
fuel economy rule assures compliance
with the EPA rule, and vice versa.
For alternatively fueled vehicles,
which use no petroleum, the situation is
different. For example, a natural gas
vehicle that achieves approximately the
same fuel economy as a diesel powered
vehicle would emit 20 percent less CO2;
and a natural gas vehicle with the same
fuel economy as a gasoline vehicle
would emit 30 percent less CO2. Yet
natural gas vehicles consume no
petroleum. To the extent that the goal of
the NHTSA fuel economy portion of this
rulemaking is to curb petroleum use,
crediting natural gas vehicles with zero
fuel consumption per mile could
contribute to achieving that goal.
Similar differences between oil
consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions would apply to electric
vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and
biofuel-powered vehicles.
NHTSA notes that the purpose of
EPCA/EISA is not merely to curb
petroleum use—it is more generally to
secure energy independence, which can
be achieved by reducing petroleum use.
The value of incentivizing natural gas,
electric vehicles, biofuels, hydrogen, or
other alt fuel vehicles for energy
independence is limited to the extent
that the alternative fuels may be
imported.
In the recent rulemaking for light-duty
vehicles, EPA and NHTSA have
followed the light duty specific
statutory provision that treats one gallon
of alternative fuel as equivalent to 0.15
gallons of gasoline until MY 2016, when
performance on the EPA CO2 standards
is measured based on actual emissions.
75 FR at 25433. Following that MY
2012–2015 approach in this heavy duty
program would mean that, for example,
a natural gas powered truck would have
attributed to it 20 percent less CO2
emissions than a comparable diesel
powered truck, but 85 percent less fuel
consumption. Engine manufacturers
with a relatively large share of
alternative-fuel products would likely
have an easier time complying with
NHTSA’s average fuel economy
standard than with EPA’s GHG
standard. Similarly, engine
manufacturers with a relatively small
share of alternative-fuel products would
have a relatively easier time complying
with EPA’s CO2 standard than with
NHTSA’s fuel economy standard. In that
way, the rule would not differ from the
light duty vehicle rules.
Instead, in this program, EPA and
NHTSA are establishing identical rules.
Fuel consumption for alternatively-

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

powered vehicles will be calculated
according to their tailpipe CO2
emissions. In that way, there will be a
one-to-one relationship between fuel
economy and tailpipe CO2 emissions for
all vehicles. However, this might not
result in a one-to-one relationship
between petroleum consumption and
GHG emissions for all vehicles. On the
other hand, it could have the
disadvantage of not doing more to
encourage some cost-effective means of
reducing petroleum consumption by
trucks, and the accompanying energy
security costs. By attributing to natural
gas engines only 20 percent less fuel
consumption than comparable diesel
engines, because they emit 20 percent
less CO2, rather than attributing to them
a much larger percentage reduction in
fuel consumption, because they use no
petroleum, this uniform approach to
rulemaking provides less of an incentive
for technologies that reduce
consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
In the future, the Agencies will
consider the possibility of proposing
standards in a way that more fully
reflects differences in fuel consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions. Under
such standards, any given vehicle might
‘‘over-comply’’ with the fuel economy
standard, but might ‘‘under-comply’’
with the greenhouse gas standard.
Therefore, in meeting the fleet-wide
requirements, a manufacturer would
need to meet both standards using all
available options, such as credit trading
and technology mix. Allowing for two
distinct standards might enable
manufacturers to achieve the twin goals
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and decreasing consumption of
petroleum-based fuels in a more costeffective manner.
D. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the
HD National Program
This section summarizes the projected
costs and benefits of the final NHTSA
fuel consumption and EPA GHG
emissions standards. These projections
helped to inform the agencies’ choices
among the alternatives considered and
provide further confirmation that the
final standards are an appropriate
choice within the spectrum of choices
allowable under the agencies’ respective
statutory criteria. NHTSA and EPA have
used common projected costs and
benefits as the bases for our respective
standards.
The agencies have analyzed in detail
the projected costs, fuel savings, and
benefits of the final GHG and fuel
consumption standards. Table I–5
shows estimated lifetime discounted
program costs (including technological
outlays), fuel savings, and benefits for

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57125

all heavy-duty vehicles projected to be
sold in model years 2014–2018 over
these vehicles’ lives. The benefits
include impacts such as climate-related
economic benefits from reducing
emissions of CO2 (but not other GHGs)
and reductions in energy security
externalities caused by U.S. petroleum
consumption and imports. The analysis
also includes economic impacts
stemming from additional heavy-duty
vehicle use attributable to fuel savings,
such as the economic damages caused
by accidents, congestion and noise. Note
that benefits reflect on estimated values
for the social cost of carbon (SCC), as
described in Section VIII.G.
The costs, fuel savings, and benefits
summarized here are slightly higher
than at proposal, reflecting the use of
2009 (versus 2008) dollars, some minor
changes to our cost estimates in
response to comments, and a change to
the 2011 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)
estimate of economic growth and future
fuel prices. In aggregate, these changes
lead to an increased estimate of the net
benefits of the final action compared to
the proposal.

TABLE I–5—ESTIMATED LIFETIME DISCOUNTED COSTS, FUEL SAVINGS,
BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR
2014–2018 MODEL YEAR HEAVYDUTY VEHICLESa b
[Billions, 2009$]
Lifetime Present Valuec—3% Discount Rate
Program Costs ......................
Fuel Savings .........................
Benefits .................................
Net Benefitsd ........................

$8.1
$50
$7.3
$49

Annualized Valuee—3% Discount Rate
Annualized Costs ..................
Fuel Savings .........................
Annualized Benefits ..............
Net Benefitsd ........................

$0.4
$2.2
$0.4
$2.2

Lifetime Present Valuec—7% Discount Rate
Program Costs ......................
Fuel Savings .........................
Benefits .................................
Net Benefitsd ........................

$8.1
$34
$6.7
$33

Annualized Valuee—7% Discount Rate
Annualized Costs ..................
Fuel Savings .........................
Annualized Benefits ..............
Net Benefitsd ........................
Notes:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

$0.6
$2.6
$0.5
$2.5

57126

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

a The agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different values of a one ton
CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5% discount rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at
3%), which each increase over time. For the
purposes of this overview presentation of estimated costs and benefits, however, we are
showing the benefits associated with the marginal value deemed to be central by the interagency working group on this topic: the model
average at 3% discount rate, in 2009 dollars.
Section VIII.F provides a complete list of values for the 4 estimates.

b Note that net present value of reduced
GHG emissions is calculated differently than
other benefits. The same discount rate used to
discount the value of damages from future
emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is
used to calculate net present value of SCC for
internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for
more detail.
c Present value is the total, aggregated
amount that a series of monetized costs or
benefits that occur over time is worth now (in
year 2009 dollar terms), discounting future values to the present.
d Net benefits reflect the fuel savings plus
benefits minus costs.
e The annualized value is the constant annual value through a given time period (2012
through 2050 in this analysis) whose summed
present value equals the present value from
which it was derived.

Table I–6 shows the estimated
lifetime reductions in CO2 emissions (in
million metric tons (MMT)) and fuel
consumption for all heavy-duty vehicles
sold in the model years 2014–2018. The
values in Table I–6 are projected
lifetime totals for each model year and
are not discounted. The two agencies’
standards together comprise the HD
National Program, and the agencies’
respective GHG emissions and fuel
consumption standards, jointly, are the
source of the benefits and costs of the
HD National Program.

TABLE I–6—ESTIMATED LIFETIME REDUCTIONS IN FUEL CONSUMPTION AND CO2 EMISSIONS FOR 2014–2018 MODEL
YEAR HD VEHICLES
All heavy-duty vehicles

2014 MY

Fuel (billion gallons) .....................
Fuel (billion barrels) .....................
CO2 (MMT)a .................................

2015 MY

4.0
0.10
50.2

2016 MY

3.6
0.09
44.8

2017 MY

3.6
0.08
44.0

2018 MY

5.1
0.12
62.8

5.8
0.14
71.7

Total
22.1
0.53
273

Note:
a Includes upstream and downstream CO reductions.
2

Table I–7 shows the estimated
lifetime discounted benefits for all
heavy-duty vehicles sold in model years
2014–2018. Although the agencies
estimated the benefits associated with
four different values of a one ton CO2
reduction ($5, $22, $36, $66), for the
purposes of this overview presentation
of estimated benefits the agencies are
showing the benefits associated with
one of these marginal values, $22 per
ton of CO2, in 2009 dollars and 2010
emissions. Table I–7 presents benefits
based on the $22 per ton of CO2 value.

Section VIII.F presents the four marginal
values used to estimate monetized
benefits of CO2 reductions and Section
VIII presents the program benefits using
each of the four marginal values, which
represent only a partial accounting of
total benefits due to omitted climate
change impacts and other factors that
are not readily monetized. The values in
the table are discounted values for each
model year of vehicles throughout their
projected lifetimes. The analysis
includes other economic impacts such
as energy security, and other

externalities such as impacts on
accidents, congestion and noise.
However, the model year lifetime
analysis supporting the program omits
other impacts such as benefits related to
non-GHG emission reductions.40 The
lifetime discounted benefits are shown
for one of four different SCC values
considered by EPA and NHTSA. The
values in Table I–7 do not include costs
associated with new technology
required to meet the GHG and fuel
consumption standards.

TABLE I–7—ESTIMATED LIFETIME DISCOUNTED BENEFITS FOR 2014–2018 MODEL YEAR HD VEHICLES ASSUMING THE
MODEL AVERAGE, 3% DISCOUNT RATE SCC VALUEa b c
[billions of 2009 dollars]
Model year

Discount rate
(percent)

2014

3 ...............................................................
7 ...............................................................

2015

$10.7
8.3

2016
$9.4
6.9

2017
$9.2
6.6

2018

$13.2
9.2

$14.9
10.1

Total
$57
41

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Notes:
a The analysis includes impacts such as the economic value of reduced fuel consumption and accompanying climate-related economic benefits
from reducing emissions of CO2 (but not other GHGs), and reductions in energy security externalities caused by U.S. petroleum consumption
and imports. The analysis also includes economic impacts stemming from additional heavy-duty vehicle use, such as the economic damages
caused by accidents, congestion and noise.
b Note that net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount
2
the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for more detail, including a list of all four SCC values, which increase over time.
c Benefits in this table include fuel savings.

Table I–8 shows the agencies’
estimated lifetime fuel savings, lifetime
CO2 emission reductions, and the

monetized net present values of those
fuel savings and CO2 emission
reductions. The gallons of fuel and CO2

emission reductions are projected
lifetime values for all vehicles sold in
the model years 2014–2018. The

40 Non-GHG emissions and health-related impacts
were estimated for the calendar year analysis. See

Section VII for more information about non-GHG

emission impacts and Section VIII for more
information about non-GHG-related health impacts.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
estimated fuel savings in billions of
barrels and the GHG reductions in
million metric tons of CO2 shown in
Table I–8 are totals for the five model
years throughout their projected lifetime

and are not discounted. The monetized
values shown in Table I–8 are the
summed values of the discounted
monetized-fuel consumption and
monetized-CO2 reductions for the five

57127

model years 2014–2018 throughout their
lifetimes. The monetized values in
Table I–8 reflect both a 3 percent and a
7 percent discount rate as noted.

TABLE I–8—ESTIMATED LIFETIME REDUCTIONS AND ASSOCIATED DISCOUNTED MONETIZED BENEFITS FOR 2014–2018
MODEL YEAR HD VEHICLES
[Monetized values in 2009 dollars]
Amount

$ Value (billions)

Fuel Consumption Reductions ................................................

0.53 billion barrels .................................

CO2 Emission Reductions a Valued assuming $22/ton CO2 in
2010.

273 MMT CO2 .......................................

$50.1, 3% discount rate $34.4, 7% discount rate.
$5.8 b.

Notes:
a Includes both upstream and downstream CO emission reductions.
2
b Note that net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount
2
the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for more detail.

Table I–9 shows the estimated
incremental and total technology
outlays for all heavy-duty vehicles for

each of the model years 2014–2018. The
technology outlays shown in Table I–9
are for the industry as a whole and do

not account for fuel savings associated
with the program.

TABLE I–9—ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL TECHNOLOGY OUTLAYS FOR 2014–2018 MODEL YEAR HD VEHICLES
[Billions of 2009 dollars]
2014
MY
All Heavy-Duty Vehicles ..................................................................................................

Table I–10 shows the agencies’
estimated incremental cost increase of

$1.6

the average new heavy-duty vehicle for
each model year 2014–2018. The values

2015
MY

2016
MY

$1.4

2017
MY

$1.5

2018
MY

$1.6

Total

$2.0

$8.1

shown are incremental to a baseline
vehicle and are not cumulative.

TABLE I–10—ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN AVERAGE COST FOR 2014–2018 MODEL YEAR HD VEHICLES
[2009 Dollars per unit]
2014
MY
Combination Tractors ...................................................................................................
HD Pickups & Vans .....................................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles ......................................................................................................

Both costs and benefits presented in
this section are in comparison to a
reference case with no improvements in
fuel consumption or greenhouse gas
emissions in model years 2014 to 2018.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

E. Program Flexibilities
For each of the heavy-duty vehicle
and heavy-duty engine categories for
which we are adopting respective
standards, EPA and NHTSA are also
finalizing provisions designed to give
manufacturers a degree of flexibility in
complying with the standards. These
final provisions have enabled the
agencies to consider overall standards
that are more stringent and that will
become effective sooner than we could
consider with a more rigid program, one
in which all of a manufacturer’s similar

VerDate Mar<15>2010

21:30 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

$6,019
165
329

vehicles or engines would be required to
achieve the same emissions or fuel
consumption levels, and at the same
time.41 We believe that incorporating
carefully structured regulatory
flexibility provisions into the overall
program is an important way to achieve
each agency’s goals for the program.
NHTSA’s and EPA’s flexibility
provisions are essentially identical in
structure and function. Within
combination tractor and vocational
vehicle categories and within heavy41 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 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2015
MY

2016
MY

$5,871
215
320

$5,677
422
397

2017
MY
$6,413
631
387

2018
MY
$6,215
1,048
378

duty engines, we are finalizing four
primary types of flexibility: Averaging,
banking, and trading (ABT) provisions;
early credits; advanced technology
credits (including hybrid powertrains);
and innovative technology credit
provisions. The final ABT provisions
are patterned on existing EPA and
NHTSA ABT programs and will allow a
vehicle manufacturer to reduce CO2
emission and fuel consumption levels
further than the level of the standard for
one or more vehicles to generate ABT
credits. The manufacturer can use those
credits to offset higher emission or fuel
consumption levels in the same
averaging set, ‘‘bank’’ the credits for
later use, or ‘‘trade’’ the credits to
another manufacturer. For HD pickups
and vans, we are finalizing a fleet

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57128

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

averaging system very similar to the
light-duty GHG and CAFE fleet
averaging system.
At proposal, we restricted the use of
the ABT provisions of the program to
vehicles or engines within the same
regulatory subcategory. This meant that
credit exchanges could only happen
between similar vehicles meeting the
same standards. We proposed this
approach for two reasons. First, we were
concerned about a level playing field
between different manufacturers who
may not participate equally in the
various truck and engine markets
covered in the regulation. Second, we
were concerned about the uncertainties
inherent in credit calculations that are
based on projections of lifetime
emissions for different vehicles in
wholly different vehicle markets. In
response to comments, we have revised
our ABT provisions to provide greater
flexibility while continuing to provide
assurance that the projected reductions
in fuel consumption and GHG emissions
will be achieved. We are relaxing the
restriction on averaging, banking, and
trading of credits between the various
regulatory subcategories, by defining
three HD vehicle averaging sets: Light
Heavy-Duty (Classes 2b–5); Medium
Heavy-Duty (Class 6–7); and Heavy
Heavy-Duty (Class 8). This allows the
use of credits between vehicles within
the same weight class. This means that
a Class 8 day cab tractor can exchange
credits with a Class 8 high roof sleeper
tractor but not with a smaller Class 7
tractor. Also, a Class 8 vocational
vehicle can exchange credits with a
Class 8 tractor. We are adopting these
revisions based on comments from the
regulated industry that convinced us
these changes would allow the broadest
trading possible while maintaining a
level playing field among the various
market segments. However, we are
restricting trading between engines and
chassis, even within the same vehicle
class.
The agencies believe that restricting
trading to within the same eight classes
as EPA’s existing criteria pollutant
program (i.e. Heavy-Heavy Duty, Light
Heavy-Duty, Medium Heavy-Duty), but
not restricting trading between vehicle
or engine type (such as combination
tractors), and restricting between
engines and chassis for the same vehicle
type, is appropriate and reasonable. We
do not expect emissions from engines
and vehicles—when restricted by
weight class—to be dissimilar. We
therefore expect that the lifetime vehicle
performance and emissions levels will
be very similar across these defined
categories, and the estimated credit
calculations will fairly ensure the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

expected fuel consumption and GHG
reductions.
The agencies considered even broader
averaging, banking, and trading
provisions but decided that in this first
phase of regulation, it would be prudent
to start with the program described here,
which will regulate greenhouse gas
emissions and fuel consumption from
this sector for the first time and provide
considerable early reductions as well as
opportunities to learn about technical
and other issues that can inform future
rulemakings. In the future we intend to
consider whether additional cost
savings could be realized through
broader trading provisions and whether
such provisions could be designed so as
to address any other relevant concerns.
Reducing the cost of regulation
through broader use of market tools is
a high priority for the Administration.
See Executive Order 13563 and in
particular section 1(b)(5) and section 4.
Consistent with this principle, we
intend to seek public comment through
a Notice of Data Availability after credit
trading begins in 2013, the first year we
expect manufacturers to begin certifying
2014 model year vehicles, on whether
broader credit trading is more
appropriate in developing the next
phase of heavy-duty regulations. We
believe that input will be better
informed by the work the agencies and
the regulated industry will have put into
implementing this first phase of heavyduty regulations.
Through this public process,
emphasizing the Administration’s
strong preference for flexible
approaches and maximizing the use of
market tools, the agencies intend to
fully consider whether broader credit
trading is more appropriate in
developing the next phase of heavy-duty
regulations.
This program thus does not allow
credits to be exchanged between heavyduty vehicles and light-duty vehicles,
nor can credits be traded from heavyduty vehicle fleets to light-duty vehicle
fleets and vice versa.
The engine ABT provisions are also
changed from the proposal and now are
the same as in EPA’s existing criteria
pollutant emission rules. The agencies
have broadened the averaging sets to
include both FTP-certified and SETcertified engines in the same averaging
set. For example, a SET-certified engine
intended for a Class 8 tractor can
exchange credits with a FTP-certified
engine intended for a Class 8 vocational
vehicle.
The agencies are finalizing three year
deficit carry-forward provisions for
heavy-duty engines and vehicles within
a limited time frame. This flexibility is

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

expected to provide an opportunity for
manufacturers to make necessary
technological improvements and reduce
the overall cost of the program without
compromising overall environmental
and fuel economy objectives. This
flexibility, similar to the flexibility the
agencies have offered under the lightduty vehicle program, is intended to
assist the broad goal of harmonizing the
two agencies’ standards while
preserving the flexibility of
manufacturers of vehicles and engines
in meeting the standards, to the extent
appropriate and required by law. During
the MYs 2014–2018 manufacturers are
expected to go through the normal
business cycle of redesigning and
upgrading their heavy-duty engine and
vehicle products, and in some cases
introducing entirely new vehicles and
engines not on the market today. As
explained in the following paragraph,
the carry-forward provision will allow
manufacturers the time needed to
incorporate technology to achieve GHG
reductions and improve fuel economy
during the vehicle redesign process.
We received comments from Center
for Biological Diversity against the need
to offer the deficit carry-forward
flexibility. CBD has stated that allowing
manufacturers to carry-forward deficits
for up to three years would incentivize
delays in investment and technological
innovation and allow for the generation
of additional tons of GHG emissions that
may be prevented today. However, the
deficit carry-forward flexibility (as well
as ABT generally) has enabled the
agencies to consider overall standards
that are more stringent and that will
become effective at an earlier period
than we could consider with a more
rigid program. The agencies also believe
this flexibility is an important aspect of
the program, as it avoids the much
higher costs that would occur if
manufacturers needed to add or change
technology at times other than their
scheduled redesigns, i.e. the cost of
adopting a new engine or vehicle
platform mid-production or mid-design.
This time period would also provide
manufacturers the opportunity to plan
for compliance using a multi-year time
frame, again consistent with normal
business practice. Over these four model
years, there would be an opportunity for
manufacturers to evaluate practically all
of their vehicle and engine model
platforms and add technology in a cost
effective way to control GHG emissions
and improve fuel economy.
As noted above, in addition to ABT,
the other primary flexibility provisions
in this program involve opportunities to
generate early credits, advanced
technology credits (including for use of

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
hybrid powertrains), and innovative
technology credits. For the early credits
and advanced technology credits, the
agencies sought comment on the
appropriateness of providing a 1.5x
multiplier as an incentive for their use.
We received a number of comments
supporting the idea of a credit
multiplier, arguing it was an appropriate
means to incentivize the early
compliance and advanced technologies
the agencies sought. We received other
comments suggesting a multiplier was
unnecessary. After considering the
comments, the agencies have decided to
finalize a 1.5x multiplier consistent
with our request for comments. We
believe that given the very short lead
time of the program and the nascent
nature of the advanced technologies
identified in the proposal, that a 1.5x
multiplier is an effective means to bring
technology forward into the heavy-duty
sector sooner than would otherwise
occur. In addition, advanced technology
credits could be used anywhere within
the heavy duty sector (including both
vehicles and engines), but early credits
would be restricted to use within the
same defined averaging set generating
the credit.
For other technologies which can
reduce CO2 and fuel consumption, but
for which there do not yet exist
established methods for quantifying
reductions, the agencies still wish to
encourage the development of such
innovative technologies, and are
therefore adopting special ‘‘innovative
technology’’ credits. These innovative
technology credits will apply to
technologies that are shown to produce
emission and fuel consumption
reductions that are not adequately
recognized on the current test
procedures and that are not yet in
widespread use in the heavy-duty
sector. Manufacturers will need to
quantify the reductions in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions that
the technology is expected to achieve,
above and beyond those achieved on the
existing test procedures. As with ABT,
the use of innovative technology credits
will only be allowed for use among
vehicles and engines of the same
defined averaging set generating the
credit, as described above. The credit
multiplier will not be used for
innovative technology credits.
CBD argued that including any
opportunities for manufacturers to earn
credits in the final rule would violate
NHTSA’s statutory mandate to
implement a program designed to
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement.
NHTSA strongly believes that creating
credit flexibilities for manufacturers for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

this first phase of the HD National
Program is fully consistent with the
agency’s obligation to develop a fuel
efficiency improvement program
designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement. EISA gives
NHTSA broad authority to develop
‘‘compliance and enforcement
protocols’’ that are ‘‘appropriate, costeffective, and technologically feasible,’’
and the agency believes that compliance
flexibilities such as the opportunity to
earn and use credits to meet the
standards are a reasonable and
appropriate interpretation of that
authority, along with the other
compliance and enforcement provisions
developed for this final rule. Unlike in
NHTSA’s light-duty program, where the
agency is restricted from considering the
availability of credits in determining the
maximum feasible level of stringency
for the fuel economy standards,42 in this
HD National Program, NHTSA and EPA
have based the levels of stringency in
part on our assumptions of the use of
available flexibilities that have been
built into the program to incentivize
over-compliance in some respects, to
balance out potential under-compliance
in others.
By assuming the use of credits for
compliance, the agencies were able to
set the fuel consumption/GHG
standards at more stringent levels than
would otherwise have been feasible.
Greater improvements in fuel efficiency
will occur under more stringent
standards; manufacturers will simply
have greater flexibility to determine
where and how to make those
improvements than they would have
without credit options. Further, this is
consistent with EOs 12866 and 13563,
which encourage agencies to design
regulations that promote innovation and
flexibility where possible.43
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
42 See

49 U.S.C. 32902(h).
12866 states that an agency must ‘‘design
its regulations in the most cost-effective manner to
achieve the regulatory objective * * * consider[ing]
incentives for innovation * * * [and] flexibility,’’
among other factors; EO 13563 directs agencies to
‘‘seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve
regulatory goals that are designed to promote
innovation,’’ and ‘‘identify and consider regulatory
approaches that * * * maintain flexibility.’’
43 EO

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57129

sources, authorizing EPA to regulate
emissions of air pollutants from all
mobile source categories. When acting
under Title II of the CAA, EPA
considers such issues as technology
effectiveness, its cost (both per vehicle,
per manufacturer, and per consumer),
the lead time necessary to implement
the technology, and based on this the
feasibility and practicability of potential
standards; the impacts of potential
standards on emissions reductions of
both GHGs and non-GHGs; the impacts
of standards on oil conservation and
energy security; the impacts of
standards on fuel savings by customers;
the impacts of standards on the truck
industry; other energy impacts; as well
as other relevant factors such as impacts
on safety.
This final action implements a
specific provision from Title II, section
202(a).44 Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA
states that ‘‘the Administrator shall by
regulation prescribe (and from time to
time revise) * * * standards applicable
to the emission of any air pollutant from
any class or classes of new motor
vehicles * * *, which in his judgment
cause, or contribute to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.’’
With EPA’s December 2009 final
findings that certain greenhouse gases
may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare and
that emissions of GHGs from section 202
(a) sources cause or contribute to that
endangerment, section 202(a) requires
EPA to issue standards applicable to
emissions of those pollutants from new
motor vehicles.
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);
44 See 42 U.S.C. 7521 (a). A number of
commenters believed that the GHG program was
being adopted pursuant to section 202 (a)(3)(A) and
that the lead time requirements of section 202
(a)(3)(C) therefore apply. This is mistaken. Section
202 (a)(3)(A) applies to standards for emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen,
and particulate matter from heavy-duty vehicles
and engines. This does not include the GHGs
regulated under the standards in today’s action.
This comment is addressed further in the Response
to Comment document.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57130

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

see also NRDC v. EPA, 655 F. 2d 318,
322 (DC Cir. 1981)). EPA is afforded
considerable discretion under section
202(a) when assessing issues of
technical feasibility and availability of
lead time to implement new technology.
Such determinations are ‘‘subject to the
restraints of reasonableness’’, which
‘‘does not open the door to ‘crystal ball’
inquiry.’’ NRDC, 655 F. 2d at 328,
quoting International Harvester Co. v.
Ruckelshaus, 478 F. 2d 615, 629 (DC
Cir. 1973). However, ‘‘EPA is not
obliged to provide detailed solutions to
every engineering problem posed in the
perfection of the trap-oxidizer. In the
absence of theoretical objections to the
technology, the agency need only
identify the major steps necessary for
development of the device, and give
plausible reasons for its belief that the
industry will be able to solve those
problems in the time remaining. The
EPA is not required to rebut all
speculation that unspecified factors may
hinder ‘real world’ emission control.’’
NRDC, 655 F. 2d at 333–34. In
developing such technology-based
standards, EPA has the discretion to
consider different standards for
appropriate groupings of vehicles
(‘‘class or classes of new motor
vehicles’’), or a single standard for a
larger grouping of motor vehicles
(NRDC, 655 F. 2d at 338).
Although standards under CAA
section 202(a)(1) are technology-based,
they are not based exclusively on
technological capability. EPA has the
discretion to consider and weigh
various factors along with technological
feasibility, such as the cost of
compliance (See section 202(a) (2)), lead
time necessary for compliance (section
202(a)(2)), safety (See NRDC, 655 F. 2d
at 336 n. 31) and other impacts on
consumers, and energy impacts
associated with use of the technology.
See George E. Warren Corp. v. EPA, 159
F.3d 616, 623–624 (DC Cir. 1998)
(ordinarily permissible for EPA to
consider factors not specifically
enumerated in the CAA). See also
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 129
S.Ct. 1498, 1508–09 (2009)
(congressional silence did not bar EPA
from employing cost-benefit analysis
under Clean Water Act absent some
other clear indication that such analysis
was prohibited; rather, silence indicated
discretion to use or not use such an
approach as the agency deems
appropriate).
In addition, EPA has clear authority to
set standards under CAA section 202(a)
that are technology forcing when EPA
considers that to be appropriate, but is
not required to do so (as compared to
standards set under provisions such as

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

section 202(a)(3) and section
213(a)(3)).45 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
achievable’ ’’). See also Husqvarna AB v.
EPA, 254 F. 3d 195, 200 (DC Cir. 2001)
(great discretion to balance statutory
factors in considering level of
technology-based standard, and
statutory requirement ‘‘to [give
appropriate] consideration to the cost of
applying * * * technology’’ does not
mandate a specific method of cost
analysis); see also Hercules Inc. v. EPA,
598 F. 2d 91, 106 (DC Cir. 1978) (‘‘In
reviewing a numerical standard the
agencies must ask whether the agency’s
numbers are within a zone of
45 One commenter mistakenly stated that section
202 (a) standards must be technology-forcing, but
the provision plainly does not require EPA to adopt
technology-forcing standards. See further
discussion in Section III.A below.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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)).
EPA established the Light-duty FTP
for emissions measurement in the early
1970s. In 1976, in response to the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
EPA extended the use of the Light-duty
FTP to fuel economy measurement (See
49 U.S.C. 32904(c)). EPA can determine
fuel efficiency of a vehicle by measuring
the amount of CO2 and all other carbon
compounds (e.g., total hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide (CO)), and then,
by mass balance, calculating the amount
of fuel consumed.
(b) EPA Enforcement Authority
Section 207 of the CAA grants EPA
broad authority to require
manufacturers to remedy vehicles if
EPA determines there are a substantial
number of noncomplying vehicles. In
addition, section 205 of the CAA
authorizes EPA to assess penalties of up
to $37,500 per vehicle for violations of
various prohibited acts specified in the
CAA. In determining the appropriate
penalty, EPA must consider a variety of
factors such as the gravity of the
violation, the economic impact of the
violation, the violator’s history of
compliance, and ‘‘such other matters as
justice may require.’’
(2) NHTSA Authority
In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA),
mandating a regulatory program for
motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the
various facets of the need to conserve
energy. In December 2007, Congress

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
enacted the Energy Independence and
Securities Act (EISA), amending EPCA
to require, among other things, the
creation of a medium- and heavy-duty
fuel efficiency program for the first time.
This mandate in EISA represents a
major step forward in promoting EPCA’s
goals of energy independence and
security, and environmental and
national security.
NHTSA has primary responsibility for
fuel economy and consumption
standards, and assures compliance with
EISA through rulemaking, including
standard-setting; technical reviews,
audits and studies; investigations; and
enforcement of implementing
regulations including penalty actions.
This final action implements Section
32902(k)(2) of EISA, which instructs
NHTSA to create a fuel efficiency
improvement program for ‘‘commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and work trucks’’ 46 by
rulemaking, which is to include
standards, test methods, measurement
metrics, and enforcement protocols. See
49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). Congress directed
that the standards, test methods,
measurement metrics, and compliance
and enforcement protocols be
‘‘appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible’’ for the
vehicles to be regulated, while
achieving the ‘‘maximum feasible
improvement’’ in fuel efficiency.
NHTSA has clear authority to design
and implement a fuel efficiency
program for vehicles and work trucks
under EISA, and was given broad
discretion to balance the statutory
factors in Section 32902(k)(2) in
developing fuel consumption standards
to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement. Since this is the first
rulemaking that NHTSA has conducted
under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), the agency
interpreted these elements and factors
in the context of setting standards,
choosing metrics, and determining test
methods and compliance/enforcement
mechanisms. Discussion of the
application of these factors can be found
in Section III below. Congress also gave
NHTSA the authority to set separate
standards for different classes of these
vehicles, but required that all standards
adopted provide not less than four full
model years of regulatory lead-time and
three full model years of regulatory
stability.
In EISA, Congress required NHTSA to
prescribe separate average fuel economy
standards for passenger cars and light
46 ‘‘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).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
32902(k). See 49 U.S.C. Section
32902(b)(1). Congress also added in
EISA a requirement that NHTSA shall
issue regulations prescribing fuel
economy standards for at least 1, but not
more than 5, model years. See 49 U.S.C.
32902(b)(3)(B). For purposes of the fuel
efficiency standards that the agency
proposed for HD vehicles and engines,
the NPRM stated an interpretation of the
statute that the 5-year maximum limit
did not apply to standards promulgated
in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32902(k),
given the language in Section
32902(b)(1). Based on this
interpretation, NHTSA proposed that
the standards ultimately finalized for
HD vehicles and engines would remain
in effect indefinitely at their 2018 or
2019 model year levels until amended
by a future rulemaking action. In any
future rulemaking action to amend the
standards, NHTSA would ensure not
less than four full model years of
regulatory lead-time and three full
model years of regulatory stability.
NHTSA sought comment on its
interpretation of EISA.
Robert Bosch LLC (Bosch) commented
that the absence of an expiration date
for the standards proposed in the NPRM
could violate 49 U.S.C. 32902, which it
interpreted as requiring the MD/HD
program to have standards that expire in
five years. Section 32902(k)(3), which
lays out the requirements for the MD/
HD program, specifies the minimum
regulatory lead and stability times, as
described above, but does not specify a
maximum duration period. In contrast,
Section 32902(b)(3)(B) lays out the
minimum and maximum durations of
standards to be established in a
rulemaking for the light-duty program,
but prescribes no minimum lead or
stability time. Bosch argued that as 49
U.S.C. Section 32902(k)(3) does not
require a maximum duration period,
Congress intended that NHTSA take the
maximum duration period specified for
the light-duty program in Section
32902(b)(3)(B), five years, and apply it
to Section 32902(k)(3). Bosch also
argued, however, that the minimum
duration period should not be carried
over from the light-duty to the heavyduty section, as a minimum duration
period for HD was specified in Section
32902(k)(3).
NHTSA has revisited this issue and
continues to believe that it is reasonable
to assume that if Congress intended for
the HD/MD regulatory program to be

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57131

limited by the timeline prescribed in
Subsection (b)(3)(B), it would have
either mentioned HD/MD vehicles in
that subsection or included the same
timeline in Subsection (k).47 In addition,
in order for Subsection (b)(3)(B) to be
interpreted to apply to Subsection (k),
the agency would need to give less than
full weight to the earlier phrase in the
statute directing the Secretary to
prescribe standards for ‘‘work trucks
and commercial medium-duty or heavyduty on-highway vehicles in accordance
with Subsection (k).’’ 49 U.S.C.
32902(b)(1)(C). Instead, this direction
would need to be read to mean ‘‘in
accordance with Subsection (k) and the
remainder of Subsection (b).’’ NHTSA
believes this interpretation would be
inappropriate. Interpreting ‘‘in
accordance with Subsection (k)’’ to
mean something indistinct from ‘‘in
accordance with this Subsection’’ goes
against the canon that statutes should
not be interpreted in a way that
‘‘render[s] language superfluous.’’
Dobrova v. Holder, 607 F.3d 297, 302
(2d Cir. 2010), quoting Mendez v.
Holder, 566 F. 3d 316, 321–22 (2d Cir.
2009). Based on this reasoning, NHTSA
believes the more reasonable and
appropriate approach is reflected in the
proposal, and the final rules therefore
follow this approach.
Another commenter, CBD, expressed
concern that lack of an expiration date
meant that the standards would remain
indefinitely, thus forgoing the
possibility of increased stringency in the
future. CBD argued that this violated
NHTSA’s statutory duty to set
maximum feasible standards. NHTSA
disagrees that the indefinite duration of
the standards in this rule would prevent
the agency from setting future standards
at the maximum feasible level in future
rulemakings. The absence of an
expiration date for these standards
should not be interpreted to mean that
there will be no future rulemakings to
establish new MD/HD fuel efficiency
standards for MYs 2019 and beyond—
the agencies have already previewed the
possibility of such a rulemaking in other
parts of this final rule preamble.
Therefore, NHTSA believes this concern
is unnecessary.
47 ‘‘[W]here Congress includes particular language
in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same Act, it is generally presumed
that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in
the disparate inclusion or exclusion.’’ Russello v.
United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983), quoting U.S.
v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir 1972).,
See also Mayo v. Questech, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 1007,
1014 (E.D.Va. 1989) (conspicuous absence of
provision from section where inclusion would be
most logical signals Congress did not intend for it
to be implied).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57132

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(a) NHTSA Testing Authority
49 U.S.C. Section 32902(k)(2) states
that NHTSA must adopt and implement
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible test methods
and measurement metrics as part of the
fuel efficiency improvement program.
For this program, manufacturers will
test and conduct modeling to determine
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
performance, and EPA and NHTSA will
perform validation testing. The results
of the validation tests will be used by
EPA to create a finalized reporting that
confirms the manufacturer’s final model
year GHG emissions and fuel
consumption results, which each agency
will use to enforce compliance with its
standards.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(v) NHTSA Enforcement Authority
(i) Overview
The NPRM proposed a compliance
and enforcement program that included
civil penalties for violations of the fuel
efficiency standards. 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2) states that NHTSA must
adopt and implement appropriate, costeffective, and technologically feasible
compliance and enforcement protocols
for the fuel efficiency improvement
program. Congress gave DOT broad
discretion to fashion its fuel efficiency
improvement program and thus
necessarily did not speak directly or
specifically as to the nature of the
compliance and enforcement protocols
that would be best suited for effectively
supporting the yet-to-be-designed-andestablished program. Instead, it left the
matter generally to the Secretary.
Congress’ approach is unlike CAFE
enforcement for passenger cars and light
trucks, where Congress specified the
precise details of a program and
provided that a manufacturer either
complies with standards or pays civil
penalties.
The statute is silent with respect to
how ‘‘protocol’’ should be interpreted.
The term ‘‘protocol’’ is imprecise and
thus Congress’ choice of that term
affords the agency substantial breadth of
discretion. For example, in a case
interpreting Section 301(c)(2) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), the DC Circuit noted that
the word ‘‘protocols’’ has many
definitions that are not much help.
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Inc. v.
U.S. Dept. of Interior, 88 F.3d. 1191,
1216 (DC Cir. 1996). Section 301(c)(2) of
CERCLA prescribed the creation of two
types of procedures for conducting
natural resources damages assessments.
The regulations were to specify (a)
‘‘standard procedures for simplified

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

assessments requiring minimal field
observation’’ (the ‘‘Type A’’ rules), and
(b) ‘‘alternative protocols for conducting
assessments in individual cases’’ (the
‘‘Type B’’ rules).48 The court upheld the
challenged provisions, which were a
part of a set of rules establishing a stepby-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 interpreted
‘‘protocol’’ in the context of EISA as
authorizing the agency to determine
both whether manufacturers have
complied with the standards, and to
establish suitable and reasonable
enforcement mechanisms and decision
criteria for non-compliance. Therefore,
NHTSA interpreted its authority to
develop an enforcement program to
include the authority to determine and
assess civil penalties for noncompliance.
Several commenters disagreed with
this interpretation. Volvo and EMA
commented that the penalties proposed
by NHTSA exceeded the authority
granted to the agency by Congress, and
Volvo commented that the fact that
Congress did not adopt an entirely new
statute for the HD program should be
interpreted to mean that provisions
adopted for the light-duty program
should apply to the HD program as well.
Daimler argued that it was likely that
EISA did not give NHTSA the authority
to assess civil penalties, and Navistar
and EMA argued that NHTSA could not
have the authority as Congress did not
expressly grant it.
NHTSA continues to believe that it is
reasonable to interpret ‘‘compliance and
enforcement protocols’’ to include
authority to impose civil penalties.
Where a statute does not specify an
approach, the discretion to do so is left
to the agency. When Congress has
‘‘explicitly left a gap for an agency to
fill, there is an express delegation of
authority to the agency to elucidate a
specific provision of the statute by
regulation.’’ United States. v. Mead, 533
U.S. 218, 227 (2001), quoting Chevron v.
NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984). The
delegation of authority may be implicit
rather than express. Id. at 229. NHTSA
believes it would be unreasonable to
assume that Congress intended to create
a hollow regulatory program without a
48 State of Ohio v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 880 F.2d
432, 439 (DC Cir. 1989).

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

mechanism for effective enforcement.
Further, interpreting ‘‘enforcement
protocols’’ to mean not more than
‘‘compliance protocols’’ would go
against the canon noted above that
statutes should not be interpreted in a
way that ‘‘render[s] language
superfluous.’’ Dobrova v. Holder, 607
F.3d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 2010), quoting
Mendez v. Holder 566 F. 3d 316, 321–
22 (2d Cir. 2009). The interpretation
urged by the commenters would render
an entire program superfluous.
Further, NHTSA believes that
Congress would have anticipated that
compliance and enforcement protocols
would include civil penalties for the HD
sector, given that penalties are an
integral part of a product standards
program and given the long precedent of
civil penalties for the light-duty sector.
The agency disagrees with the argument
that the HD program would have
appeared in a wholly separate statute if
Congress had not intended the penalty
program for light-duty to apply to it.
The inclusion of the MD/HD program in
Title 329 does not mean that Congress
intended for the boundaries and
differences between the separate
sections to be ignored. Rather, this
argument leads to the opposite
conclusion that the fact that Congress
created a new section for the HD
program, instead of simply amending
the existing light-duty program to
include ‘‘work trucks and other
vehicles’’ in addition to automobiles,
means the agency should assume that
Congress acted intentionally when it
created two wholly separate programs
and respect their distinctions.
Therefore, consistent with the statutory
interpretation proposed in the NPRM,
the final rule includes penalties for noncompliance with the fuel efficiency
standards.
(ii) Penalty Levels
NHTSA proposed to adopt penalty
levels equal to those in EPA’s existing
heavy-duty program, in order to provide
adequate deterrence as well as
consistency with the GHG regulation.
The proposed maximum penalty levels
were $37,500.00 per vehicle or engine.
Several manufacturers commented
that the penalty levels should be limited
to those mandated in the light-duty
program. Volvo and Daimler argued that
Congress intended lower penalties for
the HD program than were proposed in
the NPRM, because they believed that
Congress had expressly or implicitly
intended for the HD program to be
included in the penalty calculation of
Section 32912(b). That section
prescribes penalty levels for violators
under Section 32902 of ‘‘$5 multiplied

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

by each tenth (0.1) of a mile a gallon by
which the applicable average fuel
economy standard under that section
exceeds the average fuel economy,’’ 49
calculated and applied to automobiles.
Volvo further argued that NHTSA was
relying upon the CAA as the statutory
basis for the penalty levels.
NHTSA recognizes that Section 329
contains a detailed penalty scheme, for
light-duty vehicle CAFE standards.
However, Section 32902(k)(2) explicitly
directs NHTSA to ‘‘adopt and
implement appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, fuel economy
standards, and compliance and
enforcement protocols,’’ in the creation
of the new HD program. NHTSA
continues to believe that this broad
Congressional mandate should be
interpreted based on a plain text
reading, which includes the authority to
determine compliance and enforcement
protocols that will be effective and
appropriate for this new sector of
regulation. NHTSA also believes that
reading Section 32912 to apply to the
new HD program would contradict
Congress’ broad mandate for the agency
to establish new measurement metrics
and a compliance and enforcement
program. Further, interpreting the
requirement to create ‘‘enforcement
protocols’’ for HD vehicles to mean that
NHTSA should rely on the enforcement
provisions for light-duty vehicles would
go against the canon noted above that
statutes should not be interpreted in a
way that ‘‘render[s] language
superfluous.’’ Dobrova v. Holder, 607
F.3d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 2010), quoting
Mendez v. Holder 566 F. 3d 316, 321–
22 (2d Cir. 2009).
NHTSA believes that Section 32912
does not apply to the new HD program
for several other reasons. First, this
section uses a fuel economy metric,
miles/gallon, while the HD program is
built around a fuel consumption metric,
per the requirement to develop a ‘‘fuel
efficiency improvement program’’ and
the agencies’ conclusion, supported by
NAS, that a fuel consumption metric is
a much more reasonable choice than a
fuel economy metric for HD vehicles
given their usage as work vehicles.
Second, this section specifies a
calculation for automobiles, a vehicle
class which is confined to the light-duty
rule. In addition, the HD program
49 This fine was increased by 49 CFR 578.6,
which provides that ‘‘Except as provided in 49
U.S.C. 32912(c), a manufacturer that violates a
standard prescribed for a model year under 49
U.S.C. 32902 is liable to the United States
Government for a civil penalty of $5.50 multiplied
by each 0.1 of a mile a gallon by which the
applicable average fuel economy standard under
that section exceeds the average fuel economy.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

prescribes fuel consumption standards,
not average fuel economy standards.
Finally, NHTSA believes that if
Congress had intended for a predetermined penalty scheme to apply to
the new HD program, it would have
been specific. Instead, Congress
explicitly directed the agency to
develop a new measurement,
compliance, and enforcement scheme.
Consistent with the statutory
interpretation of the duration of the
standards, NHTSA believes that if
Congress intended for particular penalty
levels to be used in Section 32902(k)(3),
it would have either included a
reference to those levels or included a
reference in 32912 to the vehicles and
metrics regulated by 32902(k)(3). See
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16,
23 (1983), quoting United States v.
Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th
Cir 1972) (‘‘[W]here Congress includes
particular language in one section of a
statute but omits it in another section of
the same Act, it is generally presumed
that Congress acts intentionally and
purposely in the disparate inclusion or
exclusion.’’) Instead, the absence of
such language could mean either that
Congress did not contemplate the
specific penalty levels to be used, or
that Congress left the choice of specific
penalty levels to the agency. See
Alliance for Community Media v. F.C.C.
529 F. 3d 763, 779 (6th Cir. 2008)
(absence of a statutory deadline in one
section but not others meant that
Congress authorized but did not require
it in that section).
NHTSA believes that, based on EPA’s
experience regulating this sector for
criteria pollutants, the proposed
maximum penalty is at an appropriate
level to create deterrence for noncompliance, while at the same time, not
so high as to create undue hardship for
manufacturers. Therefore, the final rule
retains the maximum penalty level
proposed in the NPRM.
G. Future HD GHG and Fuel
Consumption Rulemakings
This final action represents a first
regulatory step by NHTSA and EPA to
address the multi-faceted challenges of
reducing fuel use and greenhouse gas
emissions from these vehicles. By
focusing on existing technologies and
well-developed regulatory tools, the
agencies are able to adopt rules that we
believe will produce real and important
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption within only a few years.
Within the context of this regulatory
time frame, our program is very
aggressive—with limited lead time
compared to historic heavy-duty
regulations—but pragmatic in the

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57133

context of technologies that are
available and that can be reasonably
implemented during the regulatory time
frame.
While we are now only finalizing this
first step, it is worthwhile to consider
how the next regulatory step may be
designed. Technologies such as hybrid
drivetrains, advanced bottoming cycle
engines, and full electric vehicles are
promoted in this first step through
incentive concepts as discussed in
Section IV, but we believe that these
advanced technologies will not be
necessary to meet the final standards.
Today’s standards are premised on the
use of existing technologies given the
short lead time, as discussed in Section
III, below. When we begin work to
develop a possible next set of regulatory
standards, the agencies expect these
advanced technologies to be an
important part of the regulatory program
and will consider them in setting the
stringency of any standards beyond the
2018 model year.
We will not only consider the
progress of technology in our future
regulatory efforts, but the agencies are
also committed to fully considering a
range of regulatory approaches. To more
completely capture the complex
interactions of the total vehicle and the
potential to reduce fuel consumption
and GHG emissions through the
optimization of those interactions may
require a more sophisticated approach
to vehicle testing than we are adopting
today for the largest heavy-duty
vehicles. In future regulations, the
agencies expect to fully evaluate the
potential to expand the use of vehicle
compliance models to reflect engine and
drivetrain performance. Similarly, we
intend to consider the potential for
complete vehicle testing using a chassis
dynamometer, not only as a means for
compliance, but also as a
complementary tool for the
development of more complex vehicle
modeling approaches. In considering
these more comprehensive regulatory
approaches, the agencies will also
reevaluate whether separate regulation
of trucks and engines remains
necessary.
In addition to technology and test
procedures, vehicle and engine drive
cycles are an important part of the
overall approach to evaluating and
improving vehicle performance. EPA,
working through the WP.29 Global
Technical Regulation process, has
actively participated in the development
of a new World Harmonized Duty Cycle
for heavy-duty engines. EPA is
committed to bringing forward these
new procedures as part of our overall
comprehensive approach for controlling

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57134

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

criteria pollutant and GHG emissions.
However, we believe the important
issues and technical work related to
setting new criteria pollutant emissions
standards appropriate for the World
Harmonized Duty Cycle are significant
and beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. Therefore, the agencies are
not adopting these test procedures in
this action, but we are ready to work
with interested stakeholders to adopt
these procedures in a future action.
As noted above, the agencies also
intend to further investigate possibilities
of expanded credit trading across the
heavy-duty sector. As part of this effort,
the agencies will investigate the degree
to which the issue of credit trading is
connected with complete vehicle testing
procedures.
As with this program, our future
efforts will be based on collaborative
outreach with the stakeholder
community and will be focused on a
program that delivers on our energy
security and environmental goals
without restricting the industry’s ability
to produce a very diverse range of
vehicles serving a wide range of needs.
II. Final GHG and Fuel Consumption
Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles
This section describes the standards
and implementation dates that the
agencies are finalizing for the three
categories of heavy-duty vehicles and
engines. The agencies have performed a
technology analysis to determine the
level of standards that we believe will
be cost-effective, feasible, and
appropriate in the lead time provided.
This analysis, described in Section III
and in more detail in the RIA Chapter
2, considered for each of the regulatory
categories:
• The level of technology that is
incorporated in current new engines
and trucks,
• Forecasts of manufacturers’ product
redesign schedules,
• The available data on
corresponding CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption for these engines and
vehicles,
• Technologies that would reduce
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
and that are judged to be feasible and
appropriate for these vehicles and
engines through the 2018 model year,
• The effectiveness and cost of these
technologies, and
• Projections of future U.S. sales for
trucks and engines.
A. What vehicles will be affected?
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing
standards for heavy-duty engines and
also for what we refer to generally as

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

‘‘heavy-duty vehicles.’’ In general, these
standards will apply for the model year
2014 and later engines and vehicles,
although some standards do not apply
until 2016 or 2017. The EPA standards
will apply throughout the useful life of
the engine or vehicle, just as existing
criteria emission standards apply
throughout the useful life. As noted in
Section I, for purposes of this preamble
and rules, the term ‘‘heavy-duty or
‘‘HD’’ applies to all highway vehicles
and engines that are not regulated by the
light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck and
medium-duty passenger vehicle
greenhouse gas and CAFE standards
issued for MYs 2012–2016. Thus, in this
notice, unless specified otherwise, the
heavy-duty category incorporates all
vehicles rated with GVWR greater than
8,500 pounds, and the engines that
power these vehicles, except for
MDPVs. The CAA defines heavy-duty
vehicles as trucks, buses or other motor
vehicles with GVWR exceeding 6,000
pounds. See CAA section 202(b)(3). In
the context of the CAA, the term HD as
used in these final rules thus refers to
a subset of these vehicles and engines.
EISA section 103(a)(3) defines a
‘commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicle’ as an on-highway
vehicle with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or
more.50 EISA section 103(a)(6) defines a
‘work truck’ as a vehicle that is rated at
between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross
vehicle weight and is not a mediumduty passenger vehicle.51 Therefore, the
term ‘‘heavy-duty vehicles’’ in this
rulemaking refers to both work trucks
and commercial medium- and heavyduty on-highway vehicles as defined by
EISA. Heavy-duty engines affected by
the standards are those that are installed
in commercial medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles, except for the engines installed
in vehicles certified to a complete
vehicle emissions standard based on a
chassis test, which would be addressed
as a part of those complete vehicles, and
except for engines used exclusively for
stationary power when the vehicle is
parked. The agencies’ scope is the same
with the exception of recreational
vehicles (or motor homes), as discussed
above. The standards that EPA is
50 Codified

at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7).
Section 103(a)(6) is codified at 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(19). EPA defines medium-duty passenger
vehicles as any complete vehicle between 8,500 and
10,000 pounds GVWR designed primarily for the
transportation of persons which meet the criteria
outlined in 40 CFR 86.1803–01. The definition
specifically excludes any vehicle that (1) has a
capacity of more than 12 persons total or, (2) is
designed to accommodate more than 9 persons in
seating rearward of the driver’s seat or, (3) has a
cargo box (e.g., pickup box or bed) of six feet or
more in interior length. (See the Tier 2 final
rulemaking, 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.)
51 EISA

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

finalizing today cover recreational onhighway vehicles, while NHTSA limited
its scope in the proposal to not include
these vehicles. See Section I.A above.
The NPRM did not include an export
exclusion in NHTSA’s fuel consumption
standards. Oshkosh Corporation
commented that NHTSA should add an
export exclusion in order to
accommodate the testing and delivery
needs of manufacturers of vehicles
intended for export. NHTSA agrees with
this comment and Section 535.3 of the
final rule specifies such an exclusion.
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing
standards for each of the following
categories, which together comprise all
heavy-duty vehicles and all engines
used in such vehicles. In order to most
appropriately regulate the broad range
of heavy-duty vehicles and engines, the
agencies are setting separate engine and
vehicle standards for the combination
tractors and Class 2b through 8
vocational vehicles. The engine
standards and test procedures for
engines installed in the tractors and
vocational vehicles are discussed within
the preamble sections for combination
tractors and vocational vehicles,
respectively. The agencies are
establishing standards for heavy-duty
pickups and vans that apply to the
entire vehicle;—there are no separate
engine standards.
As discussed in Section IX, the
agencies are not adopting GHG emission
and fuel consumption standards for
trailers at this time. In addition, the
agencies are not adopting standards at
this time for engine, chassis, and vehicle
manufacturers which are small
businesses (as defined by the Small
Business Administration). More detailed
discussion of each regulatory category is
included in the subsequent sections
below.
B. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
EPA is finalizing CO2 standards and
NHTSA is finalizing fuel consumption
standards for new Class 7 and 8
combination tractors. The standards are
for the tractor cab, with a separate
standard for the engine that is installed
in the tractor. Together these standards
would achieve reductions of up to 23
percent compared to the model 2010
baseline level. As discussed below, EPA
is finalizing its proposal to adopt the
existing useful life definitions for Class
7 and 8 tractors and the heavy-duty
engines installed in them. NHTSA and
EPA are finalizing revised fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
standards for tractors, and finalizing as
proposed engine standards for heavyduty engines in Class 7 and 8 tractors.
The agencies’ analyses, as discussed

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
briefly below and in more detail later in
this preamble and in the RIA Chapter 2,
show that these standards are feasible
and appropriate under each agency’s
respective statutory authorities.
EPA is also finalizing standards to
control N2O, CH4, and HFC emissions
from Class 7 and 8 combination tractors.
The final heavy-duty engine standards
for both N2O and CH4 and details of the
standard are included in the discussion
in Section II.E.1.b and II.E.2.b,
respectively. The final air conditioning
leakage standards applying to tractor
manufacturers to address HFC
emissions are discussed in Section
II.E.5.
The agencies are finalizing CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
standards for the combination tractors
that reflect reductions that can be
achieved through improvements in the
tractor (such as aerodynamics), tires,
and other vehicle systems. The agencies
are also finalizing heavy-duty engine
standards for CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption that reflect technological
improvements in combustion and
overall engine efficiency.
The agencies have analyzed the
feasibility of achieving the CO2 and fuel
consumption standards, and have
identified means of achieving the
standards that are technically feasible in
the lead time afforded, economically
practicable and cost-effective. EPA and
NHTSA present the estimated costs and
benefits of the standards in Section III.
In developing the final rules, the
agencies have evaluated the kinds of
technologies that could be utilized by
engine and tractor manufacturers, as
well as the associated costs for the
industry and fuel savings for the
consumer and the magnitude of the
national CO2 and fuel savings that may
be achieved.
The agencies received comments from
multiple stakeholders regarding the
definition and classification of
‘‘combination tractors.’’ The
commenters raised three key issues.
First, EMA/TMA, Navistar and DTNA
requested that both agencies use the
same definition for ‘‘tractor’’ or ‘‘truck
tractor’’ in the final rules. EPA proposed
a definition for ‘‘tractor’’ in § 1037.801
(see the proposed rule published
November 30, 2010, 75 FR 74402) which
stated that ‘‘tractor’’ means a vehicle
capable of pulling trailers that is not
intended to carry significant cargo other
than cargo in the trailer, or any other
vehicle intended for the primary
purpose of pulling a trailer. For
purposes of this definition, the term
’’cargo’’ includes permanently attached
equipment such as fire-fighting
equipment. The following vehicles are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

tractors: any vehicle sold to an ultimate
purchaser with a fifth wheel coupling
installed; any vehicle sold to an
ultimate purchaser with the rear portion
of the frame exposed where the length
of the exposed portion is 5.0 meters or
less. See § 1037.620 for special
provisions related to vehicles sold to
secondary vehicle manufacturers in this
condition. The following vehicles are
not tractors: Any vehicle sold to an
ultimate purchaser with an installed
cargo carrying feature (for example, this
would include dump trucks and cement
trucks); any vehicle lacking a fifth wheel
coupling sold to an ultimate purchaser
with the rear portion of the frame
exposed where the length of the
exposed portion is more than 5.0
meters.
NHTSA proposed to use the 49 CFR
571.3 definition of ‘‘truck tractor’’ in 49
CFR 535.4 (see the proposed rule
published November 30, 2010, 75 FR
74440) which stated that ‘‘truck tractor’’
means a truck designed primarily for
drawing other motor vehicles and not so
constructed as to carry a load other than
a part of the weight of the vehicle and
the load so drawn.
Second, EMA/TMA, NTEA and
Navistar expressed concerns over, and
requested the removal of, the proposed
language that all vehicles with sleeper
cabs would be classified as tractors. The
commenters argued that because there
are vocational vehicles manufactured
with sleeper cabs that operate as
vocational vehicles and not as tractors,
those vehicles should be treated the
same as all other vocational vehicles.
Third, eleven different commenters
requested that the agencies subdivide
tractors into line-haul tractors and
vocational tractors and treat each based
upon their operational characteristics:
vocational tractors, which operate at
lower speeds offroad or in stop-and-go
city driving as vocational vehicles; and
line-haul tractors, which operate at
highway speeds on interstate roadways
over long distances, as line-haul
tractors.
In response to the first comment, the
agencies have decided to standardize
the definition of tractor by using the
long-standing NHTSA definition of
‘‘truck tractor’’ established in 49 CFR
571.3. 49 CFR 571.3(b) states that a
‘‘truck tractor means a truck designed
primarily for drawing other motor
vehicles and not so constructed as to
carry a load other than a part of the
weight of the vehicle and the load so
drawn.’’ EPA’s proposed definition for
‘‘tractor’’ in the NPRM was similar to
the NHTSA definition, but included
some additional language to require a
fifth wheel coupling and an exposed

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57135

frame in the rear of the vehicle where
the length of the exposed portion is 5.0
meters or less. EMA and Navistar argued
that these two different definitions
could lead to confusion if the agencies
applied their requirements for truck
tractors differently from each other. The
commenters suggested that the EPA
definition was more complicated than
necessary, and that the simpler NHTSA
definition should be used by both
agencies as the base definition of truck
tractor.
The agencies agree that the definitions
should be standardized and that the
NHTSA definition is sufficient and
includes the essential requirement that
a truck tractor is a truck designed
‘‘primarily for drawing other motor
vehicles and not so constructed as to
carry a load other than a part of the
weight of the vehicle and the load so
drawn.’’ EPA’s proposed tractor
definition was intended to be
functionally equivalent to NHTSA’s
definition based on design, but to be
more objective by including the criteria
related to ‘‘fifth wheels’’ and exposed
rear frame. However, EPA no longer
believes that such additional criteria are
needed for implementation. NHTSA
established the definition for truck
tractor in 49 CFR 571.3(b) years ago,52
and has not encountered any notable
problems with its application.
Nevertheless, because the NHTSA
definition relies more on design intent
than EPA’s proposed definition, we
recognize that there may be some
questions regarding how the agencies
would apply the NHTSA definition
being finalized to certain unique
vehicles. For example, many of the
common automobile and boat transport
trucks may look similar to tractors, but
the agencies would not consider them to
meet the definition, because they have
the capability to carry one or several
vehicles as cargo with or without a
trailer attached, and therefore are not
‘‘constructed as to carry a load other
than a part of the weight of the vehicle
and the load so drawn.’’ Similarly, a
‘‘dromedary’’ style truck that has the
capability to carry a large load of cargo
with or without drawing a trailer would
also not qualify as a tractor.53 Even
though these particular vehicles
identified could potentially draw other
motor vehicles like a trailer, they have
also been designed to carry cargo with
or without the trailer attached. NHTSA
has previously interpreted its definition
for ‘‘truck tractor’’ as excluding these
specific vehicles like the dromedary and
52 33

FR 19703, December 25, 1968.
dromedary is a box, deck or plate mounted
behind the cab to carry freight or cargo.
53 A

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57136

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

automobile/boat transport vehicles. Tow
trucks have also been excluded from the
category of truck tractor. On the other
hand, it is worth clarifying that designs
that allow cargo to be carried in the
passenger compartment, the sleeper
compartment, or external toolboxes
would not exclude a vehicle from the
tractor category. The agencies plan to
continue with this approach for the HD
fuel efficiency and GHG standards,
which means that these particular
vehicles will be subject to the vocational
vehicle standards and not the tractor
standards, but vehicles that did meet the
definition above for ‘‘tractor’’ will be
subject to the combination tractor
standards.
In response to the second comment,
the agencies have decided not to classify
vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs as
tractors. In the NPRM, the agencies
proposed that vocational vehicles with
sleeper cabs be classified as tractors out
of concern that a vehicle could initially
be manufactured as a straight truck
vocational vehicle with a sleeper cab
and, soon after introduction into
commerce, be converted to a
combination tractor as a means to
circumvent the Class 8 sleeper cab
regulations. Commenters who addressed
this issue generally disagreed with the
agencies’ concern. EMA/TMA, for
example, argued that it is expensive and
difficult for a manufacturer to change a
vehicle from a straight truck to a tractor,
because of modifications required to the
vehicle, such as to the vehicle’s air
brake system, and also because of the
manufacturers ultimate responsibility
for recertification to NHTSA’s safety
standards. EMA/TMA also argued that
straight trucks are often built with
sleeper cabs to perform the functions of
a vocational type vehicle and not the
functions of a line-haul tractor. NTEA
also provided an example of a straight
truck (Expediter Cab) that can be built
with a sleeper cab and a cargo-carrying
body, which it argued should be
classified as a vocational vehicle and
not a tractor.
Upon further consideration, the
agencies agree that vocational vehicles
with sleeper cabs are more
appropriately classified as vocational
vehicles than as tractors. The comments
discussed above help to illustrate the
reasons for building a vocational vehicle
with a sleeper cab and the difficulties of
converting a straight truck to a tractor.
Moreover, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
requires any service organization
making such modifications to be
responsible for recertification to all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards, which should act as a further
deterrent to anyone contemplating

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

making such a conversion. Together
these two items address the agencies’
primary reason for proposing the
requirement that all vehicles with
sleeper cabs be treated as tractors—the
concern of circumvention of the tractor
standards. However, the agencies will
continue to monitor whether it appears
that the definitions are creating
unintended consequences, and may
consider revising the definitions in a
future rulemaking to address such
issues should any arise. NHTSA and
EPA have concluded that the engine and
tire improvements required in the
vocational category are appropriate for
this set of vehicles based on the typical
operation of these vehicles. The
agencies did not intend to include
vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs,
such as an Expediter vehicle, into the
tractor category in either the NPRM or
in this final action, and the agencies’
analyses at proposal reflected this
intention. Therefore the agencies did
not make any adjustments to the
program costs and benefits due to this
classification change.
In response to the third comment, the
agencies have decided to allow
manufacturers to exclude certain
vocational-type of tractors from the
combination tractor standards and
instead be subject to the vocational
vehicle standards. We discuss below the
reasoning underlying this decision, the
criteria manufacturers would use in
asserting a claim that a vocational
tractor should be reclassified as a
vocational vehicle, and the procedures
the agencies will use to accept or reject
manufacturers’ claims.
Multiple commenters (Allison
Transmission, ATA, CALSTART, Eaton,
EMA/TMA, National Solid Waste
Management Association, MEMA,
Navistar, NADA, RMA, and Volvo)
argued that the agencies’ proposed
classification failed to recognize
genuine differences between vocational
tractors, which typically operate at
lower speeds in stop-and-go city
driving, and line-haul tractors, which
typically operate at highway speeds on
interstate roadways over long distances.
Commenters argued that the proposed
tractor standards and associated tractor
GEM test cycles were derived based
primarily upon the operational
characteristics of the line-haul tractors,
and that technologies that apply to these
line-haul tractors, such as improved
aerodynamics, vehicle speed limiters
and automatic engine shutdown, as well
as engine performance for improving
emissions and fuel consumption, do not
have the same positive impact on fuel
consumption when used on tractors. In
today’s market, as mentioned by Volvo

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and ATA, we understand that
approximately 15 percent, or
approximately 15,000 to 20,000, of the
Class 7 and 8 tractors could be classified
as vocational tractors based upon the
work they perform.
The agencies agree that the overall
operation of these vocational-types of
tractors resembles other vocational
vehicles’ operation: lower average speed
and more stop and go activity than linehaul tractors. Due to their operation
style, a FTP certified engine is a better
match for these tractors than a SET
certified engine, because the FTP cycle
uses a lower average speed and more
stop and go activity than the SET cycle.
In addition, the limited high speed
operation leads to minimal
opportunities for fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions reductions due to
aerodynamic improvements.
Conversely, the additional weight of the
aerodynamic components could cause
an unintended consequence of
increasing gram per ton-mile emissions
by reducing the amount of payload the
vehicle can carry in those applications
which are weight-limited. Similarly, the
vocational tractors typically do not hotel
overnight and therefore will have little
to no benefit through the installation of
an idle reduction technology.
The agencies received several other
comments that described criteria that
could be used to distinguish between
vocational and non-vocational tractors.
Volvo suggested that a tractor could be
a vocational tractor if it meets three of
five specified features:
(1) A frame Resisting Bending
Moment (RBM) greater than or equal to
2,000,000 in-lbs per rail, or rail and
liner combination;
(2) An approach angle greater than or
equal to 20 degrees nominal design
specification, to exclude extended front
rails/bumpers for additional equipment
(e.g.—pumps, winch, front engine PTO);
(3) Ground clearance greater than or
equal to 14 inches as measured unladen
from the lowest point of any frame rail
or body mounted components,
excluding axles and suspension (for
HHD and MHD vehicles this is usually
considered as the lowest point of the
fuel tank/mounting or chassis
aerodynamic devices);
(4) A total reduction in high gear
greater than or equal to 3.00:1; and
(5) A total reduction in low gear
greater than or equal to 57:1.
The approach proposed by Volvo is
somewhat similar to the approach
NHTSA has for determining if a vehicle
is a light truck under the light vehicle
CAFE program, in which a vehicle must
either have a GVWR greater than 6,000
pounds or have 4-wheel drive, and meet

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
four of the five specified suspension
characteristics (approach angle, breakover angle, axle clearance, etc.) to be
classified as a light truck. Although we
do not believe that the criteria suggested
by Volvo are workable for all
manufacturers and all applications, we
agree that these criteria would reflect a
reasonable basis for allowing
manufacturers to reclassify their
vehicles as vocational tractors.
Two other commenters, EMA/TMA
and Navistar, suggested simply that the
manufacturer should have the burden of
establishing that a tractor is a vocational
tractor to the agencies’ reasonable
satisfaction. The commenters also
suggested some factors that could be
used to establish that a tractor is
actually a ‘‘vocational tractor’’,
including:
(1) A vehicle speed limiter set at 55
mph or less;
(2) Power take-off (PTO) controls;
(3) Extended front frame;
(4) Ground clearance greater than 14
in.;
(5) An approach angle greater than 20
degrees;
(6) Frame RBM greater than 2,000,000
in-lbs.; and
(7) A total gear reduction in low gear
greater than 57 and a total gear
reduction in top gear greater than 3.
The agencies believe that both
suggested approaches have some merit.
A rule based on specific criteria as
suggested by Volvo could help to
minimize the burden on both the
manufacturers and the agencies, as
manufacturer-written requests for
approval and agency approvals of those
requests would not be required for each
vocational tractor determination
whereas the EMA/TMA and Navistar
approach requires the opposite namely
that each manufacturer would have to
justify the determination of each
vocational tractor based upon its related
design features in a separate petition to
the agencies. Neither of the two
approaches, which are based on specific
criteria, could be used to identify all the
tractors that should be classified as
vocational tractors. An urban beverage
delivery tractor, for example, may not be
designed with any of the features
mentioned but is used in a vocational
vehicle manner. Also, the agencies were
concerned about the possibility of
manufacturers circumventing the
system by incorporating design changes
to their line-haul tractors in order to
classify them as vocational tractors
required to meet less stringent emission
and fuel consumption standards.
However, at this time the agencies do
not believe that circumventing the
system is likely, as most of these

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

vocational tractors are built to order and
will incorporate the design features
required by the customer. Manufacturer
vehicle offerings are designed or
tailored to suit the particular task of the
consumer. The vehicle transport
mission including vehicle type, gross
vehicle weight, gross combination
weight, body style and load handling
characteristics, must be considered in
the design process. Further, how the
vehicle will be utilized, including
operating cycles, operating environment
and road conditions, is another
important consideration in designing a
vehicle to accomplish a particular task.
The agencies agree that these criteria
could also be used as part of a basis for
classification. We also note that many of
these vehicles have front axle weight
ratings greater than 14,600 pounds.
Although the agencies agree that these
vocational tractors are operated
differently than line-haul tractors and
therefore fit more appropriately into the
vocational vehicle category, we need to
ensure that only tractors that are truly
vocational tractors are classified as
such. Upon further consideration of the
comments received the agencies have
decided to allow manufacturers to
exclude certain vocational-type tractors
from the combination tractor standards,
and instead be subject to the standards
for vocational vehicles. A vehicle
determined by the manufacturer to be a
HHD vocational tractor would fall into
the HHD vocational vehicle subcategory
and be regulated as a vocational vehicle.
Similarly, MHD which the manufacturer
chooses to reclassify as vocational
tractors will be regulated as a MHD
vocational vehicle. Specifically, under
the provision being finalized at 40 CFR
1037.630 and NHTSA’s regulation at 49
CFR 523.2 of today’s rules only the
following three types of vocational
tractors are eligible for reclassification
by the manufacturer:
(1) Low-roof tractors intended for
intra-city pickup and delivery, such as
those that deliver bottled beverages to
retail stores.
(2) Tractors intended for off-road
operation (including mixed service
operation), such as those with
reinforced frames and increased ground
clearance.
(3) Tractors with a GCWR over
120,000 pounds.
As adopted in 40 CFR
1037.230(a)(1)(xiii), manufacturers will
be required to group vocational tractors
into a unique family, separate from
other combination tractors and
vocational vehicles. The provision being
adopted in 40 CFR 1037.630 and 49 CFR
535.8 requires the manufacturers to
summarize in their applications their

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57137

basis for believing that the vehicles are
eligible for manufacturer reclassification
as vocational tractors. EPA and NHTSA
could ask for a more detailed
description of the basis and EPA would
deny an application for certification
where it determines the manufacturer
lacks an adequate basis for
reclassification. The manufacturer
would then have to resubmit a modified
application to certify the vehicles in
question to the tractor standards. Where
we determine that a manufacturer is not
applying this allowance in good faith,
we may require that manufacturer to
obtain preliminary approval before
using this allowance. This would mean
that a manufacturer would need to
submit its detailed records to EPA and
receive formal approval before
submitting its application for
certification. The agencies plan to
monitor how manufacturers classify
their tractor fleets and would reconsider
the issue of vocational tractor
classification in a future rulemaking if
necessary.
Because the difference between some
vocational tractors and line-haul tractors
is potentially somewhat subjective, we
are also including an annual sales limit
of 7,000 vocational tractors per
manufacturer (based on a three year
rolling average) consistent with past
production volumes of such vehicles. It
is important to note, however, that we
do not expect it to be common for
manufacturers to be able to justify
classifying 7,000 vehicles as vocational
tractors in a given model year.
Under the regulations being
promulgated in 40 CFR 1037.630 and 49
CFR 523.2, manufacturers will be
required to keep records of how they
determined that such vehicles qualify as
vocational. These records would be
more detailed than the description
submitted in the applications.
Typically, this would be a combination
of records of the design features and/or
purchasers of the vehicles. The agencies
have analyzed the design features that
reflect the special needs of these
vocational tractors in the three areas
noted above—mixed service, heavy
haul, and urban delivery. Mixed service
applications, such as construction
trucks, typically require higher ground
clearance and approach angle to
accommodate non-paved roads. In
addition, they often require frame rails
with greater resisting bending moment
(RBM) because of the terrain where they
operate.54 The mixed service
54 The agencies have found based on standard
truck specifications, that vehicles designed for
significant off-road applications, such as concrete

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

Continued

15SER2

57138

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

applications also sometimes require
higher front axle weight ratings to
accommodate extra loads and/or power
take off systems for additional
capability. Heavy haul tractors are
typically designed with frame rails with
extra strength (greater RBM) and higher
front axle weight ratings to
accommodate the heavy payloads. Often
the heavy haul tractors will also have
higher ground clearance and greater
approach angle for similar reasons as
the mixed service applications. Lastly,
heavy haul vehicles require a total gear
reduction of 57:1 or greater to provide
the torque necessary to start the vehicle
moving. Urban delivery tractors, such as
beverage haulers, have less defined
design features that reflect their
operational needs. These vehicles offer
options which include high RBM rails
and front axle weight ratings, but not all
beverage trucks are specified with these
options. The primary differentiation of
these urban delivery tractors is their
operation. For this final rulemaking, the
agencies projected the costs and benefits
of the program considering this
provision. As detailed in RIA Section
5.3.2.2.1, the agencies assumed that
approximately 20 percent of short-haul
tractors sold in 2014 model year and
beyond will be vocational tractors. As
such, these vehicles will experience
benefits reflective of a FTP-certified
engine and tire rolling resistance
improvement at the technology costs
projected in the rules for vocational
vehicles.
(1) What is the form of the Class 7 and
8 tractor CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption standards?

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

As proposed, EPA and NHTSA are
finalizing different standards for
different subcategories of these tractors
with the basis for subcategorization
being particular tractor attributes.
Attribute-based standards in general
recognize the variety of functions
performed by vehicles and engines,
which in turn can affect the kind of
technology that is available to control
emissions and reduce fuel consumption,
or its effectiveness. Attributes that
characterize differences in the design of
vehicles, as well as differences in how
the vehicles will be employed in-use,
can be key factors in evaluating
technological improvements for
pumper and logging trucks have resisting bending
moment greater than 2,100,000 lb-in. (ranging up to
3,580,000 lb-in.). The typical on highway tractors
have resisting bending moment of 1,390,000 lb-in.
An example line haul truck is the Mack Pinnacle
which has a RBM of 1,390,000 lb-in, as shown at
http://www.macktrucks.com/assets/Mack
Marketing/Specifications/CXU6124x2PinAxle
Back.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

reducing CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption. Developing an
appropriate attribute-based standard can
also avoid interfering with the ability of
the market to offer a variety of products
to meet consumer demand. There are
several examples of where the agencies
have utilized an attribute-based
standard. In addition to the example of
the light-duty 2012–16 MY vehicle rule,
in which the standards are based on the
attribute of vehicle ‘‘footprint,’’ the
existing heavy-duty highway engine
standards for criteria pollutants have for
many years been based on a vehicle
weight attribute (Light Heavy, Medium
Heavy, Heavy Heavy) with different
useful life periods, which is a similar
approach finalized for the engine GHG
and fuel consumption standards
discussed below.
Heavy-duty combination tractors are
built to move freight. The ability of a
vehicle to meet a customer’s freight
transportation requirements depends on
three major characteristics of the tractor:
the gross vehicle weight rating (which
along with gross combination weight
rating (GCWR) establishes the maximum
carrying capacity of the tractor and
trailer), cab type (sleeper cabs provide
overnight accommodations for drivers),
and the tractor roof height (to mate
tractors to trailers for the most fuelefficient configuration). Each of these
attributes impacts the baseline fuel
consumption and GHG emissions, as
well as the effectiveness of possible
technologies, like aerodynamics, and is
discussed in more detail below.
The first tractor characteristic to
consider is payload which is
determined by a tractor’s GVWR and
GCWR relative to the weight of the
tractor, trailer, fuel, driver, and
equipment. Class 7 trucks, which have
a GVWR of 26,001–33,000 pounds and
a typical GCWR of 65,000 pounds, have
a lesser payload capacity than Class 8
trucks. Class 8 trucks have a GVWR of
greater than 33,000 pounds and a
typical GCWR of greater than 80,000
pounds, the effective weight limit on the
federal highway system except in states
with preexisting higher weight limits.
Consistent with the recommendation in
the National Academy of Sciences 2010
Report to NHTSA,55 the agencies are
finalizing a load-specific fuel
consumption metric (g/ton-mile and gal/
1,000 ton-mile) where the ‘‘ton’’
represents the amount of payload.
Generally, higher payload capacity
vehicles have better specific fuel
consumption and GHG emissions than
lower payload capacity vehicles.
55 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21,
Recommendation 2–1.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Therefore, since the amount of payload
that a Class 7 vehicle can carry is less
than the Class 8 vehicle’s payload
capacity, the baseline fuel consumption
and GHG emissions performance per
ton-mile differs between the categories.
It is consequently reasonable to
distinguish between these two vehicle
categories, so that the agencies are
finalizing separate standards for Class 7
and Class 8 tractors.
The agencies are not finalizing a
single standard for both Class 7 and 8
tractors based on the payload carrying
capabilities and assumed typical
payload levels of Class 8 tractors alone,
as that would quite likely have the
perverse impact of increasing fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions. Such a single standard
would penalize Class 7 vehicles in favor
of Class 8 vehicles. However, the greater
capabilities of Class 8 tractors and their
related greater efficiency when
measured on a per ton-mile basis are
only relevant in the context of
operations where that greater capacity is
needed. For many applications such as
regional distribution, the trailer
payloads dictated by the goods being
carried are lower than the average Class
8 tractor payload. In those situations,
Class 7 tractors are more efficient than
Class 8 tractors when measured by tonmile of actual freight carried. This is
because the extra capabilities of Class 8
tractors add additional weight to
vehicles that is only beneficial in the
context of its higher capabilities. The
existing market already selects for
vehicle performance based on the
projected payloads. By setting separate
standards the agencies do not advantage
or disadvantage Class 7 or 8 tractors
relative to one another and continue to
allow trucking fleets to purchase the
vehicle most appropriate to their
business practices.
The second characteristic that affects
fuel consumption and GHG emissions is
the relationship between the tractor cab
roof height and the type of trailer used
to carry the freight. The primary trailer
types are box, flat bed, tanker, bulk
carrier, chassis, and low boys. Tractor
manufacturers sell tractors in three roof
heights—low, mid, and high. The
manufacturers do this to obtain the best
aerodynamic performance of a 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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

a high roof, mid roof, and low roof
tractor differs due to the variation in
frontal area which determines the
aerodynamic drag. For example, the
frontal area of a low roof tractor is
approximately 6 square meters, while a
high roof tractor has a frontal area of
approximately 9.8 square meters.
Therefore, as explained below, the
agencies are using the roof height of the
tractor to determine the trailer type
required to be used to demonstrate
compliance of a vehicle with the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions
standards. As with vehicle weight
classes, setting separate standards for
each tractor roof height helps ensure
that all tractors are regulated to achieve
appropriate improvements, without
inadvertently leading to increased
emissions and fuel consumption by
shifting the mix of vehicle roof heights
offered in the market away from a level
determined by market foces linked to
the actual trailers vehicles will haul inuse.
Tractor cabs typically can be divided
into two configurations—day cabs and
sleeper cabs. Line haul operations
typically require overnight
accommodations due to Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration hours of
operation requirements.56 Therefore,
some truck buyers purchase tractor cabs
with sleeping accommodations, also
known as sleeper cabs, because they do
not return to their home base nightly.
Sleeper cabs tend to have a greater
empty curb weight than day cabs due to
the larger cab volume and
accommodations, which lead to a higher
baseline fuel consumption for sleeper
cabs when compared to day cabs. In
addition, there are specific technologies,
such as extended idle reduction
technologies, which are appropriate
only for tractors which hotel—such as
sleeper cabs. To respect these
differences, the agencies are finalizing
separate standards for sleeper cabs and
day cabs.57
The agencies received comments from
industry stakeholders (EMA, Allison
Transmission, Bosch, and the HeavyDuty Fuel Efficiency Leadership Group)
and ICCT supporting the nine tractor
56 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration’s Hours-of-Service regulations put
limits in place for when and how long commercial
motor vehicle drivers may drive. They are based on
an exhaustive scientific review and are designed to
ensure truck drivers get the necessary rest to
perform safe operations. See 49 CFR part 395, and
see also http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregulations/topics/hos/index.htm (last accessed
August 8, 2010).
57 The agencies note, as discussed in the previous
section, that some day cabs and sleeper cabs will
be reclassified as vocational tractors and if so will
not be subject to the combination tractor standards.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

regulatory subcategories proposed and
did not receive any comments which
supported an alternate classification.
Thus, to account for the relevant
combinations of these attributes, the
agencies are adopting the classification
scheme proposed, segmenting
combination tractors into the following
nine regulatory subcategories:
• Class 7 Day Cab With Low Roof
• Class 7 Day Cab With Mid Roof
• Class 7 Day Cab With High Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab With Low Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab With Mid Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab With High Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab With Low Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab With Mid Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab With High Roof
Adjustable roof fairings are used
today on what the agencies consider to
be low roof tractors. The adjustable
fairings allow the operator to change the
fairing height to better match the type of
trailer that is being pulled which can
reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions during operation. As
proposed, the agencies are treating
tractors with adjustable roof fairings as
low roof tractors that will tested with
the fairing in its lowest position.
(2) What are the Final Class 7 and 8
Tractor and Engine CO2 Emissions and
Fuel Consumption Standards and Their
Timing?
In developing the final standards for
Class 7 and 8 tractors and for the
engines used in these tractors, the
agencies have evaluated the current
levels of emissions and fuel
consumption, the kinds of technologies
that could be utilized by truck and
engine manufacturers to reduce
emissions and fuel consumption from
tractors and associated engines, the
necessary lead time, the associated costs
for the industry, fuel savings for the
consumer, and the magnitude of the CO2
and fuel savings that may be achieved.
The technologies on whose performance
the final tractor standards are predicated
are improvements in aerodynamic
design, lower rolling resistance tires,
extended idle reduction technologies,
and lightweighting of the tractor. The
technologies on whose performance the
final tractor standards are predicated are
engine friction reduction, aftertreatment
optimization, and turbocompounding,
among others, as described in RIA
Chapter 2.4. The agencies’ evaluation
showed that these technologies are
available today, but have very low
application rates on current vehicles
and engines. EPA and NHTSA also
present the estimated costs and benefits
of the Class 7 and 8 combination tractor
and engine standards in Section III and
in RIA Chapter 2, explaining as well the

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57139

basis for the agencies’ conclusion not to
adopt standards which are less stringent
or more stringent.
(a) Tractor Standards
The agencies are finalizing the
following standards for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors in Table 0–1, using
the subcategorization approach that was
proposed. As explained below in
Section III, EPA has determined that
there is sufficient lead time to introduce
various tractor and engine technologies
into the fleet starting in the 2014 model
year, and is finalizing standards starting
for that model year predicated on
performance of those technologies. EPA
is finalizing more stringent tractor
standards for the 2017 model year
which reflect the CO2 emissions
reductions required for 2017 model year
engines. (As explained in Section
II.B(3)(h)(v) below, engine performance
is one of the inputs into the compliance
model, and that input will change in
2017 to reflect the 2017 MY engine
standards.) The 2017 MY vehicle
standards are not premised on tractor
manufacturers installing additional
vehicle technologies. EPA’s final
standards apply throughout the useful
life period as described in Section V. As
proposed, and as discussed further in
Section IV below, manufacturers may
generate and use credits from Class 7
and 8 combination tractors to show
compliance with the standards.
NHTSA is finalizing Class 7 and 8
tractor fuel consumption standards that
are voluntary standards in the 2014 and
2015 model years and become
mandatory beginning in the 2016 model
year, as required by the lead time within
EISA. The 2014 and 2015 model year
standards are voluntary in that
manufacturers are not subject to them
unless they opt-in to the standards.58
Manufacturers that opt in become
subject to NHTSA standards for all
regulatory categories. NHTSA is also
adopting new tractor standards for the
2017 model year which reflect
additional improvements in only the
heavy-duty engines. As proposed,
NHTSA is not implementing an in-use
compliance program for fuel
consumption because it does not
anticipate that there will be notable
deterioration of fuel consumption over
the useful life of the vehicle.
As explained more fully in Section III
and Chapter 2 of the RIA, EPA and
NHTSA are not adopting more stringent
tractor standards for 2014–2017 MY.
The final tractor standards are based on
58 Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA
program it must stay in the program for all the
optional MYs.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57140

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the maximum application rates of
available technologies considering the
available lead time, and we explain in

Section III and Chapter 2 of the RIA that
use of additional technologies, or
further application of the technologies

already mentioned would be either
infeasible in the lead time afforded, or
uneconomic.

TABLE II–1—HEAVY-DUTY COMBINATION TRACTOR EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS
Day cab
Class 7

Sleeper cab
Class 8

Class 8

2014 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
Low Roof ..............................................................................................................
Mid Roof ..............................................................................................................
High Roof .............................................................................................................

107
119
124

81
88
92

68
76
75

10.5
11.7
12.2

8.0
8.7
9.0

6.7
7.4
7.3

104
115
120

80
86
89

66
73
72

7.8
8.4
8.7

6.5
7.2
7.1

2014–2016 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile 59
Low Roof ..............................................................................................................
Mid Roof ..............................................................................................................
High Roof .............................................................................................................
2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
Low Roof ..............................................................................................................
Mid Roof ..............................................................................................................
High Roof .............................................................................................................

2017 Model Year and Later Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Low Roof ..............................................................................................................
Mid Roof ..............................................................................................................
High Roof .............................................................................................................

The standard values shown above
differ somewhat from the proposal,
reflecting refinements made to the GEM
in response to comments. For example,
the agencies received comments from
stakeholders concerned that the 2017
MY tractor standards appeared to be
backsliding because the reductions were
not in line with the reductions expected
from the 2017 MY engine standards.
The agencies reviewed the issue and
found that the engine maps we created
in the GEM for the 2017 model year for
the proposal did not appropriately
reflect the engine improvements.
Therefore, the agencies developed new
fuel maps for the GEM v2.0 which fully
reflect the engine improvements due to
the 2017 MY standards.60 These changes
to the GEM did not impact our estimates
of the relative effectiveness of the
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption improving technologies
modeled in this final action nor the
overall cost or benefits estimated for
these final vehicle standards.
Based on our analysis, the 2017 model
year standards for combination tractors
and engines represent up to a 23 percent
reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel
59 As noted above, manufacturers may voluntarily
opt-in to the NHTSA fuel consumption program in
2014 or 2015. Once a manufacturer opts into the
NHTSA program it must stay in the program for all
the optional MYs.
60 See RIA Chapter 4 for the engine fuel maps
used in GEM v2.0.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

10.2
11.3
11.8

consumption over a 2010 model year
baseline tractor (the baseline sleeper cab
does not include idle shutdown
technology), as detailed in Section
III.A.2. In considering the feasibility of
vehicles to comply with the standards,
EPA also considered the potential for
CO2 emissions to increase during the
regulatory useful life of the product. As
we discuss separately in the context of
deterioration factor (DF) testing, we
have concluded that CO2 emissions are
likely to stay the same or actually
decrease in-use compared to new
certified configurations. In general,
engine and vehicle friction decreases as
products wear in leading to reduced
parasitic losses and lower CO2
emissions. Similarly, tire rolling
resistance falls as tires wear due to the
reduction in tread height. In the case of
aerodynamic components, we project no
change in performance through the
regulatory life of the vehicle since there
is essentially no change in their
physical form as vehicles age. Similarly,
weight reduction elements such as
aluminum wheels are not projected to
increase in mass through time, and
hence, we can conclude will not
deteriorate with regard to CO2
performance in-use. Given all of these
considerations, EPA is confident in
projecting that the standards finalized
today will be technical feasible

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

throughout the regulatory useful life of
the program.
(b) Standards for Engines Installed in
Combination Tractors
EPA is adopting GHG standards and
NHTSA is adopting fuel consumption
standards for new heavy-duty engines.
This section discusses the standards for
engines used in Class 7 and 8
combination tractors and also provides
some overall background information.
We also note that the agencies are
adopting standards for heavy-duty
engines used in vocational vehicles.
However, as explained further below,
compliance with the standards would
be measured using different test
procedures, corresponding with actual
vehicle use, depending on whether the
vehicle in which the engine is installed
is a Class 7 and 8 combination tractor
or a vocational vehicle.
The heavy-duty engine standards vary
depending on the type of vehicle in
which they are installed, as well as
whether the engines are compression
ignition or spark ignition. The agencies
are adopting separate engine fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
standards for engines installed in
combination tractors versus engines
installed in vocational vehicles. Also,
for the purposes of the GHG engine
emissions and engine fuel consumption
standards, the agencies are adopting
engine subcategories that match EPA’s

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
existing criteria pollutant emissions
regulations for heavy-duty highway
engines which established four
regulatory service classes that represent
the engine’s intended and primary
vehicle application.61 The Light HeavyDuty (LHD) diesel engines are intended
for application in Class 2b through Class
5 trucks (8,501 through 19,500 pounds
GVWR). The Medium Heavy-Duty
(MHD) diesel engines are intended for
Class 6 and Class 7 trucks (19,501
through 33,000 pounds GVWR). The
Heavy Heavy-Duty (HDD) diesel engines
are primarily used in Class 8 trucks
(33,001 pounds and greater GVWR).
Lastly, spark ignition engines (primarily

gasoline-powered engines) installed in
incomplete vehicles less than 14,000
pounds GVWR and spark ignition
engines that are installed in all vehicles
(complete or incomplete) greater than
14,000 pounds GVWR are grouped into
a single engine service class. The
engines in these four regulatory service
classes range in size between
approximately five liters and sixteen
liters. This subcategory structure
enables the agencies to set standards
that appropriately reflect the technology
available for engines installed in each
type of vehicle, and that are therefore
technologically feasible for these
engines. This is the same engine

57141

classification scheme the agencies
proposed, and there were no adverse
comments in response to the proposal.
Heavy heavy-duty diesel and medium
heavy-duty diesel engines are used
today in combination tractors. The
following section refers to the engine
standards for these types of engines.
This section does not cover gasoline or
light heavy-duty diesel engines because
they are not used in combination
tractors.
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed
CO2 and fuel consumption standards for
HD diesel engines to be installed in
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors as
shown in Table II–2.62

TABLE II–2—PROPOSED HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINE STANDARDS FOR ENGINES INSTALLED IN TRACTORS
Effective 2014 model year

CO2 standard
(g/bhp-hr)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

MHD diesel engine ..........................................................................................
HHD diesel engine ...........................................................................................

The agencies proposed to require
diesel engine manufacturers to achieve,
on average, a three percent reduction in
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions for
the 2014 standards over the baseline MY
2010 performance for the engines.63 The
agencies’ preliminary assessment of the
findings of the 2010 NAS Report and
other literature sources indicated that
there are technologies available to
reduce fuel consumption by this amount
in the time frame in the lead time
provided by the rules. These
technologies include improved
turbochargers, aftertreatment
optimization, and low temperature
exhaust gas recirculation.
The agencies also proposed to require
diesel engine manufacturers to achieve,
on average, a six percent reduction in
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions for
the 2017 MY standards over the baseline
MY 2010 performance for MHD and
HHD diesel engines required to use the
SET-based standard. The agencies stated
that additional reductions could likely
be achieved through the increased
refinement of the technologies projected
to be implemented for 2014, plus the
addition of turbocompounding, which
61 See

40 CFR 86.90–2.
agencies note that the CO2 and fuel
consumption standards for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors do not cover gasoline or LHDD
engines, as those are not used in Class 7 and 8
combination tractors.
62 The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Voluntary fuel
consumption
standard
(gal/100 bhphr)

502
475

4.93
4.67

Effective 2017 Model Year

CO2 standard
(g/bhp-hr)

487
460

Fuel consumption standard
(gal/100 bhphr)
4.78
4.52

the agencies’ analysis showed would
require a longer development time and
would not be available in MY 2014. The
agencies therefore proposed to provide
additional lead time to allow for the
introduction of this additional
technology, and to wait until 2017 to
increase stringency to levels reflecting
application of this technology.
The agencies proposed that the MHD
and HHD diesel engine CO2 standards
for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors
would become effective in MY 2014 for
EPA, with more stringent CO2 standards
becoming effective in MY 2017, while
NHTSA’s fuel consumption standards
would become effective in MY 2017,
which would be both consistent with
the EISA four-year minimum lead-time
requirements and harmonized with
EPA’s timing. The agencies explained
that the three-year timing, besides being
required by EISA, made sense because
EPA’s heavy-duty highway engine
program for criteria pollutants had
begun to provide new emissions
standards for the industry in three year
increments, which had caused the
heavy-duty engine product plans to fall
largely into three year cycles reflecting

this regulatory environment. To further
harmonize with EPA, NHTSA proposed
voluntary fuel consumption standards
for MHD and HHD diesel engines that
are equivalent to EPA CO2 standards for
MYs 2014–2016, allowing
manufacturers to opt into the voluntary
standards in any of those model years.64
NHTSA proposed that manufacturers
could opt into the program by declaring
their intent to opt in to the program at
the same time they submit the PreCertification Compliance Report, and
that a manufacturer opting into the
program would begin tracking credits
and debits beginning in the model year
in which they opt into the program.
Both agencies proposed to allow
manufacturers to generate and use
credits to achieve compliance with the
HD diesel engine standards, including
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
and deficit carry-forward. The agencies
sought comment on the proposed MHD
and HHD engine standards and timing.
The agencies received comments from
EMA, Navistar, Cummins, ACEEE,
Center for Biological Diversity, Detroit
Diesel Corporation, American Lung
Association, and the Union of

63 The baseline HHD diesel engine performance in
MY 2010 on the SET is 490 g CO2/bhp-hr (4.81 gal/
100 bhp-hr), as determined from confidential data
provided by manufacturers and data submitted for
the non-GHG emissions certification process. The
baseline MHD diesel engine performance on the
SET cycle is 518 g CO2/bhp-hr (5.09 gallon/100bhp-hr) in MY 2010. Further discussion of the

derivation of the baseline can be found in Section
III.
64 Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA
program it must stay in the program for all the
optional MYs and remain standardized with the
implementation approach being used to meet the
EPA emission program.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57142

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Concerned Scientists. Comments were
divided with respect to the proposed
levels of stringency. While Cummins
and DDC expressed support for the CO2
and fuel consumption standards for
diesel engines, and EMA and Navistar
stated the standards could be met if the
flexibilities outlined in the NPRM are
finalized as proposed, Navistar also
stated that the model year 2017 standard
may not be feasible since what the
agencies characterized as existing
technologies are not in production for
all manufacturers. In contrast,
environmental groups and NGOs stated
that the standards did not reflect the
potential reductions outlined in the
2010 NAS study and should be more
stringent. CBD argued that the standards
were not set at the maximum feasible
level by definition, because the agencies
had said that they were based on the use
of existing technologies. In addition, the
Center for Neighborhood Technology
encouraged the agencies to implement
the rules as soon as possible, beginning
in the 2012 model year.
In light of the above comments, the
agencies re-evaluated the technical basis
for the heavy-duty engine standards.
The baseline HHD diesel engine
performance in 2010 model year on the
SET is estimated at 490 g CO2/bhp-hr
(4.81 gal/100 bhp-hr), based on our
analysis of confidential data provided
by manufacturers and data submitted for

the non-GHG emissions certification
process. Similarly, the baseline MHD
diesel engine performance on the SET
cycle is estimated to be 518 g CO2/bhphr (5.09 gallon/100-bhp-hr) for the 2010
model year. Further discussion of the
derivation of the baseline can be found
in Section III. The agencies believe that
the MY 2014 standards can be achieved
by most manufacturers through the use
of technologies time frame such as
improved aftertreatment systems,
friction reduction, improved auxiliaries,
turbochargers, pistons, and other
components. These standards will
require diesel engine manufacturers to
achieve on average a three percent
reduction in fuel consumption and CO2
emissions over the baseline 2010 model
year levels.
However, in recognizing that some
manufacturers have engines that would
not meet the standard even after
applying technologies that improve
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
by three percent, the agencies are
finalizing both the proposed ABT
provisions for these engines and also an
optional alternate engine standard for
2014 model year, described in more
detail below. We believe that concerns
expressed by Navistar regarding the
2014 MY standards will be addressed by
this alternative standard. The agencies
also continue to believe that the 2017
MY standards are achievable using the

above approaches and, in the case of
SET certified engines,
turbocompounding. While Navistar
commented that the 2017 MY standard
may be challenging because not all
manufacturers are presently producing
the technologies that may be required to
meet the standards, the agencies believe
that since manufacturers that may
require turbocompounding to meet the
standards will not have to do so until
2017 MY, there will be sufficient lead
time for all manufacturers to introduce
this technology. As noted above, by MY
2017 all MHD and HHD engines
installed in combination tractors should
have gone through a redesign during
which all needed technology can be
applied. We note that we are finalizing
these standards as proposed based on
the assessment that most manufacturers
(not just Navistar) will need to make
improvements to existing engine
systems in order to meet the standards.
EPA’s HD diesel engine CO2 emission
standards and NHTSA’s HD diesel
engine fuel consumption standards for
engines installed in tractors are
presented in Table II–3. As explained
above, the first set of standards take
effect with MY 2014 (mandatory
standards for EPA, voluntary standards
for NHTSA), and the second set take
effect with MY 2017 (mandatory for
both agencies).

TABLE II–3—FINAL HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINE STANDARDS FOR ENGINES INSTALLED IN TRACTORS
Effective 2014 model year

CO2 standard
(g/bhp-hr)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

MHD diesel engine ..........................................................................................
HHD diesel engine ...........................................................................................

The agencies have also decided to
remove NHTSA’s proposed PreCertification Compliance Report
requirement. Instead, manufacturers
must submit their decision to opt into
NHTSA’s voluntary standards for the
2014 through 2016 model years as part
of its certification process with EPA.
Once a manufacturer opts into the
NHTSA program it must stay in the
program for all the subsequent optional
model years. Manufacturers that opt in
become subject to NHTSA standards for
all regulatory categories. The
declaration statement must be entered
prior to or at the same time the
manufacturer submits its first
application for a certificate of
conformity. NHTSA will begin tracking

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

502
475

credits and debits beginning in the
model year in which a manufacturer
opts into its program.
Compliance with the CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption standards will be
evaluated based on the SET engine test
cycle. In the NPRM, the agencies
proposed standards based on the SET
cycle for MHD and HHD engines used
in tractors due to these engines’ primary
use in steady state operating conditions
(typified by highway cruising). Tractors
spend the majority of their operation at
steady state conditions, and will obtain
in-use benefit of technologies such as
turbocompounding and other waste heat
recovery technologies during this kind
of typical engine operation. Therefore,
the engines installed in tractors will be

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Voluntary fuel
consumption
standard
(gal/100 bhphr)
4.93
4.67

Effective 2017 model year

CO2 standard
(g/bhp-hr)

487
460

Fuel consumption standard
(gal/100 bhphr)
4.78
4.52

required to meet the standard based on
the SET, which is a steady state test
cycle.
The agencies gave full consideration
to the need for engine manufacturers to
redesign and upgrade their engines
during the MYs 2014–2017 to meet
standards, and fully considered the costeffectiveness of the standards and the
available lead time. The final two-step
CO2 emission and fuel consumption
standards recognize the opportunity for
technology improvements over the
rulemaking time frame, while reflecting
the typical engine manufacturers’
product plan cycles. Over these four
model years there will be an
opportunity for manufacturers to
evaluate almost every one of their

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57143

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
engine models and add technology in a
cost-effective way, consistent with
existing redesign schedules, to control
GHG emissions and reduce fuel
consumption. The time-frame and levels
for the standards, as well as the ability
to average, bank and trade credits and
carry a deficit forward for a limited
time, are expected to provide
manufacturers the time and flexibilities
needed to incorporate technology that
will achieve the final GHG and fuel
consumption standards within the
normal engine redesign process. This is
an important aspect of the final rules, as
it will avoid the much higher costs that
would occur if manufacturers needed to
add or change technology at times other
than these scheduled redesigns.65 This
time period will also provide
manufacturers the opportunity to plan
for compliance using a multi-year time
frame, again in alignment with their
normal business practice. Further
details on lead time, redesigns and
technical feasibility can be found in
Section III.
The agencies continue to believe the
standards for MHD and HHD diesel
engines installed in combination
tractors are the most stringent
technically feasible in the time frame
established in this regulation. The
standards will require a 3 percent
reduction in engine fuel consumption
and GHG emissions in 2014 MY based
on improvements to engine components
and aftertreatment systems. The 2017
MY standards will require a 6 percent
reduction in fuel consumption and GHG
emissions over a 2010 model year
baseline and assumes the introduction,
for some engines, of technologies such
as turbocompounding. The standards,
however, are not premised on the
introduction of technologies that are
still in development—such as Rankine

bottoming cycle—since these
approaches cannot be introduced
without further technical development
or engine re-design.66
Additional discussion on technical
feasibility is included in Section III
below and in Chapter 2 of the RIA.
The agencies recognize, however, that
the schedule of changes for the final
standards may not be the most costeffective one for all manufacturers. The
agencies also sought comment as to
whether an alternate phase-in schedule
for the HD diesel engine standards for
combination tractors should be
considered. In developing the proposal,
heavy-duty engine manufacturers stated
that the phase-in of the GHG and fuel
consumption standards should be
aligned with the On Board Diagnostic
(OBD)67 phase-in schedule, which
includes new requirements for heavyduty vehicles in the 2013 and 2016
model years. The agencies did not adopt
this suggestion in the proposal,
explaining that the credit averaging,
banking and trading provisions would
provide manufacturers with
considerable flexibility to manage their
GHG and fuel efficiency standard
compliance plans—including the phasein of the new heavy-duty OBD
requirements—but requested comment
on whether EPA and NHTSA should
provide an alternate phase-in schedules
that would more explicitly
accommodate this request in the event
that manufacturers did not agree that
the ABT provisions mitigated their
concern about the GHG/fuel
consumption standard phase-in. See 75
FR at 74178.
In response, Cummins, Engine
Manufacturers Association, and DTNA
commented that their first choice was a
delay in the OBD effective date for one
year to the 2014 model year. The

industry’s second choice was to provide
manufacturers with an optional GHG
and fuel consumption phase-in that
aligns their product development plans
with their current plans to meet the
OBD regulations for EPA and California
in the 2013 and 2016 model years.
These commenters argued that meeting
the OBD regulation in the 2013 model
year already poses a significant
challenge, and that having to meet GHG
and fuel consumption standards
beginning in 2014 could require them to
redesign and recertify their products
just one year later. They argued that
bundling design changes where possible
can reduce the burden on industry for
complying with regulations, so aligning
the introduction of the OBD, GHG, and
fuel consumption standards could help
reduce manufacturers’ burden for
product development, validation and
certification.
In order to provide additional
flexibility for manufacturers looking to
align their technology changes with
multiple regulatory requirements, the
agencies are finalizing an alternate
‘‘OBD phase-in’’ option for meeting the
standards for MHD and HHD diesel
engines installed in tractors (in addition
to engines installed in vocational
vehicles as noted below in Section II.D),
which delivers equivalent CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
reductions as the primary standards for
the engines built in the 2013 through
2017 model years, as shown in Table II–
4. The optional OBD phase-in schedule
requires that engines built in the 2013
and 2016 model years to achieve greater
reductions than the engines built in
those model years under the primary
program, but requires fewer reductions
for the engines built in the 2014 and
2015 model years.

TABLE II–4—COMPARISON OF CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR THE HHD AND MHD TRACTOR STANDARDS UNDER THE
ALTERNATIVE OBD PHASE-IN AND PRIMARY PHASE-IN

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

HHD Tractor engines

Baseline ...........................................................................
2013 MY Engine ..............................................................
2014 MY Engine ..............................................................
2015 MY Engine ..............................................................
2016 MY Engine ..............................................................
2017 MY Engine ..............................................................
Net Reductions (MMT) .....................................................
65 See 75 FR at 25467–68 for further discussion
of the negative cost implications of establishing
requirements outside of the redesign cycle.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Primary
phase-in
standard
(g/bhp-hr)

Optional
phase-in
standard
(g/bhp-hr)

490
490
475
475
475
460
....................

490
485
485
485
460
460
....................

66 See

Difference
in lifetime
CO2 engine
emissions
(MMT)

RIA Chapter 2.4.2.7.
diagnostics (OBD) is a computerbased emissions monitoring system that was first
67 On-board

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

MHD Tractor engines

—
14
¥28
¥28
42
0
0

Primary
phase-in
standard
(g/bhp-hr)

Optional
phase-in
standard
(g/bhp-hr)

518
518
502
502
502
487
....................

518
512
512
512
487
487
....................

Difference
in lifetime
CO2 engine
emissions
(MMT)
—
17
¥28
¥28
42
0
3

required in 2007 for vehicles under 14,000 pounds
(65 FR 59896, Oct. 6, 2000) and in 2010 for vehicles
over 14,000 pounds (74 FR 8310, Feb. 24, 2009).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57144

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

The technologies for the 2013 model
year optional standard include a subset
of technologies that could be used to
meet the primary 2014 model year
standard. The agencies believe this
approach is appropriate because the
shorter lead time provided for
manufacturers selecting this option
limits the technologies which can be
applied. However, in order to maintain
equivalent CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption reduction over the 2013
through 2017 model year period, it is

necessary for the 2016 model year
standard to be equal to the 2017 model
year standard, using the same
technology paths described for the
primary engine program. If a
manufacturer selects this optional
phase-in, then the engines must be
certified starting in the 2013 model year
and continue using this phase-in
through 2016 model year. That is, once
electing this compliance path,
manufacturers must adhere to it.68
Manufacturers may opt into the optional

OBD phase-in through the voluntary
NHTSA program, but must opt in in the
2013 model year and continue using
this phase-in through the 2016 model
year. Manufacturers that opt in to the
voluntary NHTSA program in 2014 and
2015 will be required to meet the
primary phase-in schedule and may not
adopt the OBD phase-in option. Table
II–5 below presents the final HD diesel
engine CO2 emission standards under
the ‘‘OBD phase-in’’ option.

TABLE II–5—OPTIONAL HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE STANDARD PHASE-IN SCHEDULE FOR TRACTOR ENGINES
MHD Diesel engine

HHD Diesel engine

512
5.03

485
4.76

487
4.78

460
4.52

Effective 2013 Through 2015 Model Year
CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) .........................................................................................................................
Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ....................................................................
Effective 2016 Model Year and Later

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) .........................................................................................................................
Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ....................................................................................................

Although the agencies believe that the
standards for the HD diesel engines
installed in combination tractors are
generally appropriate, cost-effective,
and technologically feasible in the
rulemaking time frame, we also
recognize that when regulating a
category of engines for the first time,
there will be individual products that
may deviate significantly from the
baseline level of performance, whether
because of a specific approach to criteria
pollution control, or due to engine
calibration for specific applications or
duty cycles. In the current fleet of 2010
and 2011 model year engines used in
combination tractors, NHTSA and EPA
understand that there is a relatively
small group of legacy engines that are
up to approximately 25 percent worse
than the average baseline for other
engines. For this group of legacy MHD
and HHD diesel engines installed in
tractors, when compared to the typical
performance levels of the majority of the
engines in the fleet and the fuel
consumption/GHG emissions reductions
that the majority of engines would
achieve through increased application
of technology, the same reduction from
the industry baseline may not be
possible at reasonably comparable cost
given the same amount of lead-time,
because these products may require a
total redesign in order to meet the
standards. Manufacturers of the MHD
and HHD diesel engines installed in
tractors with atypically high baseline
68 See

§ 1036.150(e).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

CO2 and fuel consumption levels may
also, in some instances, have a limited
line of engines across which to average
performance to meet the generallyapplicable standards.
To account for this possibility, the
agencies requested comment in the
NPRM on the establishment of an
optional alternative MHD and HHD
engine standard for those engines
installed in combination tractors which
would be set at 3 percent below a
manufacturer’s 2011 engine baseline
emissions and fuel consumption, or
alternatively, at 2 percent below a
manufacturer’s 2011 baseline. The
agencies also requested comment on
extending this optional standard one
year (to the 2017 MY) for a single engine
family at a 6 percent level below the
2011 baseline.69 This option would not
be available unless and until a
manufacturer had exhausted all
available credits and credit
opportunities, and engines under the
optional standard could not generate
credits.
In comments to the NPRM, Navistar
supported the alternative engine
standard, but recommended that it be
set at 2 percent below the
manufacturer’s 2011 baseline. They also
supported the extension to 2017 MY at
6 percent. Navistar provided CBI in
support of its comments. Volvo, DTNA,
environmental groups, NGOs, and the
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation opposed
the optional engine standard, arguing
69 See

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

that existing flexibilities are sufficient to
allow compliance with the standards
and that all manufacturers should be
held to the same standards.
Based on the CBI submitted by
Navistar, the agencies found that a large
majority of the HD diesel engines used
in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors
were relatively close to the average
baseline, with some above and some
below, but also that some legacy MHD
and HDD diesel engines were far enough
away from the baseline that they could
not meet the generally-applicable
standards with application of
technology that would be available for
those specific engines by 2014. The
agencies continue to believe that an
interim alternative standard is needed
for these products, and that an interim
standard reflects a legitimate difference
between products starting from different
fuel consumption/GHG emitting
baselines. As explained in the proposal,
it is legally permissible to accommodate
short term lead time constraints with
alternative standards. Commenters did
not dispute that there are legacy engine
families with significantly higher CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
baselines, and that these engines require
longer lead time to meet the principal
standards in the early model years of the
program. Although the agencies
acknowledge the view that all
manufacturers should be subject to the
same burden for meeting the primary
standards, the agencies believe that, in
the initial years of a new program,

75 FR at 74178–74179.

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
additional flexibilities should be
provided. The GHG standards and fuel
consumption standards are first-time
standards for these engines, so the
possibility of significantly different
baselines is not unexpected.70
Moreover, the agencies do not believe
that the alternative standard affords a
relative competitive advantage to the
higher emitting legacy engines: the same
level of improvement at the same cost
will be required of those tractor engines,
and in addition, by 2017 MY, those
tractor engines will be required to make
the additional improvements to meet
the same standards as other engines. We
believe that the concern expressed by
Navistar regarding the 2014 MY
standards will be addressed by this
alternative. The agencies also continue
to believe the 2017 MY standards are
achievable using the above approaches
and, in the case of MHD and HHD
engines installed in tractors,
turbocompounding. While Navistar
commented that the 2017 MY standard
may be challenging, the agencies believe
that since manufacturers which may
need to use turbocompounding to meet
the standards will not have to do so
until 2017 MY, there will be sufficient
lead time for all engine manufacturers to
introduce this technology. Thus, the
agencies are finalizing a regulatory
alternative whereby a manufacturer, for
an interim period of the 2014–2016
model years, would have the option to
comply with a unique standard based
on a three percent reduction from an
individual engine’s own 2011 model
year baseline level. Our assessment is
that this three percent reduction is
appropriate given the potential for
manufacturers to apply similar
technology packages with similar cost to
what we have estimated for the primary
program. This is similar to EPA’s
approach in the light-duty rule for
handling a certain subset of vehicles
that were deemed unable to meet the
generally-applicable GHG standards
during the 2012–2015 time frame due to
higher initial baseline conditions, and
which therefore needed alternate
standards in those model years.71
The agencies stress that this is a
temporary and limited option being
implemented to address diverse
manufacturer needs associated with
complying with this first phase of the
regulations. As codified in 40 CFR
1036.620 and 49 CFR 535.5(d), this
optional standard will be available only
for the 2014 through 2016 model years,
because we believe that manufacturers
will have had ample opportunity to
70 See
71 See

75 FR at 74178.
75 FR 25414–25419.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

make appropriate changes to bring their
product performance into line with the
rest of the industry after that time. As
proposed, the final rules require that
manufacturers making use of these
provisions for the optional standard
would need to exhaust all credits
available to this averaging set prior to
using this flexibility and would not be
able to generate emissions credits from
other engines in the same regulatory
averaging set as the engines complying
using this alternate approach.
The agencies note again that
manufacturers choosing to utilize this
option in MYs 2014–2016 will have to
make a greater relative improvement in
MY 2017 than the rest of the industry,
since they will be starting from a worse
level—for compliance purposes,
emissions from engines certified and
sold at the three percent level will be
averaged with emissions from engines
certified and sold at more stringent
levels to arrive at a weighted average
emissions for all engines in the
subcategory. Again, this option can only
be taken if all other credit opportunities
have been exhausted and the
manufacturer still cannot meet the
primary standards. If a manufacturer
chooses this option to meet the EPA
emission standards in the MY 2014–
2016, and wants to opt into the NHTSA
fuel consumption program in these
same MYs it must follow the exact path
followed under the EPA program
utilizing equivalent fuel consumption
standards. Since the NHTSA standards
are optional in 2014, manufacturers may
choose not to adopt either the
alternative engine standard or the
regular voluntary standard by not
participating in the NHTSA program in
2014 and 2015.
Some commenters argued that
manufacturers could game the standard
by establishing an artificially high 2011
baseline emission level. This could be
done, for example, by certifying an
engine with high fuel consumption and
GHG emissions that is either: (1) Not
sold in significant quantities; or (2) later
altered to emit fewer GHGs and
consume less fuel through service
changes. In order to mitigate this
possibility, the agencies are requiring
that the 2011 model year baseline must
be developed by averaging emissions
over all engines in an engine family
certified and sold for that model year so
as to prevent a manufacturer from
developing a single high GHG output
engine solely for the purpose of
establishing a high baseline. As an
alternative, if a manufacturer does not
certify all engine families in an
averaging set to the alternate standards,
then the tested configuration of the

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57145

engine certified to the alternate standard
must have the same engine
displacement and its rated power within
5 percent of the highest rated power of
the baseline tested configuration. In
addition, the tested configuration of the
engine certified to the alternate standard
must be a configuration sold to
customers. These three requirements
will prevent a manufacturer from
producing an engine with an artificially
high power rating and therefore produce
artificially low grams of CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption per brake
horsepower. In addition, the tested
configurations must have a BSFC
equivalent to or better than all other
configurations within the engine family
which will prevent a manufacturer from
creating a baseline configuration with
artificially high CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption.
(c) In-Use Standards
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies
that EPA is to adopt emissions
standards that are applicable for the
useful life of the vehicle. The in-use
standards that EPA is finalizing would
apply to individual vehicles and
engines. NHTSA is adopting an
approach which does not include in-use
standards.
EPA proposed that the in-use
standards for heavy-duty engines
installed in tractors be established by
adding an adjustment factor to the full
useful life emissions and fuel
consumption results projected in the
EPA certification process to address
measurement variability inherent in
comparing results among different
laboratories and different engines. The
agency proposed a two percent
adjustment factor and requested
comments and additional data during
the proposal to assist in developing an
appropriate factor level. The agency
received additional data during the
comment period which identified
production variability which was not
accounted for at proposal. Details on the
development of the final adjustment
factor are included in RIA Chapter 3.
Based on the data received, EPA
determined that the adjustment factor in
the final rules should be higher than the
proposed level of two percent. EPA is
finalizing a three percent adjustment
factor for the in-use standard to provide
a reasonable margin for production and
test-to-test variability that could result
in differences between the initial
emission test results and emission
results obtained during subsequent inuse testing.
We are finalizing regulatory text (in
§ 1036.150) to allow engine
manufacturers to used assigned

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57146

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

deterioration factors (DFs) without
performing their own durability
emission tests or engineering analysis.
However, the engines would still be
required to meet the standards in actual
use without regard to whether the
manufacturer used the assigned DFs.
This allowance is being adopted as an
interim provision applicable only for
this initial phase of standards.
Manufacturers will be allowed to use
an assigned additive DF of 0.0 g/bhp-hr
for CO2 emissions from any
conventional engine (i.e., an engine not
including advance or innovative
technologies). Upon request, we could
allow the assigned DF for CO2 emissions
from engines including advance or
innovative technologies, but only if we
determine that it would be consistent
with good engineering judgment. We
believe that we have enough
information about in-use CO2 emissions
from conventional engines to conclude
that they will not increase as the
engines age. However, we lack such
information about the more advanced
technologies.
EPA is also finalizing the proposed
provisions requiring that the useful life
for these engine and vehicles with
respect to GHG emissions be set equal
to the respective useful life periods for
criteria pollutants. EPA is adopting
provisions where the existing engine
useful life periods, as included in Table
II–6, be broadened to include CO2
emissions for both engines (See 40 CFR
1036.108(d)) and tractors (See 40 CFR
1037.105).

TABLE II–6—TRACTOR AND ENGINE
USEFUL LIFE PERIODS
Years

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Medium Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engines ......
Heavy Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engines ......
Class 7 Tractors .......
Class 8 Tractors .......

Miles

10

185,000

10
10
10

435,000
185,000
435,000

(3) Test Procedures and Related Issues
The agencies are finalizing a complete
set of test procedures to evaluate fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from
Class 7 and 8 tractors and the engines
installed in them. Consistent with the
proposal, the test procedures related to
the tractors are all new, while the
engine test procedures already
established were built substantially on
EPA’s current non-GHG emissions test
procedures, except as noted. This
section discusses the final simulation
model developed for demonstrating
compliance with the tractor standard
and the final engine test procedures.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(a) Vehicle Simulation Model
We are finalizing as proposed separate
engine and vehicle-based emission
standards to achieve the goal of
reducing emissions and fuel
consumption for both combination
tractors and engines. Engine
manufacturers are subject to the engine
standards while the Class 7 and 8 tractor
manufacturers are required to install
certified engines in their tractors. The
tractor manufacturer is also subject to a
separate vehicle-based standard which
utilizes a vehicle simulation model to
evaluate the impact of the tractor cab
design to determine compliance with
the tractor standard.
A simulation model, in general, uses
various inputs to characterize a
vehicle’s properties (such as weight,
aerodynamics, and rolling resistance)
and predicts how the vehicle would
behave on the road when it follows a
driving cycle (vehicle speed versus
time). On a second-by-second basis, the
model determines how much engine
power needs to be generated for the
vehicle to follow the driving cycle as
closely as possible. The engine power is
then transmitted to the wheels through
transmission, driveline, and axles to
move the vehicle according to the
driving cycle. The second-by-second
fuel consumption of the vehicle, which
corresponds to the engine power
demand to move the vehicle, is then
calculated according to a fuel
consumption map in the model. Similar
to a chassis dynamometer test, the
second-by-second fuel consumption is
aggregated over the complete drive cycle
to determine the fuel consumption of
the vehicle.
Consistent with the proposal, NHTSA
and EPA are finalizing a procedure to
evaluate fuel consumption and CO2
emissions respectively through a
simulation of whole-vehicle operation,
consistent with the NAS
recommendation to use a truck model to
evaluate truck performance.72 The EPA
developed the Greenhouse gas
Emissions Model (GEM) for the specific
purpose of this rulemaking to evaluate
truck performance. The GEM is similar
in concept to a number of vehicle
simulation tools developed by
commercial and government entities.
The model developed by the EPA and
finalized here was designed for the
express purpose of vehicle compliance
demonstration and is therefore simpler
and less configurable than similar
commercial products. This approach
gives a compact and quicker tool for
vehicle compliance without the
72 See 2010 NAS Report. Note 21,
Recommendation 8–4. Page 190.

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

overhead and costs of a more
sophisticated model. Details of the
model are included in Chapter 4 of the
RIA. The agencies are aware of several
other simulation tools developed by
universities and private companies.
Tools such as Argonne National
Laboratory’s Autonomie, Gamma
Technologies’ GT–Drive, AVL’s
CRUISE, Ricardo’s VSIM, Dassault’s
DYMOLA, and University of Michigan’s
HE–VESIM codes are publicly available.
In addition, manufacturers of engines,
vehicles, and trucks often have their
own in-house simulation tools. The
agencies sought comments regarding
other software packages which would
better serve the compliance purposes of
the rules than the GEM, but did not
receive any recommendations.
The GEM is designed to focus on the
inputs most closely associated with fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions—i.e.,
on those which have the largest impacts
such as aerodynamics, rolling
resistance, weight, and others.
EPA has validated the GEM based on
the chassis test results from two
combination tractors tested at
Southwest Research Institute. The
validation work conducted on this
vehicle was representative of the other
Class 7 and 8 tractors. Many aspects of
one tractor configuration (such as the
engine, transmission, axle configuration,
tire sizes, and control systems) are
similar to those used on the
manufacturer’s sister models. For
example, the powertrain configuration
of a sleeper cab with any roof height is
similar to the one used on a day cab
with any roof height. Overall, the GEM
predicted the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions within 2 percent of the
chassis test procedure results for three
test cycles—the California ARB
Transient cycle, 65 mph cruise cycle,
and 55 mph cruise cycle. These cycles
are the ones the agencies are utilizing in
compliance testing. Since the time of
the proposal, the EPA also conducted a
validation of the GEM relative to a
commonly used vehicle simulation
software, GT–Power. The results of this
validation found that the two software
programs predicted the fuel efficiency of
each subcategory of tractor to be within
2 percent. Test to test variation for
heavy-duty vehicle chassis testing can
be higher than 4 percent due to driver
variation alone. The final simulation
model is described in greater detail in
Chapter 4 of the RIA and is available for
download by at (http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/climate/regulations.htm).
After proposal, the agencies
conducted a peer review of GEM version
1.0 which was proposed. In addition,
we requested comment on all aspects of

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57147

this approach to compliance
determination in general and to the use
of the GEM in particular. The agencies
received comments from stakeholders
and made changes for the release of
GEM v2.0 to address concerns raised in
the comments, along with the comments
received during the peer review process.
The most noticeable changes to the GEM
include improvements to the graphical
user interface (GUI). In response to
comments, the agencies have reduced
the amount of information required in
the Identification section; linked the
inputs to the selected subcategory while
graying-out the items that are not
applicable to the subcategory; and
added batch modeling capability to
reduce the compliance burden to
manufacturers. In addition, substantial
work went into model validations and
benchmarking against vehicle test data
and other commonly used vehicle
simulation models.
The model also includes a new driver
model, a simplified electric system
model, and revised engine fuel maps to
better reflect the 2017 model year
engine standards. The model in the final

rulemaking uses the targeted vehicle
driving speed to estimate vehicle torque
demand at any given time, and then the
power required to drive the vehicle is
derived to estimate the required
accelerator and braking pedal positions.
If the driver misses the vehicle speed
target, a speed correction logic
controlled by a PID controller is applied
to adjust necessary accelerator and
braking pedal positions in order to
match targeted vehicle speed at every
simulation time step. The enhanced
driver model used in the final
rulemaking with its feed-forward driver
controls more realistically models
driving behavior. The GEM v1.0, the
proposed version of the model, had four
individual components to model the
electric system—starter, electrical
energy system, alternator, and electrical
accessory. For the final rulemaking, the
GEM v2.0 has a single electric system
model with a constant power
consumption level. Based on comments
received, the agencies revisited the 2017
model year proposed fuel maps,
specifically the low load area, which
was extrapolated during the proposal

and (incorrectly) generated negative
improvements. The agencies
redeveloped the fuel maps for the final
rulemaking to better predict the fuel
consumption of engines in this area of
the fuel consumption map. Details of
the changes are included in RIA Chapter
4.
To demonstrate compliance, a Class 7
and 8 tractor manufacturer will measure
the performance of specified tractor
systems (such as aerodynamics and tire
rolling resistance), input the values into
the GEM, and compare the model’s
output to the standard. The rules require
that a tractor manufacturer provide the
inputs for each of following factors for
each of the tractors it wishes to certify
under CO2 standards and for
establishing fuel consumption values:
Coefficient of Drag, Tire Rolling
Resistance Coefficient, Weight
Reduction, Vehicle Speed Limiter, and
Extended Idle Reduction Technology.
These are the technologies on which the
agencies’ own feasibility analysis for
these vehicles is predicated. An
example of the GEM input screen is
included in Figure II–1.

For the aerodynamic assessment, tire
rolling resistance, and tractor weight

reduction, the input values for the
simulation model will be determined by

the manufacturer through conducting
tests using the test procedures finalized

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.001

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57148

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

by the agencies in this action and
described below. The agencies are
allowing several testing alternatives for
aerodynamic assessment referenced
back to a coastdown test procedure, a
single procedure for determination of
the coefficient of rolling resistance
(CRR) for tires, and a prescribed method
to determine tractor weight reduction.
The agencies have finalized defined
model inputs for determining vehicle
speed limiter and extended idle
reduction technology benefits. The other
aspects of vehicle performance are fixed
within the model as defined by the
agencies and are not varied for the
purpose of compliance.
(b) Metric
Test metrics which are quantifiable
and meaningful are critical for a
regulatory program. The CO2 and fuel
consumption metric should reflect what
we wish to control (CO2 or fuel
consumption) relative to the clearest
value of its use: in this case, carrying
freight. It should encourage efficiency
improvements that will lead to
reductions in emissions and fuel
consumption during real world
operation. The agencies are finalizing
standards for Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors that would be expressed in
terms of moving a ton (2,000 pounds) of
freight over one mile. Thus, NHTSA’s
final fuel consumption standards for
these trucks would be represented as
gallons of fuel used to move one ton of
freight 1,000 miles, or gal/1,000 tonmile. EPA’s final CO2 vehicle standards
would be represented as grams of CO2
per ton-mile. The model converts CO2
emissions to fuel consumption using the
CO2 grams per ton mile estimated by
GEM and an assumed 10,180 grams of
CO2 per gallon of diesel fuel.
This approach tracks the
recommendations of the NAS report.
The NAS panel concluded, in their
report, that a load-specific fuel
consumption metric is appropriate for
HD trucks. The panel spent considerable
time explaining the advantages of and
recommending a load-specific fuel
consumption approach to regulating the
fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks. See
NAS Report pages 20 through 28. The
panel first points out that the nonlinear
relationship between fuel economy and
fuel consumption has led consumers of
light-duty vehicles to have difficulty in
judging the benefits of replacing the
most inefficient vehicles. The panel
describes an example where a light-duty
vehicle can save the same 107 gallons
per year (assuming 12,000 miles
travelled per year) by improving one
vehicle’s fuel efficiency from 14 to 16
mpg or improving another vehicle’s fuel

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

efficiency from 35 to 50.8 mpg. The use
of miles per gallon leads consumers to
undervalue the importance of small mpg
improvements in vehicles with lower
fuel economy. Therefore, the NAS panel
recommends the use of a fuel
consumption metric over a fuel
economy metric. The panel also
describes the primary purpose of most
heavy-duty vehicles as moving freight or
passengers (the payload). Therefore,
they concluded that the most
appropriate way to represent an
attribute-based fuel consumption metric
is to normalize the fuel consumption to
the payload.
With the approach to compliance
NHTSA and EPA are adopting, a default
payload is specified for each of the
tractor categories suggesting that a gram
per mile metric with a specified payload
and a gram per ton-mile metric would
be effectively equivalent. The primary
difference between the metrics and
approaches relates to our treatment of
mass reductions as a means to reduce
fuel consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions. In the case of a gram per mile
metric, mass reductions are reflected
only in the calculation of the work
necessary to move the vehicle mass
through the drive cycle. As such it
directly reduces the gram emissions in
the numerator since a vehicle with less
mass will require less energy to move
through the drive cycle leading to lower
CO2 emissions. In the case of Class 7
and 8 tractors and our gram/ton-mile
metric, reductions in mass are reflected
both in less mass moved through the
drive cycle (the numerator) and greater
payload (the denominator). We adjust
the payload based on vehicle mass
reductions because we estimate that
approximately one third of the time the
amount of freight loaded in a trailer is
limited not by volume in the trailer but
by the total gross vehicle weight rating
of the tractor. By reducing the mass of
the tractor the mass of the freight loaded
in the vehicle can go up. Based on this
general approach, it can be estimated
that for every 1,200 pounds in mass
reduction across all Class 7 and 8
tractors on the road, that total vehicle
miles traveled, and therefore trucks on
the road, could be reduced by one
percent. Without the use of a per 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 vehicle. There was strong
consensus in the public comments for
adopting the proposed metrics for
tractors.

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(c) Vehicle Aerodynamic Assessment
The aerodynamic drag of a vehicle is
determined by the vehicle’s coefficient
of drag (Cd), frontal area, air density and
speed. As noted in the NPRM,
quantifying truck aerodynamics as an
input to the GEM presents technical
challenges because of the proliferation
of vehicle configurations, the lack of a
clearly preferable standardized test
method, and subtle variations in
measured aerodynamic values among
various test procedures. Class 7 and 8
tractor aerodynamics are currently
developed by manufacturers using a
range of techniques, including wind
tunnel testing, computational fluid
dynamics, and constant speed tests.
Consistent with our discussion at
proposal, we believe a broad approach
allowing manufacturers to use these
multiple different test procedures to
demonstrate aerodynamic performance
of its tractor fleet is appropriate given
that no single test procedure is superior
in all aspects to other approaches.
Allowing manufacturers to use multiple
test procedures and modeling coupled
with good engineering judgment to
determine aerodynamic performance is
consistent with the current approach
used in determining representative road
load forces for light-duty vehicle testing
(40 CFR 86.129–00(e)(1)). However, we
also recognize the need for consistency
and a level playing field in evaluating
aerodynamic performance.
The agencies are retaining an
aerodynamic bin structure for the final
rulemaking, but are adjusting the
method used to determine the bins. To
address the consistency and level
playing field concerns, NHTSA and EPA
proposed that manufacturers use a twopart screening approach for determining
the aerodynamic inputs to the GEM. The
first part would have required the
manufacturers to assign each vehicle
aerodynamic configuration based on
descriptions of vehicle characteristics to
one of five aerodynamics bins created
by EPA and NHTSA. The proposed
assignment by bin would have fixed (by
rule) the aerodynamic characteristics of
the vehicle. However, the agencies,
while working with industry, concluded
for the final rulemaking that an
approach which identified a reference
aerodynamic test method and a
procedure to align results from other
aerodynamic test procedures with the
reference method is a simpler, more
accurate approach than deciphering and
interpreting written descriptions of
aerodynamic components.
Therefore, we are finalizing an
approach, as described in Section
V.B.3.d and § 1037.501, which uses an

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
enhanced coastdown procedure as a
reference method and defines a process
for manufacturers to align drag results
from each of their own test methods to
the reference method results.
Manufacturers will be able to use any
aerodynamic evaluation method in
demonstrating a vehicle’s aerodynamic
performance as long as the method is
aligned to the reference method. The
results from the aerodynamic testing
will be the single determining factor for
aerodynamic bin assignments.
EPA and NHTSA recognize that wind
conditions, most notably wind
direction, have a greater impact on real
world CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of heavy-duty trucks than
of light-duty vehicles. As noted in the
NAS report,73 the wind average drag
coefficient is about 15 percent higher
than the zero degree coefficient of drag.
In addition, the agencies received
comments that supported the use of
wind averaged drag results for the
aerodynamic determination. The
agencies considered finalizing the use of
a wind averaged drag coefficient in this
regulatory program, but ultimately
decided to finalize drag values which
represent zero yaw (i.e., representing
wind from directly in front of the
vehicle, not from the side) instead. We
are taking this approach recognizing
that the reference method is coastdown
testing which is not capable of
determining wind averaged yaw. Wind
tunnels are currently the only tool
which can accurately assess the
influence of wind speed and direction
on a vehicle’s aerodynamic
performance. The agencies recognize, as
NAS did, that the results of using the
zero yaw approach may result in fuel
consumption predictions that are offset
slightly from real world performance
levels, not unlike the offset we see today
between fuel economy test results in the
CAFE program and actual fuel economy
performance observed in-use. We
believe this approach will not impact
overall technology effectiveness or
change the kinds of technology
decisions made by the tractor
manufacturers in developing equipment
to meet our final standards. However,
the agencies are adopting provisions
which allow manufacturers to generate
credits reflecting performance of
technologies which improve the
aerodynamic performance in crosswind
conditions, similar to those experienced
by vehicles in use through innovative
technologies, as described in Section IV.
As just noted, the agencies are
adopting an approach for this final
73 See

2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Finding 2–4 on

page 39.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

action where the manufacturer would
determine a tractor’s aerodynamic drag
force using their own aerodynamic
assessment tools and correlating the
results back to the reference
aerodynamic test method of enhanced
coastdown testing. The manufacturer
determines the appropriate predefined
aerodynamic bin based on the correlated
test results and then inputs the
predefined Cd value for that
aerodynamic bin into the GEM.
Coefficient of drag and frontal area of
the tractor-trailer combination go handin-hand to determine the force required
to overcome aerodynamic drag. The
agencies proposed that the Cd value
would be a GEM input derived by the
manufacturer and that the agencies
would specify the vehicle’s frontal area
for each regulatory subcategory. The
agencies sought and received comment
recommending an alternate approach
where the aerodynamic input tables (as
shown in Table 0–7 and Table 0–8)
represent the drag force as defined as Cd
multiplied by the frontal area. Because
both approaches are essentially
equivalent and the use of CdA more
directly relates back to the aerodynamic
testing, the agencies are finalizing the
use of CdA as recommended by
manufacturers.
The agencies are finalizing
aerodynamic technology bins which
divide the wide spectrum of tractor
aerodynamics into five bins (i.e.,
categories) for high roof tractors. The
first high roof category, Bin I, is
designed to represent tractor bodies
which prioritize appearance or special
duty capabilities over aerodynamics.
These Bin I trucks incorporate few, if
any, aerodynamic features and may
have several features which detract from
aerodynamics, such as bug deflectors,
custom sunshades, B-pillar exhaust
stacks, and others. The second high roof
aerodynamics category is Bin II which
roughly represents the aerodynamic
performance of the average new tractor
sold today. The agencies developed this
bin to incorporate conventional tractors
which capitalize on a generally
aerodynamic shape and avoid classic
features which increase drag. High roof
tractors within Bin III build on the basic
aerodynamics of Bin II tractors with
added components to reduce drag in the
most significant areas on the tractor,
such as integral roof fairings, side
extending gap reducers, fuel tank
fairings, and streamlined grill/hood/
mirrors/bumpers, similar to SmartWay
trucks today. The Bin IV aerodynamic
category for high roof tractors builds
upon the Bin III tractor body with
additional aerodynamic treatments such

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57149

as underbody airflow treatment, down
exhaust, and lowered ride height,
among other technologies. And finally,
Bin V tractors incorporate advanced
technologies which are currently in the
prototype stage of development, such as
advanced gap reduction, rearview
cameras to replace mirrors, wheel
system streamlining, and advanced
body designs.
The agencies had proposed five
aerodynamic bins for each tractor
regulatory subcategory. The agencies
received comments from ATA, EMA/
TMA, and Volvo indicating that this
approach was not consistent with the
aerodynamics of low and mid roof
tractors. High roof tractors are
consistently paired with box trailer
designs, and therefore manufacturers
can design the tractor aerodynamics as
a tractor-trailer unit and target specific
areas like the gap between the tractor
and trailer. In addition, the high roof
tractors tend to spend more time at high
speed operation which increases the
impact of aerodynamics on fuel
consumption and GHG emissions. On
the other hand, low and mid roof
tractors are designed to pull variable
trailer loads and shapes. They may pull
trailers such as flat bed, low boy,
tankers, or bulk carriers. The loads on
flat bed trailers can range from
rectangular cartons with tarps, to a
single roll of steel, to a front loader. Due
to these variables, manufacturers do not
design unique low and mid roof tractor
aerodynamics but instead use
derivatives from their high roof tractor
designs. The aerodynamic
improvements to the bumper, hood,
windshield, mirrors, and doors are
developed for the high roof tractor
application and then carried over into
the low and mid roof applications. As
mentioned above, the types of designs
that would move high roof tractors from
a Bin III to Bins IV and V include
features such as gap reducers and
integral roof fairings which would not
be appropriate on low and mid roof
tractors. The agencies considered and
largely agree with these comments and
are therefore finalizing only two
aerodynamic bins for low and mid roof
tractors. The agencies are reducing the
number of bins to reflect the actual
range of aerodynamic technologies
effective in low and mid roof tractor
applications. Thus, the agencies are
differentiating the aerodynamic
performance for low and mid roof
applications into two bins—
conventional and aerodynamic.74
74 As explained in Section IV, there are no ABT
implications to this change from proposal, since all

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

Continued

15SER2

57150

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

For high roof combination tractor
compliance determination, a
manufacturer would use the
aerodynamic results determined
through testing to establish the
appropriate bin. The manufacturer
would then input into GEM the Cd
value specified for each bin as defined
in Table II–7 and Table II–8. For

example, if a manufacturer tests a Class
8 sleeper cab high roof tractor and the
test produces a CdA value between 5.8
and 6.6, the manufacturer would assign
this tractor to the Class 8 Sleeper Cab
High Roof Bin III. The manufacturer
would then use the Cd value identified
for Bin III of 0.60 as the input to GEM.

The Cd values in Table II–7 and Table
II–8 differ from proposal based on a
change in the reference method
(enhanced coastdown procedure) and
additional testing conducted by EPA.
Details of the test program and results
are included in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.4.

TABLE II–7—AERODYNAMIC INPUT DEFINITIONS TO GEM FOR HIGH ROOF TRACTORS
Class 7

Class 8

Day cab

Day cab

Sleeper cab

High roof

High roof

High roof≤

Aerodynamic Test Results (CdA in m2)
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin

I ..........................................................................................................................................................
II .........................................................................................................................................................
III ........................................................................................................................................................
IV .......................................................................................................................................................
V ........................................................................................................................................................

≥ 8.0
7.1–7.9
6.2–7.0
5.6–6.1
≤ 5.5

≥ 8.0
7.1–7.9
6.2–7.0
5.6–6.1
≤ 5.5

≥ 7.6
6.7–7.5
5.8–6.6
5.2–5.7
≤ 5.1

0.79
0.72
0.63
0.56
0.51

0.79
0.72
0.63
0.56
0.51

0.75
0.68
0.60
0.52
0.47

Aerodynamic Input to GEM (Cd)
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin

I ..........................................................................................................................................................
II .........................................................................................................................................................
III ........................................................................................................................................................
IV .......................................................................................................................................................
V ........................................................................................................................................................

The CdA values in Table II–8 are
based on testing using the enhanced
coastdown test procedures adopted for
the final rulemaking, which includes
aerodynamic assessment of the low and
mid roof tractors without a trailer. The
removal of the trailer significantly

reduces the CdA value of mid roof
tractors with tanker trailers because of
the poor aerodynamic performance of
the tanker trailer. The agencies
developed the Cd input for each of the
low and mid roof tractor bins to
represent the Cd of the tractor, its

frontal area, and the impact of the Cd
value due to the trailer such that the
GEM value is representative of a tractortrailer combination, as it is for the high
roof tractors.

TABLE II–8—AERODYNAMIC INPUT DEFINITIONS TO GEM FOR LOW AND MID ROOF TRACTORS
Class 7

Class 8

Day Cab
Low Roof

Day Cab
Mid Roof

Low Roof

Mid Roof

Aerodynamic Test Results (CdA in m2)
Bin I ..................................................................................
Bin II .................................................................................

≥ 5.1
≤ 5.0

≥ 5.6
≤ 5.5

≥ 5.1
≤ 5.0

≥ 5.6
≤ 5.5

≥ 5.1
≤ 5.0

≥ 5.6
≤ 5.5

0.77
0.71

0.87
0.82

0.77
0.71

0.87
0.82

Aerodynamic Input to GEM (Cd)
Bin I ..................................................................................
Bin II .................................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(d) Tire Rolling Resistance Assessment
NHTSA and EPA are finalizing as
proposed that the tractor’s tire rolling
resistance input to the GEM be
determined by either the tire
Class 8 combination tractors are considered to be
a single averaging set for ABT purposes. Similarly,
all Class 7 tractors are considered to be a single
averaging set for ABT purposes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

0.77
0.71

0.87
0.82

manufacturer or tractor manufacturer
using the test method adopted by the
International Organization for
Standardization, ISO 28580:2009.75 The
agencies believe the ISO test procedure

is appropriate for this program because
the procedure is the same one used by
NHTSA in its fuel efficiency tire
labeling program 76 and is consistent
with the testing direction being taken by

75 ISO, 2009, Passenger Car, Truck, and Bus
Tyres—Methods of Measuring Rolling Resistance—
Single Point Test and Correlation of Measurement
Results: ISO 28580:2009(E), First Edition, 2009–07–
01

76 NHTSA, 2009. ‘‘NHTSA Tire Fuel Efficiency
Consumer Information Program Development:
Phase 1—Evaluation of Laboratory Test Protocols.’’
DOT HS 811 119. June. (http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID: NHTSA–2008–0121–0019).

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the tire industry both in the United
States and Europe. The rolling
resistance from this test would be used
to specify the rolling resistance of each
tire on the steer and drive axle of the
tractor. The results would be expressed
as a rolling resistance coefficient (CRR)
and measured as kilogram per metric
ton (kg/metric ton). The agencies are
finalizing as proposed that three tire
samples within each tire model be
tested three times each to account for
some of the production variability and
the average of the nine tests would be
the rolling resistance coefficient for the
tire. The GEM will use the steer and
drive tire rolling resistance inputs and
distribute 15 percent of the gross weight
of the tractor and trailer to the steer
axle, 42.5 percent to the drive axles, and
42.5 percent to the trailer axles.77 The
trailer tires’ rolling resistance is
prescribed by the agencies as part of the
standardized trailer used for
demonstrating compliance at 6 kg/
metric ton, which was the average
trailer tire rolling resistance measured
during the SmartWay tire testing.78
EPA and NHTSA conducted
additional evaluation testing on HD
trucks tires used for tractors, and also
for vocational vehicles. The agencies
also received several comments on the
suitability of low rolling resistance tires
for various HD vehicle applications. The
summary of the agencies’ findings and
a response to issues raised by
commenters is presented in Section
II.D(1)(a).

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(e) Weight Reduction Assessment
The agencies proposed that the tractor
standards reflect improved CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
performance of a 400 pound weight
reduction in Class 7 and 8 tractors
through the substitution of single wide
tires and light-weight wheels for dual
tires and steel wheels. This approach
was taken since there is a large variation
in the baseline weight among trucks that
perform roughly similar functions with
roughly similar configurations. Because
of this, the only effective way to
quantify the exact CO2 and fuel
consumption benefit of mass reduction
using GEM is to estimate baseline
weights for specific components that
can be replaced with light weight
77 This distribution is equivalent to the federal
over-axle weight limits for an 80,000 GVWR 5-axle
tractor-trailer: 12,000 pounds over the steer axle,
34,000 pounds over the tandem drive axles (17,000
pounds per axle) and 34,000 pounds over the
tandem trailer axles (17,000 pounds per axle).
78 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
SmartWay Transport Partnership July 2010 eupdate accessed July 16, 2010, from http://
www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/
documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

components. If the weight reduction is
specified for light weight versions of
specific components, then both the
baseline and weight differentials for
these are readily quantifiable and wellunderstood. Lightweight wheels are
commercially available as are single
wide tires and thus data on the weight
reductions attributable to these two
approaches are readily available.
The agencies received comments on
this approach from Volvo, ATA, MEMA,
Navistar, American Chemistry Council,
the Auto Policy Center, Iron and Steel
Institute, Arvin Meritor, Aluminum
Association, and environmental groups
and NGOs. Volvo and ATA stated that
not all fleets can use single wide tires
and if this is the case the 400 pound
weight reduction target cannot be met.
Volvo stated that without the use of
single wide drive tires, a 6x4 tractor will
have a maximum weight reduction of
300 pounds if the customer selects all
ten wheels to be outfitted with light
weight aluminum wheels. A number of
additional commenters—including
American Chemistry Council, The Auto
Policy Center, Iron and Steel Institute,
Aluminum Association, Arvin Meritor,
MEMA, Navistar, Volvo, and
environmental and nonprofit groups—
stated that manufacturers should be
allowed to use additional light weight
components in order to meet the tractor
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
standards. These groups stated that
weight reductions should not be limited
to wheels and tires. They asked that cab
doors, cab sides and backs, cab
underbodies, frame rails, cross
members, clutch housings, transmission
cases, axle differential carrier cases,
brake drums, and other components be
allowed to be replaced with light-weight
versions. Materials suggested for
substitution included aluminum, lightweight aluminum, high strength steel,
and plastic composites. The American
Iron and Steel Institute stated there are
opportunities to reduce mass by
replacing mild steel—which currently
dominates the heavy-duty industry—
with high strength steel.
In addition, The American Auto
Policy Center asked that manufacturers
be allowed to use materials other than
aluminum and high strength steel to
comply with the regulations. DTNA
asked that weight reduction due to
engine downsizing be allowed to receive
credit. Volvo requested that weight
reductions due to changes in axle
configuration be credited. They used the
example of a customer selecting a 4 X
2 over a 6 X 4 axle tractor. In this case,
they assert there would be a 1,000
pound weight savings from removing an
axle.

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57151

As proposed, many of the material
substitutions could have been
considered as innovative technologies
for tractors and hence eligible for off
cycle credits (so that the commenters
overstated that these technologies were
‘disallowed’). Nonetheless in response
to the above summarized comments, the
agencies evaluated whether additional
materials and components could be
used directly for compliance with the
tractor weight reduction through the
primary program (i.e. be available as
direct inputs to the GEM). The agencies
reviewed comments and data received
in response to the NPRM and additional
studies cited by commenters. A
summary of this review is provided in
the following paragraphs.
TIAX, in their report to the NAS, cited
information from Alcoa identifying
several mass reduction opportunities
from material substitution in the tractor
cab components which were similar to
the ones identified by the Aluminum
Association in their comments to this
rulemaking.79 TIAX included studies
submitted by Alcoa showing the
potential to reduce the weight of a
tractor-trailer combination by 3,500 to
4,500 pounds.80 In addition, the U.S.
Department of Energy has several
projects underway to improve the
freight efficiency of Class 8 trucks
which provide relevant data: 81 DOE
reviewed prospective lightweighting
alternative materials and found that
aluminum has a potential to reduce
mass by 40 to 60 percent, which is in
line with the estimates of mass
reductions of various components
provided by Alcoa, and by the
Aluminum Association in their
comments and as cited in the TIAX
report. These combined studies,
comments, and additional data provided
information on specific components that
could be replaced with aluminum
components.
With regard to high strength steel, the
Iron and Steel Institute found that the
use of high strength steel and redesign
can reduce the weight of light-duty
trucks by 25 percent.82 Approximately
79 TIAX, LLC. ‘‘Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles,’’ Final Report to National Academy of
Sciences, November 19, 2009. Pages 4–62 through
4–64.
80 Alcoa. ‘‘Improving Sustainability of Transport:
Aluminum is Part of the Solution.’’ 2009.
81 Schutte, Carol. U.S. Department of Energy,
Vehicle Technologies Program. ‘‘Losing Weight—an
enabler for a Systems Level Technology
Development, Integration, and Demonstration for
Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and
Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty
Vehicles.’’
82 American Iron and Steel Institute. ‘‘A Cost
Benefit Analysis Report to the North American

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

Continued

15SER2

57152

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

10 percent of this reduction results from
material substitution and 15 percent
from vehicle re-design. While this study
evaluated light-duty trucks, the agencies
believe that a similar reduction could be
achieved in heavy-duty trucks since the
reductions from material substitution
would likely be similar in heavy-trucks
as in light-trucks. U.S. DOE, in the
report noted above, identified
opportunities to reduce mass by 10
percent through high strength steel.83
This study was also for light-duty
vehicles.
The agencies considered other
materials such as plastic composites and
magnesium substitutes but were not
able to obtain weights for specific
components made from these materials.
We have therefore not included
components made from these materials
as possible substitutes in the primary
program, but they may be considered
through the innovative technology/offcycle credits provision. We may
consider including these materials as
part of the primary compliance option
in a subsequent regulation if data
become available.
Based on this analysis, the agencies
developed an expanded list of weight
reduction opportunities for the final
rulemaking that may be reflected in the
GEM, as listed in Table II–9. The list
includes additional components, but not
materials, from those proposed. For high
strength steel, the weight reduction
value is equal to 10 percent of the
presumed baseline component weight,
as the agencies used a conservative
value based on the DOE report. We

recognize that there may be additional
potential for weight reduction in new
high strength steel components which
combine the reduction due to the
material substitution along with
improvements in redesign, as evidenced
by the studies done for light-duty
vehicles. In the development of the high
strength steel component weights, we
are only assuming a reduction from
material substitution and no weight
reduction from redesign, since we do
not have any data specific to redesign of
heavy-duty components nor do we have
a regulatory mechanism to differentiate
between material substitution and
improved design. We are finalizing for
wheels that both aluminum and light
weight aluminum are eligible to be used
as light-weight materials. Aluminum,
but not light-weight aluminum, can be
used as a light-weight material for other
components. The reason for this is that
data were available for light weight
aluminum for wheels but were not
available for other components.
The agencies received comments on
the proposal from the American
Chemistry Council highlighting the role
of plastics and composites in heavyduty vehicles. As they stated,
composites can be low density while
having high strength and are currently
used in applications such as oil pans
and buses. The DOE mass reduction
program demonstrated for heavy
vehicles proof of concept designs for
hybrid composite doors with an overall
mass savings of 40 percent; 30 percent
mass reduction of a hood system with
carbon fiber sheet molding compound;

50 percent mass reduction from
composite tie rods, trailing arms, and
axles; and superplastically formed
aluminum body panels.84 While the
agencies recognize these opportunities,
we do not believe the technologies have
advanced far enough to quantify the
benefits of these materials because they
are very dependent on the actual
composite material. The agencies may
consider such lightweighting
opportunities in future actions, but are
not including them as part of this
primary program. Manufacturers which
opt to pursue composite and plastic
material substitutions may seek credits
through the innovative technology
provisions.
With regard to Volvo’s request that
manufacturers be allowed to receive
credit for trucks with fewer axles, the
agencies recognize that vehicle options
exist today which have less mass than
other options. However, we believe the
decisions to add or subtract such
components will be made based on the
intended use of the vehicle and not
based on a crediting for the mass
difference in our compliance program. It
is not our intention to create a tradeoff
between the right vehicle to serve a
need (e.g. one with more or fewer axles)
and compliance with our final
standards. Therefore, we are not
including provisions to credit (or
penalize) vehicle performance based on
the subtraction (or addition) of specific
vehicle components. Table II–9 provides
weight reduction values for different
components and materials.

TABLE II–9—WEIGHT REDUCTION VALUES
Weight reduction technology

Weight reduction (lb per tire/
wheel)

Single Wide Drive Tire with:
Steel Wheel ......................................................................................................................................................
Aluminum Wheel ..............................................................................................................................................
Light Weight Aluminum Wheel .........................................................................................................................
Steer Tire or Dual Wide Drive Tire with:
High Strength Steel Wheel ...............................................................................................................................
Aluminum Wheel ..............................................................................................................................................
Light Weight Aluminum Wheel .........................................................................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Weight reduction technologies

Door .........................................................................................................................................................................
Roof .........................................................................................................................................................................
Cab rear wall ...........................................................................................................................................................
Cab floor ..................................................................................................................................................................
Hood Support Structure ...........................................................................................................................................
Steel Industry on Improved Materials and
Powertrain Architectures for 21st Century Trucks.’’
83 Schutte, Carol. U.S. Department of Energy,
Vehicle Technologies Program. ‘‘Losing Weight—an
enabler for a Systems Level Technology
Development, Integration, and Demonstration for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and
Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty
Vehicles’’.
84 Schutte, Carol. U.S. Department of Energy,
Vehicle Technologies Program. ‘‘Losing Weight—an
enabler for a Systems Level Technology

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

84
139
147
8
21
30
Aluminum
weight
reduction (lb.)

High strength
steel weight
reduction (lb.)

20
60
49
56
15

6
18
16
18
3

Development, Integration, and Demonstration for
Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and
Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty
Vehicles’’.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57153

TABLE II–9—WEIGHT REDUCTION VALUES—Continued

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Fairing Support Structure ........................................................................................................................................
Instrument Panel Support Structure ........................................................................................................................
Brake Drums—Drive (4) ..........................................................................................................................................
Brake Drums—Non Drive (2) ..................................................................................................................................
Frame Rails .............................................................................................................................................................
Crossmember—Cab ................................................................................................................................................
Crossmember—Suspension ....................................................................................................................................
Crossmember—Non Suspension (3) .......................................................................................................................
Fifth Wheel ...............................................................................................................................................................
Radiator Support ......................................................................................................................................................
Fuel Tank Support Structure ...................................................................................................................................
Steps ........................................................................................................................................................................
Bumper ....................................................................................................................................................................
Shackles ..................................................................................................................................................................
Front Axle ................................................................................................................................................................
Suspension Brackets, Hangers ...............................................................................................................................
Transmission Case ..................................................................................................................................................
Clutch Housing ........................................................................................................................................................
Drive Axle Hubs (8) .................................................................................................................................................
Non Drive Front Hubs (2) ........................................................................................................................................
Driveshaft .................................................................................................................................................................
Transmission/Clutch Shift Levers ............................................................................................................................

EPA and NHTSA are specifying the
baseline vehicle weight for each
regulatory vehicle subcategory
(including the tires, wheels, frame, and
cab components) in the GEM in
aggregate based on weight of vehicles
used in EPA’s aerodynamic test
program, but allow manufacturers to
specify the use of light-weight
components. The GEM then quantifies
the weight reductions based on the predetermined weight of the baseline
component minus the pre-determined
weight of the component made from
light-weight material. Manufacturers
cannot specify the weight of the lightweight component themselves, only the
material used in the substitute
component. The agencies assume the
baseline wheel and tire configuration
contains dual tires with steel wheels,
along with steel frame and cab
components, because these represent
the vast majority of new vehicle
configurations today. The weight
reduction due to replacement of
components with light weight versions
will be reflected partially in the payload
tons and partially in reducing the
overall weight of the vehicle run in the
GEM. The specified payload in the GEM
will be set to the prescribed payload
plus one third of the weight reduction
amount to recognize that approximately
one third of the truck miles are travelled
at maximum payload, as discussed
below in the payload discussion. The
other two thirds of the weight reduction
will be subtracted from the overall
vehicle weight prescribed in the GEM.
The agencies continue to believe that
the 400 pound weight target is
appropriate to use as a basis for setting
the final combination tractor CO2

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

emissions and fuel consumption
standards. The agencies agree with the
commenter that 400 pounds of weight
reduction without the use of single wide
tires may not be achievable for all
tractor configurations. As noted, the
agencies have extended the list of
weight reduction components in order
to provide the manufacturers with
additional means to comply with the
combination tractors and to further
encourage reductions in vehicle weight.
The agencies considered increasing the
target value beyond 400 pounds given
the additional reduction potential
identified in the expanded technology
list; however, lacking information on
the capacity for the industry to change
to these lightweight components across
the board by the 2014 model year, we
have decided to maintain the 400 pound
target. The agencies intend to continue
to study the potential for additional
weight reductions in our future work
considering a second phase of vehicle
fuel efficiency and GHG regulations. In
the context of the current rulemaking for
HD fuel consumption and GHG
standards, one would expect that
reducing the weight of medium-duty
trucks similarly would, if anything,
have a positive impact on safety.
However, given the large difference in
weight between light-duty and mediumduty vehicles, and even larger difference
between light-duty vehicles and heavyduty vehicles with loads, the agencies
believe that the impact of weight
reductions of medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles would not have a noticeable
impact on safety for any of these classes
of vehicles.85
85 For more information on the estimated safety
effects of this rule, see Chapter 9 of the RIA.

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

35
5
140
60
440
15
25
15
100
20
40
35
33
10
60
100
50
40
160
40
20
20

6
1
11
8
87
5
6
5
25
6
12
6
10
3
15
30
12
10
4
5
5
4

(f) Extended Idle Reduction Technology
Assessment
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.86 Extended idle occurs when
Class 8 long haul drivers rest in the
sleeper cab compartment during rest
periods as drivers find it both
convenient and less expensive to rest in
the tractor cab itself than to pull off the
road and find accommodations.87
During this rest period a driver will idle
the tractor engine in order to provide
heating or cooling, or to run on-board
appliances. In some cases the engine
can idle in excess of 10 hours. During
this period, the engine will consume
approximately 0.8 gallons of fuel and
emit over 8,000 grams of CO2 per hour.
An average tractor engine can consume
8 gallons of fuel and emit over 80,000
grams of CO2 during overnight idling in
such a case.
Idling reduction technologies (IRT)
are available to allow for driver comfort
while reducing fuel consumptions and
CO2 emissions. Auxiliary power units,
fuel operated heaters, battery supplied
air conditioning, and thermal storage
systems are among the technologies
86 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Hours of Service Regulations. Last accessed on
August 2, 2010 at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregulations/topics/hos/.
87 The agencies note that some sleeper cabs may
be classified as vocational tractors and therefore are
expected to primarily travel locally and would not
benefit from an idle reduction technology.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57154

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

available today. The agencies are
adopting a provision for use of extended
idle reduction technology as an input to
the GEM for Class 8 sleeper cabs. As
discussed further in Section III, if a
manufacturer wishes to receive credit
for using IRT to meet the standard, then
an automatic main engine shutoff must
be programmed and enabled, such that
engine shutdown occurs after 5 minutes
of idling, to help ensure the reductions
are realized in-use. A discussion of the
provisions the agencies are adopting for
allowing an override of this automatic
shutdown can be found in RIA Chapter
2. As with all of the technology inputs
discussed in this section, the agencies
are not mandating the use of idle
reductions or idle shutdown, but rather
allowing their use as one part of a suite
of technologies feasible for reducing fuel
consumption and meeting the final
standards and using these technologies
as the inputs to the GEM. The default
value (5 g CO2/ton-mile or 0.5 gal/1,000
ton-mile) for the use of automatic engine
shutdown (AES) with idle reduction
technologies was determined as the
difference between a baseline main
engine with idle fuel consumption of
0.8 gallons per hour that idles 1,800
hours and travels 125,000 miles per
year, and a diesel auxiliary power unit
operating in lieu of main engine during
those same idling hours. The agencies
received various comments from ACEEE
and MEMA regarding the assumptions
used to derive the idle reduction value.
ACEEE argued that the agencies should
use a fuel consumption rate of 0.47
gallon/hour for main engine idling
based on a paper written by Kahn.
MEMA argued that the agencies should
use a main engine idling fuel
consumption rate of 0.87 gal/hr, which
is the midpoint of a DOE calculator
reporting fuel consumption rates from
0.64 to 1.15 gal/hr at idling conditions,
and between 800 and 1200 rpm with the
air conditioning on and off,
respectively. The agencies respectfully
disagree with the 0.47 gal/hr
recommendation because the same
paper by Kahn shows that while idling
fuel consumption is 0.47 gal/hr on
average at 600 rpm, CO2 emissions
increase by 25 percent with A/C on at
600 rpm, and increase by 165 percent
between 600 rpm and 1,100 rpm with
A/C on.88 MEMA recommended using
2,500 hours per year for APU operation.
They cited the SmartWay Web site
which uses 2,400 hours per year (8
hours per day and 300 days per year).
Also, they cited an Argonne study
88 See Gaines, L., A. Vyas, J. Anderson.
‘‘Estimation of Fuel Used by Idling Commercial
Trucks,’’ Page 9 (2006).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

which assumed 7 hours per day and 303
days per year, which equals 2,121 hours
per year. Lastly, they referred to the
FMCSA 2010 driver guidelines which
reduce the number of hours driven per
day by one to two hours, which would
lead to 2,650 to 2,900 hours per year.
The agencies reviewed other studies to
quantify idling operations, as discussed
in greater detail in RIA Section 2.5.4.2,
and believe that the entirety of the
research does not support a change from
the proposed calculation. Therefore, the
agencies are finalizing the calculation as
proposed. Additional details regarding
the comments, calculations, and agency
decisions are included in RIA Section
2.5.4.2.
The agencies are adopting a provision
to allow manufacturers to provide an
AES system which is active for only a
portion of a vehicle’s life. In this case,
a discounted idle reduction value would
be entered into GEM. A discussion of
the calculation of a discounted IRT
credit can be found in Section III.
Additional details on the emission and
fuel consumption reduction values are
included in RIA Section 2.5.4.2.
(g) Vehicle Speed Limiters
The NPRM proposed to allow
combination tractors that use vehicle
speed limiters (VSL) to include the
maximum governed speed value as an
input to the GEM for purposes of
determining compliance with the
vehicle standards. The agencies also
proposed not to assume the use of a
mandatory vehicle speed limiter
because of concerns about how to set a
realistic application rate that avoids
unintended consequences. See 75 FR at
74223. Governing the top speed of a
vehicle can reduce fuel consumption
and GHG emissions, because fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions
increase proportionally to the square of
vehicle speed.89 Limiting the speed of a
vehicle reduces the fuel consumed,
which in turn reduces the amount of
CO2 emitted. The specific input to the
GEM would be the maximum governed
speed limit of the VSL that is
programmed into the powertrain control
module (PCM). The agencies stressed in
the NPRM that in order to obtain a
benefit in the GEM, a manufacturer
must preset the limiter in such a way
that the setting will not be ‘‘capable of
being easily overridden by the fleet or
the owner.’’ If the top speed could be
easily overridden, the fuel
consumption/CO2 benefits of the VSL
89 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Page 28. Road
Load Force Equation defines the aerodynamic
portion of the road load as c * Coefficient of Drag
* Frontal Area * air density * vehicle speed
squared.

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

might not be realized, and the agencies
did not want to allow the technology to
be used for compliance if the technology
could be disabled easily and the real
world benefits not achieved.
Both the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD) and New York State
Department of Transportation and
Environmental Conservation
commented that the application of
speed limiters should be used to set the
tractor standards.90 CBD urged the
agencies to reconsider the position and
adopt a speed limitation technology. NY
State commented that the technologies
are cost effective, reduce emissions, and
appear to be generally acceptable to the
trucking industry. They continued to
say that the vehicle speed limit could be
set without compromising operational
logistics.
Many commenters (Cummins,
Daimler, EMA/TMA, ATA, AAPC,
NADA) supported the use of VSLs as an
input to the GEM, but requested
clarification of what the specific
requirements would be to ensure the
VSL setting would not be capable of
being easily overridden. Cummins and
Daimler requested that the final rules
explicitly allow vehicle manufacturers
to access and adjust the VSL control
feature for setting the maximum
governed speed, arguing that the diverse
needs of the commercial vehicle
industry warrant flexibility in electronic
control features, and that otherwise
supply chain issues 91 may result from
the use of VSLs. NADA and EMA/TMA
also requested that VSLs have override
features and be adjustable, citing
various needs for flexibility by the
fleets. EMA/TMA and ATA requested
that VSLs be adjustable downward by
fleets in order to obtain greater benefit
in GEM, if company policies change or
if a subsequent vehicle owner needs a
different VSL setting. EMA/TMA stated
that the agencies should prohibit
tampering with VSLs, and both EMA
and TRALA requested more information
on how the agencies intended to address
tampering with VSLs.
In addition to features governing the
maximum vehicle speed, commenters
requested adding other programmable
flexibilities to mitigate potential
drawbacks to VSLs. Cummins, DTNA,
90 One commenter mistakenly thought that the
agencies were rejecting consideration of VSLs due
to perceived jurisdictional obstacles. In fact, both
the CAA and EISA allow consideration of VSL
technology and the agencies considered the
appropriateness of basing standards on performance
of the technology.
91 Commenters stated that OEMs need access for
setting appropriate trims for managing the VSL,
otherwise significant supply chain issues could
result such as parts shortages caused by the need
for unique speed governed PCMs.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
and EMA/TMA requested that a
programmable ‘‘soft top’’ speed be
added to PCMs which would allow a
vehicle to exceed the speed limit setting
governed by a VSL for a short period of
time. A ‘‘soft top’’ feature could be used
for a limited duration in order to
maneuver and pass other on-road
vehicles at speeds greater than that
governed by the VSL. The commenters
argued this was important for vehicle
passing and safety-related situations
where, without a soft top feature, it
could be possible for speed limited
trucks to obstruct other vehicles on the
road and cause severe road congestion.
ATA and EMA/TMA also requested
that manufacturers be allowed to
program a mileage based expiration into
the VSL control feature, in order to
preserve the value of vehicles for second
owners who may require operation at
higher speeds. ATA further commented
that manufacturers should be allowed to
account for additional GEM input
benefits if the speed governor is
reprogrammed to a lower speed within
the useful life of the vehicle.
After carefully considering the
comments, the agencies have decided,
for these final rules, to retain most of the
elements in the proposal. Manufacturers
will be allowed to implement a fixed
maximum governed vehicle speed
through a VSL feature and to use the
maximum governed vehicle speed as an
input to the GEM for certification. Also
consistent with the proposal, the
agencies are not premising the final
standards on the use of VSLs. The
comments received from stakeholders
did not address the agencies’ concerns
discussed in the proposal, specifically
the risk of requiring VSL in situations
that are not appropriate from an
efficiency perspective because it may
lead to additional vehicle trips to
deliver the same amount of freight.92
The agencies continue to believe that we
are not in a position to determine how
many additional vehicles would benefit
from the use of a VSL with a setting of
less than 65 mph (a VSL with a speed
set at or above 65 mph will show no
CO2 emissions or fuel consumption
benefit on the drive cycles included in
this program). The agencies further
believe that manufacturers will not
utilize VSLs unless it is in their interest
to do so, so that these unintended
consequences should not occur when
manufacturers use VSLs as a
compliance strategy. We will monitor
the industry’s use of VSL in this
program and may consider using this
92 See

75 FR at page 74223.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

technology in standard setting in the
future.
The agencies have decided to adopt
commenters’ suggestions to allow
adjustable lower limits that can be set
and governed by VSLs independent of
the one governing the maximum
certified speed limit to provide the
desired flexibility requested by the
trucking industry. We believe that this
flexibility would not decrease the
anticipated fuel consumption or CO2
benefits of VSLs because the adjustable
limits would be lower values. Issues
identified by the commenters including
the ability to change delivery routes
requiring lower governed speeds or
when a fleet’s business practices change
resulting in a desire for greater fuel
consumption savings are not in conflict
with the purpose and benefit of VSLs.
As such, the agencies have decided to
allow a manufacturer to install features
for its fleet customers to set their own
lower adjustable limits below the
maximum VSL specified by the
agencies. However, the agencies have
decided to not allow any additional
benefit in the GEM to a manufacturer for
allowing a lower governed speed in-use
than the certified maximum limit for
this first phase of the HD National
Program because we can only be certain
that the VSL will be at the maximum
setting.
Both agencies also agree that
manufacturers can provide a ‘‘soft top’’
and expiration features to be
programmed into PCMs to provide
additional flexibility for fleet owners
and so that fleets who purchase used
vehicles have the ability to have
different VSL policies than the original
owner of the vehicle. Although the
agencies considered limiting the soft top
maximum level due to safety and fuel
consumption/GHG benefit concerns, we
have decided to allow the soft top
maximum level to be set to any level
higher than the maximum speed
governed by the VSL. This approach
will provide drivers with the ability to
better navigate through traffic. However,
the agencies are requiring that
manufacturers providing a soft top
feature must design the system so it
cannot be modified by the fleets and
will not decrement the vehicle speed
limit causing the vehicle to decelerate
while the driver is operating a vehicle
above the normal governed vehicle
speed limit. For example, if a
manufacturer designs a vehicle speed
limiter that has a normal governed
speed limiter setting of 62 mph, and a
‘‘soft top’’ speed limiter value of 65
mph, the algorithm shall not cause the
vehicle speed to decrement causing the
vehicle to decelerate while the driver is

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57155

operating the vehicle at a speed greater
that 62 mph (between 62 and 65 mph).
The agencies are concerned that a forced
deceleration when a driver is attempting
to pass or maneuver could have an
adverse impact on safety.
In using a soft top feature, a
manufacturer will be required to
provide to the agencies a functional
description of the ‘‘soft top’’ control
strategy including calibration values,
the speed setting for both the hard limit
and the soft top and the maximum time
per day the control strategy could allow
the vehicle to operate at the ‘‘soft top’’
speed limit at the time of certification.
This information will be used to derive
a factor to discount the VSL input used
in the GEM to determine the fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
performance of the vehicle. The
agencies also agree with comments that
VSLs should be adjustable so as not to
potentially limit a vehicle’s resale value.
However, manufacturers choosing the
option to override the VSL after a
specified number of miles would be
required to discount the benefit of the
VSL relative to the tractor’s full lifetime
miles. The VSL discount benefits for
using soft-top and expiration features
must be calculated using Equation II–
1.93 Additional details regarding the
derivation of the discounted equation
are included in RIA Chapter 2. The
agencies are also requiring that any
vehicle that has a ‘‘soft top’’ VSL to
identify the use of the ‘‘soft top’’ VSL on
the vehicle emissions label.
Equation II–1: Discounted Vehicle
Speed Limiter Equation
VSL input for GEM = Expiration Factor
* [Soft Top Factor* Soft Top VSL +
(1–Soft Top Factor) * VSL] + (1–
Expiration Factor)*65 mph
The agencies will require that the VSL
algorithm be designed to assure that
over the useful life of the vehicle that
the vehicle will not operate in the soft
top mode for more miles than would be
expected based on the values used in
Equation 0–1, as specified by the
expiration factor and the soft top factor.
In addition, any time the cumulative
percentage of operation in the soft top
mode (based on miles) exceeds the
maximum ratio that could occur at the
full lifetime mileage, or at the expiration
mileage if used, the algorithm must not
allow the vehicle to exceed the VSL
value. In this case, the soft top feature
remain disabled until the vehicle
mileage reaches a point where the ratio
no longer meets this condition.
In response to the comments about
how the agencies will evaluate
93 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

§ 1037.640.

15SER2

57156

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

tampering, NHTSA and EPA have added
a number of requirements in these final
rules relating to the VSL control feature.
VSL control features should be designed
so they cannot be easily overridden.
Manufacturers must ensure that the
governed speed limit programmed into
the VSL must also be verifiable through
on-board diagnostic scanning tools, and
must provide a description of the coding
to identify the governed maximum
speed limit and the expiration mileage
both at the time of the initial vehicle
certification and in-use. The agencies
believe both manufacturers and fleets
should work toward maintaining the
integrity of VSLs, and the agencies may
conduct new-vehicle and in-use random
audits to verify that inputs into GEM are
accurate.
The agencies are aware that some
fleets/owners make changes to vehicles,
such as installing different diameter
tires, changing the axle (final drive)
ratio and transmission gearing, such that
a vehicle could travel at speeds higher
than the speed limited by its VSL.
Vehicles subject to FMCSA
requirements must be in compliance
with 49 CFR 393.82. The requirements
apply to speedometers and states as
follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Each bus, truck, and truck-tractor must be
equipped with a speedometer indicating
vehicle speed in miles per hour and/or
kilometers per hour. The speedometer must
be accurate to within plus or minus 8 km/
hr (5 mph) at a speed of 80 km/hr (50 mph).

To facilitate adjustments for
component changes affecting vehicle
speed, manufacturers should provide a
fleet/owner with the means to do so
unless the adjustments would affect the
VSL setting or operation.
DTNA and ATA additionally
requested that the agencies ensure that
any VSL provisions adopted under the
GHG emissions and fuel efficiency rules
align with existing NHTSA standards.
The agencies agree and note that there
are no existing standards for a VSL
outside of this current rulemaking
activity. However, NHTSA has
announced its intent to publish a
proposal in 2012 for a VSL.94 While
both agencies have taken steps to avoid
potential conflicts between the
rulemaking being finalized today for
fuel consumption and GHG emissions
and the anticipated safety rulemaking,
different conclusions may be reached in
a safety-based rulemaking on VSLs,
particularly in the approach to
specifying soft top parameters and VSL
expiration.

(h) Defined Vehicle Configurations in
the GEM
As discussed above, the agencies are
adopting methodologies that
manufacturers will use to quantify the
values input into the GEM for these
factors affecting vehicle efficiency:
Coefficient of Drag, Tire Rolling
Resistance Coefficient, Weight
Reduction, Vehicle Speed Limiter, and
Extended Idle Reduction Technology.
The other aspects of the vehicle
configuration are fixed within the model
and are not varied for the purpose of
compliance. The defined inputs include
the tractor-trailer combination curb
weight, payload, engine characteristics,
and drivetrain for each vehicle type, and
others.
(i) Vehicle Drive Cycles
The GEM simulation model uses
various inputs to characterize a
vehicle’s configuration (such as weight,
aerodynamics, and rolling resistance)
and predicts how the vehicle would
behave on the road when it follows a
driving cycle (vehicle speed versus
time). As noted by the 2010 NAS
Report,95 the choice of a drive cycle
used in compliance testing has
significant consequences on the
technology that will be employed to
achieve a standard as well as the ability
of the technology to achieve real world
reductions in emissions and
improvements in fuel consumption.
Manufacturers naturally will design
vehicles to ensure they satisfy
regulatory standards. An ill-suited drive
cycle for a regulatory category could
encourage GHG emissions and fuel
consumption technologies which satisfy
the test but do not achieve the same
benefits in use. For example, requiring
all trucks to use a constant speed
highway drive cycle will drive
significant aerodynamic improvements.
However, in the real world a
combination tractor used for local
delivery may spend little time on the
highway, reducing the benefits achieved
by this technology. In addition, the extra
weight of the aerodynamic fairings will
actually penalize the GHG and fuel
consumption performance in urban
driving and may reduce the freight
carrying capability. The unique nature
of the kinds of CO2 emissions control
and fuel consumption technology means
that the same technology can be of
benefit during some operation but cause
a reduced benefit under other
95 See

94 76

FR 78.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Chapters 4 and

8.

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

operation.96 To maximize the GHG
emissions and fuel consumption
benefits and avoid unintended
reductions in benefits, the drive cycle
should focus on promoting technology
that produces benefits during the
primary operation modes of the
application. Consequently, drive cycles
used in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption compliance testing should
reasonably represent the primary actual
use, notwithstanding that every vehicle
has a different drive cycle in-use.
The agencies proposed a modified
version of the California ARB Heavy
Heavy-duty Truck 5 Mode Cycle 97,
using the basis of three of the cycles
which best mirror Class 7 and 8
combination tractor driving patterns,
based on information from EPA’s
MOVES model.98 The key advantage of
the California ARB 5 mode cycle is that
it provides the flexibility to use several
different modes and weight the modes
to fit specific vehicle application usage
patterns. For the proposal, EPA
analyzed the five cycles and found that
some modifications to the cycles were
required to allow sufficient flexibility in
weightings. The agencies proposed the
use of the Transient mode, as defined by
California ARB, because it broadly
covers urban driving. The agencies also
proposed altered versions of the High
Speed Cruise and Low Speed Cruise
modes which reflected only constant
speed cycles at 65 mph and 55 mph
respectively. In the NPRM, the agencies
proposed to use three cycles which were
the ARB transient cycle, a 55 mph
steady state cruise, and a 65 mph steady
state cruise.
The agencies received comment from
NACAA recommending an increase in
the high speed cruise cycle speed from
the proposed value of 65 mph to 75 mph
because trucks travel at higher speeds.
The agencies analyzed the urban and
rural interstate truck speed limits in
each state to determine the national
average truck speed limit. State
interstate speed limits for trucks vary
between 55 and 75 mph, depending on
the state.99 Based on this information,
the national median truck speed limit is
96 This situation does not typically occur for
heavy-duty emission control technology designed to
control criteria pollutants such as PM and NOX.
97 California Air Resources Board. Heavy Heavyduty Diesel Truck chassis dynamometer schedule,
Transient Mode. Last accessed on August 2, 2010
at http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/
hhddt.html.
98 EPA’s MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator). See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/
moves/index.htm for additional information.
99 Governors Highway Safety Association. Speed
Limit Laws May 2011. Last viewed on May 9, 2011
at http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/
speedlimit_laws.html.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
65 mph. The agencies also analyzed the
national average truck speed limit
weighted by VMT for each state based
on VMT data by state from the Federal
Highway Administration as described in
RIA Section 3.4.2. Based on this
information, the national average VMTweighted truck speed limit is 63 mph.
The agencies continue to believe that
the appropriate high speed cruise speed
should be set at the national average
truck speed limit to appropriately
balance the evaluation of technologies
such as aerodynamics, but not overstate
the benefits of these technologies.
Therefore, the agencies are adopting as
proposed a speed of 65 mph for the high
speed cruise cycle.
The agencies also received comments
from Allison which disagreed with
proposed drive cycles for combination
tractors because the cycles did not
account for external factors such as
grades, wind, traffic condition, etc.
Allison also believes that the
acceleration rates are too low. The
agencies recognize that the proposed
drive cycles do not incorporate the
external factors described by Allison.
Parallel to the approach used to evaluate
light-duty vehicles, the drive cycles do
not incorporate either grade or wind
which can be difficult to simulate in

chassis dynamometer cells. In the final
rules, the agencies are defining an
approach that manufacturers may take
to evaluate their aerodynamic packages
in a wind-averaged condition and use a
modified Cd value in GEM.100 The
agencies are also adopting provisions for
the innovative technology
demonstration that allows for the use of
on-road testing which includes grades
for technologies whose benefits are
reflected with grade. Lastly, the
agencies’ final drive cycles for highway
operation contain a constant speed, as
proposed. The acceleration and
deceleration rates are only used to bring
the vehicle to the cruising speed and the
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
from these portions of the drive cycle
are not included in the composite
emissions and fuel consumption results.
The agencies did not include the speed
dithering, which is representative of
actual driving and traffic conditions, in
the proposed constant speed portion of
the cycles because the dithering does
not provide any additional distinction
between technologies but only added
complexity to the cycle. The agencies
believe this approach is still appropriate
for the final action.
Allison referred the agencies to the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and

57157

SmartWay program to review the
amount of time long-haul vehicles
spend on the highway. They believe the
steady state highway speeds are
overestimated. Data provided by Allison
indicates that day cabs spend only 14
percent of miles traveling at speeds
greater than 60 mph. NHTSA and EPA
recognize that there is a variation in the
amount of miles day cabs travel under
different operations. As described
above, the agencies are adopting an
approach where tractors which operate
like vocational vehicles may be
regulated as such in the HD program.
Thus, these day cabs will have a drive
cycle weighting representative of
vocational vehicles with more weighting
on the transient operation and less on
the highway speed operation.
For proposal, EPA and NHTSA relied
on the EPA MOVES analysis of Federal
Highway Administration data to
develop the mode weightings to
characterize typical operations of heavyduty trucks, per Table II–10 below.101 A
detailed discussion of drive cycles is
included in RIA Chapter 3.102 The
agencies are adopting the proposed
drive cycle weightings for combination
tractors.

TABLE II–10—DRIVE CYCLE MODE WEIGHTINGS
Transient
Day Cabs .................................................................................................................................................
Sleeper Cabs ...........................................................................................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(ii) Standardized Trailers
As proposed, NHTSA and EPA are
adopting provisions so that the tractor
performance in the GEM is judged
assuming the tractor is pulling a
standardized trailer. The agencies did
not receive any adverse comments
related to this approach. The agencies
believe that an assessment of the tractor
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
should be conducted using a tractortrailer combination. We believe this
approach best reflects the impact of the
overall weight of the tractor-trailer and
the aerodynamic technologies in actual
use, where tractors are designed and
used with a trailer. The GEM will
continue to use a predefined typical
100 See

Section IV.B.3.b below.
Environmental Protection Agency. Draft
MOVES2009 Highway Vehicle Population and
Activity Data. EPA–420–P–09–001, August 2009
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/techdocs/
420p09001.pdf.
102 In the light-duty vehicle rule, EPA and
NHTSA based compliance with tailpipe standards
101 The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

trailer in assessing overall performance.
The high roof sleeper cabs are paired
with a standard box trailer; the mid roof
tractors are paired with a tanker trailer;
and the low roof tractors are paired with
a flat bed trailer.
(iii) Empty Weight and Payload
The total weight of the tractor-trailer
combination is the sum of the tractor
curb weight, the trailer curb weight, and
the payload. The total weight of a
vehicle is important because it in part
determines the impact of technologies,
such as rolling resistance, on GHG
emissions and fuel consumption. In this
final action, the agencies are specifying
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-

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

19%
5%

55 mph
cruise
17%
9%

65 mph
cruise
64%
86%

each of these aspects of the vehicle, as
proposed.
In use, trucks operate at different
weights at different times during their
operations. The greatest freight transport
efficiency (the amount of fuel required
to move a ton of payload) would be
achieved by operating trucks at the
maximum load for which they are
designed all of the time. However,
logistics such as delivery demands
which require that trucks travel without
full loads, the density of payload, and
the availability of full loads of freight
limit the ability of trucks to operate at
their highest efficiency all the time. M.J.
Bradley analyzed the Truck Inventory
and Use Survey and found that
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’’.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57158

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

approximately 9 percent of combination
tractor miles travelled empty, 61 percent
are ‘‘cubed-out’’ (the trailer is full before
the weight limit is reached), and 30
percent are ‘‘weighed out’’ (operating
weight equal 80,000 pounds which is
the gross vehicle weight limit on the
Federal Interstate Highway System or
greater than 80,000 pounds for vehicles
traveling on roads outside of the
interstate system).103
As described above, the amount of
payload that a tractor can carry depends
on the category (or GVWR and GCWR)
of the vehicle. For example, a typical
Class 7 tractor can carry less payload
than a Class 8 tractor. For proposal, the
agencies used the Federal Highway
Administration Truck Payload
Equivalent Factors using Vehicle
Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) and
Vehicle Travel Information System data
to determine the proposed payloads.
FHWA’s results found that the average
payload of a Class 8 vehicle ranged from
36,247 to 40,089 pounds, depending on
the average distance travelled per
day.104 The same results found that
Class 7 vehicles carried between 18,674
and 34,210 pounds of payload also

depending on average distance travelled
per day. Based on this data, the agencies
proposed to prescribe a fixed payload of
25,000 pounds for Class 7 tractors and
38,000 pounds for Class 8 tractors for
their respective test procedures. The
agencies proposed a common payload
for Class 8 day cabs and sleeper cabs as
predefined GEM input because the data
available do not distinguish based on
type of Class 8 tractor. These payload
values represent a heavily loaded trailer,
but not maximum GVWR, since as
described above the majority of tractors
‘‘cube-out’’ rather than ‘‘weigh-out.’’
The agencies developed the proposed
tractor curb weight inputs from actual
tractor weights measured in two of
EPA’s test programs and based on
information from the manufacturers.
The proposed trailer curb weight inputs
were derived from actual trailer weight
measurements conducted by EPA and
weight data provided to ICF
International by the trailer
manufacturers.105
The agencies received comments from
UMTRI and ATA regarding the values
assumed for the combination tractor
weights. UMTRI recommended using

80,000 pounds for the total weight for
tractor-trailer combinations. ATA based
on their analysis of the Federal Highway
Administration’s Long Term Pavement
Database, recommended 5,000 to 10,000
pound payload for Class 7 tractors and
25,000 to 30,000 pounds for Class 8
tractors. ATA also determined from the
same database that 20 percent of tractor
miles are empty, 67 percent cube-out,
and 13 percent weigh-out. The agencies
are adopting the proposed tractor-trailer
weights because we do not have strong
evidence to select other values and
because changing the assumed values
would not change the impact on GHG
emissions or fuel consumption of the
technologies included in this phase of
the HD program (the relative stringency
of the standards and the projected
emission reductions do not change with
assumed payload). NHTSA and EPA
intend to continue evaluating additional
sources of weight information in future
phases of the program.
Details of the final individual weight
inputs by regulatory category, as shown
in Table II–11, are included in RIA
Chapter 3.

TABLE II–11—FINAL COMBINATION TRACTOR WEIGHTS
Model type

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class

8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7

Regulatory subcategory

......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................

Sleeper Cab High Roof ............................
Sleeper Cab Mid Roof ..............................
Sleeper Cab Low Roof .............................
Day Cab High Roof ..................................
Day Cab Mid Roof ....................................
Day Cab Low Roof ...................................
Day Cab High Roof ..................................
Day Cab Mid Roof ....................................
Day Cab Low Roof ...................................

Tractor tare
weight (lbs)

Trailer
weight (lbs)

19,000
18,750
18,500
17,500
17,100
17,000
11,500
11,100
11,000

13,500
10,000
10,500
13,500
10,000
10,500
13,500
10,000
10,500

Payload
(lbs)
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
38,000
25,000
25,000
25,000

Total weight
(lbs)
70,500
66,750
67,000
69,000
65,100
65,500
50,000
46,100
46,500

(iv) Standardized Drivetrain
The agencies’ assessment at proposal
of the current vehicle configuration
process at the truck dealer’s level was
that the truck companies provide tools
to specify the proper drivetrain matched
to the buyer’s specific circumstances.
These dealer tools allow a significant
amount of customization for drive cycle
and payload to provide the best
specification for each individual
customer. The agencies are not seeking
to disrupt this process. Optimal
drivetrain selection is dependent on the
engine, drive cycle (including vehicle
speed and road grade), and payload.

Each combination of engine, drive cycle,
and payload has a single optimal
transmission and final drive ratio. The
agencies received comments from
ArvinMeritor and ICCT which suggested
that the agencies incorporate the actual
drivetrain configuration (axle
configuration, driveline efficiency, and
transmission) into the GEM. The
agencies continue to believe, and
therefore are adopting as proposed, that
it is appropriate to specify the engine’s
fuel consumption map, drive cycle, and
payload; therefore, it makes sense to
also specify the drivetrain that matches.

(v) Engine Input to the GEM for Tractors
As proposed, the agencies are
defining the engine characteristics used
in the GEM, including the fuel
consumption map which provides the
fuel consumption at hundreds of engine
speed and torque points. If the agencies
did not standardize the fuel map, then
a tractor that uses an engine with
emissions and fuel consumption better
than the standards would require fewer
vehicle reductions than those
technically feasible reductions reflected
in the final standards. The agencies are
finalizing two distinct fuel consumption
maps for use in the GEM. The first fuel

103 M.J. Bradley & Associates. Setting the Stage for
Regulation of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy
and GHG Emissions: Issues and Opportunities.
February 2009. Page 35. Analysis based on 1992
Truck Inventory and Use Survey data, where the
survey data allowed developing the distribution of
loads instead of merely the average loads.

104 The U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
Development of Truck Payload Equivalent Factor.
Table 11. Last viewed on March 9, 2010 at http://
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf2_
reports/reports9/s510_11_12_tables.htm.

105 ICF International. Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-road Vehicles. July 2010. Pages 4–
15. Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–
0044.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

consumption map would be used in the
GEM for the 2014 through 2016 model
years and represents an average engine
which meets EPA’s final 2014 model
year engine CO2 emissions standards.
The same fuel map would be used for
NHTSA’s voluntary standards in the
2014 and 2015 model years, as well as
its mandatory program in the 2016
model year. A second fuel consumption
map will be used beginning in the 2017
model year and represents an engine
which meets the 2017 model year CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
standards and accounts for the
increased stringency in the final MY
2017 standard. The agencies have
modified the 2017 MY fuel map used in
the GEM for the final rulemaking to
address comments received. Details
regarding this change can be found in
RIA Chapter 4.4.4. Effectively there is
no change in stringency of the tractor
vehicle (not including the engine
standards over the full rulemaking
period).106 These inputs are appropriate
given the separate regulatory
requirement that Class 7 and 8
combination tractor manufacturers use
only certified engines.
(i) Heavy-Duty Engine Test Procedure
for Engines Installed in Combination
Tractors
The HD engine test procedure consists
of two primary aspects—a duty cycle
and a metric to evaluate the emissions
and fuel consumption.
EPA proposed that the GHG emission
standards for heavy-duty engines under
the CAA would be expressed as g/bhphr while NHTSA’s proposed fuel
consumption standards under EISA, in
turn, be represented as gal/100 bhp-hr.
The NAS panel did not specifically
discuss or recommend a metric to
evaluate the fuel consumption of heavyduty engines. However, as noted above
they did recommend the use of a loadspecific fuel consumption metric for the
evaluation of vehicles.107 An analogous
metric for engines is the amount of fuel
consumed per unit of work. The g/bhphr metric is also consistent with EPA’s
current standards for non-GHG
emissions for these engines. The
agencies did not receive any adverse
comments related to the metrics for HD
engines; therefore, we are adopting the
metrics as proposed.
The agencies believe it is appropriate
to set standards based on a single test
procedure, either the Heavy-duty FTP or
SET, depending on the primary
106 As noted earlier, use of the 2017 model year
fuel consumption map as a GEM input results in
numerically more stringent final vehicle standards
for MY 2017.
107 See NAS Report, Note 21, at page 39.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

expected use of the engine. This
approach differs from EPA’s criteria
pollutant standards for engines which
currently require that manufacturers
demonstrate compliance over the
transient FTP cycle; over the steadystate SET procedure; and during not-toexceed testing. EPA created this multilayered approach to criteria emissions
control in response to engine designs
that optimized operation for lowest fuel
consumption at the expense of very high
criteria emissions when operated off the
regulatory cycle. EPA’s use of multiple
test procedures for criteria pollutants
helps to ensure that manufacturers
calibrate engine systems for compliance
under all operating conditions. We are
not concerned if manufacturers further
calibrate engines off-cycle to give better
in-use fuel consumption while
maintaining compliance with the
criteria emissions standards as such
calibration is entirely consistent with
the goals of our joint program. Further,
we believe that setting GHG and fuel
consumption standards based on both
transient and steady-state operating
conditions for all engines could lead to
undesirable outcomes.
It is critical to set standards based on
the most representative test cycles in
order for performance in-use to obtain
the intended (and feasible) air quality
and fuel consumption benefits. Tractors
spend the majority of their operation at
steady state conditions, and will obtain
in-use benefit of technologies such as
turbocompounding and other waste heat
recovery technologies during this kind
of typical engine operation.
Turbocompounding is a very effective
approach to lower fuel consumption
under steady driving conditions typified
by combination tractor trailer operation
and is well reflected in testing over the
SET test procedure. However, when
used in driving typified by transient
operation as we expect for vocational
vehicles and as is represented by the
Heavy-duty FTP, turbocompounding
shows very little benefit. Setting an
emission standard based on the Heavyduty FTP for engines intended for use
in combination tractor trailers could
lead manufacturers to not apply
turbocompounding even though it can
be a highly cost effective means to
reduce GHG emissions and lower fuel
consumption. (It is for this reason that
turbocompounding is not part of the
technology basis for MHD or HHD
engines installed in vocational
vehicles.)
The agencies proposed that engines
installed in tractors demonstrate
compliance with the CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption standards over the
SET cycle. Commenters such as

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57159

Cummins, Bosch, Daimler, and
Honeywell supported the proposed
approach. ACEEE recommended
adopting a new test cycle, such as the
World Harmonized Duty Cycle which
was developed using newer data, to
evaluate HD engines. Daimler also
supported the WHDC for future phases
of the program. The agencies continue
to believe the important issues and
technical work related to setting new
criteria pollutant emissions standards
appropriate for the World Harmonized
Duty Cycle are significant and beyond
the scope of this rulemaking. The SET
cycle remains representative of typical
driving cycles for combination tractors
(and engines installed in them).
Therefore, the agencies are adopting the
SET cycle to evaluate CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of HD engines
installed in tractors, as proposed.
The current non-GHG emissions
engine test procedures also require the
development of regeneration emission
rates and frequency factors to account
for the emission changes during a
regeneration event (40 CFR 86.004–28).
EPA and NHTSA proposed not to
include these emissions from the
calculation of the compliance levels
over the defined test procedures.
Cummins and Daimler supported this
approach and stated that sufficient
incentives already exist for
manufacturers to limit regeneration
frequency. Conversely, Volvo opposed
the omission of IRAF requirements for
CO2 emissions because emissions from
regeneration can be a significant portion
of the expected improvement and a
significant variable between
manufacturers
At proposal, we considered including
regeneration in the estimate of fuel
consumption and GHG emissions and
decided not to do so for two reasons.
See 75 FR at 74188. First, EPA’s existing
criteria emission regulations already
provide a strong motivation to engine
manufacturers to reduce the frequency
and duration of infrequent regeneration
events. The very stringent 2010 NOX
emission standards cannot be met by
engine designs that lead to frequent and
extend regeneration events. Hence, we
believe engine manufacturers are
already reducing regeneration emissions
to the greatest degree possible. In
addition to believing that regenerations
are already controlled to the extent
technologically possible, we believe that
attempting to include regeneration
emissions in the standard setting could
lead to an inadvertently lax emissions
standard. In order to include
regeneration and set appropriate
standards, EPA and NHTSA would have
needed to project the regeneration

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57160

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

frequency and duration of future engine
designs in the time frame of this
program. Such a projection would be
inherently difficult to make and quite
likely would underestimate the progress
engine manufacturers will make in
reducing infrequent regenerations. If we
underestimated that progress, we would
effectively be setting a more lax set of
standards than otherwise would be
expected. Hence in setting a standard
including regeneration emissions we
faced the real possibility that we would
achieve less effective CO2 emissions
control and fuel consumption
reductions than we will achieve by not
including regeneration emissions.
Therefore, the agencies are finalizing an
approach as proposed which does not
include the regenerative emissions.
(j) Chassis-Based Test Procedure
In the proposal, the agencies
considered proposing a chassis-based
vehicle test to evaluate Class 7 and 8
tractors based on a laboratory test of the
engine and vehicle together. A ‘‘chassis
dynamometer test’’ for heavy-duty
vehicles would be similar to the Federal
Test Procedure used today for light-duty
vehicles.
However, the agencies decided not to
propose the use of a chassis test
procedure to demonstrate compliance
for tractor standards due to the
significant technical hurdles to
implementing such a program by the
2014 model year. The agencies
recognize that such testing requires
expensive, specialized equipment that is
not yet widespread within the industry.
The agencies have only identified
approximately 11 heavy-duty chassis
sites in the United States today and
rapid installation of new facilities to
comply with model year 2014 is not
possible.108
In addition, and of equal if not greater
importance, because of the enormous
numbers of vehicle configurations that
have an impact on fuel consumption,
we do not believe that it would be
reasonable to require testing of many
combinations of tractor model
configurations on a chassis
dynamometer. The agencies evaluated
the options available for one tractor
model (provided as confidential
business information from a truck
manufacturer) and found that the
company offered three cab
configurations, six axle configurations,
five front axles, 12 rear axles, 19 axle
ratios, eight engines, 17 transmissions,
108 For comparison, engine manufacturers
typically own a large number of engine
dynamometer test cells for engine development and
durability (up to 100 engine dynamometers per
manufacturer).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

and six tire sizes—where each of these
options could impact the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of the
tractor. Even using representative
grouping of tractors for purposes of
certification, this presents the potential
for many different combinations that
would need to be tested if a standard
were adopted based on a chassis test
procedure.
The agencies received comments from
ACEEE and UCS supporting a full
vehicle testing approach, but these
commenters recognized the difficulties
in doing this in the first phase of the HD
program. The agencies maintain that the
full vehicle testing on chassis
dynamometers is not feasible in the
timeframe of this rulemaking, although
we believe such an approach may be
appropriate in the future, if more testing
facilities become available and if the
agencies are able to address the
complexity of tractor configurations
issue described above.

future regulatory action. This includes
both U.S.-based and foreign small
volume heavy-duty tractor and engine
manufacturers.
The agencies have identified two
entities that fit the SBA size criterion of
a small business.110 The agencies
estimate that these small entities
comprise less than 0.5 percent of the
total heavy-duty combination tractors in
the United States based on Polk
Registration Data from 2003 through
2007,111 and therefore that the
exemption will have a negligible impact
on the GHG emissions and fuel
consumption improvements from the
final standards.
To ensure that the agencies are aware
of which companies would be exempt,
we are requiring that such entities
submit a declaration to EPA and
NHTSA containing a detailed written
description of how that manufacturer
qualifies as a small entity under the
provisions of 13 CFR 121.201.

(4) Summary of Flexibility and Credit
Provisions for Tractors and Engine Used
in These Tractors
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing four
flexibility provisions specifically for
heavy-duty tractor and engine
manufacturers, as discussed in Section
IV below. These are an averaging,
banking and trading program for
emissions and fuel consumption credits,
as well as provisions for early credits,
advanced technology credits, and
credits for innovative vehicle or engine
technologies which are not included as
inputs to the GEM or are not
demonstrated on the engine SET test
cycle. With the exception of the
advanced technology credits, credits
generated under these provisions can
only be used within the same averaging
set which generated the credit (for
example, credits generated by HD
engines installed in tractors can only be
used by HD engines). EPA is also
adopting a N2O emission credit
program, as described in Section IV
below.

C. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
The primary elements of the EPA and
NHTSA programs for complete HD
pickups and vans are presented in this
section. These provisions also cover
optional chassis certification of
incomplete HD vehicles and of Class 4
and 5 vehicles, as discussed in detail in
Section V.B(1)(e). Section II.C(1)
explains the form of the CO2 and fuel
consumption standards, the numerical
levels for those standards, and the
approach to phasing in the standards
over time. The measurement procedure
for determining compliance is discussed
in Section II.C(2), and the EPA and
NHTSA compliance programs are
discussed in Section II.C(3). Section
II.C(4) discusses implementation
flexibility provisions. Section II.E
discusses additional standards and
provisions for N2O and CH4 emissions,
for vehicle air conditioning leakage, and
for ethanol-fueled and electric vehicles.
HD pickup and van air conditioning
efficiency is not being regulated, for
reasons discussed in Section II.E.

(5) Deferral of Standards for Tractor and
Engine Manufacturing Companies That
Are Small Businesses
EPA and NHTSA are not adopting
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel
consumption standards for small tractor
or engine manufacturers meeting the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
size criteria of a small business as
described in 13 CFR 121.201.109 The
agencies will instead consider
appropriate GHG and fuel consumption
standards for these entities as part of a

(1) What are the levels and timing of HD
pickup and van standards?

109 See

PO 00000

§ 1036.150 and § 1037.150.

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(a) Vehicle-Based Standards
About 90 percent of Class 2b and 3
vehicles are pickup trucks, passenger
vans, and work vans that are sold by the
original equipment manufacturers as
complete vehicles, ready for use on the
road. In addition, most of these
110 The agencies have identified Ottawa Truck,
Inc. and Kalmar Industries USA as two potential
small tractor manufacturers.
111 M.J. Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market
Analysis. May 2009.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

complete HD pickups and vans are
covered by CAA vehicle emissions
standards for criteria pollutants today
(i.e., they are chassis tested similar to
light-duty), expressed in grams per mile.
This distinguishes this category from
other, larger heavy-duty vehicles that
typically have only the engines covered
by CAA engine emission standards,
expressed in grams per brake
horsepower-hour. As a result, Class 2b
and 3 complete vehicles share much
more in common with light-duty trucks
than with other heavy-duty vehicles.
Three of these commonalities are
especially significant: (1) Over 95
percent of the HD pickups and vans sold
in the United States are produced by
Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler—
three companies with large light-duty
vehicle and light-duty truck sales in the
United States, (2) these companies
typically base their HD pickup and van
designs on higher sales volume 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
accessories), and the manufacturer is
generally responsible for both engine
and vehicle design. All of these factors
together suggest that it is appropriate
and reasonable to set standards for the
vehicle as a whole, rather than to
establish separate engine and vehicle
GHG and fuel consumption standards,
as is being done for the other heavyduty categories. This approach for
complete vehicles is consistent with
Recommendation 8–1 of the NAS
Report, which encourages the regulation
of ‘‘the final stage vehicle manufacturers
since they have the greatest control over
the design of the vehicle and its major
subsystems that affect fuel
consumption.’’ There was consensus in
the public comments supporting this
approach.
(b) Work-Based Attributes
In setting heavy-duty vehicle
standards it is important to take into
account the great diversity of vehicle
sizes, applications, and features. That
diversity reflects the variety of functions
performed by heavy-duty vehicles, and
this in turn can affect the kind of
technology that is available to control
emissions and reduce fuel consumption,
and its effectiveness. EPA has dealt with

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 rulemaking, the
agencies emphasized creating a program
structure that would achieve reductions
in fuel consumption and GHGs based on
how vehicles are used and on the work
they perform in the real world,
consistent with the NAS report
recommendations to be mindful of HD
vehicles’ unique purposes. Despite the
HD pickup and van similarities to 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. Workbased measures such as payload and
towing capability are key among the
things that characterize differences in
the design of vehicles, as well as
differences in how the vehicles will be
used. Vehicles in this category have a
wide range of payload and towing
capacities. These work-based
differences in design and in-use
operation are the key factors in
evaluating technological improvements
for reducing CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption. Payload has a particularly
important impact on the test results for
HD pickup and van emissions and fuel
consumption, because testing under
existing EPA procedures for criteria
pollutants is conducted with the vehicle
loaded to half of its payload capacity
(rather than to a flat 300 lb as in the
light-duty program), and the correlation

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57161

between test weight and fuel use is
strong.112
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
comparable payload capabilities by
making them meet more stringent
standards than they would have had to
meet without the weight reduction. The
same would be true for another common
weight-based measure, the gross vehicle
combination weight, which adds the
maximum combined towing and
payload weight to the curb weight.
Similar concerns about using 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,
112 Section II.C(2) discusses our decision that
GHGs and fuel consumption for HD pickups and
vans be measured using the same test conditions as
in the existing EPA program for criteria pollutants.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57162

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2009). The agencies believe that using
payload and towing capacities as the
work-based attributes avoids the abovementioned disincentive for the use of
lightweighting technology by taking
vehicle curb weight out of the standards
determination.
After taking these considerations into
account, EPA and NHTSA proposed to
set standards for HD pickups and vans
based on the proposed ‘‘work factor’’
attribute that combines vehicle payload
capacity and vehicle towing capacity, in
pounds, with an additional fixed
adjustment for four-wheel drive (4wd)
vehicles. This adjustment accounts for
the fact that 4wd, critical to enabling the
many off-road heavy-duty work
applications, adds roughly 500 lb to the
vehicle weight. There was consensus in
the public comments supporting this
attribute, and the agencies are adopting
it as proposed. Target GHG and fuel
consumption standards will be
determined for each vehicle with a
unique work factor (analogous to a
target for each discrete vehicle footprint
in the light-duty vehicle rules). These
targets will then be production weighted
and summed to derive a manufacturer’s
annual fleet average standard for its
heavy-duty pickups and vans.
Widespread support for the proposed
work factor-based approach to standards
and fleet average approach to
compliance was expressed in the
comments we received.
To ensure consistency and help
preclude gaming, we are finalizing the
proposed provision that payload
capacity be defined as GVWR minus
curb weight, and towing capacity as
GCWR minus GVWR. For purposes of
determining the work factor, GCWR is
defined according to the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Recommended Practice J2807 APR2008,
GVWR is defined consistent with EPA’s
criteria pollutants program, and curb
weight is defined as in 40 CFR 86.1803–
01. Based on analysis of how CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
correlate to work factor, we believe that
a straight line correlation is appropriate
across the spectrum of possible HD
pickups and vans, and that vehicle

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

distinctions such as Class 2b versus
Class 3 need not be made in setting
standards levels for these vehicles.113
This approach was supported by
commenters.
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 finalized for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors and for vocational
vehicles. Both approaches account for
the fact that more work is done, more
fuel is burned, and more CO2 is emitted
in moving heavier loads than in moving
lighter loads. Both of these load-based
approaches avoid penalizing vehicle
designers wishing to reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption by
reducing the weight of their trucks.
However, the sizeable diversity in HD
work truck and van applications, which
go well beyond simply transporting
freight, and the fact that the curb
weights of these vehicles are on the
order of their payload capacities,
suggest that setting simple gram/tonmile and gallon/ton-mile standards for
them is not appropriate. Even so, we
believe that our setting of payload-based
standards for HD pickups and vans is
consistent with the NAS Report’s
recommendation in favor of loadspecific fuel consumption standards.
Again, commenters agreed with this
approach to setting HD pickup and van
standards.
These attribute-based CO2 and fuel
consumption standards are meant to be
relatively consistent from a stringency
perspective. Vehicles across the entire
range of the HD pickup and van segment
have their respective target values for
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption,
and therefore all HD pickups and vans
will be affected by the standard. With
this attribute-based standards approach,
EPA and NHTSA believe there should
be no significant effect on the relative
distribution of vehicles with differing
capabilities in the fleet, which means
114 The NHTSA program provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. Target
line functions for 2016–2018 are for the second
NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that buyers should still be able to
purchase the vehicle that meets their
needs.
(c) Standards
The agencies are finalizing standards
based on a technology analysis
performed by EPA to determine the
appropriate HD pickup and van
standards. This analysis, described in
detail in RIA Chapter 2, considered:
• The level of technology that is
incorporated in current new HD pickups
and vans,
• The available data on
corresponding CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption for these vehicles,
• Technologies that would reduce
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
and that are judged to be feasible and
appropriate for these vehicles through
the 2018 model year,
• The effectiveness and cost of these
technologies for HD pickup and vans,
• Projections of future U.S. sales for
HD pickup and vans, and
• Forecasts of manufacturers’ product
redesign schedules.
Based on this analysis, EPA is
finalizing the proposed CO2 attributebased target standards shown in Figure
0–2 and II–3, and NHTSA is finalizing
the equivalent attribute-based fuel
consumption target standards, also
shown in Figure 0–2 and II–3,
applicable in model year 2018. These
figures also shows phase-in standards
for model years before 2018, and their
derivation is explained below, along
with alternative implementation
schedules to ensure equivalency
between the EPA and NHTSA programs
while meeting respective statutory
obligations. Also, for reasons discussed
below, the agencies proposed and are
establishing separate targets for
gasoline-fueled (and any other Ottocycle) vehicles and diesel-fueled (and
any other Diesel-cycle) vehicles. The
targets will be used to determine the
production-weighted fleet average
standards that apply to the combined
diesel and gasoline fleet of HD pickups
and vans produced by a manufacturer in
each model year.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

114 The NHTSA program provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. Target
line functions for 2016–2018 are for the second
NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57163

ER15SE11.002

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57164

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Described mathematically, EPA’s and
NHTSA’s target standards are defined
by the following formulae:
EPA CO2 Target (g/mile) = [a × WF] +
b

NHTSA Fuel Consumption Target
(gallons/100 miles) = [c × WF] + d
Where:
WF = Work Factor = [0.75 × (Payload
Capacity + xwd)] + [0.25 × Towing
Capacity]

Payload Capacity = GVWR (lb) ¥ Curb
Weight (lb)
xwd = 500 lb if the vehicle is equipped with
4wd, otherwise equals 0 lb
Towing Capacity = GCWR (lb) ¥ GVWR (lb)
Coefficients a, b, c, and d are taken from
Table II–12 or Table II–13.

TABLE II–12—COEFFICIENTS FOR HD PICKUP AND VAN TARGET STANDARDS 116
Model year

a

b

c

d

Diesel Vehicles
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018

.........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................
and later ..........................................................................................................................................

0.0478
0.0474
0.0460
0.0445
0.0416

368
366
354
343
320

0.000470
0.000466
0.000452
0.000437
0.000409

3.61
3.60
3.48
3.37
3.14

0.0482
0.0479
0.0469
0.0460
0.0440

371
369
362
354
339

0.000542
0.000539
0.000528
0.000518
0.000495

4.17
4.15
4.07
3.98
3.81

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018

.........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................
and later ..........................................................................................................................................

115 The NHTSA program provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. Target
line functions for 2016–2018 are for the second
NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

116 The NHTSA program provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. Target
line functions for 2016–2018 are for the second
NHTSA alternative described in Section II.C(d)(ii).

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.003

Gasoline Vehicles

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57165

TABLE II–13—COEFFICIENTS FOR NHTSA’S FIRST ALTERNATIVE AND EPA’S ALTERNATIVE HD PICKUP AND VAN TARGET
STANDARDS
Model year

a

b

c

d

Diesel Vehicles
2014 a .......................................................................................................................................................
2015 a .......................................................................................................................................................
2016–2018 ...............................................................................................................................................
2019 and later ..........................................................................................................................................

0.0478
0.0474
0.0440
0.0416

368
366
339
320

0.000470
0.000466
0.000432
0.000409

3.61
3.60
3.33
3.14

0.0482
0.0479
0.0456
0.0440

371
369
352
339

0.000542
0.000539
0.000513
0.000495

4.17
4.15
3.96
3.81

Gasoline Vehicles
2014 a .......................................................................................................................................................
2015 a .......................................................................................................................................................
2016–2018 ...............................................................................................................................................
2019 and later ..........................................................................................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Notes:
a NHTSA standards will be voluntary in 2014 and 2015.

These targets are based on a set of
vehicle, engine, and transmission
technologies assessed by the agencies
and determined to be feasible and
appropriate for HD pickups and vans in
the 2014–2018 timeframe. See Section
III.B for a detailed analysis of these
vehicle, engine and transmission
technologies, including their feasibility,
costs, and effectiveness in HD pickups
and vans.
To calculate a manufacturer’s HD
pickup and van fleet average standard,
the agencies are requiring that separate
target curves be used for gasoline and
diesel vehicles. The agencies estimate
that in 2018 the target curves will
achieve 15 and 10 percent reductions in
CO2 and fuel consumption for diesel
and gasoline vehicles, respectively,
relative to a common baseline for
current (model year 2010) HD pickup
trucks and vans. An additional two
percent reduction in GHGs will be
achieved by the direct air conditioning
leakage standard in the EPA standards.
These reductions are based on the
agencies’ assessment of the feasibility of
incorporating technologies (which differ
significantly for gasoline and diesel
powertrains) in the 2014–2018 model
years, and on the differences in relative
efficiency in the current gasoline and
diesel vehicles. The resulting reductions
represent roughly equivalent stringency
levels for gasoline and diesel vehicles,
which is important in ensuring our
program maintains product choices
available to vehicle buyers.
In written comments on the proposal,
Cummins objected to setting separate
diesel and gasoline vehicle standards,
on the basis that it increases the burden
for diesel engine manufacturers more
than for gasoline engine manufacturers,
and thereby could shift market share
away from diesels. EMA argued for fuelneutrality based on historical precedent

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

and the fact that GHGs emitted by one
type of engine are no different than
those emitted by another type of engine.
We believe that both engine types have
roughly equivalent redesign burdens as
evidenced by the feasibility and cost
analysis in RIA Chapter 2. Also, even
though the emissions and fuel
consumption reductions are expressed
from a common diesel/gasoline baseline
in these final rules, the actual starting
base for diesels is at a lower level than
for gasoline vehicles. Other industry
commenters, including those with
sizeable diesel sales, expressed general
support for the standards. The agencies
agree that standards that do not
distinguish between fuel types are
generally preferable where technological
or market-based reasons do not strongly
argue otherwise. These technological
differences exist presently between
gasoline and diesel engines for GHGs, as
described above. The agencies
emphasize, however, that they are not
committed to perpetuating separate
GHG standards for gasoline and diesel
heavy-duty vehicles and engines, and
expect to reexamine the need for
separate gasoline/diesel standards in the
next rulemaking.
Environmental groups and others
commented that the proposed standards
were not stringent enough, citing the
heavy-duty vehicle NAS study finding
that technologies such as hybridization
are feasible. However, in the ambitious
timeframe we are focusing on for these
rules, targeting as it does technologies
implementable in the HD pickup and
van fleet starting in 2014 and phasing in
with normal product redesign cycles
through 2018, our assessment shows
that the standards we are establishing
are appropriate. More advanced
technologies considered in the NAS
report would be appropriate for
consideration in future rulemaking

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

activity. Additional conventional
technologies identified by commenters
as promising in light-duty applications
and potentially useful for HD
applications are discussed in RIA
chapter 2.
The NHTSA fuel consumption target
curves and the EPA GHG target curves
are equivalent. The agencies established
the target curves using the direct
relationship between fuel consumption
and CO2 using conversion factors of
8,887 g CO2/gallon for gasoline and
10,180 g CO2/gallon for diesel fuel.
It is expected that measured
performance values for CO2 will
generally be equivalent to fuel
consumption. However, as explained
below in Section 0, EPA is finalizing a
provision for manufacturers to use CO2
credits to help demonstrate compliance
with N2O and CH4 emissions standards,
by expressing any N2O and CH4
undercompliance in terms of their CO2equivalent and applying the needed CO2
credits. For test families that do not use
this compliance alternative, the
measured performance values for CO2
and fuel consumption will be equivalent
because the same test runs and
measurement data will be used to
determine both values, and calculated
fuel consumption will be based on the
same conversion factors that are used to
establish the relationship between the
CO2 and fuel consumption target curves
(8,887 g CO2/gallon for gasoline and
10,180 g CO2/gallon for diesel fuel). For
manufacturers that choose to use the
EPA provision for CO2 credit use in
demonstrating N2O and CH4
compliance, compliance with the CO2
standard will not be directly equivalent
to compliance with the NHTSA fuel
consumption standard.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57166

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(d) Implementation Plan

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(i) EPA Program Phase-In MY 2014–
2018
EPA is finalizing the proposed
provision that the GHG standards be
phased in gradually over the 2014–2018
model years, with full implementation
effective in the 2018 model year.
Therefore, 100 percent of a
manufacturer’s vehicle fleet will need to
meet a fleet-average standard that will
become increasingly more stringent
each year of the phase-in period. For
both gasoline and diesel vehicles, this
phase-in will be 15–20–40–60–100
percent of the model year 2018
stringency in model years 2014–2015–
2016–2017–2018, respectively. These
percentages reflect stringency increases
from a baseline performance level for
model year 2010, determined by the
agencies based on EPA and
manufacturer data. Because these
vehicles are not currently regulated for
GHG emissions, this phase-in takes the
form of target line functions for gasoline
and diesel vehicles that become
increasingly stringent over the phase-in
model years. These year-by-year
functions have been derived in the same
way as the 2018 function, by taking a
percent reduction in CO2 from a
common unregulated baseline. For
example, in 2014 the reduction for both
diesel and gasoline vehicles will be 15
percent of the fully-phased-in
reductions. Figures II–2 and II–3, and
Table 0–12, reflect this phase-in
approach.
EPA is also providing manufacturers
with an optional alternative
implementation schedule in model
years 2016 through 2018, equivalent to
NHTSA’s first alternative for standards
that do not change over these model
years, described below. Under this
option the phase-in will be 15–20–67–
67–67–100 percent of the model year
2019 stringency in model years 2014–
2015–2016–2017–2018–2019,
respectively. Table 0–13, above,
provides the coefficients ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘b’’ for
this manufacturer’s alternative. As
explained below, this alternative will
provide roughly equivalent overall CO2
reductions and fuel consumption
improvements as the 15–20–40–60–100
percent phase-in. In addition, as
explained below, the stringency of this
alternative was established by NHTSA
such that a manufacturer with a stable
production volume and mix over the
model year 2016–2018 period could use
Averaging, Banking and Trading to
comply with either alternative and have
a similar credit balance at the end of
model year 2018.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Under the above-described
alternatives, each manufacturer will
need to demonstrate compliance with
the applicable fleet average standard
using that year’s target function over all
of its HD pickups and vans starting with
its MY 2014 fleet of HD pickups and
vans. No comments were received in
support of an alternative approach that
EPA requested comment on, involving
phasing in an annually increasing
percentage of each manufacturer’s sales
volume.
(ii) NHTSA Program Phase-In 2016 and
Later
NHTSA is finalizing the proposed
provision to allow manufacturers to
select one of two fuel consumption
standard alternatives for model years
2016 and later. Each manufacturer will
select an alternative in its joint premodel year report, discussed below, that
is now required to be electronically
submitted to the agencies; and, once
selected, the alternative will apply for
model years 2016 and later, and cannot
be reversed. The first alternative will
define a fuel consumption target line
function for gasoline vehicles and a
target line function for diesel vehicles
that will not change for model years
2016 to 2018. The target line function
coefficients are provided in Table II–13.
The second alternative will be
equivalent to the EPA target line
functions in each model year starting in
2016 and continuing afterwards.
Stringency of fuel consumption
standards will increase gradually for the
2016 and later model years. Relative to
a model year 2010 unregulated baseline
for both gasoline and diesel vehicles,
stringency will be 40, 60, and 100
percent of the 2018 target line function
in model years 2016, 2017, and 2018,
respectively. The stringency of the target
line functions in the first alternative for
model years 2016–2017–2018–2019 is
67–67–67–100 percent, respectively, of
the 2019 stringency in the second
alternative. The stringency of the first
alternative was established so that a
manufacturer with a stable production
volume and mix over the model year
2016–2018 period could use Averaging,
Banking and Trading to comply with
either alternative and have a similar
credit balance at the end of model year
2018 under the EPA and NHTSA
programs.
(iii) NHTSA Voluntary Standards Period
NHTSA is finalizing the proposed
provision that manufacturers may
voluntarily opt into the NHTSA HD
pickup and van program in model years
2014 or 2015. If a manufacturer elects to
opt in to the program, it must stay in the

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

program for all the optional model
years. Manufacturers that opt in become
subject to NHTSA standards for all
regulatory categories. To opt into the
program, a manufacturer must declare
its intent to opt in to the program in its
Pre-Model Year Report. The agencies
have finalized new requirements for
manufacturers to provide all early
model declarations as a part of the premodel year reports. See regulatory text
for 49 CFR 535.8 for information related
to the Pre-Model Year Report. A
manufacturer would begin tracking
credits and debits beginning in the
model year in which they opt into the
program. The handling of credits and
debits would be the same as for the
mandatory program.
For manufacturers that opt into
NHTSA’s HD pickup and van fuel
consumption program in 2014 or 2015,
the stringency would increase gradually
each model year. Relative to a model
year 2010 unregulated baseline, for both
gasoline and diesel vehicles, stringency
would be 15–20 percent of the model
year 2019 target line function stringency
(under the NHTSA first alternative) and
15–20 percent of the model year 2018
target line function stringency (under
the NHTSA second alternative) in
model years 2014–2015, respectively.
The corresponding absolute standards
target levels are provided in Figure II–
2 and II–3, and the accompanying
equations.
(2) What are the HD pickup and van test
cycles and procedures?
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing the
proposed provision that HD pickup and
van testing be conducted using the same
heavy-duty chassis test procedures
currently used by EPA for measuring
criteria pollutant emissions from these
vehicles, but with the addition of the
highway fuel economy test cycle (HFET)
currently required only for light-duty
vehicle GHG emissions and fuel
economy testing. Although the highway
cycle driving pattern is identical to that
of the light-duty test, other test
parameters for running the HFET, such
as test vehicle loaded weight, are
identical to those used in running the
current EPA Federal Test Procedure for
complete heavy-duty vehicles.
The GHG and fuel consumption
results from vehicle testing on the Lightduty FTP and the HFET will be
weighted by 55 percent and 45 percent,
respectively, and then averaged in
calculating a combined cycle result.
This result corresponds with the data
used to develop the work factor-based
CO2 and fuel consumption standards,
since the data on the baseline and
technology efficiency was also

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

developed in the context of these test
procedures. The addition of the HFET
and the 55/45 cycle weightings are the
same as for the light-duty CO2 and
CAFE programs, as we believe the real
world driving patterns for HD pickups
and vans are not too unlike those of
light-duty trucks, and we are not aware
of data specifically on these patterns
that would lead to a different choice of
cycles and weightings, nor did any
commenters provide such data. More
importantly, we believe that the 55/45
weightings will provide for effective
reductions of GHG emissions and fuel
consumption from these vehicles, and
that other weightings, even if they were
to more precisely match real world
patterns, are not likely to significantly
improve the program results.
Another important parameter in
ensuring a robust test program is vehicle
test weight. Current EPA testing for HD
pickup and van criteria pollutants is
conducted with the vehicle loaded to its
Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight
(ALVW), that is, its curb weight plus c
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 c payload
better fits their usage in the real world
and will help ensure that technologies
meeting the standards do in fact provide
real world reductions. The choice is
likewise consistent with use of an
attribute based in considerable part on
payload for the standard. We see no
reason to set test load conditions
differently for GHGs and fuel
consumption than for criteria
pollutants, and we are not aware of any
new information (such as real world
load patterns) since the ALVW was
originally set this way that would
support a change in test loading
conditions, nor did any commenters
provide such information. We are
therefore using ALVW for test vehicle
loading in GHG and fuel consumption
testing.
Additional provisions for our final
testing and compliance program are
provided in Section V.B.
(3) How are the HD pickup and van
standards structured?
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing the
proposed fleet average standards for
new HD pickups and vans, based on a
manufacturer’s new vehicle fleet
makeup. In addition, EPA is finalizing
proposed in-use standards that apply to
the individual vehicles in this fleet over
their useful lives. The compliance
provisions for these fleet average and inuse standards for HD pickups and vans

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

are largely based on the recently
promulgated light-duty GHG and fuel
economy program, as described in detail
in the proposal.
(a) Fleet Average Standards
In the programs we are finalizing,
each manufacturer will have a GHG
standard and a fuel consumption
standard unique to its new HD pickup
and van fleet in each model year,
depending on the load capacities of the
vehicle models produced by that
manufacturer, and on the U.S.-directed
production volume of each of those
models in that model year. Vehicle
models with larger payload/towing
capacities have individual targets at
numerically higher CO2 and fuel
consumption levels than lower payload/
towing vehicles, as discussed in Section
II.C(1). The fleet average standard for a
manufacturer is a production-weighted
average of the work factor-based targets
assigned to unique vehicle
configurations within each model type
produced by the manufacturer in a
model year.
The fleet average standard with which
the manufacturer must comply is based
on its final production figures for the
model year, and thus a final assessment
of compliance will occur after
production for the model year ends.
Because compliance with the fleet
average standards depends on actual
test group production volumes, it is not
possible to determine compliance at the
time the manufacturer applies for and
receives an EPA certificate of
conformity for a test group. Instead, at
certification the manufacturer will
demonstrate a level of performance for
vehicles in the test group, and make a
good faith demonstration that its fleet,
regrouped by unique vehicle
configurations within each model type,
is expected to comply with its fleet
average standard when the model year
is over. EPA will issue a certificate for
the vehicles covered by the test group
based on this demonstration, and will
include a condition in the certificate
that if the manufacturer does not
comply with the fleet average, then
production vehicles from that test group
will be treated as not covered by the
certificate to the extent needed to bring
the manufacturer’s fleet average into
compliance. As in the light-duty
program, additional ‘‘model type’’
testing will be conducted by the
manufacturer over the course of the
model year to supplement the initial test
group data. The emissions and fuel
consumption levels of the test vehicles
will be used to calculate the productionweighted fleet averages for the
manufacturer, after application of the

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57167

appropriate deterioration factor to each
result to obtain a full useful life value.
See generally 75 FR 25470–25472.
EPA and NHTSA do not currently
anticipate notable deterioration of CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
performance, and are therefore requiring
that an assigned deterioration factor be
applied at the time of certification: an
additive assigned deterioration factor of
zero, or a multiplicative factor of one
will be used. EPA and NHTSA
anticipate that the deterioration factor
may be updated from time to time, as
new data regarding emissions
deterioration for CO2 are obtained and
analyzed. Additionally, EPA and
NHTSA may consider technologyspecific deterioration factors, should
data indicate that certain control
technologies deteriorate differently than
others. See also 75 FR 25474.
(b) In-Use Standards
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies
that EPA set emissions standards that
are applicable for the useful life of the
vehicle. The in-use standards that EPA
is finalizing apply to individual
vehicles. NHTSA is not adopting in-use
standards because they are not required
under EISA, and because it is not
currently anticipated that there will be
any notable deterioration of fuel
consumption. For the EPA program,
compliance with the in-use standard for
individual vehicles and vehicle models
will not impact compliance with the
fleet average standard, which will be
based on the production-weighted
average of the new vehicles.
EPA is finalizing the proposed
provision that the in-use standards for
HD pickups and vans be established by
adding an adjustment factor to the full
useful life emissions and fuel
consumption results used to calculate
the fleet average. EPA is also finalizing
the proposed provision that the useful
life for these vehicles with respect to
GHG emissions be set equal to their
useful life for criteria pollutants: 11
years or 120,000 miles, whichever
occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805–04(a)).
As discussed above, we are finalizing
the proposed provision that certification
test results obtained before and during
the model year be used directly to
calculate the fleet average emissions for
assessing compliance with the fleet
average standard. Therefore, this
assessment and the fleet average
standard itself do not take into account
test-to-test variability and production
variability that can affect measured inuse levels. For this reason, EPA is
finalizing the proposed adjustment
factor for the in-use standard to provide
some margin for production and test-to-

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57168

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

test variability that could result in
differences between the initial emission
test results used to calculate the fleet
average and emission results obtained
during subsequent in-use testing. EPA is
finalizing the proposed provision that
each model’s in-use CO2 standard be the
model-specific level used in calculating
the fleet average, plus 10 percent. This
is the same as the approach taken for
light-duty vehicle GHG in-use standards
(See 75 FR 25473–25474). No adverse
comments were received on this
proposed provision.
As it does now for heavy-duty vehicle
criteria pollutants, EPA will use a
variety of mechanisms to conduct
assessments of compliance with the inuse standards, including pre-production
certification and in-use monitoring once
vehicles enter customer service. The full
useful life in-use standards apply to
vehicles that have entered customer
service. The same standards apply to
vehicles used in pre-production and
production line testing, except that
deterioration factors are not applied.
(4) What HD pickup and van flexibility
provisions are being established?
This program contains substantial
flexibility in how manufacturers can
choose to implement the EPA and
NHTSA standards while preserving
their timely benefits for the
environment and energy security.
Primary among these flexibilities are the
gradual phase-in schedule, alternative
compliance paths, and corporate fleet
average approach which encompasses
averaging, banking and trading
described above. Additional flexibility
provisions are described briefly here
and in more detail in Section IV.
As explained in Section II.C(3), we are
finalizing the proposed provision that,
at the end of each model year, when
production for the model year is
complete, a manufacturer calculate its
production-weighted fleet average CO2
and fuel consumption. Under this
approach, a manufacturer’s HD pickup
and van fleet that achieves a fleet
average CO2 or fuel consumption level
better than its standard will be allowed
to generate credits. Conversely, if the
fleet average CO2 or fuel consumption
level does not meet its standard, the
fleet would incur debits (also referred to
as a shortfall).
A manufacturer whose fleet generates
credits in a given model year will have
several options for using those credits to
offset emissions from other HD pickups
and vans. These options include credit
carry-back, credit carry-forward, and
credit trading. These provisions exist in
the light-duty 2012–2016 MY vehicle
rule, and similar provisions are part of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

EPA’s Tier 2 program for light-duty
vehicle criteria pollutant emissions, as
well as many other mobile source
standards issued by EPA under the
CAA. The manufacturer will be able to
carry back credits to offset a deficit that
had accrued in a prior model year and
was subsequently carried over to the
current model year, with a limitation on
the carry-back of credits to three model
years, consistent with the light-duty
program. We are finalizing the proposed
provision that, after satisfying any need
to offset pre-existing deficits, a
manufacturer may bank remaining
credits for use in future years, with a
limitation on the carry-forward of
credits to five model years. We are also
finalizing the proposed provision that
manufacturers may certify their HD
pickup and van fleet a year early, in MY
2013, to generate credits against the MY
2014 standards. This averaging,
banking, and trading program for HD
pickups and vans is discussed in more
detail in Section IV.A. For reasons
discussed in detail in that section, we
are not finalizing any credit
transferability to or from other credit
programs or averaging sets.
Consistent with the President’s May
21, 2010, directive to promote advanced
technology vehicles and with the
agencies’ respective statutory
authorities, we are adopting flexibility
provisions that parallel similar
provisions adopted in the light-duty
program. These include credits for
advance technology vehicles such as
electric vehicles, and credits for
innovative technologies that are shown
by the manufacturer to provide GHG
and fuel consumption reductions in real
world driving, but not on the test cycle.
See Section IV.B.
D. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
Heavy-duty vehicles serve a vast
range of functions including service for
urban delivery, refuse hauling, utility
service, dump, concrete mixing, transit
service, shuttle service, school bus,
emergency, motor homes,117 and tow
trucks to name only a small subset of
the full range of vehicles. The vehicles
designed to serve these functions are as
unique as the jobs they do. They are
vastly different—one from the other—in
size, shape and function. The agencies
were unable to develop a specific
vehicle definition based on the
characteristics of these vehicles. Instead
at proposal, we proposed to define that
Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles as all
heavy-duty vehicles which are not
included in the Heavy-duty Pickup
117 See above for discussion of applicability of
NHTSA’s standards to non-commercial vehicles.

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Truck and Van or the Class 7 and 8
Tractor categories. In effect, we said
everything that is not a combination
tractor or a pickup truck or van is a
vocational vehicle. We are finalizing
that definition as proposed reflecting
the same challenges we faced at
proposal regarding defining the full
range of heavy-duty vehicles. As at
proposal, recreational vehicles are
included under EPA’s standards but are
not included under NHTSA’s final
standards. The agencies note that we are
adding vocational tractors to the
vocational vehicle category in the final
rulemaking, as described above in
Section II.B.
The agencies proposed that Class 4
pickup trucks although similar to Class
2b and 3 vehicles be included in the
vocational vehicle category. Comments
from EMA, Cummins, NTEA and
Navistar supported the premise that
Class 4 vehicles belong as part of the
vocational vehicle program because they
are specifically designed and engineered
to meet vocational requirements. They
stated that components such as
transmissions, axles, frames, and tires
differ from the similar pickup trucks
and vans in the Class 2b and 3 market.
We agree with commenters’ arguments
that there are a number of important
differences between the Class 4 and
Class 3 trucks it unreasonable to
regulate Class 4 vehicles under the
standards for heavy duty pickups and
vans. As a result, we are keeping Class
4 vehicles in the vocational vehicle
category, but are allowing the optional
chassis certification of Class 4 and 5
vehicles. (See Section V.B(1)(e)).
As mentioned in Section I, vocational
vehicles undergo a complex build
process. Often an incomplete chassis is
built by a chassis manufacturer with an
engine purchased from an engine
manufacturer and a transmission
purchased from another manufacturer.
A body manufacturer purchases an
incomplete chassis which is then
completed by attaching the appropriate
features to the chassis.
The diversity in the vocational
vehicle segment can be primarily
attributed to the variety of vehicle
bodies rather than to the chassis. For
example, a body builder can build either
a Class 6 bucket truck or a Class 6
delivery truck from the same Class 6
chassis. The aerodynamic difference
between these two vehicles due to their
bodies will lead to different baseline
fuel consumption and GHG emissions.
However, the baseline fuel consumption
and emissions due to the components
included in the common chassis (such
as the engine, drivetrain, frame, and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
tires) will be the same between these
two types of complete vehicles.
The agencies face difficulties in
establishing the baseline CO2 and fuel
consumption performance for the wide
variety of complete vocational vehicles
because of the very large number of
vehicle types and the need to conduct
testing on each of the vehicle types to
establish the baseline. To establish
standards for a complete vocational
vehicle, it would be necessary to assess
the potential for fuel consumption and
GHG emissions improvement for each of
these vehicle types and to establish
standards for each vehicle type. Because
of the size and complexity of this task,
the agencies judged it was not practical
to regulate complete vocational vehicles
for this first fuel consumption and GHG
emissions program. To overcome the
lack of baseline information from the
different vehicle types and to still
achieve improvements to fuel
consumption and GHG emissions, the
agencies proposed to set standards for
the chassis manufacturers of vocational
vehicles (but not the body builders) and
the engine manufacturers. Chassis
manufacturers represent a limited
number of companies as compared to
body builders, which are made up of a
diverse set of companies that are
typically small businesses. These
companies would need to be regulated
if whole vehicle standards were
established.
Similar to combination tractors, the
agencies proposed to set separate
vehicle and engine standards for
vocational vehicles. A number of
comments were received on the
proposal to regulate chassis and engine
manufacturers. The agencies received
comments from DTNA supporting the
proposal to regulate the chassis
manufacturer but not body
manufacturers. While organizations like
Cummins and ICCT expressed support
for separate engine and vehicle
standards, Navistar, Pew, and Volvo, in
contrast, opposed separate engine and
chassis standards, stating that separate
engine standards disadvantages
integrated truck/engine manufacturers
and full vehicle standards should be
required. Volvo asked that the standards
include an alternative integrated
standard as well as complete vehicle
modeling and testing beginning in 2017.
ACEEE and Sierra Club stated that the
proposed standards and test procedures
should move the agencies closer to full
vehicle testing.
Although the agencies understand
that full vehicle standards would allow
integrated truck/engine manufacturers—
such as electrified accessories and
weight reduction—the agencies are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

finalizing separate standards for
vocational vehicles that apply to chassis
manufacturers and engine standards for
engines installed in these vehicles that
apply to engine manufacturers. The
agencies continue to believe that it is
not practical to regulate complete
vocational vehicles for this first fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
program because of the size and
complexity of the task associated with
assessing the potential for fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
improvement for each of the myriad
types of vocational vehicles. This issue
is discussed further in comment
responses found in sections 5 and 6.1.4
of the Response to Comment Document,
as well as in the following section of the
preamble. Thus, the agencies are
finalizing a set of standards for the
chassis manufacturers of vocational
vehicles (but not the body builders) and
for the manufacturers of HD engines
used in vocational vehicles.
(1) What are the vocational vehicle and
engine CO2 and fuel consumption
standards and their timing?
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed
vehicle standards based on the agencies’
assessment of the availability of low
rolling resistance tires that could be
applied generally to vocational vehicles
across the entire category. The agencies
considered the possibility of including
other technologies in determining the
proposed stringency of the vocational
vehicle standards, such as aerodynamic
improvements, but as discussed in the
NPRM, tentatively concluded that such
improvements would not be appropriate
for basing vehicle standard stringency in
this phase of the rulemaking.118 For
example, the aerodynamics of a
recovery vehicle are impacted
significantly by the equipment such as
the arm located on the exterior of the
truck.119 The agencies found little
opportunity to improve the
aerodynamics of the equipment on the
truck. The agencies also evaluated the
aerodynamic opportunities discussed in
the NAS report. The panel found that
there was minimal fuel consumption
reduction opportunity through
aerodynamic technologies for bucket
trucks, transit buses, and refuse
trucks 120 primarily due to the low
vehicle speed in normal operation. The
panel did report that there are
opportunities to reduce the fuel
consumption of straight trucks by
approximately 1 percent for trucks
118 See

75 FR at 74241.
recovery vehicle removes or recovers
vehicles that are disabled (broken down).
120 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, page 133.
119 A

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57169

which operate at the average speed
typical of a pickup and delivery truck
(30 mph), although the opportunity is
greater for vehicles that operate at
higher speeds.121
The agencies received comments from
the Motor Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Eaton, NRDC, NESCAUM,
NACAA, ACEEE, ICCT, Navistar, Arvin
Meritor, the Union of Concerned
Scientists and others that technologies
such as idle reduction, advanced
transmissions, advanced drivetrains,
weight reduction, hybrid powertrains,
and improved auxiliaries provide
opportunities to reduce fuel
consumption from vocational vehicles.
Commenters asked that the agencies
establish regulations that would reflect
performance of these technologies and
essentially force their utilization.
The agencies assessed these
technologies and have concluded that
they may have the potential to reduce
fuel consumption and GHG emissions
from at least certain vocational vehicles,
but the agencies have not been able to
estimate baseline fuel consumption and
GHG emissions levels for each type of
vocational vehicle and for each type of
technology, given the wide variety of
models and uses of vocational vehicles.
For example, idle reduction
technologies such as APUs and cabin
heaters can reduce workday idling
associated with vocational vehicles.
However, characterizing idling activity
for the vocational segment in order to
quantify the benefits of idle reduction
technology is complicated by the variety
of duty cycles found in the sector. Idling
in school buses, fire trucks, pickup
trucks, delivery trucks, and other types
of vocational vehicles varies
significantly. Given the great variety of
duty cycles and operating conditions of
vocational vehicles and the timing of
these rules, it is not feasible at this time
to establish an accurate baseline for
quantifying the expected improvements
which could result from use of idle
reduction technologies. Similarly, for
advanced drivetrains and advanced
transmissions determining a baseline
configuration, or a set of baseline
configurations, is extremely difficult
given the variety of trucks in this
segment. The agencies do not believe
that we can legitimately base standard
stringency on the use of technologies for
which we cannot identify baseline
configurations, because absent baseline
emissions and baseline fuel
consumption, the emissions reductions
achieved from introduction of the
technology cannot be quantified. For
some technologies, such as weight
121 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

2010 NAS Report, Note 21, page 110.

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57170

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

reduction and improved auxiliaries—
such as electrically driven power
steering pumps and the vehicle’s air
conditioning system—the need to limit
technologies to those under the control
of the chassis manufacturer further
restricted the agencies’ options for
predicating standard stringency on use
of these technologies. For example,
lightweight components that are under
the control of chassis manufacturers are
limited to a very few components such
as frame rails. Considering the fuel
efficiency and GHG emissions reduction
benefits that will be achieved by
finalizing these rules in the time frame
proposed, rather than delaying in order
to gain enough information to include
additional technologies, the agencies
have decided to finalize standards that
do not assume the use of these
technologies and will consider
incorporating them in a later action
applicable to later model years. Cf.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 380
(DC Cir. 2003) (in implementing a
technology-forcing provision of the
CAA, EPA reasonably adopted modest
initial controls on an industry sector in
order to better assess rules’ effects in
preparation for follow-up rulemaking).
As the program progresses and the
agencies gather more information, we
expect to reconsider whether vocational
vehicle standards for MYs 2019 and
beyond should be based on the use of
additional technologies besides low
rolling resistance tires.
EPA is adopting CO2 standards and
NHTSA is finalizing fuel consumption
standards for manufacturers of chassis
for new vocational vehicles and for
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines
installed in these vehicles. The final
heavy-duty engine standards for CO2
emissions and fuel consumption focus
on potential technological
improvements in fuel combustion and
overall engine efficiency and those
controls would achieve most of the
emission reductions. Further reductions
from the Class 2b–8 vocational vehicle
itself are possible within the time frame
of these final regulations. Therefore, the
agencies are also finalizing separate
standards for vocational vehicles that
will focus on additional reductions that
can be achieved through improvements
in vehicle tires. The agencies’ analyses,
as discussed briefly below and in more
detail later in this preamble and in the
RIA Chapter 2, show that these final
standards appear appropriate under
each agency’s respective statutory
authorities. Together these standards are
estimated to achieve reductions of up to
10 percent from most vocational
vehicles.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

EPA is also adopting standards to
control N2O and CH4 emissions from
Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles through
controlling these GHG emissions from
the HD engines. The final heavy-duty
engine standards for both N2O and CH4
and details of the standard are included
in the discussion in Section II.E.1.b and
II.E.2.b. EPA neither proposed nor is
adopting air conditioning leakage
standards applying to vocational vehicle
chassis manufacturers.
As discussed further below, the
agencies are setting CO2 and fuel
consumption standards for the chassis
based on tire rolling resistance
improvements and for the engines based
on engine technologies. The fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
impact of tire rolling resistance is
impacted by the mass of the vehicle.
However, the impact of mass on rolling
resistance is relatively small so the
agencies proposed to aggregate several
vehicle weight categories under a single
category for setting the standards. The
agencies proposed to divide the
vocational vehicle segment into three
broad regulatory subcategories—Light
Heavy-Duty (Class 2b through 5),
Medium Heavy-Duty (Class 6 and 7),
and Heavy Heavy-Duty (Class 8) which
is consistent with the nomenclature
used in the diesel engine classification.
The agencies received comments
supporting the division of vocational
vehicles into three regulatory categories
from DTNA. The agencies also received
comments from Bosch, Clean Air Task
Force, and National Solid Waste
Management Association supporting a
finer resolution of vocational vehicle
subcategories. Their concerns include
that the agencies’ vehicle configuration
in GEM is not representative of a
particular vocational application, such
as refuse trucks. Another
recommendation was to divide the
category by both GVWR and by
operational characteristics. Upon further
consideration, the agencies are
finalizing as proposed three vocational
vehicle subcategories because we
believe this adequately balances
simplicity while still obtaining
reductions in this diverse segment. (As
noted in section IV.A below, these three
subcategories also denominate separate
averaging sets for purposes of ABT.)
Finer distinctions in regulatory
subcategories would not change the
technology basis for the standards or the
reductions expected from the vocational
vehicle category. As the agencies move
towards future heavy-duty fuel
consumption and GHG regulations for
post-2017 model years, we intend to
gather GHG and fuel consumption data

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

for specific vocational applications
which could be used to establish
application-specific standards in the
future.
The agencies received comments
supporting the exclusion of recreational
vehicles, emergency vehicles, school
buses from the vocational vehicle
standards. The commenters argued that
these individual vehicle types were
small contributors to overall GHG
emissions and that tires meeting their
particular performance needs might not
be available by 2014. The agencies
considered these comments and the
agencies have met with a number of tire
manufacturers to better understand their
expectations for product availability for
the 2014 model year. Based on our
review of the information shared, we are
convinced that tires with rolling
resistance consistent with our final
vehicle standards and meeting the full
range of other performance
characteristics desired in the vehicle
market, including for RVs, emergency
vehicles, and school buses, will be
broadly available by the 2014 model
year.122 Absent regulations for the vast
majority of vehicles in this segment,
feasible cost-effective reductions
available at reasonable cost in the 2014–
2018 model years will be needlessly
foregone. Therefore, the agencies have
decided to finalize the vocational
vehicle standards as proposed with
recreational vehicles, emergency
vehicles and school buses included in
the vocational vehicle category. As RVs
were not included by NHTSA for
proposed regulation, they are not within
the scope of the NPRM and are therefore
excluded in NHTSA’s portion of the
final program. NHTSA will revisit this
issue in the next rulemaking. In
developing the final standards, the
agencies have evaluated the current
levels of emissions and fuel
consumption, the kinds of technologies
that could be utilized by manufacturers
to reduce emissions and fuel
consumption and the associated lead
time, the associated costs for the
industry, fuel savings for the consumer,
and the magnitude of the CO2 and fuel
savings that may be achieved. After
examining the possibility of vehicle
improvements based on use of the
technologies underlying the standards
for Class 7 and 8 tractors, including
improved aerodynamics, vehicle speed
limiters, idle reduction technologies,
tire rolling resistance, and weight
reduction, as well as use of hybrid
technologies, the agencies ultimately
122 Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to the Docket.
Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. See Docket #EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162. Pages 2–3 and Appendix B.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

determined to base the final vehicle
standards on performance of tires with
superior rolling resistance. For
standards for diesel engines installed in
vocational vehicles, the agencies
examined performance of engine
friction reduction, aftertreatment
optimization, air handling
improvements, combustion
optimization, turbocompounding, and
waste heat recovery, ultimately deciding
to base the final standards on the
performance of all of the technologies
except turbocompounding and waste
heat recovery systems. The standards for
gasoline engine installed in vocational
vehicles are based on performance of
technologies such as gasoline direct
injection, friction reduction, and
variable valve timing. The agencies’
evaluation indicates that these
technologies, as described in Section
III.C, are available today in the heavyduty tractor and light-duty vehicle
markets, but have very low application
rates in the vocational vehicle market.
The agencies have analyzed the
technical feasibility of achieving the
CO2 and fuel consumption standards,
based on projections of what actions
manufacturers would be expected to
take to reduce emissions and fuel
consumption to achieve the standards,
and believe that the standards are costeffective and technologically feasible
and appropriate within the rulemaking
time frame. EPA and NHTSA also
present the estimated costs and benefits
of the vocational vehicle standards in
Section III.
(a) Vocational Vehicle Chassis
Standards
In the NPRM, the agencies defined
tire rolling resistance as a frictional loss
of energy, associated mainly with the
energy dissipated in the deformation of
tires under load that influences fuel
efficiency and CO2 emissions. Tires
with higher rolling resistance lose more
energy in response to this deformation,
thus using more fuel and producing
more CO2 emissions in operation, while
tires with lower rolling resistance lose
less energy, and save more fuel and CO2
emissions in operation. Tire design
characteristics (e.g., materials,
construction, and tread design)
influence durability, traction (both wet
and dry grip), vehicle handling, ride
comfort, and noise in addition to rolling
resistance.
The agencies explained that a typical
Low Rolling Resistance (LRR) tire’s
attributes, compared to a non-LRR tire,
would include increased tire inflation
pressure; material changes; and tire
construction with less hysteresis,
geometry changes (e.g., reduced height

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

to width aspect ratios), and reduction in
sidewall and tread deflection. When a
manufacturer applies LRR tires to a
vehicle, the manufacturer generally also
makes changes to the vehicle’s
suspension tuning and/or suspension
design in order to maintain vehicle
handling and ride comfort.
The agencies also explained that
while LRR tires can be applied to
vehicles in all MD/HD classes, they may
have special potential for improving
fuel efficiency and reducing CO2
emissions for vocational vehicles.
According to an energy audit conducted
by Argonne National Lab, tires are the
second largest contributor to energy
losses of vocational vehicles, after
engines.123 Given this finding, the
agencies considered the availability of
LRR tires for vocational applications by
examining the population of tires
available, and concluded that there
appeared to be few LRR tires for
vocational applications. The agencies
suggested in the NPRM that this low
number of LRR tires for vocational
vehicles could be due in part to the fact
that the competitive pressure to improve
rolling resistance of vocational vehicle
tires has been less than in the line haul
tire market, given that line haul vehicles
generally drive significantly more miles
and therefore have significantly higher
operating costs for fuel than vocational
vehicles, and much greater incentive to
improve fuel consumption. The small
number of LRR tires for vocational
vehicles may perhaps also be due in
part to the fact that vocational vehicles
generally operate more frequently on
secondary roads, gravel roads and roads
that have less frequent winter
maintenance, which leads vocational
vehicle buyers to value tire traction and
durability more than rolling resistance.
The agencies recognized that this
provided an opportunity to improve fuel
consumption and GHG emissions by
creating a regulatory program that
encourages improvements in tire rolling
resistance for both line haul and
vocational vehicles. The agencies
proposed to base standards for all
segments of HD vehicles on the use of
LRR tires. The agencies estimated that a
10 percent reduction in average tire
rolling resistance would be attainable
between model years 2010 and 2014
based on the tire development
achievements over the last several years
123 A Class 6 pick up and delivery truck at 50%
load has tires as the second largest contributor at
speeds up to 35 mph, a typical average speed of
urban delivery vehicles. See Argonne National
Laboratory. ‘‘Evaluation of Fuel Consumption
Potential of Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles
through Modeling and Simulation.’’ October 2009.
Page 91.

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57171

in the line haul truck market. This
reduction in tire rolling resistance
would correlate to a two percent
reduction in fuel consumption as
modeled by the GEM.124
(i) Summary of Comments
The agencies received many
comments on the subject of tire rolling
resistance as applied to vocational
vehicles. Comments included
suggestions for alternative test
procedures; whether LRR tires should
be applied to certain types of vocational
vehicles and whether certain vehicles
should be exempted from the vocational
vehicle standards if the standards are
based on the ability to use LRR tires; the
appropriateness of the proposed
standards; and compliance issues
(discussed below in Section II.D.2.b.
Regarding whether LRR tires should
be applied to certain types of vocational
vehicles, the agencies received many
comments from stakeholders, such as
Daimler Trucks North America, Fire
Apparatus Manufacturers Association
(FAMA), International Association of
Fire Chiefs, National Ready Mix,
National Solid Wastes Management
Association (NSWMA), Spartan Motors,
National Automobile Dealers
Association, among others. There were
comments regarding applicability of low
rolling resistance tires to vocational
vehicles based on LRR tire availability,
suitability of the tires for the
applications, fuel consumption and
GHG emissions benefits and the
appropriateness of standards. Many of
these commenters focused particularly
on the whether LRR tires would
compromise the capability of emergency
vehicles.
Regarding whether LRR tires are
available in the market for certain
vocational vehicles and whether the
vocational vehicle standards were
therefore appropriate and feasible, both
Ford and AAPC stated that the proposed
model-based requirement for Class 2b–
8 vocational chassis appeared to require
tires with rolling resistance values of
approximately 8.0–8.1 kg/metric ton or
better, and that limited data available
for smaller diameter tires, such as lighttruck (LT) tires used on many light
heavy-duty trucks and vans, suggested
that there exist few if any choices for
tires that would comply. Given this
concern about the availability of
compliant tires, particularly in the case
of tires smaller than 22.5″, during the
proposed regulatory time frame, AAPC
and Ford requested revisions to the
requirement, or the modeling method, to
establish different standards for vehicles
124 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

75 FR at 74241.

15SER2

57172

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

that use different tire classes, with
separate requirements for LT tires, 19.5″
tires, and 22.5″ tires. AAPC argued that
standards should be set based on data
collected on high volume in-use tires,
and that they should be set at a level
that ensures the availability of multiple
compliant tires. CRR
(ii) Summary of Research Done Since
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Since the NPRM, the agencies have
conducted additional research on tire
rolling resistance for medium- and
heavy-duty applications. This research
involved direct discussions with tire
suppliers,125 assessment of the
comments received, additional review
of tire products available, and a more
thorough review of tire use in the field.
In addition, EPA has conducted tire
rolling resistance testing to help inform
the final rulemaking.126
The agencies discussed many aspects
of low rolling resistance tire
technologies and their application to
vocational vehicles with tire suppliers
since publication of the NPRM. Several
tire suppliers indicated to the agencies
that low rolling resistance tires are
currently available for vocational
applications that would enable
compliance with the proposed
vocational vehicle standards, such as
delivery vehicles, refuse vehicles, and
other vocations. However, these
conversations also made the agencies
aware that availability of low rolling
resistance tires varies by supplier. Some
suppliers stated they focused their
company resources on areas of the
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
spectrum where fleet operators would
see the most fuel efficiency benefits for
the application of low rolling resistance
technologies; specifically the long-haul,
on-highway applications that drive
many miles and use large amounts of
fuel. These suppliers stated that this
choice was driven by the significant
capital investment that would be
needed to improve tire rolling resistance
across the relatively large number of
product offerings in the vocational
vehicle segment, based on the wide
range of tire sizes, load ratings, and
speed ratings, compared to the much
narrower range of offerings for long-haul
applications.127 Other suppliers stated
125 Records of these communications, and
additional information submitted by the supplier
companies and not CBI, are available at Docket No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
126 Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to the Docket.
Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. July 2011. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162, Pages 3–6.
127 More tire types and sizes have been developed
for vocational vehicle applications than for longhaul applications. In some cases, suppliers offer up

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

that they have made conscious efforts to
reduce the rolling resistance of all of
their medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
tire offerings, including vocational
applications, in an effort to become
leaders in this technology.
The agencies also discussed with tire
suppliers the potential tire attribute
tradeoffs that may be associated with
incorporating designs that improve tire
rolling resistance, given the driving
patterns, environmental conditions, and
on-road and off-road surface conditions
that vocational vehicles are subjected to.
Some vehicle manufacturer commenters
had suggested that changes in tire tread
block design that improve rolling
resistance may adversely affect tire
performance characteristics such as
traction, resistance to tearing, and
resistance to wear and damage from
scrubbing on curbs and frequent tight
radius turns that are important to
customers for vocational vehicle
performance. The suppliers agreed that
providing tires unable to withstand
these conditions or meet the vehicle
application needs would adversely
affect customer satisfaction and
warranty expenses, and would have
detrimental financial effects to their
businesses. One supplier indicated that
theoretically, tread-wear (tire life) could
be compromised if suppliers choose to
reduce the initial tire tread depth
without any offsetting tire compound or
design enhancements as the means to
achieve rolling resistance reductions.
That supplier argued that taking this
approach could lead to more frequent
tire replacements or re-treading of
existing tire carcasses, and that the
agencies should therefore take a total
lifecycle view when evaluating the
effects of driving rolling resistance
reductions. That supplier also indicated
that a correlation of a 20 percent
reduction in rolling resistance achieved
through tread depth reduction could
lead to a 30 percent decrease in treadlife and 15 percent reduction in wet
traction. The agencies note that when
they inquired about potential ‘safety’
related tradeoffs, such as traction
(braking and handling) and tread wear
when applying low rolling resistance
technologies, tire suppliers which
remain subject to safety standards
regardless of this program, consistently
responded that they would not produce
a tire that compromises safety when
fitted in its proper application.
In addition to the supplier
discussions and evaluation of comments
to 17 different vocational tire designs, and for each
design there may be 8–10 different tire sizes. In
contrast, a line-haul application may have only 2–
3 tire designs with a fewer range of sizes.

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
EPA conducted a series of tire rolling
resistance tests on medium- and heavyduty vocational vehicle tires. The
testing measured the CRR of tires
representing 16 different vehicle
applications for Class 4–8 vocational
vehicles. The testing included
approximately 5 samples each of both
steer and drive tires for each
application. The tests were conducted
by two independent tire test labs,
Standards Testing Lab (STL) and
Smithers-Rapra (Smithers).
Overall, a total of 156 medium- and
heavy-duty tires128 were included in
this testing, which was comprised of 88
tires covering various commercial
vocational vehicle types, such as bucket
trucks, school buses, city delivery
vehicles, city transit buses and refuse
haulers among others; 47 tires intended
for application to tractors; and 21 tires
classified as light-truck (LT) tires
intended for Class 4 vocational vehicles
such as delivery vans. In addition,
approximately 20 of the tires tested
were exchanged between the labs to
assess inter-laboratory variability.
The test results for 88 commercial
vocational vehicle tires (19.5″ and 22.5″
sizes) showed a test average CRR of 7.4
kg/metric ton, with results ranging from
5.1 to 9.8. To comply with the proposed
vocational vehicle fuel consumption
and GHG emissions standards using
improved tire rolling resistance as the
compliance strategy, a manufacturer
would need to achieve an average tire
CRR value of 8.1 kg/metric ton.129 The
measured average CRR of 7.4kg/metric
ton is thus better than the average value
that would be needed to meet vocational
vehicle standards. Of those 173 tires
tested, twenty tires had CRR values
exceeding 8.1 kg/metric ton, two were at
8.1 kg/metric ton, and sixty-six tires
were better than 8.1 kg/metric ton.
Additional data analyses examining the
tire data by tire size to determine the
range and distribution of CRR values
within each tire size showed each tire
size generally had tires ranging from
approximately 6.0 to 8.5 kg/metric ton,
with a small number of tires in the 5.3–
5.7 kg/metric ton range and a small
128 After the agencies completed their analysis of
these data, the agencies received raw data on 43
additional tires. See Powell, Greg. Memorandum to
the Docket. Additional Tire Testing Results. July
2011. Docket NHTSA–2010–0079. The agencies
have not analyzed these additional data, nor
included them in the final report, and the data
therefore played no role in the agencies’
determination of an appropriate standard for
vocational vehicles. The agencies will analyze and
consider these data, along with any future data
received through continued testing, as appropriate,
in the next rulemaking for the heavy duty sector.
129 See 75 FR at 74244.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

number of tires in a range as high as
9.3–9.8 kg/ton. Review of the data
showed that for each tire size and
vehicle type, the majority of tires tested
would enable compliance with
vocational vehicle fuel consumption
and GHG emission standards.
The test results for the 47 tires
intended for tractor application showed
an overall average of 6.9 kg/ton, the
lowest overall average rolling resistance
of the different tire applications
tested.130 This is consistent with what
the agencies heard through comments
and meetings with tire suppliers whose
efforts have focused on tractor
applications, particularly for long-haul
applications, which yield the highest
fuel efficiency benefits from LRR tire
technology.
Finally, the 21 LT tires intended for
Class 4 vocational vehicles were
comprised of two sizes; LT225/75R16
and LT245/75R16 with 11 and 10
samples tested, respectively. Some auto
manufacturers have indicated that CRR
values for tires fitted to these Class 4
vehicles typically have a higher CRR
values than tires found on commercial
vocational vehicles because of the
smaller diameter wheel size and the ISO
testing protocol.131 The test data
showed the average CRR for LT225/
75R16 tires was 9.1 kg/metric ton and
the average for LT245/75R16 tires was
8.6 kg/metric ton. The range for the
LT225/75R16 tires spanned 7.4 to
11.0 132 and the range for the LT245/
75R16 tires ranged from 6.6 to 9.8 kg/
metric ton. Overall, the average for the
tested LT tires was 8.9 kg/metric ton.
Analysis of the EPA test data for all
vocational vehicles, including LT tires,
shows the test average CRR is 7.7 kg/
metric ton with a standard deviation of
1.2 kg/metric ton. Review of the data
thus shows that for each tire size and
vehicle type, there are many tires
available that would enable compliance
with the proposed standards for
vocational vehicles and tractors except
for LT tires for Class 4 vocational
vehicles where test results show the
majority of these tires have CRR worse
than 8.1 kg/metric ton.
The agencies also reviewed the CRR
data from the tires that were tested at
both the STL and Smithers laboratories
to assess inter-laboratory and test
130 The CRR values for these applications ranged
from 5.4 to 9.2 kg/metric ton.
131 See comments to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162–1761; Ford Motor Company
132 The agency notes the highest CRR values
recorded for LT tires, of 11.0 and 10.9, were for two
tires of the same size and brand. The nearest
recorded values to these two tires were 9.8;
substantially beyond the differences between other
tires tested.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

machine variability. The agencies
conducted statistical analysis of the data
to gain better understanding of lab-tolab correlation and developed an
adjustment factor for data measured at
each of the test labs. When applied, this
correction factor showed that for 77 of
the 80 tires tested, the difference
between the original CRR and a value
corrected CRR was 0.01 kg/metric ton.
The values for the remaining three tires
were 0.03 kg/metric ton, 0.05 kg/metric
ton and 0.07 kg/metric ton. Based on
these results, the agencies believe the
lab-to-lab variation for the STL and
Smithers laboratories would have very
small effect on measured CRR values.
Further, in analyzing the data, the
agencies considered both measurement
variability and the value of the
measurements relative to proposed
standards. The agencies concluded that
although laboratory-to-laboratory and
test machine-to-test machine
measurement variability exists, the level
observed is not excessive relative to the
distribution of absolute measured CRR
performance values and relative to the
proposed standards. Based on this, the
agencies concluded that the test
protocol is reasonable for this program,
but are making some revisions to the
vehicle standards.
The agencies also conducted a winter
traction test of 28 tires to evaluate the
impact of low rolling resistance designs
on winter traction. The results of the
study indicate that there was no
statistical relationship between rolling
resistance and snow traction.133
(iii) Summary of Final Rules
For vocational vehicles, the agencies
intend to keep rolling resistance as an
input to the GEM but with
modifications to the proposed targets as
a result of the testing completed by EPA
since the NPRM and information from
tire suppliers. The agencies continue to
believe that LRR tires, which are an
available, cost-effective, and appropriate
technology with demonstrated fuel
efficiency and GHG reduction benefits,
are reasonable for all on-highway
vehicles.
The agencies acknowledge there can
be tradeoffs when designing a tire for
reduced rolling resistance. These
tradeoffs can include characteristics
such as wear resistance, cost and scuff
resistance. However, the agencies have
continued to review this issue and do
not believe that LRR tires as specified in
the rules present safety issues. The
agencies continue to believe that LRR
133 Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to Docket.
Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162. Pages 3–6.

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57173

tires, which are an available, costeffective, and appropriate technology
with demonstrated fuel efficiency and
GHG reduction benefits, are reasonable
for all on-highway vehicles. The final
program also provides exemptions for
vehicles meeting ‘‘low-speed’’ or ‘‘offroad’’ criteria, including application of
speed restricted tires. Vocational
vehicles that have speed restricted tires
in order to accommodate particular
applications may be exempted from the
program under the off-road or low-speed
exemption, described in greater detail
below in Section II.D.(1)(a)(iv).
As just noted, the agencies conducted
independent testing of current tires
available to assist confirming the
finalized rolling resistance standards.
The tire test samples were selected from
those currently available on the market
and therefore have no known safety
issues and meet all current requirements
to allow availability in commerce;
including wear, scuff resistance,
braking, traction under wet or icy
conditions, and other requirements.
These tires included a wide array of
sizes and designs intended for most all
vocational applications, including those
used for school buses, refuse haulers,
emergency vehicles, concrete mixers,
and recreational vehicles. As the test
results revealed, there are a significant
number of tires available that meet or do
better than the rolling resistance targets
for vocational vehicles; both light-truck
(with an adjustment factor described
later in this preamble section) and nonLT tire types, while meeting all
applicable safety standards.
The agencies also recognize the
extreme conditions fire apparatus
equipment must navigate to enable
firefighters to perform their duties. As
described below, the final rules contain
provisions to allow for exemption of
specific off-road capable vocational
vehicles from the fuel efficiency and
greenhouse gas standards. Included in
the exemption criteria are provisions for
vehicles equipped with specific tire
types that would be fit to a vehicle to
meet extreme demands, including those
vehicles designed for off-road
capability.
As follow-up to the final rules and in
support for development of a separate
FMVSS rule, NHTSA plans to conduct
additional performance-focused testing
(beyond rolling resistance) for mediumand heavy-duty trucks. This testing is
targeted for completion toward the end
of this year. The agencies will review
these performance data when available,
in concert with any subsequent
proposed rulemakings regarding fuel
consumption and GHG emissions

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57174

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

of a CRR target value of 7.7 kg/metric
ton for non-LT tire type. As discussed
previously, this value is the test average
of all vocational tires tested (including
LT) which takes a conservative
approach over setting a target based on
the average of only the non-LT
vocational tires tested. For LT tires,
based on both the test data and the
comments from AAPC and Ford Motor
Company, the agencies recognize the
need to provide an adjustment. In lieu
of having two sets of Light Heavy-Duty
vocational vehicle standards, the
agencies are finalizing an adjustment
factor which applies to the CRR test
results for LT tires. The agencies
developed an adjustment factor dividing
the overall vocational test average CRR
of 7.7 by the LT vocational average of
8.9. This yields an adjustment factor of
0.87. For LT vocational vehicle tires, the
measured CRR values will be multiplied
TABLE II–14—VOCATIONAL VEHICLE— by the 0.87 adjustment factor before
TARGET CRR VALUES FOR GEM entering the values in the GEM for
INPUT
compliance.
Based on the tire rolling resistance
2014 MY
2017 MY inputs noted above, EPA is finalizing
the following CO2 standards for the
Tire Rolling Resist7.7 kg/
7.7 kg/
2014 model year for the Class 2b
ance (kg/metric
metric
metric
through Class 8 vocational vehicle
ton).
ton.
ton
chassis, as shown in Table II–15.
Similarly, NHTSA is finalizing the
These target values are being revised
following fuel consumption standards
based on the significant availability of
tires for vocational vehicles applications for the 2016 model year, with voluntary
which have performance better than the standards beginning in the 2014 model
year. For the EPA GHG program, the
originally proposed 8.1 kg/metric ton
target. As just discussed, 63 of the 88
standard applies throughout the useful
tires tested for vocational applications
life of the vehicle. The agencies note
had CRR values better than the
that both the baseline performance and
proposed target. The tires tested covered standards derived for the final rules
fitment to a wide range of vocational
slightly differ from the values derived
vehicle types and classes; thus agencies for the NPRM. The first difference is due
believe the original target value of 8.1
to the change in the target rolling
kg/metric ton was possibly too lenient
resistance from 8.1 to 7.7 kg/metric ton
after reviewing the testing data.
based on the agencies’ test results.
Therefore, the agencies believe it is
Second, there are minor differences in
appropriate to reduce the proposed
the fuel consumption and CO2
vehicle standard based on performance
emissions due to the small
standards for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles.
For vocational vehicles, the rolling
resistance of each tire will be measured
using the ISO 28850 test method for
drive tires and steer tires planned for
fitment to the vehicle being certified.
Once the test CRR values are obtained,
a manufacturer will input the CRR
values for the drive and steer tires
separately into the GEM where, for
vocational vehicles, the vehicle load is
distributed equally over the steer and
drive tires. Once entered, the amount of
GHG reduction attributed to tire rolling
resistance will be incorporated into the
overall vehicle compliance value. The
following table provides the revised
target CRR values for vocational
vehicles for 2014 and 2017 model years
that are used to determine the vehicle
standards.

modifications made to the GEM, as
noted in RIA Chapter 4. Lastly, the final
HHD vocational vehicle standard uses a
revised payload assumption of 15,000
pounds instead of the 38,000 pounds
used in the NPRM, as described in
Section II.D.3.c.iii. As a result, the
emission standards shown in Table II–
15 for vocational vehicles have changed
from the standards published in the
NPRM. The changes for light heavy and
medium heavy-duty vehicles are
modest. The change for heavy heavyduty vocational vehicles is larger, due to
the difference in assumed payload.
As with the 2017 MY standards for
Class 7 and 8 tractors, EPA and NHTSA
are adopting more stringent vocational
vehicle standards for the 2017 model
year which reflect the CO2 emissions
reductions required through the 2017
model year engine standards. See also
Section II.B.2 explaining the same
approach for the standards for
combination tractors. As explained in
Section 0 below, engine performance is
one of the inputs into the GEM
compliance model that has a predefined (i.e. fixed) value established by
the agencies, and that input will change
in the 2017 MY to reflect the 2017 MY
engine standards. The 2017 MY
vocational vehicle standards are not
premised on manufacturers installing
additional vehicle technologies, and a
vocational vehicle that complies with
the standards in MY 2016 will also
comply in MY 2017 with no vehicle
(tire) changes. Thus, although chassis
manufacturers will not be required to
make further improvements in the 2017
MY to meet the standards, the standards
will be more stringent to reflect the
engine improvements required in that
year. This is because in 2017 MY GEM
vehicle modeling outputs (in grams per
ton mile and gallons per 1,000 ton mile)
will automatically decrease since engine
efficiency will improve in that year.

TABLE II–15—FINAL CLASS 2b–8 VOCATIONAL VEHICLE CO2 AND FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS
EPA CO2 (gram/ton-mile) Standard Effective 2014 Model Year

CO2 Emissions ...............................

Light Heavy-Duty Class 2b–5 .......

Medium Heavy-Duty Class 6–7 ....

Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8

388 ................................................

234 ................................................

226

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

NHTSA Fuel Consumption (gallon per 1,000 ton-mile) Standard Effective 2016 Model Year 134

Fuel Consumption ..........................

Light Heavy-DutyClass 2b–5 ........

Medium Heavy-Duty Class 6–7 ....

Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8

38.1 ...............................................

23.0 ...............................................

22.2

EPA CO2 (gram/ton-mile) Standard Effective 2017 Model Year

CO2 Emissions ...............................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Light Heavy-Duty Class 2b–5 .......

Medium Heavy-Duty Class 6–7 ....

Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8

373 ................................................

225 ................................................

222

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57175

TABLE II–15—FINAL CLASS 2b–8 VOCATIONAL VEHICLE CO2 AND FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS—Continued
NHTSA Fuel Consumption (gallon per ton-mile) Standard Effective 2017 Model Year

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Fuel Consumption ..........................

Light Heavy-Duty Class 2b–5 .......

Medium Heavy-Duty Class 6–7 ....

Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8

36.7 ...............................................

22.1 ...............................................

21.8

(iv) Off-Road and Low-Speed Vocational
Vehicle Standards
Some vocational vehicles, because
they are primarily designed for off-road
use, may not be good candidates for low
rolling resistance tires. These vehicles
may travel on-road for very limited
periods of time, such as in traveling on
an urban road, or if they are off-loaded
from another vehicle onto a road and
then are driven off-road. The infrequent
and limited exposure to on-road
environments makes these vehicles
suitable candidates for providing an
exemption from the CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption standards for
vocational vehicles (although the
standards for HD engines used in
vocational vehicles would still
apply).135 The agencies are also
targeting other vehicles that travel at
low speeds and that are meant to be
used both on- and off-road. The
application of certain technologies to
these vehicles may not provide the same
level of benefits as it would for pure onroad vehicles, and moreover, could even
reduce the functionality of the vehicle.
In this case, the agencies want to ensure
that vehicle functionality is maintained
to the maximum extent possible, while
avoiding the possibility that achievable
benefits are not realized because of the
structure of the regulations. The
sections below explain this issue in
more detail as it applies to tractors and
vocational vehicles.
The agencies explained in the NPRM
that certain vocational vehicles have
very limited on-road usage, and that
although they would be defined as
‘‘motor vehicles’’ per 40 CFR 85.1703,
the fact that they spend the most of their
operations off-road might be reason for
excluding them from the vocational
vehicle standards. Vocational vehicles,
such as those used on oil fields and
construction sites,136 experience very
little benefit from LRR tires or from any
other technologies to reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption. The
agencies proposed to allow a narrow
range of these de facto off-road vehicles
134 Manufacturers may voluntarily opt-in to the
NHTSA fuel consumption program in 2014 or 2015.
Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA program
it must stay in the program for all the optional MYs.
135 See 75 FR at 74199.
136 Vehicles such as concrete mixers, off-road
dump trucks, backhoes and wheel loaders.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

to be excluded from the proposed
vocational vehicle standards if equipped
with special off-road tires having lug
type treads. The agencies stated in the
NPRM that on/off road traction is the
only tire performance parameter which
trades off with TRR so significantly that
tire manufacturers could be unable to
develop tires meeting both a TRR
standard while maintaining or
improving the characteristic allowing
them to perform off-road. See generally
75 FR at 74199–200. Therefore, the
agencies proposed to exempt these
vehicles from the standards while
requiring them to use certified engines,
which would provide fuel consumption
and CO2 emission reductions in all
vocational applications. To ensure that
these vehicles were in fact used chiefly
off-road, the agencies proposed
requirements that would allow
exemption of a vehicle provided the
vehicle and the tires were speed
restricted. As mentioned, the agencies
were aware that the majority of off road
trucks primarily use off-road tires and
are low speed vehicles as well. Based
upon this understanding, the agencies
specifically proposed that a vehicle
must meet the following requirements to
qualify for an exemption from
vocational vehicle standards:
• Tires which are lug tires or contain
a speed rating of less than or equal to
60 mph; and
• A vehicle speed limiter governed to
55 mph.
In response to the NPRM, EMA/TMA,
Navistar and Volvo agreed with the
proposal to exclude off-road vocational
vehicles from the standards because
these vehicles primarily operate offroad, but requested broadening the
exclusion to cover other types of
vocational vehicles. Several
manufacturers (IAFC, FAMA, NTEA,
NSWMA, AAPC, RMA, Navistar and
DTNA) requested the exemption of
specific vehicle types, such as on/offroad emergency vehicles, refuse
vehicles, low speed transit buses or
school buses, because their usage was
viewed as being incompatible with LRR
tires. Navistar opposed the application
of the proposed regulations to school
buses, arguing that LRR tires may
impact the ride quality for children in
school buses. However, Navistar also
acknowledged that a significant portion

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of the national fleet of school buses
already utilizes off-road tires designed
with lug type tread patterns (e.g.,
Kentucky). IAFC, FAMA and NTEA
commented that fire trucks and
ambulances should also be exempted
due to their part-time off-road use such
as in responding to a wildland fire or
hazardous materials incidents which
would require operations on dirt and
gravel roads, fields or other off-road
environments. Commenters also
contended that by requiring a 55-mph
limitation, the proposed exemption
would be impractical for emergency
vehicles due to the need to respond
quickly to life-threatening events. The
refuse truck manufacturers and trade
associations, NSWMA and AAPC,
commented that the solid waste
industry operates a variety of vocational
vehicles that perform solely off-road at
landfills. These comments also
requested an exemption for certain
refuse trucks (i.e., roll-off container
trucks) that frequently go off-road at
construction sites. Other commenters
(FAMA, IAFC and Oshkosh) opposed
compliance with the LRR standard for
vocational vehicles for on/off road
mixed service tires with aggressive or
lug treads, stating that up to this point
the industry has had very little interest
in improving the LRR aspects of these
tires or even to conducting testing to
determine values for the coefficient of
rolling resistance.
For the final rules, the agencies have
considered the issues raised by
commenters and have decided to adopt
different criteria than proposed for
exempting vocational vehicles and
vocational tractors that primarily travel
off-road. The agencies believe that the
reasons for proposing the exemption are
equally applicable to a wider class of
vocational vehicles operating mostly offroad so that the proposals were either
unsuitable for the industry or too
restrictive to capture all the vehicles
intended for the exemption. For
example, the NPRM proposal, by using
tire tread patterns and VSLs as the basis
for qualifying vehicles for the
exemption, was too restrictive because
other non-lug type tread patterns exist
in the market as well as other
technologies which are equally capable
of limiting the speed of the vehicle, as
mentioned by Volvo. Therefore, the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57176

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

proposed exemption for off-road
vocational vehicles will be replaced
with new criteria based on the vehicle
application, whether it operates at low
speed and whether the vehicle has
speed restricted tires. The exemption is
in part based on existing industry
standards established by NHTSA.137 As
such, any vocational vehicle including
vocational tractors primarily used offroad or at low speeds must meet the
following criteria to be exempt from
GHG and fuel consumption vehicle
standards:
• Any vehicle primarily designed to
perform work off-road such as in oil
fields, forests, or construction sites and
having permanently or temporarily
affixed components designed to work in
an off-road environment (i.e., hazardous
material equipment or off-road drill
equipment) or vehicles operating at low
speeds making them unsuitable for
normal highway operation; and meeting
one or more of the following criteria:
• Any vehicle equipped with an axle
that has a gross axle weight rating
(GAWR) of 29,000 pounds; or
• Any truck or bus that has a speed
attainable in 2 miles of not more than
33 mph; or
• Any truck that has a speed
attainable in 2 miles of not more than
45 mph, an unloaded vehicle weight
that is not less than 95 percent of its
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and
no capacity to carry occupants other
than the driver and operating crew.
The agencies are also adopting in the
final rules provisions to exempt any
vocational vehicle that can operate in
both on and off-road environments and
has speed restricted tires rated at 55
mph or below.138 The agencies’
reasoning in adopting a speed restricted
exemption for tires is that the majority
of mixed service tires used for off-road
use was identified as being restricted at
55 mph or less.139 Also, as identified by
FMVSS No. 119, speed restricted tires at
a rating of 55 mph or less are incapable
137 The heavy-duty off-road exemption is based in
part on requirements existing in NHTSA’s Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 119
and 121. In FMVSS No. 119, titled ‘‘New pneumatic
tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than
4,538 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and motorcycles,’’
speed restricted tires rated at a speed of 55 mph or
less are subjected to lower test drum speeds in the
endurance test to account for their low design
speeds (e.g., off-road tires). The off-road vehicle
exemptions adopted for this heavy-duty program
were based on the requirements used in FMVSS No.
121, ‘‘Air brake systems,’’ to identify and exclude
vocational vehicles based upon their inability to
meet on-highway stopping distance requirements.
138 See 40 CFR 1037.631.
139 Particular tire use was identified during the
FMVSS 119 rulemaking and confirmed through
subsequent market research. See ‘‘2010 Year Book
the Tire and RIM Association Inc.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

of meeting the same on-road
performance standards as conventional
tires. The agencies acknowledge that
using a speed restriction criteria could
allow certain vehicles to be exempted
inappropriately (i.e., low speed city
delivery tractors) but the agencies
believe this is preferable to creating a
situation where a segment of vehicles
are precluded from performing their
intended applications. Therefore, the
final rules include an exemption for any
mixed service (on and off-road)
vocational vehicle equipped with offroad tires that are speed restricted at 55
mph or less.
Manufacturers choosing to exempt
vehicles based on the above criteria will
be required to provide a description of
how they meet the qualifications for
each vehicle family group in their endof-the year and final year reports (see
Section V).
A manufacturer having an off-road
vehicle failing to meet the criteria under
the agencies’ off-road exemptions will
be allowed to submit a petition
describing how and why their vehicles
should qualify for exclusion. The
process of petitioning for an exemption
is explained in § 1037.631 and § 535.8.
For each request, the manufacturer will
be required to describe why it believes
an exemption is warranted and address
the following factors which the agencies
will consider in granting its petition:
• The agencies provide an exemption
based on off-road capability of the
vehicle or if the vehicle is fitted with
speed restricted tires. Which exemption
does your vehicle qualify under; and
• Are there any comparable tires that
exist in the market to carry out the
desired application both on and off road
for the subject vehicle(s) of the petition
which have LLR values that would
enable compliance with the standard?

standards are 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 below. In developing the final rules,
the agencies have evaluated the kinds of
technologies that could be utilized by
engine manufacturers compared to a
baseline engine, as well as the
associated costs for the industry and
fuel savings for the consumer and the
magnitude of the GHG and fuel
consumption savings that may be
achieved.
EPA’s existing criteria pollutant
emissions regulations for heavy-duty
highway engines establish four service
classes (three for compression-ignition
or diesel engines and one for spark
ignition or gasoline engines) that
represent the engine’s intended and
primary vehicle application, as shown
in Table II–16 (40 CFR 1036.140 and
NHTSA’s 49 CFR 535.4). The agencies
proposed to use the existing service
classes to define the engine
subcategories in this HD GHG emissions
and fuel consumption program. The
agencies did not receive any adverse
comments to using this approach. Thus,
the agencies are adopting the four
engine subcategories for this final
action.

(b) Heavy-Duty Engine Standards for
Engines Installed in Vocational Vehicles

Light Heavyduty (LHD)
Diesel.
Medium
Heavy-duty
(MHD) Diesel.
Heavy Heavyduty (HHD)
Diesel.
Gasoline .........

EPA is finalizing GHG standards 140
and NHTSA is finalizing 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 since
emissions and fuel consumption
profiles differ significantly depending
on whether the engine is gasoline or
diesel powered. The agencies’ analyses,
as discussed briefly below and in more
detail later in this preamble and in the
RIA Chapter 2, show that these
140 Specifically, EPA is finalizing CO , N O, and
2
2
CH4 emissions standards for new heavy-duty
engines over an EPA specified useful life period
(See Section 0 for the N2O and CH4 standards).

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

TABLE II–16—ENGINE REGULATORY
SUBCATEGORIES
Engine category

Intended application
Class 2b through Class 5
trucks (8,501 through
19,500 pounds GVWR).
Class 6 and Class 7 trucks
(19,501 through 33,000
pounds GVWR).
Class 8 trucks (33,001
pounds and greater
GVWR.
Incomplete vehicles less
than 14,000 pounds
GVWR and all vehicles
(complete or incomplete)
greater than 14,000
pounds GVWR.

(i) Diesel Engine Standards for Engines
Installed in Vocational Vehicles
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed
the following CO2 and fuel consumption
standards for HD diesel engines to be

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57177

installed in vocational vehicles, as
shown in Table II–17.

TABLE II–17—VOCATIONAL DIESEL ENGINE STANDARDS OVER THE HEAVY-DUTY FTP CYCLE
Standard

2014–2016 .............................

CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) .........................................................
Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ...
CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ........................................................
Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ...................................

2017 and Later .......................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Light heavyduty diesel

Model year

The agencies explained in the NPRM
that the standards were based on our
assessment of the findings of the 2010
NAS report and other literature sources
that there are technologies available to
reduce fuel consumption in all these
engines by this level in the final time
frame in a cost-effective manner. Similar
to the technology basis for HD engines
used in combination tractors, these
technologies include improved
turbochargers, aftertreatment
optimization, low temperature exhaust
gas recirculation, and engine friction
reductions.
The agencies proposed that the HD
diesel engine CO2 standards for
vocational vehicles would become
effective in MY 2014 for EPA, with more
stringent CO2 standards becoming
effective in MY 2017, while NHTSA’s
fuel consumption standards would
become effective in MY 2017, which
would be both consistent with the EISA
four-year minimum lead-time
requirements and harmonized with
EPA’s timing for stringency increases.
The agencies explained that the threeyear timing, besides being required by
EISA, made sense because EPA’s heavyduty highway engine program for
criteria pollutants had begun to provide
new emissions standards for the
industry in three year increments,
which had caused the heavy-duty
engine and vehicle manufacturer
product plans to fall largely into three
year cycles reflecting this regulatory
environment.141 To further harmonize
with EPA, NHTSA proposed voluntary
fuel consumption standards for HD
diesel engines for vocational vehicles in
MYs 2014–2016, allowing
manufacturers to opt into the voluntary
standards in any of those model
years.142 Manufacturers opting into the
program must declare by statement their
intent to comply prior to or at the same
141 See

generally 75 FR at 74200–201.
a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA
program it must stay in the program for all the
optional MYs and remain standardized with the
implementation approach being used to meet the
EPA emission program.
142 Once

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

time they submit their first application
for a certificate of conformity. A
manufacturer opting into the program
would begin tracking credits and debits
beginning in the model year in which
they opt in. Both agencies proposed to
allow manufacturers to generate and use
credits to achieve compliance with the
HD diesel engine standards for
vocational vehicles, including
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT),
and deficit carry-forward.
The agencies proposed to require HD
diesel engine manufacturers to achieve,
on average, a three percent reduction in
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions for
the 2014 standards over the baseline MY
2010 performance for the HHD diesel
engines, and a five percent reduction for
the LHD and MHD diesel engines. The
standards for the LHD and MHD engine
categories were proposed to be set at the
same level because the agencies found
that there is an overlap in the
displacement of engines which are
currently certified as LHDD or MHDD.
The agencies developed the baseline
2010 model year CO2 emissions from
data provided to EPA by manufacturers
during the non-GHG certification
process. Analysis of CO2 emissions from
2010 model year LHD and MHDD diesel
engines showed little difference
between LHD and MHD diesel engine
baseline CO2 performance in the 2010
model year, which overall averaged 630
g CO2/bhp-hr (6.19 gal/100 bhp-hr).143
Furthermore, the technologies available
to reduce fuel consumption and CO2
emissions from these two categories of
engines are similar. The agencies
considered combining these engine
categories into a single category, but
decided to maintain these two separate
engine categories with the same
standard level to respect the different
useful life periods associated with each
category.
For vocational engines certified on the
FTP cycle, the agencies proposed to
require a five percent reduction for HHD
engines and nine percent for LHD and
143 Calculated using the conversion 10,180 g CO /
2
gallon for diesel fuel.

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

600
5.89
576
5.66

Medium
heavy-duty
diesel
600
5.89
576
5.66

Heavy heavyduty diesel
567
5.57
555
5.45

MHD engines. For LHD and MHD
engines in 2017 MY, the nine percent
reduction is based on the assumption
that valvetrain friction reduction can be
achieved in LHD and MHD engines in
addition to turbo efficiency and
accessory (water, oil, and fuel pump)
improvements, improved EGR cooler,
and other approaches being used for
HHD engines.
Commenters who discussed the HD
diesel engine standards generally did
not differentiate between the standards
for engines used in combination tractors
and the engines used in vocational
vehicles. As explained above in Section
II.B.2.b, some commenters, such as
EMA/TMA, Cummins, DTNA, and other
manufacturers, supported the proposed
standards, as long as the flexibilities
proposed in the NPRM were finalized as
proposed. Volvo argued that the
standards are being phased in too
quickly. Environmental groups and
NGOs commented that the standards
should be more stringent and reflect the
potential for greater fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions reductions through
the use of additional technologies
outlined in the 2010 NAS study.
In response to those comments, the
agencies refer back to our discussion in
Section II.B.2.b. The agencies believe
that the additional reductions may be
achieved through the increased
development of the technologies
evaluated for the 2014 model year
standard, but the agencies’ analysis
indicates that this type of advanced
engine development will require a
longer development time than MY 2014.
The agencies are therefore providing
additional lead time to allow for the
introduction of this additional
technology, and waiting until 2017 to
increase stringency to levels reflecting
application of turbocompounding. See
Chapter 2 of the RIA for more details.
While it made sense to set standards
at the same level for LHD and MHD
diesel engines for vocational vehicles,
the agencies found that it did not make
sense to set HHD standards at the same
level. Based on manufacturer-submitted

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57178

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

CO2 data for the non-GHG emissions
certification process, the agencies found
that the baseline for HHD diesel engines
was much lower than for LHD/MHD
diesel engines—584 g CO2/bhp-hr (5.74
gal/100 bhp-hr) on average for HHD,
compared to 630 g CO2/bhp-hr (6.19 gal/
100 bhp-hr) on average for LHD/
MHD.144 In addition to the differences
in the baseline performance, the
agencies believe that there may be some
technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions that
may be appropriate for the HHD diesel
engines but not for the LHD/MHD diesel
engines, such as turbocompounding.
Therefore, the agencies are setting a
different standard level for HHD diesel
engines to be used in vocational
vehicles. Additional discussion on
technical feasibility is included in
Section III below and in Chapter 2 of the
RIA.
After consideration of the comments,
EPA and NHTSA are adopting as
proposed the CO2 emission standards
and fuel consumption standards for
heavy-duty diesel engines installed in
vocational vehicles are presented in
Table II–17. Consistent with proposal,
the first set of standards take effect with
MY 2014 (mandatory standards for EPA,
voluntary standards for NHTSA), and
the second set take effect with MY 2017
(mandatory for both agencies).
Compliance with the standards for
engines installed in vocational vehicles
will be evaluated based on the
composite HD FTP cycle. In the NPRM,
the agencies proposed standards based
on the Heavy-duty FTP cycle for engines
used in vocational vehicles reflecting
their primary use in transient operating
conditions (typified by both frequent
accelerations and decelerations), as well
as in some steady cruise conditions as
represented on the Heavy-duty FTP. The
primary reason the agencies proposed
two separate certification cycles for HD
diesel engines—one for HD diesel
engines used in combination tractors
and the other for HD diesel engines used
in vocational vehicles—is to encourage
engine manufacturers to install
technologies appropriate to the intended
use of the engine with the vehicle.145
DTNA, Cummins, EMA/TMA, and
Honeywell commented that certain
vocational vehicle applications would
achieve greater fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions reductions in-use by
using an engine designed to meet the
SET-based standard. They stated that
some vocational vehicles operate at
steady-state more frequently than in
144 Calculated using the conversion 10,180 g CO /
2
gallon for diesel fuel.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

transient operation, such as motor
coaches, and thus should be able to
have an engine certified on a steadystate cycle to better reflect the vehicle’s
real use.
In response, while the agencies
recognize the value to manufacturers of
having additional flexibility that allows
them to meet the standards in a way
most consistent with how their vehicles
and engines will ultimately be used, we
remain concerned about increasing
flexibility in ways that might impair
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
reductions. The agencies are therefore
providing the option in these final rules
for some vocational vehicles, but not
others, to have SET certified engines.
Heavy heavy-duty vocational engines
will be allowed to be SET certified for
vocational vehicles, since SET certified
HHD engines must meet more stringent
GHG and fuel consumption standards
than FTP certified engines. We believe
this will provide manufacturers
additional flexibility while still
achieving the expected fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions
reductions. However, medium heavyduty vocational engines will not be
allowed to be SET-certified, because
medium heavy-duty engines certified on
the FTP must meet a more stringent
standard than engines certified on the
SET, and the agencies are not confident
that fuel consumption and CO2
emissions reduction levels would
necessarily be maintained.
As discussed above in Section
II.B.2.b, the agencies place important
weight in making our decisions about
the cost-effectiveness of the standards
and the availability of lead time on the
fact that engine manufacturers are
expected to redesign and upgrade their
products during MYs 2014–2017. The
final two-step CO2 emission and fuel
consumption standards recognize the
opportunity for technology
improvements over the rulemaking time
frame, while reflecting the typical diesel
truck manufacturers’ and diesel engine
manufacturers’ product plan cycles.
Over these four model years there will
be an opportunity for manufacturers to
evaluate almost every one of their
engine models and add technology in a
cost-effective way, consistent with
existing redesign schedules, to control
GHG emissions and reduce fuel
consumption. The time-frame and levels
for the standards, as well as the ability
to average, bank and trade credits and
carry a deficit forward for a limited
time, are expected to provide
145 See

PO 00000

generally 75 FR at 74201.

Frm 00074

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

manufacturers the time needed to
incorporate technology that will achieve
the final GHG and fuel consumption
reductions, and to do this as part of the
normal engine redesign process. This is
an important aspect of the final rules, as
it will avoid the much higher costs that
would occur if manufacturers needed to
add or change technology at times other
than these scheduled redesigns.146 This
time period will also provide
manufacturers the opportunity to plan
for compliance using a multi-year time
frame, again in accord with their normal
business practice. Further details on
lead time, redesigns and technical
feasibility can be found in Section III.
The agencies recognize, however, that
the schedule of changes for the final
standards may not be the most costeffective one for all manufacturers. For
HD diesel engines for use in tractors, the
agencies discussed above in Section
II.B.2.b our decision in this final
program to allow an ‘‘OBD phase-in’’
option for meeting the standards, based
on comments received from several
industry organizations indicating that
aligning technology changes for
multiple regulatory requirements would
provide them with greater flexibility. In
the context of HD diesel engines for use
in vocational vehicles, Volvo, EMA/
TMA, and DDC specifically requested
an ‘‘OBD phase-in’’ option in its
comments to the NPRM. DDC argued
that bundling design changes where
possible can reduce the burden on
industry for complying with regulations,
so aligning the introduction of the OBD,
GHG, and fuel consumption standards
could help reduce the resources devoted
to validation of new product designs
and certification.
The agencies have the same interest in
providing this flexibility for
manufacturers of HD diesel engines for
use in vocational vehicles as in
providing it for manufacturers of HD
diesel engines for use in combination
tractors, as long as equivalent emissions
and fuel savings are maintained. Thus,
in order to provide additional flexibility
for manufacturers looking to align their
technology changes with multiple
regulatory requirements, the agencies
are finalizing an alternate ‘‘OBD phasein’’ option for meeting the HD diesel
engine standards which delivers
equivalent CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption reductions as the primary
standards for the engines built in the
2013 through 2017 model years, as
shown in Table II–18.
146 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

75 FR at 25467–68.

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57179

TABLE II–18—COMPARISON OF CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR THE ENGINE STANDARDS UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE OBD PHASE-IN
AND PRIMARY PHASE-IN
HHD FTP

LHD/MHD FTP

Baseline ...........................................................................
2013 MY Engine ..............................................................
2014 MY Engine ..............................................................
2015 MY Engine ..............................................................
2016 MY Engine ..............................................................
2017 MY Engine ..............................................................
Net Reductions (MMT) .....................................................

Table II–19 presents the final HD
diesel engine CO2 emission and fuel

Primary
phase-in
standard
(g/bhp-hr)

Optional
phase-in
standard
(g/bhp-hr)

Difference
in lifetime
CO2 engine
emissions
(MMT)

Primary
phase-in
standard
(g/bhp-hr)

Optional
phase-in
standard
(g/bhp-hr)

584
584
567
567
567
555
....................

584
577
577
577
555
555
....................

....................
20
¥28
¥28
34
0
¥3

630
630
600
600
600
576
....................

630
618
618
618
576
576
....................

Difference
in lifetime
CO2 engine
emissions
(MMT)
14
¥22
¥22
29
0
0

consumption standards under the
optional ‘‘OBD phase-in’’ option.

TABLE II–19—OPTIONAL HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE STANDARD PHASE-IN
Standard

2013 .................................

CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ...............................................................
Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr) .........
CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ...............................................................
Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp-hr) .........................................

2016 and Later .................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Light heavyduty diesel

Model year

In order to ensure equivalent CO2 and
fuel consumption reductions and
orderly compliance, and to avoid
gaming, the agencies are requiring that
if a manufacturer selects the OBD phasein option, it must certify its engines
starting in the 2013 model year and
continue using this phase-in through the
2016 model year. Manufacturers may
opt into the OBD phase-in option
through the voluntary NHTSA program,
but must opt in in the 2013 model year
and continue using this phase-in
through the 2016 model year.
Manufacturers that opt in to the
voluntary NHTSA program in 2014 and
2015 will be required to meet the
primary phase-in schedule and may not
adopt the OBD phase-in option.
As discussed above in Section
II.B.2.b, while the agencies believe that
the HD diesel engine standards are
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible in the
rulemaking time frame, we also
recognize that when regulating a
category of engines for the first time,
there will be individual products that
may deviate significantly from the
baseline level of performance, whether
because of a specific approach to criteria
pollution control, or due to engine
calibration for specific applications or
duty cycles. That earlier discussion
described HD diesel engines for use in
combination tractors, but the same

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

supporting information is relevant to the
agencies’ consideration of an alternate
standard for HD diesel engines installed
in vocational vehicles. In the NPRM, the
agencies proposed an optional engine
standard for HD diesel engines installed
in vocational vehicles based on a five
percent reduction from the engine’s own
2011 model year baseline level, but
requested comment on whether a two
percent reduction would be more
appropriate.147 The comments received
in response did not directly address
engines for vocational vehicles, but the
agencies believe that the information
provided by Navistar and others is
equally applicable to HD diesel engines
for combination tractors and for
vocational vehicles. Our assessment for
the final standards is that a 2.5 percent
reduction is appropriate for LHD and
MHD engines installed in vocational
vehicles and 3 percent is appropriate for
HHD engines installed in vocational
vehicles given the technologies
available for application to legacy
products by model year 2014.148 Unlike
the majority of engine products in this
segment, engine manufacturers have
devoted few resources to developing
technologies for these legacy products
reasoning that the investment would
have little value if the engines are to be
147 See
148 To

PO 00000

75 FR at 74202.
be codified at 40 CFR 1036.620.

Frm 00075

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

618
6.07
576
5.66

Medium
heavy-duty
diesel
618
6.07
576
5.66

Heavy heavyduty diesel
577
5.67
555
5.45

substantially redesigned or replaced in
the next five years. Hence, although the
technologies we have identified to
achieve the proposed five percent
reduction would theoretically work for
these legacy products, there is
inadequate lead time for manufacturers
to complete the pre-application
development needed to add the
technology to these engines by 2014.
The mix of technologies available off the
shelf for legacy engines varies between
engine lines within OEMs and varies
among OEMs as well. On average, based
on our review of manufacturer
development history and current plans,
we project that for the legacy products
approximately half of the defined
technologies appropriate for the 2014
standard will be available and ready for
application by 2014 for older legacy
engine designs. Hence, we have
concluded that if we limit the
reductions to those improvements
which reflect further enhancements of
already installed systems rather than the
addition or replacement of technologies
with fully developed new on the shelf
components, the potential improvement
for the 2014 model year will be 2.5
percent for LHD and MHD engines and
3 percent HHD engines.
Just as for HD diesel engines used in
combination tractors, the agencies stress
that this option for HD engines used in
vocational vehicles is temporary and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57180

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

limited and is being adopted to address
diverse manufacturer needs associated
with complying with this first phase of
the regulations. This optional,
alternative standard will be available
only for the 2014 through 2016 model
years, because we believe that
manufacturers will have had ample
opportunity to make appropriate
changes to bring their product
performance into line with the rest of
the industry after that time. This
optional standard will not be available
unless and until a manufacturer has
exhausted all available credits and
credit opportunities, and engines under
the alternative standard could not
generate credits.
The agencies note that manufacturers
choosing to utilize this option in MYs
2014–2016 will have to make a greater
relative improvement in MY 2017 than
the rest of the industry, since they will
be starting from a worse level. For
compliance purposes, in MYs 2014–
2016 emissions from engines certified
and sold at the alternate level will be
averaged with emissions from engines
certified and sold at more stringent
levels to arrive at a weighted average
emissions level for all engines in the
subcategory. Again, this option can only
be taken if all other credit opportunities
have been exhausted and the
manufacturer still cannot meet the
primary standards. If a manufacturer
chooses this option to meet the EPA
emission standards in MY 2014–2016,
and wants to opt into the NHTSA fuel
consumption program in these same
MYs it must follow the exact path
followed under the EPA program
utilizing equivalent fuel consumption
standards.
As discussed above in Section
II.B.2.b, Volvo argued that
manufacturers could game the standard
by establishing an artificially high 2011
baseline emission level. This could be
done, for example, by certifying an
engine with high fuel consumption and
GHG emissions that is either: (1) Not
sold in significant quantities; or (2) later
altered to emit fewer GHGs and
consume less fuel through service
changes. In order to mitigate this
possibility, the agencies are requiring
either that the 2011 model year baseline
must be developed by averaging
emissions over all engines in an engine
averaging set certified and sold for that
model year so as to prevent a
manufacturer from developing a single
high GHG output engine solely for the
purpose of establishing a high baseline
or meet additional criteria. The agencies
are allowing manufacturers to combine
light heavy-duty and medium heavyduty diesel engines into a single

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

averaging set for this provision because
the engines have the same GHG
emissions and fuel consumption
standards. If a manufacturer does not
certify all engine families in an
averaging set to the alternate standards,
then the tested configuration of the
engine certified to the alternate standard
must have the same engine
displacement and its rated power within
5 percent of the highest rated power as
the baseline engine. In addition, the
tested configurations must have a BSFC
equivalent to or better than all other
configurations within the engine family
and represent a configuration that is
sold to customers.
(ii) Gasoline Engine Standard
Heavy-duty gasoline engines are also
used in vocational vehicle applications.
The number of engines certified in the
past for this segment of vehicles is very
limited and has ranged between three
and five engine models.149 Unlike the
heavy-duty diesel engines typical of this
segment which are built for vocational
vehicles, these gasoline engines are
developed for heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans primarily, but are also sold as
loose engines to vocational vehicle
manufacturers, for use in vocational
vehicles such as some delivery trucks.
Some fleets still prefer gasoline engines
over diesel engines. In the past, this was
the case since gasoline stations were
more prevalent than stations that sold
diesel fuel. Because they are developed
for HD pickups and vans, the agencies
evaluated these engines in parallel with
the heavy-duty pickup truck and van
standard development. As in the pickup
truck and van segment, the agencies
anticipated that the manufacturers will
have only one engine re-design within
the 2014–2018 model years under
consideration within the proposal. The
agencies therefore proposed fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions
standards for gasoline engines for use in
vocational vehicles, which represent a
five percent reduction in CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption in the 2016
model year over the 2010 MY baseline
through use of technologies such as
coupled cam phasing, engine friction
reduction, and stoichiometric gasoline
direct injection.
In our meetings with all three of the
major manufacturers in the HD pickup
and van segment, confidential future
product plans were shared with the
agencies. Reflecting those plans and our
estimates for when engine changes will
be made in alignment with those
product plans, we had concluded for
149 EPA’s heavy-duty engine certification database
at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm#largeng.

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

proposal that the 2016 model year
reflects the most logical model year start
date for the heavy-duty gasoline engine
standards. In order to meet the
standards we are finalizing for 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 final
fuel consumption standard and EPA’s
final CO2 standard for heavy-duty
gasoline engines are first effective in the
2016 model year.
The baseline 2010 model year CO2
performance of these heavy-duty
gasoline engines over the Heavy-duty
FTP cycle is 660 g CO2/bhp-hr (7.43 gal/
100 bhp-hr) in 2010 based on non-GHG
certification data provided to EPA by
the manufacturers. The agencies are
finalizing 2016 model year standards
that require manufacturers to achieve a
five percent reduction in CO2 compared
to the 2010 MY baseline through use of
technologies such as coupled cam
phasing, engine friction reduction, and
stoichiometric gasoline direct injection.
Additional detail on technology
feasibility is included in Section III and
in the RIA Chapter 2. As shown in Table
II–20, NHTSA is finalizing as proposed
a 7.06 gallon/100 bhp-hr standard for
fuel consumption while EPA is adopting
as proposed a 627 g CO2/bhp-hr
standard tested over the Heavy-duty
FTP, effective in the 2016 model year.
Similar to EPA’s non-GHG standards
approach, manufacturers may generate
and use credits by the same engine
averaging set to show compliance with
both agencies’ standards.

TABLE II–20—HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE
ENGINE STANDARDS
Gasoline
engine
standard

Model
year
2016
and
Later.

CO2 Standard (g/
bhp-hr).

627

Fuel Consumption (gallon/100
bhp-hr).

7.06

(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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
is finalizing apply to individual vehicles
and engines. NHTSA is not finalizing
in-use standards that would apply to the
vehicles and engines in a similar
fashion.
EPA proposed that the in-use
standards for heavy-duty engines
installed in vocational vehicles be
established by adding an adjustment
factor to the full useful life emissions
results projected in the EPA certification
process to account for measurement
variability inherent in testing done at
different laboratories with different
engines. The agency proposed a two
percent adjustment factor and requested
comments and additional data during
the proposal to assist in developing an
appropriate factor level. The agency
received additional data during the
comment period which identified
production variability which was not
accounted for at proposal. Details on the
development of the final adjustment
factor are included in RIA Chapter 3.
Based on the data received, EPA
determined that the adjustment factor in
the final rules should be higher than the
proposed level of two percent. EPA is
finalizing a three percent adjustment
factor for the in-use standard to provide

a reasonable margin for production and
test-to-test variability that could result
in differences between the initial
emission test results and emission
results obtained during subsequent inuse testing.
We are finalizing regulatory text (in
§ 1036.150) to allow engine
manufacturers to used assigned
deterioration factors (DFs) without
performing their own durability
emission tests or engineering analysis.
However, the engines would still be
required to meet the standards in actual
use without regard to whether the
manufacturer used the assigned DFs.
This allowance is being adopted as an
interim provision applicable only for
this initial phase of standards.
Manufacturers will be allowed to use
an assigned additive DF of 0.0 g/bhp-hr
for CO2 emissions from any
conventional engine (i.e., an engine not
including advance or innovative
technologies). Upon request, we could
allow the assigned DF for CO2 emissions
from engines including advance or
innovative technologies, but only if we
determine that it would be consistent
with good engineering judgment. We
believe that we have enough
information about in-use CO2 emissions

57181

from conventional engines to conclude
that they will not increase as the
engines age. However, we lack such
information about the more advanced
technologies.
EPA proposed that the useful life for
these engines and vehicles with respect
to GHG emissions be set equal to the
respective useful life periods for criteria
pollutants. EPA proposed that the
existing engine useful life periods, as
included in Table II–21, be broadened to
include CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption for both engines and
vocational vehicles. The agency did not
receive any adverse comments with this
approach and is finalizing the useful life
periods as proposed (see 40 CFR
1036.108(d) and 1037.105). While
NHTSA will use useful life
considerations for establishing fuel
consumption performance for initial
compliance and for ABT, NHTSA does
not intend to implement an in-use
compliance program for fuel
consumption, because it is not required
under EISA and because it is not
currently anticipated there will be
notable deterioration of fuel
consumption over the engines’ useful
life.

TABLE II–21—USEFUL LIFE PERIODS
Years
Class 2b–5 Vocational Vehicles, Spark Ignited, and Light Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ........................................
Class 6–7 Vocational Vehicles and Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines .............................................................
Class 8 Vocational Vehicles and Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ....................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(2) Test Procedures and Related Issues
The agencies are finalizing test
procedures to evaluate fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of
vocational vehicles in a manner very
similar to Class 7 and Class 8
combination tractors. This section
describes the simulation model for
demonstrating compliance, engine test
procedures, and a test procedure for
evaluating hybrid powertrains (a
potential means of generating credits,
although not part of the technology
package on which the final standard for
vocational vehicles is premised).
(a) Computer Simulation Model
As previously mentioned, to achieve
the goal of reducing emissions and fuel
consumption for both trucks and
engines, we are finalizing separate
engine and vehicle-based emission and
fuel consumption standards for
vocational vehicles and engines used in
those vehicles. For the vocational
vehicles, engine manufacturers are
subject to the engine standards, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

chassis manufacturers are required to
install certified engines in their chassis.
The chassis manufacturer is subject to a
separate vehicle-based standard that
uses the final vehicle simulation model,
the GEM, to evaluate the impact of the
tire design to determine compliance
with the vehicle standard.
A simulation model, in general, uses
various inputs to characterize a
vehicle’s properties (such as weight,
aerodynamics, and rolling resistance)
and predicts how the vehicle would
behave on the road when it follows a
driving cycle (vehicle speed versus
time). On a second-by-second basis, the
model determines how much engine
power needs to be generated for the
vehicle to follow the driving cycle as
closely as possible. The engine power is
then transmitted to the wheels through
transmission, driveline, and axles to
move the vehicle according to the
driving cycle. The second-by-second
fuel consumption of the vehicle, which
corresponds to the engine power
demand to move the vehicle, is then

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Miles
10
10
10

110,000
185,000
435,000

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 finalizing an
approach consistent with the proposal
to evaluate fuel consumption and CO2
emissions respectively through a
simulation of whole-vehicle operation,
consistent with the NAS
recommendation to use a truck model to
evaluate truck performance. The EPA
developed the GEM for the specific
purpose of this rulemaking to evaluate
vehicle performance. The GEM is
similar in concept to a number of
vehicle simulation tools developed by
commercial and government entities.
The model developed by the EPA and
finalized here was designed for the
express purpose of vehicle compliance
demonstration and is therefore simpler
and less configurable than similar

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

commercial products. This approach
gives a compact and quicker tool for
evaluating vehicle compliance without
the overhead and costs of a more

complicated model. Details of the
model, including changes made to the
model to address concerns of the peer
reviewers and commenters are included

in Chapter 4 of the RIA. An example of
the GEM input screen is shown in
Figure II–4.

EPA and NHTSA have validated the
GEM simulation of vocational vehicles
against a commonly used simulation
tool used in industry, GT-Drive, for each
vocational vehicle subcategory. Prior to
using GT-Drive as a comparison tool,
the agencies first benchmarked a GTDrive simulation of the combination
tractor tested at Southwest Research
against the experimental test results
from the chassis dynamometer in the
same manner as done for GEM. Then the
EPA developed three vocational vehicle
models (LHD, MHD, and HHD) and
simulated them using both GEM and
GT-Drive. Overall, the GEM and GTDrive predicted the fuel consumption
and CO2 emissions for all three
vocational vehicle subcategories with
differences of less than 2 percent for the
three test cycles—the California ARB
Transient cycle, 55 mph cruise, and 65
mph cruise cycle.150 The final
simulation model is described in greater
detail in RIA Chapter 4 and is available

for download by interested parties at
(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/).
The agencies are requiring that for
demonstrating compliance, a chassis
manufacturer would measure the
performance of tires, input the values
into GEM, and compare the model’s
output to the standard. As explained
earlier, low rolling resistance tires are
the only technology on which the
agencies’ own feasibility analysis for
these vehicles is predicated. The input
values for the simulation model will be
derived by the manufacturer from the
final tire test procedure described in
this action. The remaining model inputs
will be fixed values pre-defined by the
agencies. These are detailed in the RIA
Chapter 4, including the engine fuel
consumption map to be used in the
simulation.

determined using ISO 28580:2009(E),
Passenger car, truck and bus tyres—
Methods of measuring rolling
resistance—Single point test and
correlation of measurement results.151
The agencies stated that they believed
the ISO test method was the most
appropriate for this program because the
method is the same one used by the
NHTSA tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program,152 by European
regulations,153 and by the EPA
SmartWay program.
The NPRM also discussed the
potential for tire-to-tire variability to
confound rolling resistance
measurement results for LRR tires—that
is, different tires of the same tire model
could turn out to have different rolling
resistance measurements when run on

150 See

RIA Chapter 4, Table 4–8.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(b) Tire Rolling Resistance Assessment
In terms of how tire rolling resistance
would be measured, the agencies
proposed to require that the tire rolling
resistance input to the GEM be

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

151 See http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/
catalogue_tc/
catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44770.
152 75 FR 15893, March 30,2010.
153 See http://www.energy.ca.gov/
2009publications/CEC–600–2009–010/CEC–600–
2009–010–SD–REV.PDF (last accessed May 9, 2011).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.004

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57182

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the same test. NHTSA’s research during
the development of the light-duty
vehicle tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program identified several
sources of variability including test
procedures, test equipment and the tires
themselves, but found that all of the
existing test methods had similar levels
of and sources of variability.154 The
agencies proposed to address
production tire-to-tire variability by
specifying that three tire samples within
each tire model be tested three times
each, and that the average of the nine
tests would be used as the Rolling
Resistance Coefficient (CRR) for the tire,
which would be the basis for the rolling
resistance value for that tire that the
manufacturer would enter into the GEM.
The agencies requested comment on this
proposed method.155
The agencies received many
comments on the subject of tire rolling
resistance, including suggestions for
alternative test procedures and
compliance issues. Regarding whether
the agencies should base tire CRR inputs
for the GEM on the use of the ISO 28580
test procedure, the American
Automotive Policy Council (AAPC)
argued that the agencies should instead
require the SAE J2452 Coastdown test
method for calculating tire rolling
resistance, which the commenter stated
was preferred by OEMs because it
simulates the use of tires on actual
vehicles rather than the ISO procedure
which tests the tire by itself. The Rubber
Manufacturers Association (RMA)
argued, in contrast, that the agencies
should use the SAE J1269 multi-point
test, which is currently the basis for the
EPA SmartWayTM CRR baseline values.
RMA also argued that the SAE J1269
multi-point test can be used to
accurately predict truck/bus tire CRR at
various loads and inflations, including
at the ISO 28580 load and inflation
conditions, and that therefore the
agencies should use the SAE test, or if
the agencies want to use ISO, they
should accept results from the SAE test
and just correlate them. Regarding
compliance obligations, RMA further
argued that it was not clear how or in
what format testing information would
need to be provided in order to be in
compliance with the proposed
requirement at § 1037.125(i).
The agencies analyzed many
comments on the subject of tire rolling
resistance. One of the primary concerns
raised in comments was that the
proposed test protocol and
measurement methodology would not
adequately address production tire

variability and measurement variability.
Commenters stated that machine-tomachine differences are a significant
source of variation, and this variation
would make it difficult for
manufacturers to be confident that the
agency would assign the same CRR to a
tire was tested for compliance purposes.
Commenters argued that the ISO 28580
test method is unique in that it specifies
a procedure to correlate results between
different test equipment (i.e., different
rolling resistance test machines), but not
all aspects of the ISO procedure have
been completely defined. Commenters
stated that under ISO 28580, the lab
alignment procedure depends on the
specification of a reference test machine
to which all other labs will align their
measurement results. RMA particularly
emphasized the need for establishing a
tire testing reference lab for use with
ISO 28580, referencing the European
Tyre and Rim Technical Organization
(ETRTO) estimate that CRR values could
vary as much as 20 percent absent an
inter-laboratory alignment procedure.
RMA stated the agencies should specify
a reference laboratory with the
designation proposed in a supplemental
notice that provides public comment. In
addition, RMA commented that the
extra burden proposed by the agencies
for testing three tires, three times each
is nine times more burdensome than
what is required through the ISO
procedure.
Based on the additional tire rolling
resistance research conducted by the
agencies, we have decided to use the
ISO 28580 test procedure, as proposed,
to measure tire performance for these
final rules.
The agencies believe this test
procedure provides two advantages over
other test methods. First, the ISO 28580
test method is unique in that it specifies
a procedure to correlate results between
different test equipment (i.e., different
tire rolling resistance test machines).
This is important because NHTSA’s
research conducted for the light-duty
tire fuel efficiency program indicated
that machine-to-machine differences are
a source of variation.156 In addition, the
ISO 28580 test procedure is either used,
or proposed to be used, by several
groups including the European Union
through Regulation (EC) No 661/
2009 157and the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) through a staff
recommendation for a California
FR 15893, March 30, 2010.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0001:
0024:EN:PDF (last accessed May 8, 2011).

FR 15893, March 30, 2010.
155 See generally 75 FR at 74204.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

regulation,158 and the EPA SmartWay
program. Using the ISO 28580 may help
reduce burden on manufacturers by
allowing a single test protocol to be
used for multiple regulations and
programs. While we recognize that
commenters recommended the use of
other test procedures, like SAE J1269,
the agencies have determined there is
no established data conversion method
from the SAE J1269 vehicle condition
for vocational vehicle tires to the ISO
28580 single point condition at this
time, and that given our reasonable
preference for the ISO procedure, it
would not be practical to attempt to
include the use of the SAE J1269
procedure as an optional way of
determining CRR values for the GEM
inputs.
The agencies received comments from
the Rubber Manufacturers Association,
Michelin, and Bridgestone which
identified the need to develop a
reference lab and alignment tires.
Because the ISO has not yet specified a
reference lab and machine for the ISO
28580 test procedure, NHTSA
announced in its March 2010 final rule
concerning the light-duty tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program that NHTSA would specify this
laboratory for the purposes of
implementing that rule so that tire
manufacturers would know the identity
of the machine against which they may
correlate their test results. NHTSA has
not yet announced the reference test
machine(s) for the tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program.
Therefore, for the light-duty tire fuel
efficiency rule, the agencies are
postponing the specification of a
procedure for machine-to-machine
alignment until a tire reference lab is
established. The agencies anticipate
establishing this lab in the future with
intentions for the lab to accommodate
the light-duty tire fuel efficiency
program.
Under the ISO 28580 lab alignment
procedure, machine alignment is
conducted using batches of alignment
tires of two models with defined
differences in rolling resistance that are
certified on a reference test machine.
ISO 28580 specifies requirements for
these alignment tires (‘‘Lab Alignment
Tires’’ or LATs), but exact tire sizes or
models of LATs are not specifically
identified in ISO 28580. Because the test
procedure has not been finalized and
heavy-duty LATs are not currently
defined, the agencies are postponing the
use of these elements of ISO 28580 to

156 75

157 See

154 75

57183

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

158 See http://www.energy.ca.gov/
2009publications/CEC-600-2009-010/CEC-6002009-010-SD-REV.PDF (last accessed May 9, 2011).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57184

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

a future rulemaking. The agencies also
note the lab-to-lab comparison
conducted in the most recent EPA tire
test program mentioned previously. The
agencies reviewed the CRR data from
the tires that were tested at both the STL
and Smithers laboratories to assess
inter-laboratory and machine variability.
The agencies conducted statistical
analysis of the data to gain better
understanding of lab-to-lab correlation
and developed an adjustment factor for
data measured at each of the test labs.
Based on these results, the agencies
believe the lab-to-lab variation for the
STL and Smithers laboratories would
have very small effect on measured CRR
values. Based on the test data, the
agencies judge that it is reasonable to
implement the HD program with current
levels of variability, and to allow the use
of either Smithers or STL laboratories
for determining the CRR value in the HD
program, or demonstrate that the test
facilities will not bias results low
relative to Smithers or STL laboratories.
RMA also commented that the extra
burden proposed by the agencies for
testing three tires, three times each is
nine times more burdensome than what
is required through the ISO procedure.
Since the proposal, EPA obtained
replicate test data for a number of Class
8 combination tractor tires from various
manufacturers. Some of these were tires
submitted to SmartWay for verification,
while some were tires tested by
manufacturers for other purposes. Three
tire model samples for 11 tire models
were tested using the ISO 28580 test.159
A mean and a standard deviation were
calculated for each set of three replicate
measurements performed on each tire of
the 3-tire sample. The coefficient of
variability (COV) of the CRR was
calculated by dividing the standard
deviation by the mean. The values of
COV ranged from 0 percent (no
measurable variability) to six percent. In
addition, during the period September
2010 and June 2011, EPA contracted
with Smithers-Rapra to select and test
for rolling resistance using ISO 28580
for a representative sample of Class 4–
8 vocational vehicle tires. As part of the
test, 10 tires were selected for replicate
testing.160 Three replicate tests were
conducted for each of the tires, to
evaluate test variability only. The COV
of the RRC results ranged from nearly 0
to 2 percent, with a mean of less than
1 percent. Based on the results of these
two testing programs, the agencies
159 Bachman, Joseph. EPA Memorandum to the
Docket. Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162. July 2011.
160 Bachman, Joseph. EPA Memorandum to the
Docket. Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162. July 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

determined that the impact of
production variability is greater than the
impact of measurement variability.
Thus, the agencies concluded that the
extra burden of testing a single tire three
times was not necessary to obtain
accurate results, but the variability of
RRC results due to manufacturing of the
tires is significant to continue to require
testing of three tire samples for each tire
model. In summary, we are allowing
manufacturers to determine the rolling
resistance coefficient of the heavy-duty
tires by testing three tire samples one
time each.
For the final rules, the agencies are
also including a warm up cycle as part
of the procedure for bias ply tires to
allow these tires to reach a steady
temperature and volume state before
ISO 28580 testing. This procedure is
similar to a procedure that was
developed for the light-duty tire fuel
efficiency consumer information
program, and was adopted from a
procedure defined in Federal motor
vehicle safety standard No. 109 (FMVSS
No. 109).161
Finally, the agencies are including
testing and reporting for ‘single-wide’ or
‘super-single’ type tires. These tires
replace the traditional ‘dual’ wheel tire
combination with a single wheel and
tire that is nearly as wide as the dual
combination with similar load
capabilities. These tire types were
developed as a fuel saving technology.
The tires provide lower rolling
resistance along with a reduction in
weight when compared to a typical set
of dual wheel tire combinations; and are
one of the technologies included in the
EPA SmartWayTM program. The
agencies have learned that there is
limited testing equipment available that
is capable of testing single wide tires;
single wide tires require a wider test
machine drum than required for
conventional tires. Although the
number of machines available is
limited, the agencies believe the
equipment is adequate for the testing
and reporting of CRR for this program.
As discussed above, the agencies are
taking the approach of using CRR for the
HD fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas
program to align with the measurement
methodology already employed or
proposed by the EPA SmartWay
program, the European Union
Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 162 and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
through a staff recommendation for a
California regulation.163 In the NPRM,
the agencies proposed to use CRR, but
161 See

49 CFR 571.109.
Note 157, above.
163 See Note 158, above.
162 See

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

for purposes of developing these final
rules, the agencies also evaluated
whether to use CRR or Rolling
Resistance Force (RRF) as the
measurement for tire rolling resistance
for the GEM input. The agencies
considered RRF largely because in the
NPRM for Passenger Car Tire Fuel
Efficiency (TFE) program, NHTSA had
proposed to use RRF. A key distinction
between these two programs, and their
associated metrics, are the differences in
how the measurement data are used and
who uses the data. In particular, the HD
fuel efficiency and GHG emissions
program is a compliance program using
information developed by and for
technical personnel at manufacturers
and agencies to determine a vehicle’s
compliance with regulations. The TFE
program, in contrast, is a consumer
education program intended to inform
consumers making purchase decisions
regarding the fuel saving benefits of
replacement passenger car tires. The
target audiences are much different for
the two programs which in turn affect
how the information will be used. The
agencies believe that RRF may be more
intuitive for non-technical people
because tires that are larger and/or that
carry higher loads will generally have
numerically higher RRF values than
smaller tires and/or tires that carry
lower loads. CRR values generally
follow an opposite trend, where tires
that are larger and/or carry higher loads
will generally have numerically lower
CRR values than smaller tires and/or
tires that carry lower loads. The
agencies believe this key distinction
helps define the type of metrics to be
used and communicated in accordance
with their respective purposes.
Additionally, the CRR metric for use
in the MD/HD program is not
susceptible to the skew associated with
tire diameter. Medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle tires are available in a small
fraction of the tire sizes of the passenger
market and, for the most part, are larger
tires than those found on passenger cars.
When viewing CRR over a larger range
of sizes, small diameter tires tend to
appear as having a lower performance,
which is not necessarily accurate, with
the converse occurring as the diameter
increases.
Using the CRR value for determining
the rolling resistance also takes into
account the load carrying capability for
the tire being tested, which, intuitively,
can lead to some potentially confusing
results. Several vocational vehicle
manufacturers argued in their comments
that LRR tires were not available for,
e.g., vehicles like refuse trucks, which
tend to use large diameter tires to carry
very heavy loads. Based on the agencies’

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
testing, in fact, the measured CRR (as
opposed to the RRF) for refuse trucks
were found to be among the best tested.
This finding can be explained by
considering that CRR is calculated by
dividing the measured rolling resistance
force by the tire’s load capacity rating.
Although the tire may have a relatively
high rolling resistance force, the tire
load capacity rating is also very high,
resulting in an overall lower (better)
CRR value than many other types of
tires. The amount of load tire can carry
(test load) contributes to a very low
reported CRR, thus confirming low
rolling resistance tires meeting the
standards, as measured by CRR, are
available to the industry regardless of
segment or application.
Based on these considerations, the
agencies have decided to use the CRR
metric for the HD fuel efficiency and
GHG emissions program.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(c) Defined Vehicle Configurations in
the GEM
As discussed above, the agencies are
finalizing a methodology that chassis
manufacturers will use to quantify the
tire rolling resistance values to be input
into the GEM. Moreover, the agencies
are defining the remaining GEM inputs
(i.e., specifying them by rule), which
differ by the regulatory subcategory (for
reasons described in the RIA Chapter 4).
The defined inputs, among others,
include the drive cycle, aerodynamics,
vehicle curb weight, payload, engine
characteristics, and drivetrain for each
vehicle type.
(i) Metric
Based on NAS’s recommendation and
feedback from the heavy-duty truck
industry, NHTSA and EPA proposed
standards for vocational vehicles that
would be expressed in terms of moving
a ton of payload over one mile. Thus,
NHTSA’s proposed fuel consumption
standards for these vehicles would be
represented as gallons of fuel used to
move one ton of payload one thousand
miles, or gal/1,000 ton-mile. EPA’s
proposed CO2 vehicle standards would
be represented as grams of CO2 per tonmile. The agencies received comments
that a payload-based metric is not
appropriate for all types of vocational
vehicles, specifically buses. The
agencies recognize that a payload-based
approach may not be the most
representative of an individual
vocational application; however, it best
represents the broad vocational
category. The metric which we
proposed treats all vocational
applications equally and requires the
same technologies be applied to meet
the standard. Thus, the agencies are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

adopting the proposed metric, but will
revisit the issue of metrics in any future
action, if required, depending on the
breadth of each standard.
(ii) Drive cycle
The drive cycles proposed for the
vocational vehicles consisted of the
same three modes used for the Class 7
and 8 combination tractors. The
proposed cycle included the Transient
mode, as defined by California ARB in
the HHDDT cycle, a constant speed
cycle at 65 mph and a 55 mph constant
speed mode. The agencies proposed
different weightings for each mode for
vocational vehicles than those proposed
for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors,
given the known difference in driving
patterns between these two categories of
vehicles. The same reasoning underlies
the agencies’ use of the Heavy-duty FTP
cycle to evaluate compliance with the
standards for diesel engines used in
vocational vehicles.
The variety of vocational vehicle
applications makes it challenging to
establish a single cycle which is
representative of all such trucks.
However, in aggregate, the vocational
vehicles typically operate over shorter
distances and spend less time cruising
at highway speeds than combination
tractors. The agencies evaluated for
proposal two sources for mode
weightings, as detailed in RIA Chapter
3. The agencies proposed the mode
weightings based on the vehicle speed
characteristics of single unit trucks used
in EPA’s MOVES model which were
developed using Federal Highway
Administration data to distribute
vehicle miles traveled by road type.164
The proposed weighted CO2 and fuel
consumption value consisted of 37
percent of 65 mph Cruise, 21 percent of
55 mph Cruise, and 42 percent of
Transient performance.
The agencies received comments
stating that the proposed drive cycles
and weightings are not representative of
individual vocational applications, such
as buses and refuse haulers. A number
of groups commented that the
vocational vehicle cycle is not
representative of real world driving and
recommended changes to address that
concern. Several organizations proposed
the addition of new drive cycles to make
the test more representative.
Bendix suggested using the Composite
International Truck Local and
Commuter Cycle (CILCC) as the general
purpose mixed urban/freeway cycles
164 The Environmental Protection Agency. Draft
MOVES2009 Highway Vehicle Population and
Activity Data. EPA–420–P–09–001, August 2009
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/techdocs/
420p09001.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57185

and to use four representative cycles:
mixed urban, freeway, city bus, refuse,
and utility. Bendix suggested using the
Standardized On-Road Test (SORT)
cycles for vocational vehicles operating
in the urban environment in addition to
SORT cycles for 3 different vocations—
with separate weightings. They stated
that SORT with an average speed of 11.2
mph, lines up most closely with the
average of transit bus duty cycles at 9.9
mph as well as the overall U.S. National
average of 12.6 mph. As alternative
approaches they suggested adopting the
Orange County duty cycle for the urban
transit bus vocation, or creating an
Urban Transit Bus cycle with several
possible weighting factors—all with
very high percentage transient (90% to
100%), very low 55 mph (0% to 7%),
very low 65 mph (0% to 3%), and an
average speed of 15 to 17 mph. Bendix
supported their assertions about urban
bus vehicle speed with data from the
2010 American Public Transportation
Association (APTA) ‘Fact Book’ and
other sources. In contrast, Bendix stated,
the GEM cycle average speed is
currently 32.6 mph. Such high speeds at
steady state will penalize technologies
such as hybridization.
Clean Air Task Force said the
agencies have not adequately addressed
the diversity of the vocational vehicle
fleet since they are not distinguished by
different duty cycles. They urged the
agencies to sub-divide vocational
vehicles by expected use, with separate
test cycles for each sub-group in order
to capture the full potential benefits of
hybridization and other advanced
technologies in a meaningful and
accurate way in future rulemakings for
MY2019 and later trucks.
Two groups cautioned that
unintended consequences could result
from the lack of diversity in duty cycles.
DTNA said that the single drive cycle
proposed for all vehicles by the agencies
would likely lead to unintended
consequences—such as customers being
driven for regulatory reasons to
purchase a transmission that does not
suit their actual operation. Similarly,
Volvo said medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles are uniquely built for specific
applications but it will not be feasible
to develop regulatory protocols that can
accurately predict efficiency in each
application duty cycle. This trade-off
could result in unintended or negative
consequences in parts of the market.
Several commenters suggested
changing the weightings of the cycle to
more accurately reflect real world
driving. Allison stated that the
vocational vehicle cycle includes too
much steady state driving time. They
suggested (with supporting data from

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57186

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the Oakridge National Laboratory
analysis) reducing steady state driving
at 60 mph to minimal or no time on the
cycle to address this problem. Allison
commented that GEM contains lengthy
accelerations to reach 55 and 65 miles
per hour—much longer than is required
in real world driving. They supported
this statement with data from a testing
program conducted at Oakridge
National Laboratory showing mediumand heavy-duty vehicles accelerate more
rapidly than in the GEM drive cycle.
According to Allison, this long
acceleration time in the GEM, coupled
with too much steady state operation
with very little variation, is not
representative of vocational vehicle
operation. In addition, Allison said that
the GEM does not adequately account
for shift time, clutch profile, turbo lag,
and other impacts on both steady state
and transient operation. The impact,
they state, is that the cycle will hinder
proper deployment of technologies to
reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions.
BAE focused their comments on
urban transit bus operation. They stated
the weighting factors for steady state
operation are inconsistent with urban
transit bus cycles.
Other commenters suggested the
agencies develop chassis dynamometer
tests based on the engine (FTP) test.
Cummins said that chassis
dynamometer testing should allow the
use of average vehicle characteristics to
determine road load and make use of
the vehicle FTP and SET cycles. Others
commented that the correlation between
the FTP and the UDDS is poor.
After careful consideration of the
comments, the agencies are adopting the
proposed drive cycles. The final drive
cycles and weightings represent the
straight truck operations which
dominate the vehicle miles travelled by
vocational vehicles. The agencies do not
believe that application-specific drive
cycles are required for this final action
because the program is based on the
generally-applicable use of low rolling
resistance tires. The drive cycles that we
are adopting treat all vocational
applications equally predicate standard
stringency on use of the same
technology (LRR tires) to meet the
standard. The drive cycles in the final
rule accurately reflect the performance
of this technology. The agencies are also
finalizing, as proposed, the mode
weightings based on the vehicle speed
characteristics of single unit trucks used
in EPA’s MOVES model which were
developed using Federal Highway
Administration data to distribute

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

vehicle miles traveled by road type.165
Similar to the issue of metrics discussed
above, the agencies may revisit drive
cycles and weightings in any future
regulatory action to develop standards
specific to applications.
(iii) Empty Weight and Payload
The total weight of the vehicle is the
sum of the tractor curb weight and the
payload. The agencies are proposed to
specify each of these aspects of the
vehicle. The agencies developed the
proposed vehicle curb weight inputs
based on industry information
developed by ICF.166 The proposed curb
weights were 10,300 pounds for the
LHD trucks, 13,950 pounds for the MHD
trucks, and 29,000 pounds for the HHD
trucks.
NHTSA and EPA proposed payload
requirements for each regulatory
category developed from Federal
Highway statistics based on averaging
the payloads for the weight categories
represented within each vehicle
subcategory.167 The proposed payloads
were 5,700 pounds for the Light HeavyDuty trucks, 11,200 pounds for Medium
Heavy-Duty trucks, and 38,000 pounds
for Heavy Heavy-Duty trucks.
The agencies received comments from
several stakeholders regarding the
proposed curb weights and payloads for
vocational vehicles. BAE said a Class 8
transit bus has a typical curb weight of
27,000 pounds and maximum payload
of 15,000 pounds. Daimler commented
that Class 8 buses have a GVWR of
42,000 pounds. Autocar said that Class
8 refuse trucks typically have a curb
weight of 31,000 to 33,000 pounds,
typical average payload of 10,000
pounds, and typical maximum payload
of 20,000 pounds.
Upon further consideration, the
agencies are reducing the assigned
weight of heavy heavy-duty vocational
vehicles. While we still believe the
proposed values are appropriate for
some vocational vehicles, we reduced
the total weight to bring it closer to
some of the lighter vocational vehicles.
The agencies are adopting final curb
weights of 10,300 pounds for the LHD
165 The Environmental Protection Agency. Draft
MOVES2009 Highway Vehicle Population and
Activity Data. EPA–420–P–09–001, August 2009
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/techdocs/
420p09001.pdf.
166 ICF International. ‘‘Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010. Pages
16–20. Docket ID# EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–
0044.
167 The U.S. Federal Highway Administration.
Development of Truck Payload Equivalent Factor.
Table 11. Last viewed on March 9, 2010 at http://
ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/
faf2_reports/reports9/s510_11_12_tables.htm.

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

trucks, 13,950 pounds for the MHD
trucks, and 27,000 pounds for the HHD
trucks. The agencies are also adopting
payloads of 5,700 pounds for the Light
Heavy-Duty trucks, 11,200 pounds for
Medium Heavy-Duty trucks, and 15,000
pounds for Heavy Heavy-Duty trucks.
Additional information is available in
RIA Chapter 3.
(iv) Engine
As the agencies are finalizing separate
engine and vehicle standards, the GEM
will be used to assess the compliance of
the chassis with the vehicle standard.
To maintain the separate assessments,
the agencies are adopting the proposed
approach of using fixed values that are
predefined by the agencies for the
engine characteristics used in GEM,
including the fuel consumption map
which provides the fuel consumption at
hundreds of engine speed and torque
points. If the agencies did not
standardize the fuel map, then a vehicle
that uses an engine with emissions and
fuel consumption better than the
standards would require fewer vehicle
reductions than those being finalized.
As proposed, the agencies are using
diesel engine characteristics in the
GEM, as most representative of the
largest fraction of engines in this
market. The agencies did not receive
any adverse comments to using this
approach.
The agencies are finalizing two
distinct sets of fuel consumption maps
for use in GEM. The first fuel
consumption map would be used in
GEM for the 2014 through 2016 model
years and represent a diesel engine
which meets the 2014 model year
engine CO2 emissions standards. A
second fuel consumption map would be
used beginning in the 2017 model year
and represents a diesel engine which
meets the 2017 model year CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
standards and accounts for the
increased stringency in the final MY
2017 standard). The agencies have
modified the 2017 MY heavy heavyduty diesel fuel map used in the GEM
for the final rulemaking to address
comments received. Details regarding
this change can be found in RIA Chapter
4.4.4. Effectively there is no change in
stringency of the vocational vehicle
standard (not including the engine)
between the 2014 MY and 2017 MY
standards for the full rulemaking period.
These inputs are reasonable (indeed,
seemingly necessitated) given the
separate final regulatory requirement
that vocational vehicle chassis
manufacturers use only certified
engines.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(v) Drivetrain
The agencies’ assessment of the
current vehicle configuration process at
the truck dealer’s level is that the truck
companies provide software tools to
specify the proper drivetrain matched to
the buyer’s specific circumstances.
These dealer tools allow a significant
amount of customization for drive cycle
and payload to provide the best
specification for the customer. The
agencies are not seeking to disrupt this
process. Optimal drivetrain selection is
dependent on the engine, drive cycle
(including vehicle speed and road
grade), and payload. Each combination
of engine, drive cycle, and payload has
a single optimal transmission and final
drive ratio. The agencies are specifying
the engine’s fuel consumption map,
drive cycle, and payload; therefore, it
makes sense to specify the drivetrain
that matches.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(d) Engine Metrics and Test Procedures
EPA proposed that the GHG emission
standards for heavy-duty engines under
the CAA would be expressed as g/bhphr while NHTSA’s proposed fuel
consumption standards under EISA, in
turn, be represented as gal/100 bhp-hr.
The NAS panel did not specifically
discuss or recommend a metric to
evaluate the fuel consumption of heavyduty engines. However, as noted above
they did recommend the use of a loadspecific fuel consumption metric for the
evaluation of vehicles.168 An analogous
metric for engines is the amount of fuel
consumed per unit of work. The g/bhphr metric is also consistent with EPA’s
current standards for non-GHG
emissions for these engines. The
agencies did not receive any adverse
comments related to the metrics for HD
engines; therefore, we are adopting the
metrics as proposed.
With regard to GHG and fuel
consumption control, the agencies
believe it is appropriate to set standards
based on a single test procedure, either
the Heavy-duty FTP or SET, depending
on the primary expected use of the
engine. EPA’s criteria pollutant
standards for engines currently require
that manufacturers demonstrate
compliance over the transient Heavyduty FTP cycle; over the steady-state
SET procedure; and during not-toexceed testing. EPA created this multilayered 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
168 See

NAS Report, Note 21, at page 39.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

test procedures for criteria pollutants
helps to ensure that manufacturers
calibrate engine systems for compliance
under all operating conditions. We are
not concerned if manufacturers further
calibrate these engines off cycle to give
better in-use fuel consumption while
maintaining compliance with the
criteria emissions standards as such
calibration is entirely consistent with
the goals of our joint program. Further,
we believe that setting standards based
on both transient and steady-state
operating conditions for all engines
could lead to undesirable outcomes.
It is critical to set standards based on
the most representative test cycles in
order for performance in-use to obtain
the intended (and feasible) air quality
and fuel consumption benefits. We are
finalizing standards based on the
composite Heavy-duty FTP cycle for
engines used in vocational vehicles
reflecting these vehicles’ primary use in
transient operating conditions typified
by frequent accelerations and
decelerations as well as some steady
cruise conditions as represented on the
Heavy-duty FTP. The primary reason
the agencies are finalizing two separate
diesel engine standards—one for diesel
engines used in tractors and the other
for diesel engines used in vocational
vehicles—is to encourage engine
manufacturers to install engine
technologies appropriate to the intended
use of the engine with the vehicle. The
current non-GHG emissions engine test
procedures also require the
development of regeneration emission
rates and frequency factors to account
for the emission changes during a
regeneration event (40 CFR 86.004–28).
EPA and NHTSA proposed not to
include these emissions from the
calculation of the compliance levels
over the defined test procedures.
Cummins and Daimler supported and
stated sufficient incentives already exist
for manufacturers to limit regeneration
frequency. Conversely, Volvo opposed
the omission of IRAF requirements for
CO2 emissions because emissions from
regeneration can be a significant portion
of the expected improvement and a
significant variable between
manufacturers
For the proposal, we considered
including regeneration in the estimate of
fuel consumption and GHG emissions
and decided not to do so for two
reasons. First, EPA’s existing criteria
emission regulations already provide a
strong motivation to engine
manufacturers to reduce the frequency
and duration of infrequent regeneration
events. The very stringent 2010 NOX
emission standards cannot be met by
engine designs that lead to frequent and

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57187

extend regeneration events. Hence, we
believe engine manufacturers are
already reducing regeneration emissions
to the greatest degree possible. In
addition to believing that regenerations
are already controlled to the extent
technologically possible, we believe that
attempting to include regeneration
emissions in the standard setting could
lead to an inadvertently lax emissions
standard. In order to include
regeneration and set appropriate
standards, EPA and NHTSA would have
needed to project the regeneration
frequency and duration of future engine
designs in the time frame of this
program. Such a projection would be
inherently difficult to make and quite
likely would underestimate the progress
engine manufacturers will make in
reducing infrequent regenerations. If we
underestimated that progress, we would
effectively be setting a more lax set of
standards than otherwise would be
expected. Hence in setting a standard
including regeneration emissions we
faced the real possibility that we would
achieve less effective CO2 emissions
control and fuel consumption
reductions than we will achieve by not
including regeneration emissions.
Therefore, the agencies are finalizing an
approach as proposed which does not
include the regenerative emissions.
(e) Hybrid Powertrain Technology
Although the final vocational vehicle
standards are not premised on use of
hybrid powertrains, certain vocational
vehicle applications may be suitable
candidates for use of hybrids due to the
greater frequency of stop-and-go urban
operation and their use of power takeoff (PTO) systems. Examples are
vocational vehicles used predominantly
in stop-start urban driving (e.g., delivery
trucks). As an incentive, the agencies
are finalizing to provide credits for the
use of hybrid powertrain technology as
described in Section IV. Under the
advanced technology credit provisions,
credits generated by use of hybrid
powertrains could be used to meet any
of the heavy-duty standards, and are not
restricted to the averaging set generating
the credit, unlike the other credit
provisions in the final rules. The
agencies are finalizing that any credits
generated using such advanced
technologies could be applied to any
heavy-duty vehicle or engine, and not
be limited to the averaging set
generating the credit. Section IV below
also details the final approach to
account for the use of a hybrid
powertrain when evaluating compliance
with the vehicle standard. In general,
manufacturers can derive the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57188

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

reductions based on comparative test
results using the final chassis testing
procedures.
(3) Summary of Final Flexibility and
Credit Provisions
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing four
flexibility provisions specifically for
heavy-duty vocational vehicle and
engine manufacturers, as discussed in
Section IV below. These are an
averaging, banking and trading program
for emissions and fuel consumption
credits, as well as provisions for early
credits, advanced technology credits,
and credits for innovative vehicle or
engine technologies which are not
included as inputs to the GEM or are not
demonstrated on the engine FTP test
cycle. With the exception of the
advanced technology credits, credits
generated under these provisions can
only be used within the same averaging
set which generated the credit (for
example, credits generated by HHD
vocational vehicles can only be used by
HHD vehicles). EPA is also adopting a
temporary provision whereby N2O
emission credits can be used to comply
with the CO2 emissions standard, as
described in Section IV below.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(3) Deferral of Standards for Small
Chassis Manufacturing Business and
Small Business Engine Companies
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing an
approach to defer greenhouse gas
emissions and fuel consumption
standards from small vocational vehicle
chassis manufacturers meeting the SBA
size criteria of a small business as
described in 13 CFR 121.201 (see 40
CFR 1036.150 and 1037.150). The
agencies will instead consider
appropriate GHG and fuel consumption
standards for these entities as part of a
future regulatory action. This includes
both U.S.-based and foreign small
volume heavy-duty truck and engine
manufacturers.
The agencies have identified ten
chassis entities that appear to fit the
SBA size criterion of a small
business.169 The agencies estimate that
these small entities comprise less than
0.5 percent of the total heavy-duty
vocational vehicle market in the United
States based on Polk Registration Data
from 2003 through 2007,170 and
therefore that the exemption will have
a negligible impact on the GHG
169 The agencies have identified Lodal, Indiana
Phoenix, Autocar LLC, HME, Giradin, Azure
Dynamics, DesignLine International, Ebus, Krystal
Koach, and Millenium Transit Services LLC as
potential small business chassis manufacturers.
170 M.J. Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market
Analysis. May 2009.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

emissions and fuel consumption
improvements from the final 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.171
Based on 2008 and 2009 model year
engine certification data submitted to
EPA for non-GHG emissions standards,
the agencies estimate that these small
entities comprise less than 0.1 percent
of the total heavy-duty engine sales in
the United States. The final exemption
from the standards established under
this rulemaking would have a negligible
impact on the GHG emissions and fuel
consumption reductions otherwise due
to the standards.
To ensure that the agencies are aware
of which companies would be exempt,
we are finalizing as proposed to require
that such entities submit a declaration
to EPA and NHTSA containing a
detailed written description of how that
manufacturer qualifies as a small entity
under the provisions of 13 CFR 121.201,
as described in Section V below.
E. Other Standards
In addition to finalizing CO2 emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles and
engines, EPA is also finalizing separate
standards for N2O and CH4
emissions.172 NHTSA is not finalizing
comparable separate standards for these
GHGs because they are not directly
related to fuel consumption in the same
way that CO2 is, and NHTSA’s authority
under EISA exclusively relates to fuel
efficiency. N2O and CH4 are important
GHGs that contribute to global warming,
more so than CO2 for the same amount
of emissions due to their high Global
Warming Potential (GWP).173 EPA is
finalizing N2O and CH4 standards which
apply to HD pickup trucks and vans as
well as to all heavy-duty engines. EPA
is not finalizing N2O and CH4 standards
for the Class 7 and 8 tractor or Class 2b8 chassis manufacturers because these
171 The agencies have identified Baytech
Corporation, Clean Fuels USA, and BAF
Technologies, Inc. as three potential small
businesses.
172 NHTSA’s statutory responsibilities relating to
reducing fuel consumption are directly related to
reducing CO2 emissions, but not to the control of
other GHGs.
173 The global warming potentials (GWP) used in
this rule are consistent with the 2007
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). At this time, the
1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) GWP
values are used in the official U.S. greenhouse gas
inventory submission to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (per the
reporting requirements under that international
convention). N2O has a GWP of 298 and CH4 has
a GWP of 25 according to the 2007 IPCC AR4.

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

emissions would be controlled through
the engine program.
EPA requested comment on possible
alternative CO2 equivalent approaches
to provide near-term flexibility for
2012–14 MY light-duty vehicles. As
described below, EPA is finalizing
alternative provisions allowing
manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a
CO2-equivalent (CO2eq) basis, to meet
the N2O and CH4 standards, which is
consistent with many commenters’
preferred approach.
Almost universally across current
engine designs, both gasoline- and
diesel-fueled, N2O and CH4 emissions
are relatively low today and EPA does
not believe it would be appropriate or
feasible to require reductions from the
levels of current gasoline and diesel
engines. This is because for the most
part, the same hardware and controls
used by heavy-duty engines and
vehicles that have been optimized for
non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and
NOX control indirectly result in highly
effective control of N2O and CH4.
Additionally, unlike criteria pollutants,
specific technologies beyond those
presently implemented in heavy-duty
vehicles to meet existing emission
requirements have not surfaced that
specifically target reductions in N2O or
CH4. Because of this, reductions in N2O
or CH4 beyond current levels in most
heavy-duty applications would occur
through the same mechanisms that
result in NMHC and NOX reductions
and would likely result in an increase
in the overall stringency of the criteria
pollutant emission standards.
Nevertheless, it is important that future
engine technologies or fuels not
currently researched do not result in
increases in these emissions, and this is
the intent of the final ‘‘cap’’ standards.
The final standards would primarily
function to cap emissions at today’s
levels to ensure that manufacturers
maintain effective N2O and CH4
emissions controls currently used
should they choose a different
technology path from what is currently
used to control NMHC and NOX but also
largely successful methods for
controlling N2O and CH4. As discussed
below, some technologies that
manufacturers may adopt for reasons
other than reducing fuel consumption or
GHG emissions could increase N2O and
CH4 emissions if manufacturers do not
address these emissions in their overall
engine and aftertreatment design and
development plans. Manufacturers will
be able to design and develop the
engines and aftertreatment to avoid such
emissions increases through appropriate
emission control technology selections
like those already used and available

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
today. Because EPA believes that these
standards can be capped at the same
level, regardless of type of HD engine
involved, the following discussion
relates to all types of HD engines
regardless of the vehicles in which such
engines are ultimately used. In addition,
since these standards are designed to
cap current emissions, EPA is finalizing
the same standards for all of the model
years to which the rules apply.
EPA believes that the final N2O and
CH4 cap standards will accomplish the
primary goal of deterring increases in
these emissions as engine and
aftertreatment technologies evolve
because manufacturers will continue to
target current or lower N2O and CH4
levels in order to maintain typical
compliance margins. While the cap
standards are set at levels that are higher
than current average emission levels,
the control technologies used today are
highly effective and there is no reason
to believe that emissions will slip to
levels close to the cap, particularly
considering compliance margin targets.
The caps will protect against significant
increases in emissions due to new or
poorly implemented technologies.
However, we also believe that an
alternative compliance approach that
allows manufacturers to convert these
emissions to CO2eq emission values and
combine them with CO2 into a single
compliance value would also be
appropriate, so long as it did not
undermine the stringency of the CO2
standard. As described below, EPA is
finalizing that such an alternative
compliance approach be available to
manufacturers to provide certain
flexibilities for different technologies.
EPA requested comments in the
NPRM on the approach to regulating
N2O and CH4 emissions including the
appropriateness of ‘‘cap’’ standards, the
technical bases for the levels of the final
N2O and CH4 standards, the final test
procedures, and the final timing for the
standards. In addition, EPA requested
any additional emissions data on N2O
and CH4 from current technology
engines. We solicited additional data,
and especially data for in-use vehicles
and engines that would help to better
characterize changes in emissions of
these pollutants throughout their useful
lives, for both gasoline and diesel
applications. As is typical for EPA
emissions standards, we are finalizing
that manufacturers should establish
deterioration factors to ensure
compliance throughout the useful life.
We are not at this time aware of
deterioration mechanisms for N2O and
CH4 that would result in large
deterioration factors, but neither do we
believe enough is known about these

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

mechanisms to justify finalizing
assigned factors corresponding to no
deterioration, as we are finalizing for
CO2, or for that matter to any
predetermined level. In addition to N2O
and CH4 standards, this section also
discusses air conditioning-related
provisions and EPA provisions to
extend certification requirements to allelectric HD vehicles and vehicles and
engines designed to run on ethanol fuel.
(1) What is EPA’s Approach to
Controlling N2O?
N2O is a global warming gas with a
GWP of 298. It accounts for about 0.3
percent of the current greenhouse gas
emissions from heavy-duty trucks.174
N2O is emitted from gasoline and
diesel vehicles mainly during specific
catalyst temperature conditions
conducive to N2O formation.
Specifically, N2O can be generated
during periods of emission hardware
warm-up when rising catalyst
temperatures pass through the
temperature window when N2O
formation potential is possible. For
current heavy-duty gasoline engines
with conventional three-way catalyst
technology, N2O is not generally
produced in significant amounts
because the time the catalyst spends at
the critical temperatures during 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 175 which would also
work for future diesel and gasoline
technologies. Manufacturers would
need to use appropriate technologies
and temperature controls during future
development programs with the
objective to optimize for both NOX and
174 Value adapted from ‘‘Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007’’.
April 2009.
175 Memorandum ‘‘N O Data from EPA Heavy2
Duty Testing’’.

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57189

N2O control. Therefore, future designs
and controls at reducing criteria
emissions would need to take into
account the balance of reducing these
emissions with the different control
approaches while also preventing
inadvertent N2O formation, much like
the path taken in current heavy-duty
compliant engines and vehicles.
Alternatively, manufacturers who find
technologies that reduce criteria or CO2
emissions but see increases N2O
emissions beyond the cap could choose
to offset N2O emissions with reduction
in CO2 as allowed in the CO2eq option
discussed in Section II.E.3.
EPA is finalizing an N2O emission
standard that we believe would be met
by most current-technology gasoline and
diesel vehicles at essentially no cost to
the vehicle, though the agency is
accounting for additional N2O
measurement equipment costs. EPA
believes that heavy-duty emission
standards since 2008 model year,
specifically the very stringent NOX
standards for both engine and chassis
certified engines, directly result in
stringent N2O control. It is believed that
the current emission control
technologies used to meet the stringent
NOX standards achieve the maximum
feasible reductions and that no
additional technologies are recognized
that would result in additional N2O
reductions. As noted, N2O formation in
current catalyst systems occurs, but
their emission levels are inherently low,
because the time the catalyst spends at
the critical temperatures during warmup when N2O can form is short. At the
same time, we believe that the standard
would ensure that the design of
advanced NOX control systems for
future diesel and lean-burn gasoline
vehicles would control N2O emission
levels. While current NOX control
approaches used on current heavy-duty
diesel vehicles do not compromise N2O
emissions and actually result in N2O
control, we believe that the standards
would discourage any new emission
control designs for diesels or lean-burn
gasoline vehicles that achieve criteria
emissions compliance at the cost of
increased N2O emissions. Thus, the
standard would cap N2O emission
levels, with the expectation that current
gasoline and diesel vehicle control
approaches that comply with heavyduty 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.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57190

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van
N2O Exhaust Emission Standard
EPA is finalizing the proposed pervehicle N2O emission standard of 0.05
g/mi, measured over the Light-duty FTP
and HFET drive cycles. Similar to the
CO2 standard approach, the N2O
emission level of a vehicle would be a
composite of the Light-duty FTP and
HFET cycles with the same 55 percent
city weighting and 45 percent highway
weighting. The standard would become
effective in model year 2014 for all HD
pickups and vans that are subject to the
CO2 emission requirements. Averaging
between vehicles would not be allowed.
The standard is designed to prevent
increases in N2O emissions from current
levels, i.e., a no-backsliding standard.
The N2O standard level is
approximately two times the average
N2O level of current gasoline and diesel
heavy-duty trucks that meet the NOX
standards effective since 2008 model
year.176 Manufacturers typically use
design targets for NOX emission levels at
approximately 50 percent of the
standard, to account for in-use
emissions deterioration and normal
testing and production variability, and
we expect manufacturers to utilize a
similar approach for N2O emission
compliance. We are not adopting a more
stringent standard for current gasoline
and diesel vehicles because the
stringent heavy-duty NOX standards
already result in significant N2O control,
and we do not expect current N2O levels
to rise for these vehicles particularly
with expected manufacturer compliance
margins.
Diesel heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans with advanced emission control
technology are in the early stages of
development and commercialization. As
this segment of the vehicle market
develops, the final N2O standard would
require manufacturers to incorporate
control strategies that minimize N2O
formation. Available approaches
include using electronic controls to
limit catalyst conditions that might
favor N2O formation and considering
different catalyst formulations. While
some of these approaches may have
associated costs, EPA believes that they
will be small compared to the overall
costs of the advanced NOX control
technologies already required to meet
heavy-duty standards.
176 Memorandum ‘‘N O Data from EPA Heavy2
Duty Testing.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

The light-duty GHG rule requires that
manufacturers begin testing for N2O by
2015 model year. The manufacturers of
complete pickup trucks and vans (Ford,
General Motors, and Chrysler) are
already impacted by the light-duty GHG
rule and will therefore have this
equipment and capability in place for
the timing of this rulemaking.
Overall, we believe that
manufacturers of HD pickups and vans
(both gasoline and diesel) would meet
the standard without implementing any
significantly new technologies, only
further refinement of their existing
controls, and we do not expect there to
be any significant costs associated with
this standard.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine N2O Exhaust
Emission Standard
EPA proposed a per engine N2O
emissions standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr for
heavy-duty engines, but is finalizing a
standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr based on
additional data submitted to the agency
which better represents the full range of
current diesel and gasoline engine
performance. The final N2O standard
becomes effective in 2014 model year
for diesel engines, as proposed.
However, EPA is finalizing N2O
standards for gasoline engines that
become effective in 2016 model year to
align with the first year of the CO2
gasoline engine standards. Without this
alignment, manufacturers would not
have any flexibility, such as CO2eq
credits, in meeting the N20 cap and
therefore would not have any recourse
to comply if an engine’s N2O emissions
were above the standard. The standard
remains the same over the useful life of
the engine. The N2O emissions would
be measured over the composite Heavyduty FTP cycle because it is believed
that this cycle poses the highest risk for
N2O formation versus the additional
heavy-duty compliance cycles. The
agencies received comments from
industry suggesting that the N2O and
CH4 emissions be evaluated over the
same test cycle required for CO2
emissions compliance. In other words,
the commenters wanted to have the N2O
emissions measured over the SET for
engines installed in tractors. The
agencies are not adopting this approach
for the final action because we do not
have sufficient data to set the
appropriate N2O level using the SET.
The agencies are not requiring any
additional burden by requiring the

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

measurement to be conducted over the
Heavy-Duty FTP cycle because it is
already required for criteria emissions.
Averaging of N2O emissions between
HD engines will not be allowed. The
standard is designed to prevent
increases in N2O emissions from current
levels, i.e., a no-backsliding standard.
The proposed N2O level was twice the
average N2O level of primarily pre-2010
model year diesel engines as
demonstrated in the ACES Study and in
EPA’s testing of two additional engines
with selective catalytic reduction
aftertreatement systems.177
Manufacturers typically use design
targets for NOX emission levels of about
50 percent of the standard, to account
for in-use emissions deterioration and
normal testing and production
variability, and manufacturers are
expected to utilize a similar approach
for N2O emission compliance.
EPA sought comment about
deterioration factors for N2O emissions.
See 75 FR 74208. Industry stakeholders
recommended that the agency define a
DF of zero. While we believe it is also
possible that N2O emissions will not
deteriorate in use, very little data exist
for aged engines and vehicles.
Therefore, the value we are assigning is
conservative, specifically additive DF of
0.02 g/bhp-hr. While the value is
conservative, it is small enough to allow
compliance for all engines except those
very close to the standards. For engines
too close to the standard to use the
assigned DFs, the manufacturers would
need to demonstrate via engineering
analysis that deterioration is less than
assigned DF.
EPA sought additional data on the
level of the proposed N2O level of 0.05
g/bhp-hr. See 75 FR 74208. The agency
received additional data of 2010 model
year engines from the Engine
Manufacturers Association.178 The
agencies reanalyzed a new data set, as
shown in Table II–22, to derive the final
N2O standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr with a
defined deterioration factor of 0.02 g/
bhp-hr.
177 Coordinating Research Council Report: ACES
Phase 1 of the Advanced Collaborative Emissions
Study, 2009. (This study included detailed
chemical characterization of exhaust species
emitted from four 2007 model year heavy heavy
diesel engines).
178 Engine Manufacturers Association. EMA N O
2
Email 03_22_2011. See Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57191

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

TABLE II–22—N2O DATA ANALYSIS
Composite
FTP cycle N2O
result
(g/bhp-hr)

Engine family

Rated power
(HP)

EPA Data of 2007 Engine with SCR .......................................................................................................................
EPA Data of 2010 Production Intent Engine ...........................................................................................................
A ...............................................................................................................................................................................
A ...............................................................................................................................................................................
B ...............................................................................................................................................................................
C ..............................................................................................................................................................................
D ..............................................................................................................................................................................
D ..............................................................................................................................................................................
E ...............................................................................................................................................................................
F ...............................................................................................................................................................................
G ..............................................................................................................................................................................
H ..............................................................................................................................................................................
H ..............................................................................................................................................................................
H ..............................................................................................................................................................................
J ...............................................................................................................................................................................

........................
........................
450
600
360
380
560
455
600
500
483
385
385
385
380

0.042
0.037
0.0181
0.0151
0.0326
0.0353
0.0433
0.0524
0.0437
0.0782
0.1127
0.0444
0.0301
0.0283
0.0317

Mean
2 * Mean

0.043
0.09

Engine emissions regulations do not
currently require testing for N2O. The
Mandatory GHG Reporting final rule
requires reporting of N2O and requires
that manufacturers either measure N2O
or use a compliance statement based on
good engineering judgment in lieu of
direct N2O measurement (74 FR 56260,
October 30, 2009). The light-duty GHG
final rule allows manufacturers to
provide a compliance statement based
on good engineering judgment through
the 2014 model year, but requires
measurement beginning in 2015 model
year (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010). EPA
is finalizing a consistent approach for
heavy-duty engine manufacturers which
allows them to delay direct
measurement of N2O until the 2015
model year.
Manufacturers without the capability
to measure N2O by the 2015 model year
would need to acquire and install
appropriate measurement equipment in
response to this final program. EPA has
established four separate N2O
measurement methods, all of which are
commercially available today. EPA
expects that most manufacturers would
use either photo-acoustic measurement
equipment for stand-alone, existing
FTIR instrumentation at a cost of
$50,000 per unit or upgrade existing
emission measurement systems with
NDIR analyzers for $25,000 per test cell.
Overall, EPA believes that
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines,
both gasoline and diesel, would meet
the final standard without
implementing any new technologies,
and beyond relatively small facilities
costs for any company that still needs to
acquire and install N2O measurement
equipment, EPA does not project that

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

CH4 is greenhouse gas with a GWP of
25. It accounts for about 0.03 percent of
the greenhouse gases from heavy-duty
trucks.179
EPA is finalizing 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 final action. Since
CH4 is produced in gasoline and diesel
engines similar to other hydrocarbon
components, controls targeted at
reducing overall NMHC levels generally
also work at reducing CH4 emissions.
Therefore, for gasoline and diesel
vehicles, the heavy-duty hydrocarbon
standards will generally prevent
increases in CH4 emissions levels. CH4
from heavy-duty vehicles is relatively
low compared to other GHGs largely
due to the high effectiveness of the
current heavy-duty standards in
controlling overall HC emissions.
EPA believes that this level for the
standard would be met by current
gasoline and diesel trucks and vans, and
would prevent increases in future CH4
emissions in the event that alternative
fueled vehicles with high methane
emissions, like some past dedicated
compressed natural gas vehicles,
become a significant part of the vehicle
fleet. Currently EPA does not have
separate CH4 standards because, unlike
other hydrocarbons, CH4 does not
contribute significantly to ozone
formation.180 However, CH4 emissions
levels in the gasoline and diesel heavyduty truck fleet have nevertheless

179 Value adapted from ‘‘Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007.
April 2009.

180 But See Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 604 F. 2d 685
(DC Cir. 1979) (permissible for EPA to regulate CH4
under CAA section 202(b)).

manufacturers would incur significant
costs associated with this final N2O
standard.
EPA is not adopting any vehicle-level
N2O standards for heavy-duty
vocational vehicles and combination
tractors. The N2O emissions would be
controlled through the heavy-duty
engine portion of the program. The only
requirement of those vehicle
manufacturers to comply with the N2O
requirements is to install a certified
engine.
(2) What is EPA’s approach to
controlling CH4?

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57192

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 on gasoline or diesel
equivalent vehicles, natural gas-fueled
vehicles have historically generated
significantly higher CH4 emissions than
gasoline or diesel vehicles. This is
because the fuel is predominantly
methane, and most of the unburned fuel
that escapes combustion without being
oxidized by the catalyst is emitted as
methane. However, even if these
vehicles meet the heavy-duty
hydrocarbon standard and appear to
have effective CH4 control by nature of
the hydrocarbon controls, the heavyduty standards do not require CH4
control and therefore some natural gas
vehicle manufacturers have invested
very little effort into methane control.
While the final CH4 cap standard should
not require any different emission
control designs beyond what is already
required to meet heavy-duty
hydrocarbon standards on a dedicated
natural gas vehicle (i.e., feedback
controlled 3-way catalyst), the cap will
ensure that systems provide robust
control of methane much like a
gasoline-fueled engine. We are not
finalizing more stringent CH4 standards
because we believe that the controls
used to meet current heavy-duty
hydrocarbon standards should result in
effective CH4 control when properly
implemented. Since CH4 is already
measured under the current heavy-duty
emissions regulations (so that it may be
subtracted to calculate NMHC), the final
standard will not result in additional
testing costs.
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van
CH4 Standard
EPA is finalizing the proposed CH4
emission standard of 0.05 g/mi as
measured on the Light-duty FTP and
HFET drive cycles, to apply beginning
with model year 2014 for HD pickups
and vans subject to the CO2 standards.
Similar to the CO2 standard approach,
the CH4 emission level of a vehicle will
be a composite of the Light-duty FTP
and HFET cycles, with the same 55
percent city weighting and 45 percent
highway weighting.
The level of the standard is
approximately two times the average

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

heavy-duty gasoline and diesel truck
and van levels.181 As with N2O, this
standard level recognizes that
manufacturers typically set emissions
design targets with a compliance margin
of approximately 50 percent of the
standard. Thus, we believe that the
standard should be met by current
gasoline vehicles with no increase from
today’s CH4 levels. Similarly, since
current diesel vehicles generally have
even lower CH4 emissions than gasoline
vehicles, we believe that diesels will
also meet the standard with a larger
compliance margin resulting in no
change in today’s CH4 levels.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine CH4 Exhaust
Emission Standard
EPA is adopting a heavy-duty engine
CH4 emission standard of 0.10 g/hp-hr
with a defined deterioration factor of
0.02 g/bhp-hr as measured on the
composite Heavy-duty FTP, to apply
beginning in model year 2014 for diesel
engines and in 2016 model year for
gasoline engines. EPA is adopting a
different CH4 standard than proposed
based on additional data submitted to
the agency which better represents the
full range of current diesel and gasoline
engine performance. EPA is adopting
CH4 standards for gasoline engines that
become effective in 2016 model year to
align with the first year of the gasoline
engine CO2 standards. Without this
alignment, manufacturers would not
have any flexibility, such as CO2eq
credits, in meeting the CH4 cap and
therefore would not be able to sell any
engine with a CH4 level above the
standard. The final standard would cap
CH4 emissions at a level currently
achieved by diesel and gasoline heavyduty engines. The level of the standard
would generally be achievable through
normal emission control methods
already required to meet 2007 emission
standards for NMHC and EPA is
therefore not attributing any cost to this
part of this program (see 40 CFR 86.007–
11).
The level of the final CH4 standard is
twice the average CH4 emissions from
gasoline engines from General Motors in
addition to the four diesel engines in the
ACES study.182 As with N2O, this final
level recognizes that manufacturers
typically set emission design targets at
about 50 percent of the standard. Thus,
EPA believes the final standard would
be met by current diesel and gasoline
engines with little if any technological
improvements. The agency believes a
181 Memorandum ‘‘CH Data from 2010 and 2011
4
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Certification Tests’’.
182 Coordinating Research Council Report: ACES
Phase 1 of the Advanced Collaborative Emissions
Study, 2009.

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

more stringent CH4 standard is not
necessary due to effective CH4 controls
in current heavy-duty technologies,
since, as discussed above for N2O, EPA
believes that the challenge of complying
with the CO2 standards should be the
primary focus of the manufacturers.
CH4 is measured under the current
2007 regulations so that it may be
subtracted to calculate NMHC.
Therefore EPA expects that the final
standard would not result in additional
testing costs.
EPA is not adopting any vehicle-level
CH4 standards for heavy-duty
combination tractors or vocational
vehicles in this final action. The CH4
emissions will be controlled through the
heavy-duty engine portion of the
program. The only requirement of these
truck manufacturers to comply with the
CH4 requirements is to install a certified
engine.
(3) Use of CO2 Credits
As proposed, if a manufacturer is
unable to meet the N2O or CH4 cap
standards, the EPA program will allow
the manufacturer to comply using CO2
credits. In other words, a manufacturer
could offset any N2O or CH4 emissions
above the standard by taking steps to
further reduce CO2. A manufacturer
choosing this option would convert its
measured N2O and CH4 test results that
are in excess of the applicable standards
into CO2eq to determine the amount of
CO2 credits required. For example, a
manufacturer would use 25 Mg of
positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of
negative CH4 credits or use 298 Mg of
positive CO2 credits to offset 1 Mg of
negative N2O credits.183 By using the
Global Warming Potential of N2O and
CH4, the approach recognizes the intercorrelation of these compounds in
impacting global warming and is
environmentally neutral for
demonstrating compliance with the
individual emissions caps. Because fuel
conversion manufacturers certifying
under 40 CFR part 85, subpart F do not
participate in ABT programs, EPA is
finalizing a compliance option for fuel
conversion manufacturers to comply
with the N2O and CH4 standards that is
similar to the credit program just
described above. The compliance option
will allow conversion manufacturers, on
an individual engine family basis, to
convert CO2 overcompliance into CO2
equivalents of N20 and/or CH4 that can
be subtracted from the CH4 and N20
measured values to demonstrate
compliance with CH4 and/or N20
standards. Other than in the limited
183 N O has a GWP of 298 and CH has a GWP
2
4
of 25 according to the IPCC AR4.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

case of N2O for model years 2014–16,
we have not finalized similar provisions
allowing overcompliance with the N2O
or CH4 standards to serve as a means to
generate CO2 credits because the CH4
and N2O standards are cap standards
representing levels that all but the worst
vehicles should already be well below.
Allowing credit generation against such
cap standard would provide a windfall
credit without any true GHG reduction.
The final NHTSA fuel consumption
program will not use CO2eq, as
suggested above. Measured performance
to the NHTSA fuel consumption
standards will be based on the
measurement of CO2 with no adjustment
for N2O and/or CH4. For manufacturers
that use the EPA alternative CO2eq
credit, compliance to the EPA CO2
standard will not be directly equivalent
to compliance with the NHTSA fuel
consumption standard.
(4) Amendment to Light-Duty Vehicle
N2O and CH4 Standards
EPA also requested comment on
revising a portion of the light-duty
vehicle standards for N2O and CH4. 75
FR at 74211. Specifically, EPA
requested comments on two additional
options for manufacturers to comply
with N2O and CH4 standards to provide
additional near-term flexibility. EPA is
finalizing one of those options, as
discussed below.
For light-duty vehicles, as part of the
MY 2012–2016 rulemaking, EPA
finalized standards for N2O and CH4
which take effect with MY 2012. 75 FR
at 25421–24. Similar to the heavy-duty
standards discussed in Section II.E
above, the light-duty vehicle standards
for N2O and CH4 were established to cap
emissions and to prevent future
emissions increases, and were generally
not expected to result in the application
of new technologies or significant costs
for the manufacturers for current vehicle
designs. EPA also finalized an
alternative CO2 equivalent standard
option, which manufacturers may
choose to use in lieu of complying with
the N2O and CH4 cap standards. The
CO2 equivalent standard option allows
manufacturers to fold all N2O and CH4
emissions, on a CO2eq basis, along with
CO2 into their otherwise applicable CO2
emissions standard level. For flexible
fueled vehicles, the N2O and CH4
standards must be met on both fuels
(e.g., both gasoline and E–85).
After the light-duty standards were
finalized, manufacturers raised concerns
that for a few of the vehicle models in
their existing fleet they were having
difficulty meeting the N2O and/or CH4
standards, especially in the early years
of the program for a few of the vehicle

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

models in their existing fleet. These
standards could be problematic in the
near term because there is little lead
time to implement unplanned redesigns
of vehicles to meet the standards. In
such cases, manufacturers may need to
either drop vehicle models from their
fleet or to comply using the CO2
equivalent alternative. On a CO2eq
basis, folding in all N2O and CH4
emissions would add 3–4 g/mile or
more to a manufacturer’s overall fleetaverage CO2 emissions level because the
alternative standard must be used for
the entire fleet, not just for the problem
vehicles.184 See 75 FR at 74211. This
could be especially challenging in the
early years of the program for
manufacturers with little compliance
margin because there is very limited
lead time to develop strategies to
address these additional emissions. As
stated at proposal, EPA believed this
posed a legitimate issue of sufficiency of
lead time in the short term, as well as
an issue of cost, since EPA assumed that
the N2O and CH4 standards would not
result in significant costs for existing
vehicles. Id. However, EPA expected
that manufacturers would be able to
make technology changes (e.g.,
calibration or catalyst changes) to the
few vehicle models not currently
meeting the N2O and/or CH4 standards
in the course of their planned vehicle
redesign schedules in order to meet the
standards.
Because EPA intended for these
standards to be caps with little
anticipated near-term impact on
manufacturer’s current product lines,
EPA requested comment in the heavyduty vehicle and engine proposal on
two approaches to provide additional
flexibilities in the light-duty vehicle
program for meeting the N2O and CH4
standards. 75 FR at 74211. EPA
requested comments on the option of
allowing manufacturers to use the CO2
equivalent approach for one pollutant
but not the other for their fleet—that is,
allowing a manufacturer to fold in either
CH4 or N2O as part of the CO2equivalent standard. For example, if a
manufacturer is having trouble
complying with the CH4 standard but
not the N2O standard, the manufacturer
could use the CO2 equivalent option
including CH4, but choose to comply
separately with the applicable N2O cap
standard.
184 0.030 g/mile CH multiplied by a GWP of 25
4
plus 0.010 g/mile N2O multiplied by a GWP of 298
results in a combined 3.7 g/mile CO2-equivalent
value. Manufacturers using the default N2O value
of 0.10 g/mile prior to MY 2015 in lieu of measuring
N2O would fold in the entire 0.010 g/mile on a CO2equivalent basis, or about 3 g/mile under the CO2equivalent option.

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57193

EPA also requested comments on an
alternative approach of allowing
manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a
CO2 equivalent basis, to offset N2O and
CH4 emissions above the applicable
standard. This is similar to the approach
proposed and being finalized for heavyduty vehicles as discussed above in
Section II.E. EPA requested comments
on allowing the additional flexibility in
the light-duty program for MYs 2012–
2014 to help manufacturers address any
near-term issues that they may have
with the N2O and CH4 standards.
Commenters providing comment on
this issue supported additional
flexibility for manufacturers, and
manufacturers specifically supported
the heavy-duty vehicle approach of
allowing CO2 credits on a CO2
equivalent basis to be used to meet the
CH4 and N2O standards. The Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers and the
American Automotive Policy Council
commented that the proposed heavyduty approach represented a significant
improvement over the approach
adopted for light-duty vehicles.
Manufacturers support de-linking N2O
and CH4, and commented that the
formation of the pollutants do not
necessarily trend together.
Manufacturers also commented that a
deficit against the N2O or CH4 cap
would be required to be covered with
CO2 credits for that model, but the
approach does not ‘‘punish’’
manufacturers for using a specific
technology (which could provide CO2
benefits, e.g., diesel, CNG, etc.) by
requiring manufacturers to use the CO2equivalent approach for their entire
fleet. The Natural Gas Vehicle Interests
also supported allowing the use of CO2
credits on a CO2-equivalent basis for
compliance with CH4 standards and
urged providing this type of flexibility
on a permanent basis. The Institute for
Policy Integrity also submitted
comments supportive of providing
additional flexibility to manufacturers
as long as it does not undermine
standard stringency. This commenter
was supportive of either approach
discussed at proposal.185
Manufacturers supported not only
adopting the aspects of the heavy-duty
approach noted above, but the entire
185 The Institute for Policy Integrity questioned
whether EPA had provided adequate notice of the
proposal, given that it appeared in the proposed
GHG rules for heavy duty vehicles. EPA provided
notice not only in the preamble, but in the summary
of action appearing on the first page of the Federal
Register notice (‘‘EPA is also requesting comment
on possible alternative CO2-equivalent approaches
for model year 2012–14 light-duty vehicles’’). 75 FR
at 74152. This is ample notice (demonstrated as
well by the comments received on the issue,
including from the Institute).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57194

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

heavy-duty vehicle approach, including
two aspects of the program not
contemplated in EPA’s request for
comments. First, manufacturers
commented that EPA incorrectly
characterizes the light-duty vehicle
issues with CH4 and N2O as short-term
or early lead time issues. For the reasons
discussed above, manufacturers believe
the changes should be made permanent,
for the entire 2012–2016 light-duty
rulemaking period and, indeed, in any
subsequent rules for the light-duty
vehicle sector. Second, manufacturers
commented that N2O and CH4 should be
measured on the combined 55/45
weighting of the FTP and highway
cycles, respectively, as these cycles are
the yardstick for fuel economy and CO2
measurement. Manufacturers
commented that there should not be a
disconnect between the light-duty and
heavy-duty vehicle programs.
EPA continues to believe that it is
appropriate to provide additional
flexibility to manufacturers to meet the
N2O and CH4 standards. EPA is thus
finalizing provisions allowing
manufacturers to use CO2 credits, on a
CO2-equivalent basis, to meet the N2O
and CH4 standards, which is consistent
with many commenters’ preferred
approach. Manufacturers will have the
option of using CO2 credits to meet N2O
and CH4 standards on a test group basis
as needed for MYs 2012–2016. Because
fuel conversion manufacturers certifying
under 40 CFR part 85, subpart F do not
participate in ABT programs, EPA is
finalizing a compliance option for fuel
conversion manufacturers to comply
with the N2O and CH4 standards similar
to the credit option just described
above. The compliance option will
allow conversion manufacturers, on an
individual test group basis, to convert
CO2 overcompliance into CO2
equivalents of N2O and/or CH4 that can
be subtracted from the CH4 and N2O
measured values to demonstrate
compliance with CH4 and/or N2O
standards.
In EPA’s request for comments, EPA
discussed the new flexibility as being
needed to address lead time issues for
MYs 2012–2014. EPA understands that
manufacturers are now making
technology decisions for beyond MY
2014 and that some technologies such as
FFVs may have difficulty meeting the
CH4 and N2O standards, presenting
manufacturers with difficult decisions
of absorbing the 3–4 g/mile CO2equivalent emissions fleet wide, making
significant investments in existing
vehicle technologies, or curtailing the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

use of certain technologies.186 The CH4
standard, in particular, could prove
challenging for FFVs because exhaust
temperatures are lower on E–85 and CH4
is more difficult to convert over the
catalyst. EPA’s initial estimate that these
issues could be resolved without
disrupting product plans by MY 2015
appears to be overly optimistic, and
therefore EPA is extending the
flexibility through model year 2016.
This change helps ensure that the CH4
and N2O standards will not be an
obstacle for the use of FFVs or other
technologies in this timeframe, and at
the same time, assure that overall fleet
average GHG emissions will remain at
the same level as under the main
standards.
In response to comments from
manufacturers and from the Natural Gas
Vehicle Interests that the changes to the
program make sense and should be
made on a permanent basis (i.e. for
model years after 2016), EPA is
extending this flexibility through MY
2016 as discussed above, but we believe
it is premature to decide here whether
or not these changes should be
permanent. EPA may consider this issue
further in the context of new standards
for MYs 2017–2025 in the planned
future light-duty vehicle rulemaking.
With regard to comments on changing
the test procedures over which N2O and
CH4 emissions are measured to
determine compliance with the
standards, the level of the standards and
the test procedures go hand-in-hand and
must be considered together. Weighting
the highway test result with the city test
result in the emissions measurement
would in most cases reduce the overall
emissions levels for determining
compliance with the standards, and
would thereby, in effect make the
standards less stringent. This appears to
be inappropriate. In addition, EPA did
not request comments on changing the
level of the N2O and CH4 standards or
the test procedures and it is
inappropriate to amend the standards
for that reason as well.
(5) EPA’s Final Standards for Direct
Emissions From Air Conditioning
Air conditioning systems contribute
to GHG emissions in two ways—direct
emissions through refrigerant leakage
and indirect exhaust emissions due to
the extra load on the vehicle’s engine to
provide power to the air conditioning
system. HFC refrigerants, which are
powerful GHG pollutants, can leak from
186 ‘‘Discussions with Vehicle Manufacturers
Regarding the Light-duty Vehicle CH4 and N2O
Standards,’’ Memorandum from Christopher Lieske
to Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the A/C system.187 This includes the
direct leakage of refrigerant as well as
the subsequent leakage associated with
maintenance and servicing, and with
disposal at the end of the vehicle’s
life.188 The most commonly used
refrigerant in automotive applications—
R134a, has a high GWP of 1430.189 Due
to the high GWP of R134a, a small
leakage of the refrigerant has a much
greater global warming impact than a
similar amount of emissions of CO2 or
other mobile source GHGs.
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 vehicle life. However, the
component technologies and costs to
reduce direct HFC emissions are similar
between the two types of vehicles.
The quantity of GHG refrigerant
emissions from heavy-duty trucks
relative to the CO2 emissions from
driving the vehicle and moving freight
is very small. Therefore, a credit
approach is not appropriate for this
segment of vehicles because the value of
the credit is too small to provide
sufficient incentive to utilize feasible
and cost-effective air conditioning
leakage improvements. For the same
reason, including air conditioning
leakage improvements within the main
standard would in many instances
result in lost control opportunities.
Therefore, EPA is finalizing the
proposed requirement that vehicle
manufacturers meet a low leakage
requirement for all air conditioning
systems installed in 2014 model year
and later trucks, with one exception.
The agency is not finalizing leakage
standards for Class 2b-8 Vocational
Vehicles at this time due to the
complexity in the build process and the
potential for different entities besides
the chassis manufacturer to be involved
in the air conditioning system
production and installation, with
187 The United States has submitted a proposal to
the Montreal Protocol which, if adopted, would
phasedown production and consumption of HFCs.
188 The U.S. EPA has reclamation requirements
for refrigerants in place under Title VI of the Clean
Air Act.
189 The global warming potentials used in this
rule are consistent with the 2007 Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment
Report. At this time, the global warming potential
values from the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment
Report are used in the official U.S. greenhouse gas
inventory submission to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (per the
reporting requirements under that international
convention, which were last updated in 2006).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
consequent difficulties in developing a
regulatory system.
For air conditioning systems with a
refrigerant capacity greater than 733
grams, EPA is finalizing a leakage
standard which is a ‘‘percent refrigerant
leakage per year’’ to assure that highquality, low-leakage components are
used in each air conditioning system
design. The agency believes that a single
‘‘gram of refrigerant leakage per year’’
would not fairly address the variety of
air conditioning system designs and
layouts found in the heavy-duty truck
sector. EPA is finalizing a standard of
1.50 percent leakage per year for heavyduty pickup trucks and vans and Class
7 and 8 tractors. The final standard was
derived from the vehicles with the
largest system refrigerant capacity based
on the Minnesota GHG Reporting
database.190 The average percent leakage
per year of the 2010 model year vehicles
is 2.7 percent. This final level of
reduction is roughly comparable to that
necessary to generate credits under the
light-duty vehicle program. See 75 FR
25426–25427. Since refrigerant leakage
past the compressor shaft seal is the
dominant source of leakage in beltdriven air conditioning systems, the
agency recognizes that a single ‘‘percent
refrigerant leakage per year’’ is not
feasible for systems with a refrigerant
capacity of 733 grams or lower, as the
minimum feasible leakage rate does not
continue to drop as the capacity or size
of the air conditioning system is
reduced. The fixed leakage from the
compressor seal and other system
devices results in a minimum feasible
yearly leakage rate, and further
reductions in refrigerant capacity (the
‘denominator’ in the percent refrigerant
leakage calculation) will result in a
system which cannot meet the 1.50
percent leakage per year standard. EPA
does not believe that leakage reducing
technologies are available at this time
which would allow lower capacity
systems to meet the percent per year
standard, so we are finalizing a
maximum gram per year leakage
standard of 11.0 grams per year for air
conditioning systems with a refrigerant
capacity of 733 grams or lower. EPA
defined the standard, as well as the
refrigerant capacity threshold, by
examining the State of Minnesota GHG
Reporting Database for the yearly
leakage rate from 2010 and 2011 model
year pickup trucks. In the Minnesota
data, the average leak rate for the pickup
truck category (16 unique model and
refrigerant capacity combinations) was
190 The Minnesota refrigerant leakage data can be
found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/
climatechange/mobileair.html#leakdata.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

13.3 grams per year, with an average
capacity of 654 grams, resulting in an
average percent refrigerant leakage per
year of 2.0 percent. 4 of the 16 model/
capacity combinations in the reporting
data achieved a leak rate 11.0 grams per
year or lower, and this was chosen as
the maximum yearly leak rate, as several
manufacturers have demonstrated that
this level of yearly leakage is feasible.
To avoid a discontinuity between the
‘‘percent leakage’’ and ‘‘leak rate’’
standards—where one approach would
be more or less stringent, depending on
the refrigerant capacity—a refrigerant
capacity of 733 grams was chosen as a
threshold capacity, below which, the
leak rate approach can be used. EPA
believes this approach of having a leak
rate standard for lower capacity systems
and a percent leakage per year standard
for higher capacity systems will result
in reduced refrigerant emissions from
all air conditioning systems, while still
allowing manufacturers the ability to
produce low-leak, lower capacity
systems in vehicles which require them.
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, lowGlobal Warming Potential (GWP)
refrigerant. One alternative refrigerant,
HFO–1234yf, with a GWP of 4, has been
approved for use in light-duty passenger
vehicles under EPA’s Significant New
Alternatives Program (SNAP). While the
scope of this SNAP approval does not
include heavy-duty highway vehicles,
we expect that those interested in using
this refrigerant in other sectors will
petition EPA for broader approval of its
use in all mobile air conditioning
systems. In addition, the EPA is
currently acting on a petition to de-list
R–134a as an acceptable refrigerant for
new, light-duty passenger vehicles. The
time frame and scale of R–134a delisting is yet to be determined, but any
phase-down of R–134a use will likely
take place after this rulemaking is in
effect. Given that HFO–1234yf is yet to
be approved for heavy-duty vehicles,
and that the time frame for the de-listing
of R–134a is not known, EPA believes
that a leakage standard for heavy-duty
vehicles is still appropriate. If future
heavy-duty vehicles adopt refrigerants
other than R–134a, the calculated
refrigerant leak rate can be adjusted by
multiplying the leak rate by the ratio of
the GWP of the new refrigerant divided
by the GWP of the old refrigerant (e.g.
for HFO–1234yf replacing R–134a, the

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57195

calculated leak rate would be multiplied
by 0.0028, or 4 divided by 1430).
EPA believes that reducing A/C
system leakage is both highly costeffective and technologically feasible.
The availability of low leakage
components is being driven by the air
conditioning program in the light-duty
GHG rule which apply to 2012 model
year and later vehicles. The cooperative
industry and government Improved
Mobile Air Conditioning program has
demonstrated that new-vehicle leakage
emissions can be reduced by 50 percent
by reducing the number and improving
the quality of the components, fittings,
seals, and hoses of the A/C system.191
All of these technologies are already in
commercial use and exist on some of
today’s systems, and EPA does not
anticipate any significant improvements
in sealing technologies for model years
beyond 2014. However, EPA has
recognized some manufacturers utilize
an improved manufacturing process for
air conditioning systems, where a
helium leak test is performed on 100
percent of all o-ring fittings and
connections after final assembly. By
leak testing each fitting, the
manufacturer or supplier is verifying the
o-ring is not damaged during assembly
(which is the primary source of leakage
from o-ring fittings), and when
calculating the yearly leak rate for a
system, EPA will allow a relative
emission value equivalent to a ‘seal
washer’ can be used in place of the
value normally used for an o-ring fitting,
when 100 percent helium leak testing is
performed on those fittings. While
further updates to the SAE J2727
standard may be forthcoming (to
address new materials and measurement
methods for permeation through hoses),
EPA believes it is appropriate to include
the helium leak test update to the
leakage calculation method at this time.
Consistent with the light-duty 2012–
2016 MY vehicle rule, we are estimating
costs for leakage control at $18 (2008$)
in direct manufacturing costs. Including
a low complexity indirect cost
multiplier (ICM) of 1.14 results in costs
of $21 in the 2014 model year. A/C
control technology is considered to be
on the flat portion of the learning curve,
so costs in the 2017 model year will be
$19. These costs are applied to all
heavy-duty pickups and vans, and to all
combination tractors. EPA views these
costs as minimal and the reductions of
potent GHGs to be easily feasible and
reasonable in the lead times provided by
the final rules.
191 Team 1-Refrigerant Leakage Reduction: Final
Report to Sponsors, SAE, 2007.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57196

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

EPA is requiring that manufacturers
demonstrate improvements in their A/C
system designs and components through
a design-based method. The method for
calculating A/C leakage is based closely
on an industry-consensus leakage
scoring method, described below. This
leakage scoring method is correlated to
experimentally-measured leakage rates
from a number of vehicles using the
different available A/C components.
Under the final approach,
manufacturers will choose from a menu
of A/C equipment and components used
in their vehicles in order to establish
leakage scores, which will characterize
their A/C system leakage performance
and calculate the percent leakage per
year as this score divided by the system
refrigerant capacity.
Consistent with the light-duty rule,
EPA is finalizing a requirement that a
manufacturer will compare the
components of its A/C system with a set
of leakage-reduction technologies and
actions that is based closely on that
being developed through the Improved
Mobile Air Conditioning program and
SAE International (as SAE Surface
Vehicle Standard J2727, ‘‘HFC–134a,
Mobile Air Conditioning System
Refrigerant Emission Chart,’’ August
2008 version). See generally 75 FR
25426. The SAE J2727 approach was
developed from laboratory testing of a
variety of A/C related components, and
EPA believes that the J2727 leakage
scoring system generally represents a
reasonable correlation with average realworld leakage in new vehicles. Like the
cooperative industry-government
program, our final approach will
associate each component with a
specific leakage rate in grams per year
that is identical to the values in J2727
and then sum together the component
leakage values to develop the total A/C
system leakage. However, in the heavyduty vehicle program, the total A/C
leakage score will then be divided by
the value of the total refrigerant system
capacity to develop a percent leakage
per year. EPA believes that the designbased approach will result in estimates
of likely leakage emissions reductions
that will be comparable to those that
would eventually result from
performance-based testing.
EPA is not specifying a specific in-use
standard for leakage, as neither test
procedures nor facilities exist to
measure refrigerant leakage from a
vehicle’s air conditioning system.
However, consistent with the light-duty
rule, where we require that
manufacturers attest to the durability of
components and systems used to meet
the CO2 standards (see 75 FR 25689), we
will require that manufacturers of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

heavy-duty vehicles attest to the
durability of these systems, and provide
an engineering analysis which
demonstrates component and system
durability.
(6) Indirect Emissions From Air
Conditioning
In addition to direct emissions from
refrigerant leakage, air conditioning
systems also create indirect exhaust
emissions due to the extra load on the
vehicle’s engine to provide power to the
air conditioning system. These indirect
emissions are in the form of the
additional CO2 emitted from the engine
when A/C is being used due to the
added loads. Unlike direct emissions
which tend to be a set annual leak rate
not directly tied to usage, indirect
emissions are fully a function of A/C
usage.
These indirect CO2 emissions are
associated with air conditioner
efficiency, since air conditioners create
load on the engine. See 74 FR 49529.
However, the agencies are not setting air
conditioning efficiency standards for
vocational vehicles, combination
tractors, or heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans. The CO2 emissions due to air
conditioning systems in these heavyduty vehicles are minimal compared to
their overall emissions of CO2. For
example, EPA conducted modeling of a
Class 8 sleeper cab using the GEM to
evaluate the impact of air conditioning
and found that it leads to approximately
1 gram of CO2/ton-mile. Therefore, a
projected 24 percent improvement of
the air conditioning system (the level
projected in the light-duty GHG
rulemaking), would only reduce CO2
emissions by less than 0.3 g CO2/tonmile, or approximately 0.3 percent of
the baseline Class 8 sleeper cab CO2
emissions.
(7) Ethanol-Fueled and Electric Vehicles
Current EPA emissions control
regulations explicitly apply to 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. As we proposed,
we are revising the heavy-duty vehicle
and engine regulations to make them
consistent with the light-duty vehicle
approach, applying standards for all
regulated criteria pollutants and GHGs
regardless of fuel type, including
application to all-electric vehicles (EVs).
This provision will take effect in the
2014 model year, and be optional for

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

manufacturers in earlier model years.
However, to satisfy the CAA section
202(a)(3) lead time constraints, the
provision will remain optional for all
criteria pollutants through the 2015
model year. Commenters did not oppose
this change in EPA regulations.
This change primarily affects
manufacturers of ethanol-fueled
vehicles (designed to operate on fuels
containing at least 50 percent ethanol)
and EVs. Flex-fueled vehicles (FFVs)
designed to run on both gasoline and
fuel blends with high ethanol content
will also be impacted, as they will need
to comply with requirements for
operation both on gasoline and ethanol.
The regulatory requirements we are
finalizing today for certification on
ethanol follow those already established
for methanol, such as certification to
NMHC equivalent standards and waiver
of certain requirements. We expect
testing to be done using the same E85
test fuel as is used today for light-duty
vehicle testing, an 85/15 blend of
commercially-available ethanol and
gasoline vehicle test fuel. EV
certification will also follow light-duty
precedents, primarily calling on
manufacturers to exercise good
engineering judgment in applying the
regulatory requirements, but will not be
allowed to generate NOX or PM credits.
This provision is not expected to
result in any significant added burden
or cost. It is already the practice of HD
FFV manufacturers to voluntarily
conduct emissions testing for these
vehicles on E85 and submit the results
as part of their certification application,
along with gasoline test fuel results. No
changes in certification fees are being
set in connection with this provision.
We expect that there will be strong
incentives for any manufacturer seeking
to market these vehicles to also want
them to be certified: (1) Uncertified
vehicles carry a disincentive to potential
purchasers who typically have the
benefit to the environment as one of
their reasons for considering alternative
fuels, (2) uncertified vehicles are not
eligible for the substantial credits they
could likely otherwise generate, (3) EVs
have no tailpipe or evaporative
emissions and thus need no added
hardware to put them in a certifiable
configuration, and (4) emissions
controls for gasoline vehicles and FFVs
are also effective on dedicated ethanolfueled vehicles, and thus costly
development programs and specialized
components will not be needed; in fact
the highly integrated nature of modern
automotive products make the emission
control systems essential to reliable
vehicle performance.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.

certified to PM, NOX, and hydrocarbon
standards that are numerically lower
than the applicable locomotive
standards of this part.’’ This change is
a straightforward correction to restore
the intended usability of the provision
and is not expected to have adverse
environmental impacts, as nonroad
engines have CO emissions that are
typically well below both the nonroad
and locomotive emissions standards.

(8) Correction to 40 CFR 1033.625
In a 2008 final rule that set new
locomotive and marine engine
standards, EPA adopted a provision
allowing manufacturers to use a limited
number of nonroad engines to power
switch locomotives provided, among
other things, that ‘‘the engines were
certified to standards that are
numerically lower than the applicable
locomotive standards of this part
(1033).’’ (40 CFR 1033.625(a)). The goal
of this provision is to encourage the
replacement of aging, high-emitting
switch locomotives with new switch
locomotives having very low emissions
of PM, NOX, and hydrocarbons.
However, this provision neglected to
consider the fact that preexisting
nonroad engine emission standards for
CO were set at levels that were slightly
numerically higher than those for
locomotives. The applicable switch
locomotive CO standard of part 1033 is
3.2 g/kW-hr (2.4 g/hp-hr), while the
applicable nonroad engine CO standard
is 3.5 g/kW-hr (2.6 g/hp-hr). This is the
case even for the cleanest final Tier 4
nonroad engines that will phase in
starting in 2014. Thus, nonroad engines
cannot be certified to CO standards that
are numerically lower than the
applicable locomotive standards, and
the nonroad engine provision is
rendered practically unusable. This
matter was brought to EPA’s attention
by affected engine manufacturers.192
As indicated above, EPA believes that
allowing certification of new switch
locomotive engines to nonroad engine
standards will greatly reduce emissions
from switch locomotives, and EPA does
not believe the slight difference in CO
standards should prevent this
environmentally beneficial program.
EPA is therefore adopting a corrective
technical amendment in part 1033. The
regulation is being amended at
§ 1033.625(a)(2) to add the following
italicized text: ‘‘The engines were

EPA adopted changes to fuel economy
labeling requirements on July 6, 2011
(76 FR 39478). We are making the
following corrections to these
regulations in 40 CFR part 600:
• We adopted a requirement to use
the specifications of SAE J1711 for fuel
economy testing related to hybridelectric vehicles. In this final rule, we
are extending that requirement to the
calculation provisions in § 600.114–12.
This change was inadvertently omitted
from the earlier final rule.
• We are correcting an equation in
§ 600.116–12.
• We are removing text describing
label content that differs from the
sample labels that were published with
the final rule. The sample labels
properly characterize the intended label
content.

192 See e-mail correspondence from Timothy A.
French, EMA, to Donald Kopinski and Charles
Moulis, U.S. EPA dated 12/8/10, ‘‘Switcher
Locomotive Flexibility’’, docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(9) Corrections to 40 CFR Part 600

(10) Definition of Urban Bus
EPA is adding a new section 86.012–
2 to revise the definition of ‘‘urban bus.’’
The new definition will treat engines
used in urban buses the same as engines
used in any other HD vehicle
application, relying on the definitions of
primary intended service class for
defining which standards and useful life
apply for bus engines. This change is
necessary to allow for installation of
engines other than HHDDE for hybrid
bus applications.
III. Feasibility Assessments and
Conclusions
In this section, NHTSA and EPA
discuss several aspects of our joint
technical analyses. These analyses are
common to the development of each
agency’s final standards. Specifically we
discuss: the development of the baseline
used by each agency for assessing costs,
benefits, and other impacts of the
standards, the technologies the agencies
evaluated and their costs and
effectiveness, and the development of
the final standards based on application
of technology in light of the attribute
based distinctions and related
compliance measurement procedures.
We also discuss the agencies’
consideration of standards that are

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57197

either more or less stringent than those
adopted.
This program is based on the need to
obtain significant oil savings and GHG
emissions reductions from the
transportation sector, and the
recognition that there are appropriate
and cost-effective technologies to
achieve such reductions feasibly in the
model years of this program. The
decision on what standard to set is
guided by each agency’s statutory
requirements, and is largely based on
the need for reductions, the
effectiveness of the emissions control
technology, the cost and other impacts
of implementing the technology, and the
lead time needed for manufacturers to
employ the control technology. The
availability of technology to achieve
reductions and the cost and other
aspects of this technology are therefore
a central focus of this final rulemaking.
CBD submitted several comments on
whether NHTSA had met EISA’s
mandate to set standards ‘‘designed to
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement’’ and, to that end,
appropriately considered feasible
technologies in setting the stringency
level. CBD stated that the proposed rule
had been improperly limited to
currently available technology, and that
none of the alternatives contained all of
the available technology, which it
argued violated EISA and the CAA. CBD
also stated that the phase-in schedule
violated the technology-forcing
intention of EISA, and that the agencies
misperceived their statutory mandates,
arguing that the agencies are required to
force technological innovation through
aggressive standards.
As demonstrated in the standardspecific discussions later in this section
of the preamble, the standards adopted
in the final program are consistent with
section 202(a) of the CAA and section
32902(k)(2) of EISA. With respect to the
EPA rules, we note at the outset, that
CBD’s premise that EPA must adopt
‘‘technology-forcing’’ standards for
heavy-duty vehicles and engines is
wrong. A technology-forcing standard is
one that is to be based on standards
which will be available, rather than
technology which is presently available.
NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F. 2d 410, 429
(DC Cir. 1986). Clean Air Act provisions
requiring ‘‘the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through
the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be
available’’ are technology-forcing. See
e.g., CAA sections 202(a)(3)(1);193
193 CBD cites the District Court’s opinion in Cent.
Valley Chrysler-Jeep Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F. Supp.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

Continued

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57198

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

213(a)(3). Section 202(a)(1) standards
are technology-based, but not
technology-forcing, requiring EPA to
issue standards for a vehicle’s useful life
‘‘after providing such period as the
Administrator finds necessary to permit
the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance
within such period.’’ See NACAA v.
EPA, 489 F. 3d 1221, 1230 (DC Cir.
2007) upholding EPA’s interpretation of
similar language in CAA section 231(a)
as providing even greater leeway to
weigh the statutory factors than if the
provision were technology-forcing. See
generally 74 FR at 49464–465 (Sept. 28.
2009); 75 FR at 74171.
Section 202(a)(1) of course allows
EPA to consider application of
technologies which will be available as
well as those presently available, id.,
and EPA exercised that discretion here.
For example, as shown below, the
agencies carefully considered
application of hybrid technologies and
bottoming cycle technologies for a
number of the standards. Thus, the
critical issue is whether EPA’s choice of
technology penetration on which the
standards are premised is reasonable
considering the statutory factors, the key
ones being technology feasibility,
technology availability in the 2014–
2018 model years (i.e., adequacy of lead
time), and technology cost and costeffectiveness. EPA has considerable
discretion to weigh these factors in a
reasonable manner (even for provisions
which are explicitly technology-forcing,
see Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374,
378 (DC Cir. 2003)), and has done so
here.
With respect to EISA, 49 U.S.C.
section 32902(k)(2) directs NHTSA to
‘‘determine in a rulemaking proceeding
how to implement a commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency
improvement program designed to
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement,’’ and ‘‘adopt and
implement appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, fuel economy
standards, and compliance and
enforcement protocols that are
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and work trucks’’ NHTSA
recognizes that Congress intended EPCA
(and by extension, EISA, which
amended it) to be technology-forcing.
2d 1151, 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2007) for the proposition
that standard-setting provisions of Title II of the
CAA are technology forcing, but the court was
citing to the technology-forcing provision section
202(a)(3)(A)(i), which is not the applicable
authority here.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

See Center for Auto Safety v. National
Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 793
F.2d 1322, 1339 (DC Cir. 1986).
However, NHTSA believes it is
important to distinguish between setting
‘‘maximum feasible’’ standards, as
EPCA/EISA requires, and ‘‘maximum
technologically feasible’’ standards, as
CBD would have NHTSA do. The
agency must weigh all of the statutory
factors in setting fuel efficiency
standards, and therefore may not weigh
one statutory factor in isolation of
others.
Neither EPCA nor EISA define
‘‘maximum feasible’’ in the context of
setting fuel efficiency or fuel economy
standards. Instead, NHTSA is directed
to consider and meet three factors when
determining what the maximum feasible
standards are—‘‘appropriateness, costeffectiveness, and technological
feasibility.’’ 32902(k)(2). These factors
modify ‘‘feasible’’ in the context of the
MD/HD rules beyond a plain meaning of
‘‘capable of being done.’’ See Center for
Biological Diversity v. National Highway
Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172,
1194 (9th Cir. 2008). With respect to the
setting of standards for light-duty
vehicles, EPCA/EISA ‘‘gives NHTSA
discretion to decide how to balance the
statutory factors—as long as NHTSA’s
balancing does not undermine the
fundamental purpose of EPCA: energy
conservation.’’ Id. at 1195. Where
Congress has not directly spoken to a
potential issue related to such a
balancing, NHTSA’s interpretation must
be a ‘‘reasonable accommodation of
conflicting policies * * * committed to
the agency’s care by the statute.’’ Id.
(discussing consideration of consumer
demand) (internal citations omitted). In
the context of the agency’s light-duty
vehicle authority, it was determined
that Congress delegated the process for
setting the maximum feasible standard
to NHTSA with broad guidelines
concerning the factors that the agency
must consider. Id. (internal citations
omitted) (emphasis in original). We
believe that the same conclusion should
be drawn about the statutory provisions
governing the agency’s setting of
standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
Those provisions prescribe statutory
factors commensurate to, and equally
broad as, those prescribed for light-duty.
Thus, NHTSA believes that it is firmly
within our discretion to weigh and
balance the factors laid out in 32902(k)
in a way that is technology-forcing, as
evidenced by these standards
promulgated in this final action, but not
in a way that requires the application of
technology which will not be available
in the lead time provided by the rules,

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

or which is not cost-effective, or is costprohibitive, as CBD evidently deems
mandated.
As detailed below for each regulatory
category, NHTSA has considered the
appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and
technological feasibility of the standards
in designing a program to achieve the
maximum feasible fuel efficiency
improvement. It believes that each of
those criteria is met.
As described in Section I. F. (2) above,
the final standards will remain in effect
indefinitely at their 2018 or 2019 levels,
unless and until the standards are
revised. CBD maintained that this is a
per se violation of EISA, arguing that, by
definition, standards which are not
updated continually and regularly
cannot be considered maximum
feasible. NHTSA would like to clarify
that the NPRM specified that the
standards would remain indefinitely
‘‘until amended by a future rulemaking
action.’’ NPRM at 74172. Further, as
noted above, NHTSA has broad
discretion to determine the maximum
feasible standards. Unlike
§ 32902(b)(3)(B), which applies to
automobiles regulated under light-duty
CAFE, § 32902(k) does not specify a
maximum number of years that fuel
economy standards for heavy-duty
vehicles will be in place. Consistent
with its broad authority to define
maximum feasible standards, NHTSA
interprets its authority as including the
discretion to define expiration periods
where Congress has not otherwise
specified. This is particularly
appropriate for the heavy-duty sector,
where fuel efficiency regulation is
unprecedented. NHTSA believes that it
would be unwise to set an expiration
period for this first rulemaking absent
both Congressional direction and a
known compelling reason for setting a
specific date.
NHTSA believes that the phase-in
schedules provide an appropriate
balance between the technology-forcing
purpose of the statute and EISAmandated considerations of economic
practicability. NHTSA recognizes, as
noted in the case above, that balancing
each statutory factor in order to set the
maximum feasible standards means that
the agency must engage in a ‘‘reasonable
accommodation of conflicting policies.’’
See 538 F.3d at 1195, supra. Here, the
agency has determined that the phasein schedules are one such reasonable
accommodation.
Navistar commented generally that
the proposed rule was not
technologically feasible, stating that the
proposed standards assume
technologies which are not in
production for all manufacturers. This is

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
not the test for technical feasibility.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA needs
only to outline a technical path toward
compliance with a standard, giving
plausible reasons for its belief that
technology will either be developed or
applied in the requisite period. NRDC v.
EPA, 655 F. 2d 318, 333–34 (DC Cir.
1981). EPA has done so here with
respect to the alternative engine
standards of particular concern to
Navistar.194 Similarly, NHTSA has
previously interpreted ‘‘technological
feasibility’’ to mean ‘‘whether a
particular method of improving fuel
economy can be available for
commercial application in the model
year for which a standard is being
established.’’ 74 FR 14196, 14216.
NHTSA has further clarified that the
consideration of technological
feasibility ‘‘does not mean that the
technology must be available or in use
when a standard is proposed or issued.’’
Center for Auto Safety v. National
Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 793
F.2d 1322, 1325 n12 (DC Cir. 1986),
quoting 42 FR 63, 184, 63, 188 (1977).
Consistent with these previous
interpretations, NHTSA believes that a
technology does not necessarily need to
be currently available or in use for all
regulated parties to be ‘‘technologically
feasible’’ for this program, as long as it
is reasonable to expect, based on the
evidence before the agency, that the
technology will be available in the
model year in which the relevant
standard takes effect. The agencies
provide multiple technology pathways
for compliance with a standard,
allowing each manufacturer to develop
technologies which fit their current
production and research, and the
standards are based on fleet penetration
rates of those technologies. As discussed
below, it is reasonable to assume that all
the technologies on whose performance
the standards are premised will be
available over the period the standards
are in effect.
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI)
commented that the agencies should
increase the scope and stringency of the
final rule to the point at which net
benefits would be maximized, citing
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. EOs
12866 and 13563 instruct agencies, to
the extent permitted by law, to select,
among other things, the regulatory
approaches which maximize net
benefits. NHTSA agrees with IPI about
the applicability of these EOs and has
made every effort to incorporate their
guidance in drafting this rule.
Though IPI agreed that the proposed
rule was cost-benefit justified, IPI
194 See

40 CFR 1036.620.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

further stated that the agencies must
implement an alternative that provides
the maximum net benefits. The agencies
believe that standards that maximized
net benefits would be beyond the point
of technological feasibility for this first
phase of the HD National Program. The
standards already require the maximum
feasible fuel efficiency improvements
for the HD fleet in the 2014–2018 time
frame. Thus, even though, the final
standards are highly cost-effective, and
standards that maximized net benefits
would likely be more stringent than
those being promulgated in this final
action, NHTSA believes that standards
that maximized net benefits would not
be appropriate or technologically
feasible in the rulemaking time frame.
The Executive Orders cited by IPI
cannot and do not require an agency to
select a regulatory alternative that is
inconsistent with its statutory
obligations. Thus, the standards adopted
in the final rules are consistent with the
agencies’ respective statutory
authorities, and are not established at
levels which are infeasible or costineffective.
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

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57199

process plays a major role in developing
the final standards. Engine and vehicle
manufacturers typically develop many
different models based on a limited
number of platforms. The platform
typically consists of a common engine
or truck model architecture. For
example, a common engine platform
may contain the same configuration
(such as inline), number of cylinders,
valvetrain architecture (such as
overhead valve), cylinder head design,
piston design, among other attributes.
An engine platform may have different
calibrations, such as different power
ratings, and different aftertreatment
control strategies, such as exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) or selective catalytic
reduction (SCR). On the other hand, a
common vehicle platform has different
meanings depending on the market. In
the heavy-duty pickup truck market,
each truck manufacturer usually has
only a single pickup truck platform (for
example the F series by Ford) with
common chassis designs and shared
body panels, but with variations on load
capacity of the axles, the cab
configuration, tire offerings, and
powertrain options. Lastly, the
combination tractor market has several
different platforms and the trucks
within each platform (such as LoneStar
by Navistar) have less commonality.
Tractor manufacturers will offer several
different options for bumpers, mirrors,
aerodynamic fairing, wheels, and tires,
among others. However, some areas
such as the overall basic aerodynamic
design (such as the grill, hood,
windshield, and doors) of the tractor are
tied to tractor platform.
The platform approach allows for
efficient use of design and
manufacturing resources. Given the very
large investment put into designing and
producing each truck model,
manufacturers of heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans typically plan on a
major redesign for the models every 5
years or more (a key consideration in
the choice of the five model year
duration during which the vehicle
standards are phased in). Recently,
EPA’s non-GHG heavy-duty engine
program provided new emissions
standards every three model years.
Heavy-duty engine and truck
manufacturer product plans typically
have fallen into three year cycles to
reflect this regime. While the recent
non-GHG emissions standards can be
handled generally with redesigns of
engines and trucks, a complete redesign
of a new heavy-duty engine or truck
typically occurs on a slower cycle and
often does not align in time due to the
fact that the manufacturer of engines

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57200

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

differs from the truck manufacturer. At
the redesign stage, the manufacturer
will upgrade or add all of the
technology and make most other
changes supporting the manufacturer’s
plans for the next several years,
including plans related to emissions,
fuel efficiency, and safety regulations.
A redesign of either engine or truck
platforms often involves a package of
changes designed to work together to
meet the various requirements and
plans for the model for several model
years after the redesign. This often
involves significant engineering,
development, manufacturing, and
marketing resources to create a new
product with multiple new features. In
order to leverage this significant upfront
investment, manufacturers plan vehicle
redesigns with several model years of
production in mind. Vehicle models are
not completely static between redesigns
as limited changes are often
incorporated for each model year. This
interim process is called a refresh of the
vehicle and it generally does not allow
for major technology changes although
more minor ones can be done (e.g.,
small aerodynamic improvements, etc).
More major technology upgrades that
affect multiple systems of the vehicle
thus occur at the vehicle redesign stage
and not in the time period between
redesigns.
As discussed below, there are a wide
variety of CO2 and fuel consumption
reducing technologies involving several
different systems in the engine and
vehicle that are available for
consideration. Many can involve major
changes to the engine or vehicle, such
as changes to the engine block and
cylinder heads or changes in vehicle
shape to improve aerodynamic
efficiency. Incorporation of such
technologies during the periodic engine,
transmission or vehicle redesign process
would allow manufacturers to develop
appropriate packages of technology
upgrades that combine technologies in
ways that work together and fit with the
overall goals of the redesign. By
synchronizing with their multi-year
planning process, manufacturers can
avoid the large increase in resources and
costs that would occur if technology had
to be added outside of the redesign
process. We considered redesign cycles
both in our costing and in assessing
needed the lead time required.
As described below, the vast majority
of technology on whose performance the
final standards are predicated is
commercially available and already
being utilized to a limited extent across
the heavy-duty fleet. Therefore the
majority of the emission and fuel
consumption reductions which would

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

result from these final rules would
result from the increased use of these
technologies. EPA and NHTSA also
believe that these final rules will
encourage the development and limited
use of more advanced technologies,
such as advanced aerodynamics and
hybrid powertrains in some vocational
vehicle applications.
In evaluating truck efficiency, NHTSA
and EPA have excluded consideration of
standards which could result in
fundamental changes in the engine or
vehicle’s performance. Put another way,
none of the technology pathways
underlying the final standards involve
any alteration in vehicle utility. For
example, the agencies did not consider
approaches that would necessitate
reductions in engine power or otherwise
limit truck performance. The agencies
have thus limited the assessment of
technical feasibility and resultant
vehicle cost to technologies which
maintain freight utility. Similarly, the
agencies’ choice of attributes on which
to base the standards, and the metrics
used to measure them, are consciously
adopted to preserve the utility of heavyduty vehicles and engines.
The agencies worked together to
determine component costs for each of
the technologies and build up the costs
accordingly. For costs, the agencies
considered both the direct or ‘‘piece’’
costs and indirect costs of individual
components of technologies. For the
direct costs, the agencies followed a bill
of materials approach utilized by the
agencies in the light-duty 2012–16 MY
vehicle rule. A bill of materials, in a
general sense, is a list of components or
sub-systems that make up a system—in
this case, an item of technology which
reduces GHG emissions and fuel
consumption. In order to determine
what a system costs, one of the first
steps is to determine its components
and what they cost. NHTSA and EPA
estimated these components and their
costs based on a number of sources for
cost-related information. In general, the
direct costs of fuel consumptionimproving technologies for heavy-duty
pickups and vans are consistent with
those used in the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle rule, except that the
agencies have scaled up certain costs
where appropriate to accommodate the
larger size and/or loads placed on parts
and systems in the heavy-duty classes
relative to the light-duty classes. For
loose heavy-duty engines, the agencies
have consulted various studies and have
exercised engineering judgment when
estimating direct costs. For technologies
expected to be added to vocational
vehicles and combination tractors, the
agencies have again consulted various

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

studies and have used engineering
judgment to arrive at direct cost
estimates. Once costs were determined,
they were adjusted to ensure that they
were all expressed in 2009 dollars using
a ratio of gross domestic product
deflators for the associated calendar
years.
Indirect costs were accounted for
using the ICM approach explained in
Chapter 2 of the RIA, rather than using
the traditional Retail Price Equivalent
(RPE) multiplier approach. For the
heavy-duty pickup truck and van cost
projections in this final action, the
agencies have used ICMs developed for
light-duty vehicles (with the exception
that here return on capital has been
incorporated into the ICMs, where it
had not been in the light-duty rule)
primarily because the manufacturers
involved in this segment of the 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 final rulemaking, EPA contracted
with RTI International to update EPA’s
methodology for accounting for indirect
costs associated with changes in direct
manufacturing costs for heavy-duty
engine and truck manufacturers.195 In
addition to the indirect cost multipliers
varying by complexity and time frame,
there is no reason to expect that the
multipliers would be the same for
engine manufacturers as for truck
manufacturers. The report from RTI
provides a description of the
methodology, as well as calculations of
new indirect cost multipliers. The
multipliers used here include a factor of
5 percent of direct costs representing the
return on capital for heavy-duty engines
and truck manufacturers. These indirect
cost multipliers are intended to be used,
along with calculations of direct
manufacturing costs, to provide
improved estimates of the full
additional costs associated with new
technologies. The agencies did not
receive any adverse comments related to
this methodology.
Details of the direct and indirect
costs, and all applicable ICMs, are
presented in Chapter 2 of the RIA. In
addition, for details on the ICMs, please
refer to the RTI report (See Docket ID
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0283).
Importantly, the agencies have revised
the ICM factors and the way that
indirect costs are calculated using the
ICMs. As a result, the ICM factors are
now higher, the indirect costs are higher
and, therefore, technology costs are
195 RTI International. Heavy-duty Truck Retail
Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers. July
2010.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
higher. The changes made to the ICMs
and the indirect cost calculations are
discussed in Section VIII of this
preamble and are detailed in Chapter 2
of the RIA.
EPA and NHTSA believe that the
emissions reductions called for by the
final standards are technologically
feasible at reasonable costs within the
lead time provided by the final
standards, reflecting our projections of
widespread use of commercially
available technology. Manufacturers
may also find additional means to
reduce emissions and lower fuel
consumption beyond the technical
approaches we describe here. We
encourage such innovation through
provisions in our flexibility program as
discussed in Section IV.
The remainder of this section
describes the technical feasibility and
cost analysis in greater detail. Further
detail on all of these issues can be found
in the joint RIA Chapter 2.
A. Class 7–8 Combination Tractor
Class 7 and 8 tractors are used in
combination with trailers to transport
freight.196 The variation in the design of
these tractors and their typical uses
drive different technology solutions for
each regulatory subcategory. The
agencies are adopting provisions to treat
vocational tractors as vocational
vehicles instead of as combination
tractors, as noted in Section II.B. The
focus of this section is on the feasibility
of the standards for combination
tractors, not the vocational tractors.
EPA and NHTSA collected
information on the cost and
effectiveness of fuel consumption and
CO2 emission reducing technologies
from several sources. The primary
sources of information were the 2010
National Academy of Sciences report of
Technologies and Approaches to
Reducing the Fuel Consumption of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,197
TIAX’s assessment of technologies to
support the NAS panel report,198 EPA’s

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

196 ‘‘Tractor’’

is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean
‘‘a truck designed primarily for drawing other motor
vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load
other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and
the load so drawn.’’
197 Committee to Assess Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles; National Research Council;
Transportation Research Board (2010).
Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel
Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles. (‘‘The NAS Report’’) Washington, DC, The
National Academies Press. Available electronically
from the National Academy Press Web site at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845.
198 TIAX, LLC. ‘‘Assessment of Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles,’’ Final Report to National Academy of
Sciences, November 19, 2009.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Heavy-duty Lumped Parameter
Model,199 the analysis conducted by the
Northeast States Center for a Clean Air
Future, International Council on Clean
Transportation, Southwest Research
Institute and TIAX for reducing fuel
consumption of heavy-duty long haul
combination tractors (the NESCCAF/
ICCT study),200 and the technology cost
analysis conducted by ICF for EPA.201
Following on the EISA of 2007, the
National Research Council appointed a
NAS committee to assess technologies
for improving fuel efficiency of 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
identified the potential cost of such
technologies. The NAS panel contracted
with TIAX to perform an assessment of
technologies which provide potential
fuel consumption reductions in heavyduty trucks and engines and the
technologies’ associated capital costs.
Similar to the Lumped Parameter model
which EPA developed to assess the
impact and interactions of GHG and fuel
consumption reducing technologies for
light-duty vehicles, EPA developed a
new version of that model to
specifically address the effectiveness
and interactions of the final pickup
truck and light heavy-duty engine
technologies. The NESCAFF/ICCT study
assessed technologies available in 2012
through 2017 to reduce CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of line haul
combination tractors and trailers. Lastly,
the ICF report focused on the capital,
maintenance, and operating costs of
technologies currently available to
reduce CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption in heavy-duty engines,
combination tractors, and vocational
vehicles.
(1) What technologies did the agencies
consider to reduce the CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of combination
tractors?
Manufacturers can reduce CO2
emissions and fuel consumption of
combination tractors through use of,
among others, engine, aerodynamic, tire,
extended idle, and weight reduction
technologies. The standards in the final
rules are premised on use of these
199 U.S. EPA. Heavy-duty Lumped Parameter
Model.
200 NESCCAF, ICCT, Southwest Research
Institute, and TIAX. Reducing Heavy-Duty Long
Haul Combination Truck Fuel Consumption and
CO2 Emissions. October 2009.
201 ICF International. ‘‘Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010. Docket
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0283.

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57201

technologies. The agencies note that
SmartWay trucks are available today
which incorporate the technologies on
whose performance the final standards
are based. We will also discuss other
technologies that could potentially be
used, such as vehicle speed limiters,
although we are not basing the final
standards on their use for the model
years covered by this rulemaking, for
various reasons discussed below.
In this section we discuss the baseline
tractor and engine technologies for the
2010 model year, and then discuss the
types of technologies that the agencies
considered to improve performance
relative to this baseline, while Section
III.A.2 discusses the technology
packages the agencies used to determine
the final standard levels.
(a) Baseline Tractor & Tractor
Technologies
Baseline tractor: The agencies
developed the baseline tractor to
represent the average 2010 model year
tractor. Today there is a large spread in
aerodynamics in the new tractor fleet.
Trucks sold may reflect so-called classic
styling (as described in Section II.B.3.c),
or may be sold with aerodynamic
packages. Based on our review of
current truck model configurations and
Polk data provided through MJ
Bradley,202 we believe the aerodynamic
configuration of the baseline new truck
fleet is approximately 25 percent Bin I,
70 percent Bin II, and 5 percent Bin III
(as these bin configurations are
explained above in Section II.B. (2)(c).
The baseline Class 7 and 8 day cab
tractor consists of an aerodynamic
package which closely resembles the
Bin I package described in Section II.B.
(2)(c), baseline tire rolling resistance of
7.8 kg/metric ton for the steer tire and
8.2 kg/metric ton,203 dual tires with
steel wheels on the drive axles, and no
vehicle speed limiter. The baseline
tractor for the Class 8 sleeper cabs
contains the same aerodynamic and tire
rolling resistance technologies as the
baseline day cab, does not include
vehicle speed limiters, and does not
include an idle reduction technology.
The agencies assume the baseline
transmission is a 10 speed manual. The
agencies received a comment from the
ICCT stating that the 0.69 Cd baseline
for high roof sleepers published in the
NPRM is higher than existing studies
show. ICCT cited three studies
202 MJ Bradley. Heavy-duty Market Analysis. May
2009. Page 10.
203 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
SmartWay Transport Partnership July 2010 eupdate accessed July 16, 2010, from http://
www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/
documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57202

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

including a Society of Automotive
Engineering paper showing a lower Cd
for tractor trailers. The agencies based
the average Cd for high roof sleepers on
available in use fleet composition data,
combined with an assessment of drag
coefficient for different truck
configurations. The agencies are
finalizing the 0.69 baseline Cd for high
roof sleeper based on our assessment for
the NPRM. However, we will continue
to gather information on the
composition of the in-use fleet and may
alter the baseline in a future action,
should more data become available that
demonstrates our estimate is incorrect.
Performance from this baseline can be
improved by the use of the following
technologies:
Aerodynamic technologies: There are
opportunities to reduce aerodynamic
drag from the tractor, but it is difficult
to assess the benefit of individual
aerodynamic features. Therefore,
reducing aerodynamic drag requires
optimizing of the entire system. The
potential areas to reduce drag include
all sides of the truck—front, sides, top,
rear and bottom. The grill, bumper, and
hood can be designed to minimize the
pressure created by the front of the
truck. Technologies such as
aerodynamic mirrors and fuel tank
fairings can reduce the surface area
perpendicular to the wind and provide
a smooth surface to minimize
disruptions of the air flow. Roof fairings
provide a transition to move the air
smoothly over the tractor and trailer.
Side extenders can minimize the air
entrapped in the gap between the tractor
and trailer. Lastly, underbelly
treatments can manage the flow of air
underneath the tractor. As discussed in
the TIAX report, the coefficient of drag
(Cd) of a SmartWay sleeper cab high
roof tractor is approximately 0.60,
which is a significant improvement over
a truck with no aerodynamic features
which has a Cd value of approximately
0.80.204 The GEM demonstrates that an
aerodynamic improvement of a Class 8
high roof sleeper cab with a Cd value of
0.60 (which represents a Bin III tractor)
provides a 5 percent reduction in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions over a
truck with a Cd of 0.68.
Lower Rolling Resistance Tires: A
tire’s rolling resistance results from the
tread compound material, the
architecture and materials of the casing,
tread design, the tire manufacturing
process, and its operating conditions
(surface, inflation pressure, speed,
temperature, etc.). Differences in rolling
resistance of up to 50 percent have been
identified for tires designed to equip the
204 See

TIAX, Note 198, Page 4–50.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

same vehicle. The baseline rolling
resistance coefficient for today’s fleet is
7.8 kg/metric ton for the steer tire and
8.2 kg/metric ton for the drive tire,
based on sales weighting of the top three
manufacturers based on market share.205
Since 2007, SmartWay trucks have had
steer tires with rolling resistance
coefficients of less than 6.6 kg/metric
ton for the steer tire and less than 7.0
kg/metric ton for the drive tire.206 Low
rolling resistance (LRR) drive tires are
currently offered in both dual assembly
and single wide-base configurations.
Single wide tires can offer rolling
resistance reduction along with
improved aerodynamics and weight
reduction. The GEM demonstrates that
replacing baseline tractor tires with tires
which meet the Bin I level provides
approximately a 4 percent reduction in
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
over the prescribed test cycle, as shown
in RIA Chapter 2, Figure 2–2.
Weight Reduction: Reductions in
vehicle mass reduce fuel consumption
and GHGs by reducing the overall
vehicle mass to be accelerated and also
through increased vehicle payloads
which can allow additional tons to be
carried by fewer trucks consuming less
fuel and producing lower emissions on
a ton-mile basis. Initially for proposal,
the agencies considered evaluating
vehicle mass reductions on a total
vehicle basis for combination
tractors.207 The agencies considered
defining a baseline vehicle curb weight
and the GEM would have used the
vehicle’s actual curb weight to calculate
the increase or decrease in fuel
consumption related to the overall
vehicle mass relative to that baseline.
After considerable evaluation of this
issue, including discussions with the
industry, we decided it would not be
possible to define a single vehicle
baseline mass for the tractors that would
be appropriate and representative.
Actual vehicle curb weights for these
classes of vehicles vary by thousands of
pounds dependent on customer features
added to vehicles and critical to the
function of the vehicle in the particular
vocation in which it is used. This is true
of vehicles such as Class 8 tractors
considered in this section that may
appear to be relatively homogenous but
which in fact are quite heterogeneous.
This reality led us to the solution we
proposed. In the proposal, we reflected
mass reductions for specific technology
substitutions (e.g., installing aluminum
205 See

SmartWay, Note 203, above.

206 Ibid.
207 The agencies are using the approach of
evaluating total vehicle mass for heavy-duty
pickups and vans where we have more data on the
current fleet vehicle mass.

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

wheels instead of steel wheels) where
we could with confidence verify the
mass reduction information provided by
the manufacturer even though we
cannot estimate the actual curb weight
of the vehicle. In this way, we
accounted for mass reductions where
we can accurately account for its
benefits.
For the final rules, based on
evaluation of the comments, the
agencies developed an expanded list of
weight reduction opportunities, from
which the sum of the weight reduction
from the technologies installed on a
specific tractor can be input into the
GEM as listed in Table II–9 in Section
II. The list includes additional
components, but not materials, from
those proposed in the NPRM. For high
strength steel, the weight reduction
value is equal to 10 percent of the
presumed baseline component weight,
as the agencies used a conservative
value based on the DOE report. We
recognize that there may be additional
potential for weight reduction in new
high strength steel components which
combine the reduction due to the
material substitution along with
improvements in redesign, as evidenced
by the studies done for light-duty
vehicles. In the development of the high
strength steel component weights, we
are only assuming a reduction from
material substitution and no weight
reduction from redesign, since we do
not have any data specific to redesign of
heavy-duty components nor do we have
a regulatory mechanism to differentiate
between material substitution and
improved design. We are finalizing for
wheels that both aluminum and light
weight aluminum are eligible to be used
as light-weight materials. Only
aluminum and not light weight
aluminum can be used as a light-weight
material for other components. The
reason for this is data was available for
light weight aluminum for wheels but
was not available for other components.
As explained in Section II.B above,
the agencies continue to believe that the
400 pound weight target is appropriate
for setting the final combination tractor
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
standards. The agencies agree with the
commenter that 400 pounds of weight
reduction without the use of single wide
tires may not be achievable for all
tractor configurations. The agencies
have expanded the list of weight
reduction components which can be
input into the GEM in order to provide
the manufacturers with additional
means to comply with the combination
tractors and to further encourage
reductions in vehicle weight. The
agencies considered increasing the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
target value beyond 400 pounds given
the additional reduction potential
identified in the expanded technology
list; however, lacking information on
the capacity for the industry to change
to these light weight components across
the board by the 2014 model year, we
have decided to maintain the 400 pound
target. The agencies intend to continue
to study the potential for additional
weight reductions in our future work
considering a second phase of truck fuel
efficiency and GHG regulations.
A weight reduction of 400 pounds
applied to a truck which travels at
70,000 pounds will have a minimal
impact on fuel consumption. However,
for trucks which operate at the
maximum GVWR which occurs
approximately in one third of truck
miles travelled, a reduced tare weight
will allow for additional payload to be
carried. The GEM demonstrates that a
weight reduction of 400 pounds applied
to the payload tons for one third of the
trips provides a 0.3 percent reduction in
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
over the prescribed test cycle, as shown
in Figure 2–3 of RIA Chapter 2.
Extended Idle Reduction: Auxiliary
power units (APU)s, fuel operated
heaters, battery supplied air
conditioning, and thermal storage
systems are among the technologies
available today to reduce main engine
extended idling from sleeper cabs. Each
of these technologies reduces the
baseline fuel consumption during idling
from a truck without this equipment
(the baseline) from approximately 0.8
gallons per hour (main engine idling
fuel consumption rate) to approximately
0.2 gallons per hour for an APU.208 EPA
and NHTSA agree with the TIAX
assessment of a 6 percent reduction in
overall fuel consumption reduction.209
Vehicle Speed Limiters: Fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
increase proportional to the square of
vehicle speed. Therefore, lowering
vehicle speeds can significantly reduce
fuel consumption and GHG emissions.
A vehicle speed limiter (VSL), which
limits the vehicle’s maximum speed, is
a simple technology that is utilized
today by some fleets (though the typical
maximum speed setting is often higher
than 65 mph). The GEM shows that
using a vehicle speed limiter set at 62
mph on a sleeper cab tractor will
provide a 4 percent reduction in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions over
the prescribed test cycles over a baseline
208 See
209 See

the RIA Chapter 2 for details.
the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, above, at

128.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

vehicle without a VSL or one set above
65 mph.210
Transmission: As discussed in the
2010 NAS report, automatic and
automated manual transmissions may
offer the ability to improve vehicle fuel
consumption by optimizing gear
selection compared to an average driver.
However, as also noted in the report and
in the supporting TIAX report, the
improvement is very dependent on the
driver of the truck, such that reductions
ranged from 0 to 8 percent.211 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
enough to maintain optimum engine
operating conditions could be expected
to realize improved in-use fuel
consumption by switching from a
manual transmission to an automatic or
automated manual transmission.
Although we believe there may be real
benefits in reduced fuel consumption
and GHG emissions through the
application of dual clutch, automatic or
automated manual transmission
technology, we are not reflecting this
potential improvement in our standard
setting or in our compliance model. We
have taken this approach because we
cannot say with confidence what level
of performance improvement to expect.
Low Friction Transmission, Axle, and
Wheel Bearing Lubricants: The 2010
NAS report assessed low friction
lubricants for the drivetrain as a 1
percent improvement in fuel
consumption based on fleet testing.212
The light-duty 2012–16 MY vehicle rule
and the pickup truck portion of this
program estimate that low friction
lubricants can have an effectiveness
value between 0 and 1 percent
compared to traditional lubricants.
However, it is not clear if in many
heavy-duty applications these low
friction lubricants could have
competing requirements like component
durability issues requiring specific
lubricants with different properties than
low friction.
210 The Center for Biological Diversity thought
that the agencies; were limiting their consideration
of vehicle speed limiters as a potential control
technology due to perceived legal constraints. As
noted above, vehicle speed limiters are a potential
control technology for heavy duty vehicles and
there is no statutory bar on either agency
considering the performance of VSLs in developing
the standards.
211 See TIAX, Note 198, above at 4–70.
212 See the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 67.

PO 00000

Frm 00099

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57203

Hybrid: Hybrid powertrain
development in Class 7 and 8 tractors
has been limited to a few manufacturer
demonstration vehicles to date. One of
the key benefit opportunities for fuel
consumption reduction with hybrids is
less fuel consumption when a vehicle is
idling, but the standard is already
premised on use of extended idle
reduction so use of hybrid technology
would duplicate many of the same
emission reductions attributable to
extended idle reduction. NAS estimated
that hybrid systems would cost
approximately $25,000 per tractor in the
2015 through the 2020 time frame and
provide a potential fuel consumption
reduction of 10 percent, of which 6
percent is idle reduction which can be
achieved (less expensively) through the
use of other idle reduction
technologies.213 The limited reduction
potential outside of idle reduction for
Class 8 sleeper cab tractors is due to the
mostly highway operation and limited
start-stop operation. Due to the high cost
and limited benefit during the model
years at issue in this action (as well as
issues regarding sufficiency of lead time
(see Section III.2 (a) below), the agencies
are not including hybrids in assessing
standard stringency (or as an input to
GEM). However as discussed in Section
IV, the agencies are providing incentives
to encourage the introduction of
advanced technologies including hybrid
powertrains in appropriate applications.
Management: The 2010 NAS report
noted many operational opportunities to
reduce fuel consumption, such as driver
training and route optimization. The
agencies have included discussion of
several of these strategies in RIA
Chapter 2, but are not using these
approaches or technologies in the
standard setting process. The agencies
are looking to other resources, such as
EPA’s SmartWay Transport Partnership
and regulations that could potentially be
promulgated by the Federal Highway
Administration and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, to
continue to encourage the development
and utilization of these approaches.
(b) Baseline Engine & Engine
Technologies
The baseline engine for the Class 8
tractors is a Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel
engine with 15 liters of displacement
which produces 455 horsepower. The
agencies are using a smaller baseline
engine for the Class 7 tractors because
of the lower combined weights of this
class of vehicles require less power,
thus the baseline is an 11L engine with
350 horsepower. The agencies
213 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 128.

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57204

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

developed the baseline diesel engine as
a 2010 model year engine with an
aftertreatment system which meets
EPA’s 0.20 grams of NOX/bhp-hr
standard with an SCR system along with
EGR and meets the PM emissions
standard with a diesel particulate filter
with active regeneration. The baseline
engine is turbocharged with a variable
geometry turbocharger. The following
discussion of technologies describes
improvements over the 2010 model year
baseline engine performance, unless
otherwise noted. Further discussion of
the baseline engine and its performance
can be found in Section III.A.2.6 below.
With respect to stringency level, the
agencies received comments from
Cummins and Daimler stating that the
proposed stringency levels were
appropriate for the lead-times.
Conversely, the agencies received
comments from several environmental
groups (UCS, CATF, ACEEE) supporting
a greater reduction in engine CO2
emissions and fuel consumption based
on the NAS report. Navistar also stated
that the agencies’ baseline engine is
inappropriate since there is not
currently a 0.20 NOX compliant engine
in production. A discussion of how the
baseline engine configuration can be
found below in Section (2)(b)(i).
Navistar also stated that the baseline
engines proposed in the NPRM, MY
2010 selective catalytic reduction (SCR)equipped, could not meet the agencies’
statutory obligation to set feasible
standards, and requested instead that
MY 2010 engines currently in-use be
used to meet the feasibility factor. The
agencies thus disagree with the
statement that SCR is infeasible and
therefore, the agencies reaffirm that the
engine used as the baseline engine in
the agencies’ analysis does indeed exist.
In fact, several engine families have
been certified by EPA using SCR
technology over the past two years, all
of which have met the 0.20 g/bhp-hr
NOX standard.214 EPA disagrees with
Navistar that SCR engines currently
certified do not meet this standard.
Compliance with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr FTP
NOX standard is measured based on an
engine’s performance when tested over
a specific duty cycle (see 40 CFR
86.007–11(a)(2)). This is also true
regarding the SET standard (see 40 CFR
86.007–11(a)(3)). Further, the FTP and
SET tests are average tests, so emissions
could go over 0.20 even for some
portion of the test itself. Manufacturers
are also required to ensure that their
engines meet the NTE standard under
214 See 2010 Model Year Engine Certification Data
and 2011 Model Year Engine Certification Data files
located in the Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

all conditions specified in the
regulations (see 40 CFR 86.007–
11(a)(4)).
Several manufacturers have been able
to show compliance with these
standards in applications for
certification provided to EPA for several
engine families. Navistar has provided
no information indicating that these
tests were false or improper. Indeed,
Navistar does not appear to suggest, or
provide any evidence, that engines with
working SCR systems do not meet the
NOX standard. Thus, it is demonstrably
false to conclude that the NOX standard
cannot be met with SCR-equipped
engines.
A more detailed response to these
comments appears in Section 6.2 of the
Response to Comment document for this
rule.
Engine performance for CO2
emissions and fuel consumption can be
improved by use of the following
technologies:
Improved Combustion Process: Fuel
consumption reductions in the range of
1 to 3 percent over the baseline diesel
engine are identified in the 2010 NAS
report through improved combustion
chamber design, higher fuel injection
pressure, improved injection shaping
and timing, and higher peak cylinder
pressures.215
Turbochargers: Improved efficiency of
a turbocharger compressor or turbine
could reduce fuel consumption by
approximately 1 to 2 percent over
variable geometry turbochargers in the
market today.216 The 2010 NAS report
identified technologies such as higher
pressure ratio radial compressors, axial
compressors, and dual stage
turbochargers as design paths to
improve turbocharger efficiency.
Higher efficiency air handling
processes: To maximize the efficiency of
such processes, induction systems may
be improved by manufacturing more
efficiently designed flow paths
(including those associated with air
cleaners, chambers, conduit, mass air
flow sensors and intake manifolds) and
by designing such systems for improved
thermal control. Improved
turbocharging and air handling systems
must include higher efficiency EGR
systems and intercoolers that reduce
frictional pressure loss while
maximizing the ability to thermally
control induction air and EGR. The
agencies received comments from
Honeywell confirming that
turbochargers provide a role in reducing
the CO2 emissions from engines. Other
components that offer opportunities for
215 See
216 See

PO 00000

TIAX. Note 198, Page 4–13.
TIAX Note 198, Page 4–2.

Frm 00100

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

improved flow efficiency include
cylinder heads, ports and exhaust
manifolds to further reduce pumping
losses. Variable air breathing systems
such as variable valve actuation may
provide additional gains at different
loads and speeds. The NESCCAF/ICCT
study indicated up to 1.2 percent
reduction could be achieved solely
through improved EGR systems.
Low Temperature Exhaust Gas
Recirculation: Most medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle diesel engines sold
in the U.S. market today use cooled
EGR, in which part of the exhaust gas
is routed through a cooler (rejecting
energy to the engine coolant) before
being returned to the engine intake
manifold. EGR is a technology
employed to reduce peak combustion
temperatures and thus NOX. 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.217 Because
low-temperature EGR reduces the
engine’s exhaust temperature, it may not
be compatible with exhaust energy
recovery systems such as
turbocompounding or a bottoming
cycle.
Engine Friction Reduction: Reduced
friction in bearings, valve trains, and the
piston-to-liner interface will improve
efficiency. Any friction reduction must
be carefully developed to avoid issues
with durability or performance
capability. Estimates of fuel
consumption improvements due to
reduced friction range from 0 to 2
percent.218
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
217 See

TIAX, Note 198, Page 4–13.
Note 198, pg 4–15

218 TIAX,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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.219 Bendix, in their
comments to the agencies, confirmed
that there are engine accessories
available that can improve an engine’s
fuel efficiency.
Selective catalytic reduction: This
technology is common on 2010 the
medium- and heavy-duty diesel engines
used in Class 7 and 8 tractors (and the
agencies therefore have included it as
part of the baseline engine, as noted
above). Because SCR is a highly
effective NOX aftertreatment approach,
it enables engines to be optimized to
maximize fuel efficiency, rather than
minimize engine-out NOX. 2010 SCR
systems are estimated to result in
improved engine efficiency of
approximately 3 to 5 percent compared
to a 2007 in-cylinder EGR-based
emissions system and by an even greater
percentage compared to 2010 incylinder approaches.220 As more
effective low-temperature catalysts are
developed, the NOX conversion
efficiency of the SCR system will
increase. Next-generation SCR systems
could then enable additional efficiency
improvements; alternatively, these
advances could be used to maintain
efficiency while down-sizing the
aftertreatment. We estimate that
continued optimization of the catalyst
could offer 1 to 2 percent reduction in
fuel use over 2010 model year systems
in the 2014 model year.221 The agencies
estimate an additional 1 to 2 percent
reduction may be feasible in the 2017
model year through additional
refinement.
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
219 See

TIAX. Note 198, Page 3–5.
D. ‘‘Advanced Diesel Engine
Technology Development for High Efficiency, Clean
Combustion.’’ Cummins, Inc. Annual Progress
Report 2008 Vehicle Technologies Program:
Advanced Combustion Engine Technologies, U.S.
Department of Energy. Pp 113–116. December 2008.
221 See TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4–9.

and 5 percent.222 Some of these
differences may depend on the
operating condition or duty cycle that
was considered by the different
researchers. The performance of a
turbocompounding system tends to be
highest at full load and much less or
even zero at light load.
Electric Turbocompounding: This
approach is similar in concept to
mechanical turbocompounding, except
that the power turbine drives an
electrical generator. The electricity
produced can be used to power an
electrical motor supplementing the
engine output, to power electrified
accessories, or to charge a hybrid system
battery. None of these systems have
been demonstrated commercially, but
modeled results by industry and DOE
have shown improvements of 3 to 5
percent.223
Bottoming Cycle: An engine with
bottoming cycle uses exhaust or other
heat energy from the engine to create
power without the use of additional
fuel. The sources of energy include the
exhaust, EGR, charge air, and coolant.
The estimates for fuel consumption
reduction range up to 10 percent as
documented in the 2010 NAS report.224
However, none of the bottoming cycle or
Rankine systems has been demonstrated
commercially and are currently in only
the research stage. See Section 2.4.2.7 of
the RIA and Section II.B above.
(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’ time
frames through the increased
application of aerodynamic
technologies, LRR tires, weight
reduction, extended idle reduction
technologies, vehicle speed limiters,
and engine improvements. The agencies
believe that hybrid powertrains systems
for tractors will not be sufficiently
developed and the necessary
manufacturing capacity put in place to
base a standard on any significant
volume of hybrid tractors. The agencies
are not aware of any full hybrid systems
currently developed for long haul
tractor applications. To date, hybrid
systems for tractors have been primarily
focused on idle shutdown technologies
and not the broader energy storage and

220 Stanton,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

222 NESCCAF/ICCT study (p. 54) and TIAX (2009,
pp. 3–5).
223 K. G. Duleep of Energy and Environmental
Analysis, R. Kruiswyk, 2008, pp. 212–214,
NESCCAF/ICCT, 2009, p. 54.
224 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 57.

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57205

recovery systems necessary to achieve
reductions over typical vehicle drive
cycles. The final standards reflect the
potential for idle shutdown technologies
through the GEM model. Further as
highlighted by the 2010 NAS report, the
agencies do believe that full hybrid
powertrains have the potential in the
longer term to provide significant
improvements in fuel efficiency and to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However lacking any existing systems or
manufacturing base, we cannot
conclude such technology will be
available in the 2014–2018 timeframe.
Developing a full hybrid system itself
would be a three to five project followed
by several more years to put in place
manufacturing capacity. The agencies
are including incentives for the use of
hybrid technologies to help encourage
their development and to reward
manufacturers that can produce hybrids
through prototype and low volume
production methods. The agencies also
are not including drivetrain
technologies in the standard setting
process, as discussed in Section
II.B.3.h.iv.
The agencies evaluated each
technology and estimated the most
appropriate application rate of
technology into each tractor
subcategory. The next sections describe
the effectiveness of the individual
technologies, the costs of the
technologies, the projected application
rates of the technologies into the
regulatory subcategories, and finally the
derivation of the final standards.
(i) Baseline Tractor Performance
The agencies developed the baseline
tractor for each subcategory to represent
an average 2010 model year tractor
configured as noted earlier. The
approach taken by the agencies was to
define the individual inputs to the GEM,
as shown in Table III–1. For example,
the agencies evaluated the industry’s
tractor offerings and concluded that the
average tractor contains a generally
aerodynamic shape (such as roof
fairings) and avoids classic features
such as an exhaust stacks at the B-pillar,
which increases drag. As noted earlier,
our assessment of the baseline new high
roof tractor fleet aerodynamics consists
of approximately 25 percent Bin I, 70
percent Bin II, and 5 percent Bin III
tractors. The baseline rolling resistance
coefficient for today’s fleet is 7.8 kg/
metric ton for the steer tire and 8.2 kg/
metric ton for the drive tire, based on
sales weighting of the top three

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57206

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

manufacturers based on market share.225
The agencies assumed no application of
vehicle speed limiters, weight reduction
technologies, or idle reduction

technologies in the baseline tractor. The
agencies use the inputs in the GEM to
derive the baseline CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption of Class 7 and 8

tractors. The results are included in
Table III–1.

TABLE III–1—BASELINE TRACTOR DEFINITIONS
Class 7

Class 8

Day cab
Low roof

Day cab

Mid roof

High roof

Low roof

Sleeper cab

Mid roof

High roof

Low roof

Mid roof

High roof

Aerodynamics (Cd)
Baseline ...

0.77

0.87

0.73

0.77

0.87

0.73

0.77

0.87

0.70

7.8

7.8

7.8

7.8

8.2

8.2

8.2

8.2

0

0

0

0

N/A

0

0

0

....................

....................

....................

....................

2010 MY
15L Engine

2010 MY
15L Engine

2010 MY
15L Engine

2010 MY
15L Engine

Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
Baseline ...

7.8

7.8

7.8

7.8

7.8

Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
Baseline ...

8.2

8.2

8.2

8.2

8.2

Weight Reduction (lb)
Baseline ...

0

0

0

0

0

Extended Idle Reduction (gram CO2/ton-mile reduction)
Baseline ...

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Vehicle Speed Limiter
Baseline ...

....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

Engine
Baseline ...

2010 MY
11L Engine

2010 MY
11L Engine

2010 MY
11L Engine

2010 MY
15L Engine

2010 MY
15L Engine

TABLE III–2—CLASS 7 AND 8 TRACTOR BASELINE CO2 EMISSIONS AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
Class 7

Class 8

Day cab
Low roof

Mid roof

Day cab
High roof

Mid roof

High roof

Low roof

Mid roof

High roof

CO2
(grams
CO2/tonmile) ......

116

128

138

88

95

103

80

89

94

Fuel Consumption
(gal/
1,000
ton-mile)

11.4

12.6

13.6

8.7

9.4

10.1

7.8

8.7

9.3

(ii) Tractor Technology Package
Definitions
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Low roof

Sleeper cab

The agencies’ assessment of the final
technology effectiveness was developed
through the use of the GEM in
coordination with chassis testing of
three SmartWay certified Class 8 sleeper
cabs. The agencies developed the
225 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
SmartWay Transport Partnership July 2010 e-

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

standards through a three-step process.
First, the agencies developed technology
performance characteristics for each
technology, described below. Each
technology is associated with an input
parameter which is in turn modeled in
the GEM. The performance levels for the
range of Class 7 and 8 tractor

aerodynamic packages and vehicle
technologies are described in Table III–
3. Second, the agencies combined the
technology performance levels with a
projected technology application rate to
determine the GEM inputs used to set
the stringency of the final standards.
Third, the agencies input the parameters

update accessed July 16, 2010, from http://

www.epa.gov/smartwaylogistics/newsroom/
documents/e-update-july-10.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
into GEM and used the output to
determine the final CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption levels.
Aerodynamics
The aerodynamic packages are
categorized as Bin I, Bin II, Bin III, Bin
IV, or Bin V based on the aerodynamic
performance determined through testing
conducted by the manufacturer. A more
complete description of these
aerodynamic packages is included in
Chapter 2 of the RIA. In general, the
CdA values for each package and tractor
subcategory were developed through
EPA’s coastdown testing of tractortrailer combinations, the 2010 NAS
report, and SAE papers.
Tire Rolling Resistance
The rolling resistance coefficient for
the tires was developed from
SmartWay’s tire testing to develop the
SmartWay certification, in addition to
testing a selection of tractor tires as part
of this program. The tire performance
was evaluated in three levels—the
baseline (average), 15 percent better
than the average, and an additional 15
percent improvement. The first 15
percent improvement represents the
threshold used to develop SmartWay
certified tires for long haul tractors. The
second 15 percent threshold represents
an incremental step for improvements
beyond today’s SmartWay level and
represents the best in class rolling
resistance of the tires we tested.
Weight Reduction
The weight reductions were
developed from tire manufacturer

information, the Aluminum
Association, the Department of Energy,
and TIAX, as discussed above in Section
II.B.3.e.
Idle Reduction
The benefits for the extended idle
reductions were developed from
literature, SmartWay work, and the 2010
NAS report. The agencies received
comments from multiple stakeholders
regarding idle reduction technologies
(IRT). Two commenters asked us to
revise the default value associated with
the IRT technology, and two
commenters want to use IRT in GEM
even without automatic engine shut
down (AES). The agencies proposed
AES after 5 minutes with no exceptions
to help ensure that the idle reductions
are realized in-use. Use of an AES
ensures the main engine will be shut
down, whereas idle reduction
technologies alone do not provide that
level of certainty. Without an automatic
shutdown of the main engine, actual
savings would depend on operator
behavior and thus be essentially
unverifiable. The agencies are finalizing
the calculation as proposed, along with
the automotive engine shutdown
requirement. Additional details
regarding the comments and
calculations are included in RIA Section
2.5.4.2.
Several commenters requested that
the level of emissions reductions vary in
GEM by different idle reduction
technologies, and one commenter
requested that the application of battery
powered APUs be incentivized. The

57207

agencies recognize that the level of
emission reductions provided by
different IRT varies, but are adopting a
conservative level to recognize that
some vehicles may be sold with only an
AES but may then install an IRT in-use.
Or some vehicles may be sold with one
IRT but then choose to install
alternative ones in-use. The agencies
cannot verify the savings which depend
on operator behavior.
One commenter requested that we
provide manufacturers with an option to
allow the AES feature to be
reprogammable after a specified number
of miles or time in service. The agencies
recognize that AES may impact the
resale value of tractors and, in response
to comments, are adopting provisions
for the optional expiration of an AES.
Thus, the initial buyer could select AES
only for the number of miles based on
the expected time before resale. Similar
to vehicle speed limiters, we would
discount the impact based on the full
life of the truck (e.g. 1,259,000 miles).
Additional detail can be found in RIA
Section 2.5.4.2.
Vehicle Speed Limiter
The agencies are not including
vehicle speed limiters in the technology
package for Class 7 and 8 tractors.
Summary of Technology Performance
Table III–3 describes the performance
levels for the range of Class 7 and 8
tractor aerodynamic packages and
vehicle technologies.

TABLE III–3—CLASS 7 AND 8 TRACTOR TECHNOLOGY VALUES
Class 7

Class 8

Day cab
Low/mid
roof

Day cab

High roof

Low/mid
roof

Sleeper cab

High roof

Low roof

Mid roof

High roof

0.79
0.72
0.63
0.56
0.51

0.77
0.71
....................
....................
....................

0.87
0.82
....................
....................
....................

0.75
0.68
0.60
0.52
0.47

7.8
6.6
5.7

7.8
6.6
5.7

7.8
6.6
5.7

7.8
6.6
5.7

8.2
7.0
6.0

8.2
7.0
6.0

8.2
7.0
6.0

8.2
7.0
6.0

Aerodynamics (Cd)
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin

I ..........................................................
II .........................................................
III ........................................................
IV .......................................................
V ........................................................

0.77/0.87
0.71/0.82
....................
....................
....................

0.79
0.72
0.63
0.56
0.51

0.77/0.87
0.71/0.82
....................
....................
....................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
Baseline ...................................................
Level I ......................................................
Level II .....................................................

7.8
6.6
5.7

7.8
6.6
5.7

7.8
6.6
5.7

Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
Baseline ...................................................
Level I ......................................................
Level II .....................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

8.2
7.0
6.0

PO 00000

Frm 00103

8.2
7.0
6.0

Fmt 4701

8.2
7.0
6.0

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57208

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III–3—CLASS 7 AND 8 TRACTOR TECHNOLOGY VALUES—Continued
Class 7

Class 8

Day cab
Low/mid
roof

Day cab
Low/mid
roof

High roof

Sleeper cab

High roof

Low roof

Mid roof

High roof

Weight Reduction (lb)
Control ......................................................

400

400

400

400

400

400

400

N/A

5

5

5

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Extended Idle Reduction (gram CO2/ton-mile reduction) a
Control ......................................................

N/A

N/A

N/A

Vehicle Speed
Control ......................................................

N/A

N/A

Limiter b
N/A

Notes:
a While the standards are set based on this value, users would enter another value if AES is not applied or applied for less than the full useful
life of the engine.
b Vehicle speed limiters are an applicable technology for all Class 7 and 8 tractors, however the standards are not premised on the use of this
technology.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(iii) Tractor Technology Application
Rates
As explained above, vehicle
manufacturers often introduce major
product changes together, as a package.
In this manner the manufacturers can
optimize their available resources,
including engineering, development,
manufacturing and marketing activities
to create a product with multiple new
features. In addition, manufacturers
recognize that a truck design will need
to remain competitive over the intended
life of the design and meet future
regulatory requirements. In some
limited cases, manufacturers may
implement an individual technology
outside of a vehicle’s redesign cycle.
With respect to the levels of
technology application used to develop
the final standards, NHTSA and EPA
established technology application
constraints. The first type of constraint
was established based on the
application of fuel consumption and
CO2 emission reduction technologies
into the different types of tractors. For
example, idle reduction technologies are
limited to Class 8 sleeper cabs using the
assumption that day cabs are not used
for overnight hoteling. A second type of
constraint was applied to most other
technologies and limited their
application based on factors reflecting
the real world operating conditions that
some combination tractors encounter.
This second type of constraint was
applied to the aerodynamic, tire, and
vehicle speed limiter technologies.
Table III–4 specifies the application
rates that EPA and NHTSA used to
develop the final standards. The
agencies received a significant number
of comments related to this second

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

basis. In particular, commenters
questioned the reasons for not requiring
the maximum reduction technology in
every case. The agencies have not done
so because we have concluded that
within each of these individual vehicle
categories there are particular
applications where the use of the
identified technologies would be either
ineffective or not technically feasible.
The addition of ineffective technologies
provides no environmental or fuel
efficiency benefit, increases costs and is
not a basis upon which to set a
maximum feasible improvement. For
example, the agencies have not required
the use of full aerodynamic vehicle
treatments on 100 percent of tractors
because we know that in many
applications (for example gravel truck
engaged in local aggregate delivery) the
added weight of the aerodynamic
technologies will increase fuel
consumption and hence CO2 emissions
to a greater degree than the reduction
that would be accomplished from the
more aerodynamic nature of the tractor.
To simply set the standard based on the
largest reduction possible estimated
narrowly over a single test procedure
while ignoring the in-use effects of the
technology would in this case result in
a perverse outcome that is not in
keeping with the agencies’ goals or the
requirements of the CAA and EISA.
Aerodynamics Application Rate
The impact of aerodynamics on a
truck’s efficiency increases with vehicle
speed. Therefore, the usage pattern of
the truck will determine the benefit of
various aerodynamic technologies.
Sleeper cabs are often used in line haul
applications and drive the majority of

PO 00000

Frm 00104

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

their miles on the highway travelling at
speeds greater than 55 mph. The
industry has focused aerodynamic
technology development, including
SmartWay tractors, on these types of
trucks. Therefore the agencies are
adopting the most aggressive
aerodynamic technology application to
this regulatory subcategory. All of the
major manufacturers today offer at least
one SmartWay truck model. The 2010
NAS Report on heavy-duty trucks found
that manufacturers indicated that
aerodynamic improvements which yield
3 to 4 percent fuel consumption
reduction or 6 to 8 percent reduction in
Cd values, beyond technologies used in
today’s SmartWay trucks are
achievable.226 The aerodynamic
application rate for Class 8 sleeper cab
high roof cabs (i.e., the degree of
technology application on which the
stringency of the final standard is
premised) consists of 20 percent of Bin
IV, 70 percent Bin III, and 10 percent
Bin II reflecting our assessment of the
fraction of tractors in this segment that
can successfully apply these
aerodynamic packages.
The 90 percent of tractors that we
project can either be Bin II or Bin III
equipped reflects the bulk of Class 8
high roof sleeper cab applications. We
are not projecting a higher fraction of
Bin III aerodynamic systems because of
the limited lead time for the program
and the need for these more advanced
technologies to be developed and
demonstrated before being applied
across a wider fraction of the fleet.
Aerodynamic improvements through
new tractor designs and the
226 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

TIAX, Note 198, Page 4–40.

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
development of new aerodynamic
components is an inherently slow and
iterative process. Aerodynamic impacts
are highly nonlinear and often reflect
unexpected interactions between
multiple components. Given the nature
of aerodynamic improvements it is
inherently difficult to estimate the
degree to which improvements can be
made beyond previously demonstrated
levels. The changes required for Bins III
and IV reflect the kinds of
improvements projected in the
Department of Energy’s Supertruck
program. That program assumes that
such systems can be demonstrated on
vehicles by 2017. In this case, the
agencies are projecting that truck OEMs
will be able to begin implementing these
aerodynamic technologies prior to 2017
on a limited scale. Importantly, our
averaging, banking and trading
provisions provide manufacturers with
the flexibility to implement these
technologies over time even though the
standard changes in a single step.
The final aerodynamic application for
the other tractor regulatory categories is
less aggressive than for the Class 8
sleeper cab high roof. The agencies
recognize that there are truck
applications which require on/off-road
capability and other truck functions
which restrict the type of aerodynamic
equipment applicable. We also
recognize that these types of trucks
spend less time at highway speeds
where aerodynamic technologies have
the greatest benefit. The 2002 VIUS data
ranks trucks by major use.227 The heavy
trucks usage indicates that up to 35
percent of the trucks may be used in
on/off-road applications or heavier
applications. The uses include
construction (16 percent), agriculture
(12 percent), waste management (5
percent), and mining (2 percent).
Therefore, the agencies analyzed the
technologies to evaluate the potential
restrictions that would prevent 100
percent application of SmartWay
technologies for all of the tractor
regulatory subcategories.
As discussed in Section II.B.2.c, in
response to comments received from
manufacturers making some of these
same points, the agencies are finalizing
only two aerodynamic bins for low and
mid roof tractors. The agencies are
reducing the number of bins for these
tractors from the proposal to reflect the
actual range of aerodynamic
technologies effective in low and mid
roof tractor applications. The
aerodynamic improvements to the
bumper, hood, windshield, mirrors, and
227 U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation
Energy Data Book, Edition 28–2009. Table 5.7.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

doors are developed for the high roof
tractor application and then carried over
into the low and mid roof applications.
As mentioned in Section II.B.2.c, the
types of designs that would move high
roof tractors from a Bin III to Bins IV
and V include features such as gap
reducers and integral roof fairings
which would not be appropriate on low
and mid roof tractors. Thus, the
agencies are differentiating the
aerodynamic performance for low- and
mid-roof tractors into two bins—Bin I
and Bin II. The application rates in the
low and mid roof categories are the
same as proposed, but aggregated into
just two bins. Bin I for these tractors
corresponds to the proposed ‘‘Classic’’
and ‘‘Conventional’’ bins and Bin II
corresponds to the proposed
‘‘SmartWay,’’ ‘‘Advanced SmartWay,’’
and ‘‘Advanced SmartWay II’’ bins.
Low Rolling Resistance Tire Application
Rate
At proposal, the agencies stated that
at least one LRR tire model is available
today that meets the rolling resistance
requirements of the Level I and Level II
tire packages so the 2014 MY should
afford manufacturers sufficient lead
time to install these packages. EPA and
NHTSA conducted additional
evaluation testing on HD tires used for
tractors. The agencies also received
several comments on the suitability of
low rolling resistance tires for various
HD truck applications. The summary of
the agencies findings and a response to
issues raised by commenters is
presented in Section II.D(1)(a).
The agencies note that baseline rolling
resistance level for tires installed on
tractors is approximately equivalent to
what the agencies consider to be low
rolling resistance tires for vocational
vehicles because of the tire
manufacturer’s focus on improving the
rolling resistance of tractor tires. For the
tire manufacturers to further reduce tire
rolling resistance, the manufacturers
must consider several performance
criteria that affect tire selection. The
characteristics of a tire also influence
durability, traction control, vehicle
handling, comfort, and retreadability. A
single performance parameter can easily
be enhanced, but an optimal balance of
all the criteria will require
improvements in materials and tread
design at a higher cost, as estimated by
the agencies. Tire design requires
balancing performance, since changes in
design may change different
performance characteristics in opposing
directions. Similar to the discussion
regarding lesser aerodynamic
technology application in tractor
segments other than sleeper cab high

PO 00000

Frm 00105

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57209

roof, the agencies believe that the final
standards should not be premised on
100 percent application of Level II tires
in all tractor segments given the
interference with vehicle utility that
would result. The agencies are basing
their analyses on application rates that
vary by subcategory recognizing that
some subcategories require a different
balancing of performance versus rolling
resistance.
Weight Reduction Technology
Application Rate
The agencies proposed setting the
2014 model year tractor standards using
100 percent application of a 400 pound
weight reduction package. Volvo and
ATA stated in their comments that not
all fleets can use single wide tires and
if this is the case the 400 pound weight
reduction cannot be met. The agencies
also received comments from MEMA,
Navistar, American Chemistry Council,
the Auto Policy Center, Iron and Steel
Institute, Arvin Meritor, Aluminum
Association, and environmental groups
and NGOs identifying other potential
weight reduction opportunities for
tractors. As described in Section II.B.3.e
above, the agencies are adopting an
expanded list of weight reduction
options which can be input into the
GEM for the final rulemaking.
As also explained in that earlier
discussion, the agencies, upon further
analysis, continue to believe that a 400
pound weight reduction package is
appropriate for tractors in the time
frame. As stated in Section II.B.2.e
above, for tractors where single wide
tires are not appropriate, the
manufacturers have additional options
available to achieve weight reduction,
such as body panels and chassis
components as documented in the
earlier discussion. The agencies have
extended the list of weight reduction
components in order to provide the
manufacturers with additional means to
comply with the combination tractors
and to further encourage reductions in
vehicle weight. The agencies considered
increasing the target value beyond 400
pounds given the additional reduction
potential components identified in the
expanded list; however, lacking
information on the capacity for the
industry to change to these light weight
components across the board by the
2014 model year, we have decided to
maintain the 400 pound target. The
agencies intend to continue to study the
potential for additional weight
reductions in our future work
considering a second phase of truck fuel
efficiency and GHG regulations.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57210

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Idle Reduction Technology Application
Rate
Idle reduction technologies provide
significant reductions in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions for
Class 8 sleeper cabs and are available on
the market today, and therefore will be
available in the 2014 model year. There
are several different technologies
available to reduce idling. These
include APUs, diesel fired heaters, and
battery powered units. Our discussions
with manufacturers indicate that idle
technologies are sometimes installed in
the factory, but it is also a common
practice to have the units installed after
the sale of the truck. We would like to
continue to incentivize this practice and
to do so in a manner that the emission
reductions associated with idle
reduction technology occur in use.
Therefore, as proposed, we are allowing
only idle emission reduction
technologies with include an automatic
engine shutoff (AES). We are also
adopting some override provisions in
response to comments we received (as
explained below). As proposed, we are
adopting a 100 percent application rate
for this technology for Class 8 sleeper
cabs, even though the current fleet is
estimated to have a 30 percent
application rate. The agencies are
unaware of reasons why AES with
extended idle reduction technologies
could not be applied to all tractors with
a sleeper cab, except those deemed a
vocational tractor, in the available lead
time.
One commenter stated the application
rate of AES should be less than 100
percent, but did not recommend an
alternative application rate or provide
justification for a change. The agencies
re-evaluated the proposed 100 percent
application rate and determined that a
100 percent application rate for this
technology for Class 8 sleeper cabs
remains appropriate. The agencies have
also considered the many comments
which raised concerns about the
proposed mandatory 5 minute
automatic engine shut down without
override capability (in terms of safety,
extreme temperatures and low battery
conditions). To avoid unintended
adverse impacts, we are adopting
limited override provisions. Three of the
five exceptions are similar to those
currently in effect under a California Air
Resources Board (CARB) regulation.
CARB provides AES exceptions (or
overrides) within its existing heavy-duty
vehicle anti-idling laws, which were
developed to address these same types
of concerns. The exceptions we are
adopting include override capability
during exhaust emissions control device

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

regeneration, during engine servicing
and maintenance, when battery state of
charge is too low, in extreme ambient
temperatures, when engine coolant
temperature is too low, and during PTO
operation. The RIA provides more detail
about these final override provisions in
Section 2.5.4.3.
The agencies received comment that
we should extend the idle reduction
benefits beyond Class 8 sleepers,
including Class 7 tractors and
vocational vehicles. The agencies
reviewed literature to quantify the
amount of idling which is conducted
outside of hoteling operations. One
study, conducted by Argonne National
Laboratory, identified several different
types of trucks which might idle for
extended amounts of time during the
work day.228 Idling may occur during
the delivery process, queuing at loading
docks or border crossings, during power
take off operations, or to provide
comfort during the work day. However,
the study provided only ‘‘rough
estimates’’ of the idle time and energy
use for these vehicles. The agencies are
not able to appropriately develop a
baseline of workday idling for the other
types of vehicles and identify the
percent of this idling which could be
reduced through the use of AES. Absent
such information, the agencies cannot
justify adding substantial cost for AES
systems with such uncertain benefits.
Vehicle Speed Limiter Application Rate
Vehicle speed limiters may be used as
a technology to meet the standard, but
in setting the standard we assumed a
zero percent application rate of vehicle
speed limiters. Although we believe
vehicle speed limiters are a simple, easy
to implement, and inexpensive
technology, we want to leave the use of
vehicles speed limiters to the truck
purchaser. Since truck fleets purchase
trucks today with owner set vehicle
speed limiters, we considered not
including VSLs in our compliance
model. However, we have concluded
that we should allow the use of VSLs
that cannot be overridden by the
operator as a means of compliance for
vehicle manufacturers that wish to offer
it and truck purchasers that wish to
purchase the technology. In doing so,
we are providing another means of
meeting that standard that can lower
compliance cost and provide a more
optimal vehicle solution for some truck
fleets. For example, a local beverage
distributor may operate trucks in a
distribution network of primarily local
228 Gaines, L., A. Vyas, J. Anderson. Estimation of
Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks. January
2006.

PO 00000

Frm 00106

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

roads. Under those conditions,
aerodynamic fairings used to reduce
aerodynamic drag provide little benefit
due to the low vehicle speed while
adding additional mass to the vehicle. A
vehicle manufacturer could choose to
install a VSL set a 55 mph for this
customer. The resulting truck modeled
in GEM could meet our final emission
standard without the use of any
specialized aerodynamic fairings. The
resulting truck would be optimized for
its intended application and would be
fully compliant with our program all at
a lower cost to the ultimate truck
purchaser.229
As discussed in Section II.B.2.g above,
we have chosen not to base the
standards on performance of VSLs
because of concerns about how to set a
realistic application rate that avoids
unintended adverse impacts. Although
we expect there will be some use of
VSL, currently it is used when the fleet
involved decides it is feasible and
practicable and increases the overall
efficiency of the freight system for that
fleet operator. However, at this point the
agencies are not in a position to
determine in how many additional
situations use of a VSL would result in
similar benefits to overall efficiency.
Therefore, the agencies are not
premising the final standards on use of
VSL, and instead will rely on the
industry to select VSL when
circumstances are appropriate for its
use. The agencies have not included
either the cost or benefit due to VSLs in
analysis of the program’s costs and
benefits. Implementation of this
program may provide greater
information for using this technology in
standard setting in the future. Many
stakeholders including the American
Trucking Association have advocated
for more widespread use of vehicle
speed limits to address fuel efficiency
and greenhouse gas emissions. The
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
argued the agencies should reflect the
use of VSLs in setting the standard for
tractors rather than assuming no VSL
use in determining the appropriate
standard. The agencies have chosen not
to do so because, as explained, we are
not able at this time to quantify to
potential loss in utility due to the use
of VSLs. Absent this information, we
cannot make a determination regarding
the reasonableness of setting a standard
based on a particular VSL level. In
229 Ibid.

The agencies note that because a VSL value can
be input into GEM, its benefits can be directly
assessed with the model and off cycle credit
applications therefore are not necessary even
though the standard is not based on performance of
VSLs (i.e. VSL is an on-cycle technology).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
confirmation, a number of commenters
most notably the Owner Operator
Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA) suggest that VSLs could
significantly impact the ability of a
vehicle to deliver goods against a fixed
schedule and hence would significantly
impact its utility. ATA commented that

limited flexibility must be built into
speed limiters as not to interfere with
NHTSA planned rulemaking in
response to 2006 ATA petition and its
2008 Sustainability Plan. Similar
comments were received from DTNA
requesting that the agencies consider
any NHTSA safety regulations that may

57211

also be regulating VSLs. NHTSA plans
to issue a rule in 2012 addressing the
safety performance features of VSLs.
Table III–4 provides the final
application rates of each technology
broken down by weight class, cab
configuration, and roof height.

TABLE III–4—FINAL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION RATES FOR CLASS 7 AND 8 TRACTORS
[In percent]
Class 7

Class 8

Day cab
Low/mid
roof

Day cab
Low/mid
roof

High roof

Sleeper cab

High roof

Low roof

Mid roof

High roof

0
30
60
10
0

30
70
....................
....................
....................

30
70
....................
....................
....................

0
10
70
20
0

30
60
10

30
60
10

30
60
10

10
70
20

30
60
10

30
60
10

30
60
10

10
70
20

100

100

100

100

N/A

100

100

100

0

0

0

0

Aerodynamics (Cd)
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin

I ..........................................................
II .........................................................
III ........................................................
IV .......................................................
V ........................................................

40
60
....................
....................
....................

0
30
60
10
0

40
60
....................
....................
....................

Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
Baseline ...................................................
Bin I ..........................................................
Bin II .........................................................

40
50
10

30
60
10

40
50
10

Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
Baseline ...................................................
Bin I ..........................................................
Bin II .........................................................

40
50
10

30
60
10

40
50
10

Weight Reduction (lb)
400 lb. Weight Reduction ........................

100

100

100

Extended Idle Reduction (gram CO2/ton-mile reduction)
AES ..........................................................

N/A

N/A

N/A

Vehicle Speed Limiter
VSL ..........................................................

0

(iv) Derivation of the Final Tractor
Standards

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

The agencies used the technology
inputs and final technology application
rates in GEM to develop the final fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions
standards for each subcategory of Class
7 and 8 combination tractors. The
agencies derived a scenario tractor for
each subcategory by weighting the
individual GEM input parameters

230 See Section III.A.2.b below explaining the
derivation of the engine standards.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

0

0

included in Table III–3 with the
application rates in Table III–4. For
example, the Cd value for a Class 8
Sleeper Cab High Roof scenario case
was derived as 10 percent times 0.68
plus 70 percent times 0.60 plus 20
percent times 0.55, which is equal to a
Cd of 0.60. Similar calculations were
done for tire rolling resistance, weight
reduction, idle reduction, and vehicle
speed limiters. To account for the two
final engine standards, the agencies

assumed a compliant engine in GEM.230
In other words, EPA is finalizing the use
of a 2014 model year fuel consumption
map in GEM to derive the 2014 model
year tractor standard and a 2017 model
year fuel consumption map to derive the
2017 model year tractor standard.231
The agencies then ran GEM with a
single set of vehicle inputs, as shown in
Table III–5, to derive the final standards
for each subcategory. Additional detail
is provided in the RIA Chapter 2.

231 As explained further in Section V below, EPA
would use these inputs in GEM even for engines
electing to use the alternative engine standard.

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57212

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III–5—GEM INPUTS FOR THE CLASS 7 AND 8 TRACTOR STANDARD SETTING
Class 7

Class 8

Day cab
Low roof

Day cab

Mid roof

High roof

Low roof

Sleeper cab

Mid roof

High roof

Low roof

Mid roof

High roof

Aerodynamics (Cd)
0.73 ..................................

0.84

0.65

0.73

0.84

0.65

0.73

0.84

0.59

6.87

6.87

6.87

6.54

7.26

7.26

7.26

6.92

400

400

400

400

N/A

5

5

5

....................

....................

....................

....................

2014/17 MY
15L Engine

2014/17 MY
15L Engine

2014/17 MY
15L Engine

2014/17 MY
15L Engine

Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
6.99 ..................................

6.99

6.87

6.99

6.99

Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton)
7.38 ..................................

7.38

7.26

7.38

7.38

Weight Reduction (lb)
400 ...................................

400

400

400

400

Extended Idle Reduction (gram CO2/ton-mile reduction)
N/A ...................................

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Vehicle Speed Limiter
— ......................................

....................

....................

....................

....................

Engine
2014/17 MY 11L Engine ..

2014/17 MY
11L Engine

2014/17 MY
11L Engine

The level of the 2014 and 2017 model
year final standards and percent

2014/17 MY
15L Engine

2014/17 MY
15L Engine

reduction from the baseline for each
subcategory are included in Table III–6.

TABLE III–6—FINAL 2014 AND 2017 MODEL YEAR TRACTOR REDUCTIONS
2014 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile
Day cab

Sleeper cab

Class 7

Class 8

Class 8

107
119
124

81
88
92

68
76
75

Low Roof ......................................................................................................................................
Mid Roof ......................................................................................................................................
High Roof .....................................................................................................................................
2014–2016 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile 232

Day cab

Sleeper
cab

Class 7

Class 8

Class 8

10.5
11.7
12.2

8.0
8.7
9.0

6.7
7.4
7.3

Low Roof ......................................................................................................................................
Mid Roof ......................................................................................................................................
High Roof .....................................................................................................................................
2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Day cab
Class 7

Class 8

Class 8

104
115
120

80
86
89

66
73
72

Low Roof ......................................................................................................................................
Mid Roof ......................................................................................................................................
High Roof .....................................................................................................................................
2017 Model Year and Later Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Sleeper
cab

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57213

TABLE III–6—FINAL 2014 AND 2017 MODEL YEAR TRACTOR REDUCTIONS—Continued
Day cab
Class 7

Class 8

Class 8

10.2
11.3
11.8

7.8
8.4
8.7

6.5
7.2
7.1

Low Roof ......................................................................................................................................
Mid Roof ......................................................................................................................................
High Roof .....................................................................................................................................

A summary of the final technology
package costs is included in Table III–

Sleeper
cab

7 with additional details available in the
RIA Chapter 2.

TABLE III–7—CLASS 7 AND 8 TRACTOR TECHNOLOGY COSTS INCLUSIVE OF INDIRECT COST MARKUPS IN THE 2014
MODEL YEAR a (2009$)
Class 7

Class 8

Day cab
Low/mid
roof
Aerodynamics ..........................................
Steer Tires ...............................................
Drive Tires ................................................
Weight Reduction .....................................
Idle Reduction with Auxiliary Power Unit
Air Conditioningc ......................................
Total ..................................................

Day cab

Sleeper cab

High roof

Low/mid
roof

High roof

$675
68
63
1,536
....................
22

$924
68
63
1,536
....................
22

$675
68
126
1,980
....................
22

$924
68
126
1,980
....................
22

$962
68
126
3,275
3,819
22

$983
68
126
3,275
3,819
22

$1,627
68
126
1,980
3,819
22

2,364

2,612

2,871

3,119

8,271

8,291

7,641

Low roof

Mid roof

High roof

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Notes:
a Costs shown are for the 2014 model year so do not reflect learning impacts which would result in lower costs for later model years. For a description of the learning impacts considered in this analysis and how it impacts technology costs for other years, refer to Chapter 2 of the RIA
(see RIA 2.2.2).
b Note that values in this table include penetration rates. Therefore, the technology costs shown reflect the average cost expected for each of
the indicated classes. To see the actual estimated technology costs exclusive of penetration rates, refer to Chapter 2 of the RIA (see RIA 2.9 in
particular).
c EPA’s air conditioning standards are presented in Section II.E.5 above.

(v) Reasonableness of the Final
Standards
The final standards are based on
aggressive application rates for control
technologies which the agencies regard
as the maximum feasible for purposes of
EISA section 32902 (k) and appropriate
under CAA section 202 (a) for the
reasons given in Section (iii) above; see
also RIA Chapter 2.5.8.2. These
technologies, at the estimated
application rates, are available within
the lead time provided, as discussed in
RIA Chapter 2.5. Use of these
technologies would add only a small
amount to the cost of the vehicle, and
the associated reductions are highly cost
effective, an estimated $20 per ton of
CO2eq per vehicle in 2030 without
consideration of the substantial fuel
savings.233 This is even more cost
effective than the estimated cost
effectiveness for CO2eq removal and fuel
economy improvements under the lightduty vehicle rule, already considered by
232 Manufacturers may voluntarily opt-in to the
NHTSA fuel consumption program in 2014 or 2015.
If a manufacturer opts-in, the program becomes
mandatory.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

the agencies to be a highly cost effective
reduction.234 Moreover, the cost of
controls is rapidly recovered due to the
associated fuel savings, as shown in the
payback analysis included in Table
VIII–11 located in Section VIII below.
Thus, overall cost per ton of the
program, considering fuel savings, is
negative—fuel savings associated with
the rules more than offset projected
costs by a wide margin. See Table VIII–
6 in Section VIII below. Given that the
standards are technically feasible within
the lead time afforded by the 2014
model year, are inexpensive and highly
cost effective even without accounting
for the fuel savings, and have no
apparent adverse potential impacts (e.g.,
there are no projected negative impacts
on safety or vehicle utility), the final
standards represent a reasonable choice
under section 202(a) of the CAA and the
maximum feasible under NHTSA’s EISA
authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
233 See

Section VIII.D below.
light-duty rule had an estimated cost per
ton of $50 when considering the vehicle program
234 The

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(vi) Alternative Tractor Standards
Considered
The agencies are not adopting tractor
standards less stringent than the
proposed standards because the
agencies believe these standards are
appropriate, highly cost effective, and
technologically feasible within the
rulemaking time frame.
The agencies considered adopting
tractor standards which are more
stringent than those proposed reflecting
increased application rates of the
technologies discussed. We also
considered setting more stringent
standards based on the inclusion of
hybrid powertrains in tractors. We
stopped short of finalizing more
stringent standards based on higher
application rates of improved
aerodynamic controls and tire rolling
resistance because we concluded that
the technologies would not be
compatible with the use profile of a
subset of tractors which operate in offcosts 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\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57214

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

road conditions. We have not adopted
more stringent standards for tractors
based on the use of hybrid vehicle
technologies, believing that additional
development and therefore lead-time is
needed to develop hybrid systems and
battery technology for tractors that
operate primarily in highway cruise
operations. We know, for example, that
hybrid systems are being researched to
capture and return energy for tractors
that operate in gently rolling hills.
However, as discussed above, it is not
clear to us today that these systems will
be generally applicable to tractors in the
time frame of this regulation. In
addition, even if hybrid technologies
were generally available for these
tractors during the MY 2014–2017
period, their costs would be extremely
high and benefits would be limited
given that idle reduction controls
already capture many of the same

emissions. According to the 2010 NAS
Report, hybrid powertrains in tractors
have the potential to improve fuel
consumption by 10 percent, but it
displaces the 6 percent reduction for
idle reduction technologies, for a net
improvement of 4 percent at a cost of
$25,000 per vehicle.235
(b) Tractor Engines
(i) Baseline Engine Performance
As noted above, EPA and NHTSA
developed the baseline medium- and
heavy heavy-duty diesel engine to
represent a 2010 model year engine
compliant with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX
standard for on-highway heavy-duty
engines.
The agencies developed baseline SET
values for medium- and heavy 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
technologies including SCR and other
systems that are being used in current
2010 model year production. If an
engine utilized did not meet the 0.20 g/
bhp-hr NOX level, then the individual
engine’s CO2 result was adjusted to
accommodate aftertreatment strategies
that would result in a 0.20 g/bhp-hr
NOX emission level as described in RIA
Chapter 2.4.2.1. The engine CO2 results
were then sales weighted within each
regulatory subcategory (i.e., medium
heavy-duty diesel or heavy heavy-duty
diesel) to develop an industry average
2010 model year reference engine.
Although, most of the engines fell
within a few percent of this baseline at
least one engine was more than six
percent above this average baseline.

TABLE III–8—2010 MODEL YEAR BASELINE DIESEL ENGINE PERFORMANCE
CO2
Emissions
(g/bhp-hr)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel—SET ..........................................................................................................................
Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel—SET .............................................................................................................................

(ii) Engine Technology Package
Effectiveness
The MHD and HHD diesel engine
technology package for the 2014 model
year includes engine friction reduction,
improved aftertreatment effectiveness,
improved combustion processes, and
low temperature EGR system
optimization. The agencies considered
improvements in parasitic and friction
losses through piston designs to reduce
friction, improved lubrication, and
improved water pump and oil pump
designs to reduce parasitic losses. The
aftertreatment improvements are
available through lower backpressure of
the systems and optimization of the
engine-out NOX levels. Improvements to
the EGR system and air flow through the
intake and exhaust systems, along with
turbochargers can also produce engine
efficiency improvements. We note that
individual technology improvements
are not additive due to the interaction
of technologies. The agencies assessed
the impact of each technology over each
of the 13 SET modes to project an
overall weighted SET cycle
improvement in the 2014 model year of
3 percent, as detailed in RIA Chapter
2.4.2.9 through 2.4.2.14. All of these
technologies represent engine
235 See

enhancements already developed
beyond the research phase and are
available as ‘‘off the shelf’’ technologies
for manufacturers to add to their
engines during the engine’s next design
cycle. We have estimated that
manufacturers will be able to implement
these technologies on or before the 2014
engine model year. The agencies
adopted a standard that therefore
reflects a 100 percent application rate of
this technology package. The agencies
gave consideration to finalizing a more
stringent standard based on the
application of mechanical
turbocompounding by model year 2014,
a mechanical means of waste heat
recovery, but concluded that
manufacturers would have insufficient
lead-time to complete the necessary
product development and validation
work necessary to include this
technology. Implementing
turbocompounding into an engine
design must be done through a
significant redesign of the engine
architecture a process that typically
takes 4 to 5 years. Hence, we believe
that turbocompounding is a more
appropriate technology for the agencies
to consider in the 2017 timeframe.

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

5.09
4.81

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
finalizing fuel consumption and CO2
emission standards recognizing the
opportunity for technology
improvements over this time frame
(specifically, the addition of
turbocompounding to the engine
technology package) while reflecting the
typical heavy-duty engine manufacturer
product plan redesign and refresh
cycles. Thus, the agencies are finalizing
a more stringent standard for heavyduty engines beginning in the 2017
model year.
The MHDD and HHDD engine
technology package for the 2017 model
year includes the continued
development of the 2014 model year
technology package including
refinement of the aftertreatment system
plus turbocompounding. The agencies
calculated overall reductions in the
same manner as for the 2014 model year
package. The weighted SET cycle
improvements lead to a 6 percent
reduction on the SET cycle, as detailed

2010 NAS Report, Note 197, Page 146.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

518
490

Fuel
consumption
(gallon/100
bhp-hr)

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
in RIA Chapter 2.4.2.12. The agencies’
final standards are premised on a 100
percent application rate of this
technology package.
Commenters noted that the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) study
indicates that additional technology
improvements can be made to heavyduty engines in MY 2014 and 2017. For
diesel engine standards, the agencies
evaluated the following technologies:
Combustion system optimization,
turbocharging and air handling systems,
engine parasitic and friction reduction,
integrated aftertreatment systems,
electrification, and waste heat recovery.
The agencies carefully evaluated the
research supporting the NAS report and
its recommendations and incorporated
them to the extent practicable in the
development of the HD program. While
the NAS report suggests that greater
engine improvements could be achieved
by the use of technologies such as
improved emission control systems and
turbocompounding than do the agencies
in this final action, we believe the
standards being finalized represent the
most stringent technically feasible for
diesel engines used in tractors and
vocational vehicles in the 2014 to 2017
model year time frame. The NAS study
concluded that tractor engine fuel
consumption can be reduced by
approximately 15 percent in the 2015 to
2020 time frame and vocational engine
fuel consumption can be reduced by
approximately 10 to 17 percent in the
same time frame compared to a 2008
engine baseline.236 Throughout this
presentation, the agencies’ projections
of performance improvements are
measured relative to a 2010 engine
performance baseline that itself reflects
a four to five percent improvement over
the 2008 engine baseline used by NAS.
Based on a review of existing studies,
NAS study authors found a range of
reduction potential exists for
improvements in combustion efficiency,
electrification of accessories; improved
emission control systems; and
turbocompounding. The study found
that improvements in combustion
efficiency can provide reductions of 1
percent to 4 percent; electrification of
accessories can provide reductions of 2
percent to 5 percent in a hybridized
vehicle; improved emission control
systems can provide a 1 percent to 4
percent improvement (depending on
whether the improvement is to the EGR
or SCR system); and a 2.5 percent to 10
percent reduction is possible with
236 National Research Council, ‘‘Technologies and
Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles’’ Figure S–1,
page 4, National Acedemies Press, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

mechanical or electrical
turbocompounding. While the
reductions being finalized in this
regulation are lower than those
published in the NAS study, the
agencies believe that the percent
reductions being finalized in these rules
are consistent with the findings of the
NAS study. The reasons for this are as
follows.
First, some technologies cannot be
used by all manufacturers. For example,
improved SCR conversion efficiency
was projected by NAS to provide a 3
percent to 4 percent improvement in
fuel consumption. Conversely, low
temperature EGR was found to provide
only a one percent improvement. While
the majority of manufacturers do use
SCR systems and will be able to realize
the 3 percent to 4 percent improvement,
not all manufacturers use SCR for NOX
aftertreatment. Manufacturers that do
not use SCR aftertreatment systems
would only be able to realize the 1
percent improvement from low
temperature EGR. The agencies need to
take into consideration the entire market
in setting the stringency of the standards
and, in assessing feasibility and cost,
cannot assume that all manufacturers
will be able to use all technologies.
Second, significant technical
advances may be needed in order to
realize the upper end of estimates for
some technologies. For example, studies
evaluated by NAS on
turbocompounding found that a 2.5
percent to 10 percent reduction is
feasible. However, only one system is
available commercially and this system
provides reductions on the low end of
this range.237 Little technical
information is available on the systems
that achieve reductions in the upper
range for turbocompounding. These
systems are based on proprietary
designs the improvement results for
which have not yet been replicated by
other companies or organizations. The
agencies are assuming that all tractor
engine manufacturers will use
turbocompounding by 2017 model year.
This will require a significant change in
the design of heavy-duty tractor engines,
one that represents the maximum
technically feasible standard even at the
low end of the assumed improvement
spectrum.
Finally, different duty cycles used in
the evaluation of medium- and heavyduty engine technologies can affect
reported fuel consumption
improvements. For example, some
technologies are dependent on high load
237 NAS 2010, page 53 cites Detroit Diesel
Corporation, DD15 Brochure, DDC–EMC–BRO–
0003–0408, April 2008.

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57215

conditions to provide the greatest
reductions. The duty cycles used to
evaluate some of the technologies
considered by NAS differed
significantly from that used by the
agencies in the modeling for this
rulemaking. Maximum and average
speed was higher in some of the cycles
used in the studies, for example, and
one result was demonstrated on a
nonroad engine cycle. In another
example, the effectiveness of
turbocompounding when evaluated on a
duty cycle with higher engine load can
show a greater reduction potential than
when evaluated with a lower engine
load. In addition, technologies such as
improvements to cooling fans, air
compressors, and air conditioning
systems will not be demonstrated using
the engine dynamometer test procedures
being adopted in this final action
because those components are not
installed on the engine during the
testing. The agencies selected the duty
cycles for analysis, and for the final
standards, that we believed best suited
tractor engines.
The agencies selected engine
technologies and the estimated fuel
reduction percentages for setting the
standards. For the reasons stated above,
the agencies believe the technologies
and required improvements in fuel
consumption represent the maximum
feasible improvement, and are
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible.
We gave consideration to finalizing an
even more stringent standard based on
the use of waste heat recovery via a
Rankine cycle (also called bottoming
cycle) but concluded that there is
insufficient lead-time between now and
2017 for this promising technology to be
developed and applied generally to all
heavy-duty engines. TIAX noted in their
report to the NAS committee that the
engine improvements beyond 2015
model year included in their report are
highly uncertain, though they include
Rankine cycle type waste heat recovery
as applicable sometime between 2016
and 2020.238 The Department of Energy
is working with industry to develop
waste heat recovery systems for heavyduty engines. At the Diesel EngineEfficiency and Emissions Research
(DEER) conference in 2010, Caterpillar
presented details regarding their waste
heat recovery systems development
effort. In their presentation, Caterpillar
clearly noted that the work is a research
project and therefore does not imply
238 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

TIAX, Note 198, Page 4–29.

15SER2

57216

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

commercial viability.239 At the same
conference, Concepts NREC presented a
status of exhaust energy recovery in
heavy-duty engines. The scope of
Concepts NREC included the design and
development of prototype parts.240
Cummins, also in coordination with
DOE, is also active in developing
exhaust energy recovery systems.
Cummins made a presentation to the
DEER conference in 2009 providing an
update on their progress which
highlighted opportunities to achieve a
10 percent engine efficiency
improvement during their research, but
indicated the need to focus their future
development on areas with the highest
recovery opportunities (such as EGR,
exhaust, and charge air).241 Cummins
also indicated that future development

would focus on reducing the high
additional costs and system complexity.
Based upon the assessment of this
information, the agencies did not
include these technologies in
determining the stringency of the final
standards. However, we do believe the
bottoming cycle approach represents a
significant opportunity to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions in the
future. EPA and NHTSA are therefore
both finalizing provisions for advanced
technology credits described in Section
IV to create incentives for manufacturers
to continue to invest to develop this
technology.
(iii) Derivation of Engine Standards
EPA developed the final 2014 model
year CO2 emissions standards (based on

the SET cycle) for diesel engines by
applying the three percent reduction
from the technology package (just
explained above) to the 2010 model year
baseline values determined using the
SET cycle. EPA developed the 2017
model year CO2 emissions standards for
diesel engines while NHTSA similarly
developed the 2017 model year diesel
engine fuel consumption standards by
applying the 6 percent reduction from
the 2017 model year technology package
(reflecting performance of
turbocompounding plus the 2014 MY
technology package) to the 2010 model
year baseline values. The final standards
are included in Table III–9.

TABLE III–9—FINAL DIESEL ENGINE STANDARDS OVER THE SET CYCLE
MHD diesel
engine

Model year
2014–2016 ........................................
2017 and later ...................................

CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ..........................................................................
Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ....................
CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ..........................................................................
Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ....................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(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 caseby-case basis. The agencies’ general
approach used elsewhere in this action
(for HD pickup trucks, gasoline engines,
combination tractors, and vocational
vehicles) estimates indirect costs based
on the use of ICMs. See also 75 FR
25376. We have used this approach
239 Kruiswyk, R. ‘‘An Engine System Approach to
Exhaust Waste Heat Recovery.’’ Presented at DOE
DEER Conference on September 29, 2010. Last
viewed on May 11, 2011 at http://www1.eere.
energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2010/
wednesday/presentations/deer10_kruiswyk.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

502
4.93
487
4.78

HHD diesel
engine
475
4.67
460
4.52

generally because these standards are
based on installing new parts and
systems purchased from a supplier. In
such a case, the supplier is conducting
the bulk of the research and
development on the new parts and
systems and including those costs in the
purchase price paid by the original
equipment manufacturer. In this
situation, we believe that the ICM
approach provides an accurate and clear
estimate of the additional indirect costs
borne by the manufacturer.
For the heavy-duty diesel engine
segment, however, the agencies do not
consider this model to be the most
appropriate because the primary cost is
not expected to be the purchase of parts
or systems from suppliers or even the
production of the parts and systems, but
rather the development of the new
technology by the original equipment
manufacturer itself. Most of the
technologies the agencies are projecting
the heavy-duty engine manufacturers
will use for compliance reflect
modifications to existing engine systems
rather than wholesale addition of
technology (e.g., improved
turbochargers rather than adding a

turbocharger where it did not exist
before as was done in our light-duty
joint rulemaking in the case of 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 RIA Chapter 2. The
agencies did not receive any comments
regarding the cost approach used in the
proposal.
The agencies developed the
engineering costs for the research and
development of diesel engines with
lower fuel consumption and CO2
emissions. The aggregate costs for
engineering hours, technician support,

240 Cooper, D, N. Baines, N. Sharp. ‘‘Organic
Rankine Cycle Turbine for Exhaust Energy Recovery
in a Heavy Truck Engine.’’ Presented at the 2010
DEER Conference. Last viewed on May 11, 2011 at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/
deer_2010/wednesday/presentations/deer10_
baines.pdf.

241 Nelson, C. ‘‘Exhaust Energy Recovery.’’
Presented at the DOE DEER Conference on August
5, 2009. Last viewed on May 11, 2011 at http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_
2009/session5/deer09_nelson_1.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
dynamometer cell time, and fabrication
of prototype parts are estimated at $6.8
million (2009 dollars) per manufacturer
per year over the five years covering
2012 through 2016. In aggregate, this
averages out to $284 per engine during
2012 through 2016 using an annual
sales volume of 600,000 light-, mediumand heavy-HD engines. The agencies
received comments from Horriba
regarding the assumption the agencies
used in the proposal that said
manufacturers would need to purchase
new equipment for measuring N2O and
the associated costs. Horriba provided
information regarding the cost of standalone FTIR instrumentation (estimated
at $50,000 per unit) and cost of

upgrading existing emission
measurement systems with NDIR
analyzers (estimated at $25,000 per
unit). The agencies further analyzed our
assumptions along with Horriba’s
comments. Thus, we have revised the
equipment costs estimates and assumed
that 75 percent of manufacturers would
update existing equipment while the
other 25 percent would require new
equipment. The agencies are estimating
costs of $63,087 (2009 dollars) per
engine manufacturer per engine
subcategory (light-, medium- and heavyHD) 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

57217

prior to implementation of the standard
(i.e., the cost would be incurred in
2013). In aggregate, this averages out to
less than $1 per engine in 2013 using an
annual sales volume of 600,000 light-,
medium- and heavy-HD engines.
Where we projected that additional
new hardware was needed to the meet
the final standards, we developed the
incremental costs for those technologies
and marked them up using the ICM
approach. Table III–10 below
summarizes those estimates of cost on a
per item basis. All costs shown in Table
III–18, below, include a low complexity
ICM of 1.15 and flat-portion of the curve
learning is considered applicable to
each technology.

TABLE III–10—HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINE COMPONENT COSTS FOR COMBINATION TRACTORSa (2009$)
Technology

2014

Cylinder Head ..........................................................................................................................................................
Turbo efficiency .......................................................................................................................................................
EGR cooler ..............................................................................................................................................................
Water pump .............................................................................................................................................................
Oil pump ..................................................................................................................................................................
Fuel pump ................................................................................................................................................................
Fuel rail ....................................................................................................................................................................
Fuel injector .............................................................................................................................................................
Piston .......................................................................................................................................................................
Engine Friction Reduction of Valvetrain ..................................................................................................................
Turbo-compounding (engines placed in combination tractors only) .......................................................................
MHHD and HHDD Total (combination tractors) ......................................................................................................

2017
$6
18
4
91
5
5
10
11
3
82
0
234

$6
17
3
84
4
4
9
10
3
76
875
1,091

Note:
a Costs for aftertreatment improvements for MH and HH diesel engines are covered via the engineering costs (see text). For LH diesel engines, we have included the cost of aftertreatment improvements as a technology cost.

The overall diesel engine technology
package cost for an engine being placed
in a combination tractor is $234 in the
2014 model year and $1,091 in the 2017
model year.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(v) Reasonableness of the Final
Standards
The final engine standards appear to
be reasonable and consistent with the
agencies’ respective statutory
authorities. With respect to the 2014
and 2017 MY standards, all of the
technologies on which the standards are
predicated have already been
demonstrated in some capacity and
their effectiveness is well documented.
The final standards reflect a 100 percent
application rate for these technologies.
The costs of adding these technologies
remain modest across the various engine
classes as shown in Table III–10. Use of
these technologies would add only a
small amount to the cost of the
vehicle,242 and the associated
242 Sample 2010 MY day cabs are priced at
$89,000 while 2010 MY sleeper cabs are priced at
$113,000. See page 3 of ICF’s ‘‘Investigation of Costs
for Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

reductions are highly cost effective, an
estimated $20 per ton of CO2eq per
vehicle.243 This is even more cost
effective than the estimated cost
effectiveness for CO2eq removal under
the light-duty vehicle rule, already
considered by the agencies to be a
highly cost effective reduction.244 Even
the more expensive 2017 MY final
standard still represents only a small
fraction of the vehicle’s total cost and is
even more cost effective than the 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).

243 See Tractor CO savings and technology costs
2
in Table 7–5 in RIA chapter 7.
244 The light-duty rule had an estimated cost per
ton of $50 when considering the vehicle program
costs only and a cost of ¥$210 per ton considering
the vehicle program costs along with fuel savings
in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3–1.

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(vi) Temporary Alternative Standard for
Certain Engine Families
As discussed above in Section
II.B(2)(b), notwithstanding the general
reasonableness of the final standards,
the agencies recognize that heavy-duty
engines have never been subject to GHG
or fuel consumption (or fuel economy)
standards and that such control has not
necessarily been an independent
priority for manufacturers. The result is
that there are a group of legacy engines
with emissions higher than the industry
baseline for which compliance with the
final 2014 MY standards may be more
challenging and for which there may
simply be inadequate lead time. The
issue is not whether these engines’ GHG
and fuel consumption performance
cannot be improved by utilizing the
technology packages on which the final
standards are based. Those technologies
can be utilized by all diesel engines
installed in tractors and the same degree
of reductions obtained. Rather the
underlying base engine components of
these engines reflect designs that are
decades old and therefore have base
performance levels below what is
typical for the industry as a whole

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57218

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

today. Manufacturers have been
gradually replacing these legacy
products with new engines. Engine
manufacturers have indicated to the
agencies they will have to align their
planned replacement of these products
with our final standards and at the same
time add additional technologies
beyond those identified by the agencies
as the basis for the final standard.
Because these changes will reflect a
larger degree of overall engine redesign,
manufacturers may not be able to
complete this work for all of their legacy
products prior to model year 2014. To
pull ahead these already planned engine
replacements would be impossible as a
practical matter given the engineering
structure and lead-times inherent in the
companies’ existing product
development processes. We have also
concluded that the use of fleet averaging
would not address the issue of legacy
engines because each manufacturer
typically produces only a limited line of
MHDD and HHDD engines. Because
there are ample fleetwide averaging
opportunities for heavy-duty pickups
and vans, the agencies do not perceive
similar difficulties for these vehicles.
Facing a similar issue in the 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 finalizing a
similar approach here. As explained
above in Section II.B.(2)(b), the agencies
are finalizing a regulatory alternative
whereby a manufacturer, for a limited
period, would have the option to
comply with a unique standard
requiring the same level of reduction of
emissions (i.e., percent removal) and
fuel consumption as otherwise required,
but the reduction would be measured
from its own 2011 model year baseline.
We are thus finalizing an optional
standard whereby manufacturers would
elect to have designated engine families
meet a standard of 3 percent reduction
from their 2011 baseline emission and
fuel consumption levels for that engine
family or engine subcategory. Our
assessment is that this three percent
reduction is appropriate based on use of
similar technology packages at similar
cost as we have estimated for the
primary program. In the NPRM, we
solicited comment on extending this
alternative (See 75 FR at 74202). As
explained earlier, we have decided not
to allow the alternative standard to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

continue past the 2016 MY. By this
time, the engines should have gone
through a redesign cycle which will
allow manufacturers to replace those
legacy engines which resulted in
abnormally high baseline emission and
fuel consumption levels and to achieve
the MY 2017 standards which would be
feasible using the technology package
set out above (optimized NOX
aftertreatment, improved EGR,
reductions in parasitic losses, and
turbocharging). Manufacturers would, of
course, be free to adopt other technology
paths which meet the final MY 2017
standards.
Since the alternative standard is
premised on the need for additional
lead time, manufacturers would first
have to utilize all available flexibilities
which could otherwise provide that lead
time. Thus, as proposed, the alternative
would not be available unless and until
a manufacturer had exhausted all
available credits and credit
opportunities, and engines under the
alternative standard could not generate
credits. See also 75 FR 25417–25419
(similar approach for vehicles which are
part of Temporary Lead Time
Allowance under the light-duty vehicle
rule). We are finalizing that
manufacturers can select engine families
for this alternative standard without
agency approval, but are requiring that
manufacturers notify the agency of their
choice and also requiring manufacturers
to include in that notification a
demonstration that it has exhausted all
available credits and credit
opportunities. Manufacturers would
also have to demonstrate their 2011
baseline calculations as part of the
certification process for each engine
family for which the manufacturer
elects to use the alternative standard.
See Section V.C.1(b)(i) below.
(vii) ther Engine Standards Considered
The agencies are not finalizing engine
standards less stringent than the final
standards because the agencies believe
these final standards are appropriate,
highly cost effective, and
technologically feasible, as just
described.
The agencies considered finalizing
engine standards which are more
stringent. Since the final standards
reflect 100 percent utilization of the
various technology packages, some
additional technology would have to be
added. The agencies are finalizing 2017
model year standards based on the use
of turbocompounding. As discussed
above in Section III.A.2.b.iii, the
agencies considered the inclusion of
more advanced heat recovery systems,
such as Rankine or bottoming cycles,

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

which would provide further
reductions. However, the agencies are
not finalizing this level of stringency
because our assessment is that these
technologies would not be available for
production by the 2017 model year.
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
This section describes the process the
agencies used to develop the standards
the agencies are finalizing for HD
pickups and vans. We started by
gathering available information about
the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions from recent model year
vehicles. The core portion of this
information comes primarily from EPA’s
certification databases, CFEIS and
Verify, which contain the publicly
available data 245 regarding emission
and fuel economy results. This
information is not extensive because
manufacturers have not been required to
chassis test HD diesel vehicles for EPA’s
criteria pollutant emissions standards,
nor have they been required to conduct
any testing of heavy-duty vehicles on
the highway cycle. Nevertheless,
enough certification activity has
occurred for diesels under EPA’s
optional chassis-based program, and,
due to a California NOX requirement for
the highway test cycle, enough test
results have been voluntarily reported
for both diesel and gasoline vehicles
using the highway test cycle, to yield a
reasonably robust data set. To
supplement this data set, for purposes of
this rulemaking EPA initiated its own
testing program using in-use vehicles.
This program and the results from it
thus far are described in a memorandum
to the docket for this rulemaking.246
Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
are sold in a variety of configurations to
meet market demands. Among the
differences in these configurations that
affect CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption are curb weight, GVWR,
axle ratio, and drive wheels (two-wheel
drive or four-wheel drive). Because the
currently-available test data set does not
capture all of these configurations, it is
necessary to extend that data set across
the product mix using adjustment
factors. In this way a test result from,
say a truck with two-wheel drive, 3.73:1
axle ratio, and 8000 lb test weight, can
be used to model emissions and fuel
consumption from a truck of the same
basic body design, but with four-wheel
drive, a 4.10:1 axle ratio, and 8,500 lb
test weight. The adjustment factors are
245 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm.
246 Memorandum from Cleophas Jackson,
U.S.EPA, to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162,
‘‘Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas and Fuel
Consumption Test Program Summary’’, September
20, 2010.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
based on data from testing in which
only the parameters of interest are
varied. These parameterized
adjustments and their basis are also
described in a memorandum to the
docket for this rulemaking.247
The agencies requested and received
from each of the three major
manufacturers confidential information
for each model and configuration,
indicating the values of each of these
key parameters as well as the annual
production (for the U.S. market).
Production figures are useful because,
under our final standards for HD
pickups and vans, compliance is judged
on the basis of production-weighted
(corporate average) emissions or fuel
consumption level, not individual
vehicle levels. For consistency and to
avoid confounding the analysis with
data from unusual market conditions in
2009, the production and vehicle
specification data is from the 2008
model year. We made the simplifying
assumption that these sales figures
reasonably approximate future sales for
purposes of this analysis.
One additional assessment was
needed to make the data set useful as a
baseline for the standards selection.
Because the appropriate standards are
determined by applying 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,248 and (3)
substantial remaining potential for
optimizing catalytic diesel NOX
aftertreatment to improve fuel economy
(the new heavy-duty NOX standards
having taken effect in the 2010 model
year).
Taking this 2010 baseline fleet, and
applying the technologies determined to
be feasible and appropriate by the 2018
model year, along with their
effectiveness levels, the agencies could
then make a determination of
appropriate final standards. The
assessment of feasibility, described
247 Memorandum from Anthony Neam and Jeff
Cherry, U.S.EPA, to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162, October 18, 2010.
248 See Section III.B(2)(a) for our response to
comments arguing for inclusion of this technology
in the list of technologies needed to meet the
standards.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

immediately below, takes into account
the projected costs of these
technologies. The derivation of these
costs, largely based on analyses
developed in the light-duty GHG and
fuel economy rulemaking, are described
in Section III.B(3).
Our assessment concluded that the
technologies that the agencies
considered feasible and appropriate for
HD pickups and vans could be
consistently applied to essentially all
vehicles across this sector by the 2018
model year. Therefore we did not apply
varying penetration rates across vehicle
types and models in developing and
evaluating the final standards.
Since the manufacturers of HD
pickups and vans generally only have
one basic pickup truck and van with
different versions (i.e., different wheel
bases, cab sizes, two-wheel drive, 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 final standards would be feasible
and appropriate by the 2018 model year.
Although we did not determine a
technological need for less than full
implementation of any technology, we
did decide that a phased
implementation schedule would be
appropriate to accommodate
manufacturers’ redesign workload and
product schedules, especially in light of
this sector’s relatively low sales
volumes and long product cycles. We
did not determine a specific cost of
implementing the final standards
immediately in 2014 without a phase-in,
but we assessed it to be much higher
than the cost of the phase-in we are
finalizing, due to the workload and
product cycle disruptions it would
cause, and also due to manufacturers’
resulting need to develop some of these
technologies for heavy-duty
applications sooner than or

PO 00000

Frm 00115

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57219

simultaneously with light-duty
development efforts. See generally 75
FR 25467–25468 explaining why
attempting major changes outside the
redesign cycle period raises very
significant issues of both feasibility and
cost. On the other hand, waiting until
2018 before applying any new standards
could miss the opportunity to achieve
meaningful and cost-effective early
reductions not requiring a major
product redesign.
The final phase-in schedule, 15–20–
40–60–100 percent in 2014–2015–2016–
2017–2018, respectively, was chosen to
strike a balance between meaningful
reductions in the early years (reflecting
the technologies’ penetration rates of 15
and 20 percent) and providing
manufacturers with needed lead time
via a gradually accelerating ramp-up of
technology penetration.249 By
expressing the final phase-in in terms of
increasing fleetwide stringency for each
manufacturer, while also providing for
credit generation and use (including
averaging, carry-forward, and carryback), we believe our program affords
manufacturers substantial flexibility to
satisfy the phase-in through a variety of
pathways, among them, the gradual
application of technologies across the
fleet (averaging a fifth of total
production in each year), greater
application levels on only a portion of
the fleet, or a mix of the two.
We considered setting more stringent
standards that would require the
application of additional technologies
by 2018. We expect, in fact, that some
of these technologies may well prove
feasible and cost-effective in this time
frame, and may even become
technologies of choice for individual
manufacturers. This dynamic has
played out in EPA programs before and
highlights the value of setting
performance-based standards that leave
engineers the freedom to find the most
cost-effective solutions.
However, the agencies do believe that
at this stage there is not enough
information to conclude that the
additional technologies provide an
appropriate basis for standard-setting.
For example, we believe that 42V stopstart systems can be applied to gasoline
vehicles with significant GHG and fuel
consumption benefits, but we recognize
that there is uncertainty at this time
over the cost-effectiveness of these
systems in heavy-duty applications, and
legitimate concern with customer
249 The NHTSA program provides voluntary
standards for model years 2014 and 2015. NHTSA
and EPA are also providing an alternative standards
phase-in that meets EISA’s requirement for three
years of regulatory stability. See Section II.C.d.ii for
a more detailed discussion.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57220

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

acceptance of vehicles with high GCWR
towing large loads that would routinely
stop running at idle. Hybrid electric
technology likewise could be applied to
heavy-duty vehicles, and in fact has
already been so applied on a limited
basis. However, the development,
design, and tooling effort needed to
apply this technology to a vehicle model
is quite large, and seems less likely to
prove cost-effective in this time frame,
due to the small sales volumes relative
to the light-duty sector. Here again,
potential customer acceptance would
need to be better understood because
the smaller engines that facilitate much
of a hybrid’s benefit are typically at
odds with the importance pickup trucks
buyers place on engine horsepower and
torque, whatever the vehicle’s real
performance.
We also considered setting less
stringent standards calling for a more
limited set of applied technologies.
However, our assessment concluded
with a high degree of confidence that
the technologies on which the final
standards are premised are clearly
available at reasonable cost in the 2014–
2018 time frame, and that the phase-in
and other flexibility provisions allow for
their application in a very cost-effective
manner, as discussed in this section
below.
More difficult to characterize is the
degree to which more or less stringent
standards might be appropriate because
of under- or over-estimating
effectiveness of the technologies whose
performance is the basis of the final
standards. Our basis for these estimates
is described in the following Section 0.
Because for the most part these
technologies have not yet been applied
to HD pickups and vans, even on a
limited basis, we are relying to some
degree on engineering judgment in
predicting their effectiveness. Even so,
we believe that we have applied this
judgment using the best information
available, primarily from our recent
rulemaking on light-duty vehicle GHGs
and fuel economy, and have generated
a robust set of effectiveness values.
(1) What technologies did the agencies
consider?
The agencies considered over 35
vehicle technologies that manufacturers
could use to improve the fuel
consumption and reduce CO2 emissions
of their vehicles during MYs 2014–2018.
The majority of the technologies
described in this section is readily
available, well known, and could be
incorporated into vehicles once
production decisions are made. Several
of the technologies have already been
introduced into the heavy-duty pickup

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

and van market (i.e., variable valve
timing, improved accessories, etc.) in a
limited number of applications. Other
technologies considered may not
currently be in production, but are
beyond the research phase and under
development, and are expected to be in
production in highway vehicles over the
next few years. These are technologies
which are capable of achieving
significant improvements in fuel
economy and reductions in CO2
emissions, at reasonable costs. The
agencies did not consider technologies
in the research stage because there is
insufficient time for such technologies
to move from research to production
during the model years covered by this
final action.
The agencies received comments
regarding applicability of certain
advanced technologies described in the
TIAX 2009 report submitted to NAS.
Specifically mentioned were
turbocharging and downsizing of
gasoline vehicles and hydraulic hybrid
systems. While turbocharging and
downsizing of gasoline vehicles was a
principal technology underlying the
standards in the light-duty rule, the
agencies determined that in the realm of
heavy-duty vehicles, this approach
provides much less benefit to vehicles
which are required to regularly operate
at high and sustained loads. In lightduty applications, downsizing of a
typically oversized engine largely
results in benefits mainly under partial
and light load conditions. This
approach is more applicable to lightduty vehicles because they infrequently
require high or full power. Further,
while turbo downsizing was already
occurring in a portion of the light-duty
fleet, it has not been demonstrated in
the heavy-duty fleet, likely due to
concerns with durability of this
technology in the sustained high-load
duty cycles frequently encountered.
Similarly, other light-duty technologies
(i.e., cylinder deactivation, engine start
stop) were also determined to not be
compatible with the duty cycle of
heavy-duty vehicles for similar reasons.
Due to the relatively aggressive
implementation of this program and the
lack of commercialization in the heavyduty market, hydraulic hybrid systems
were not considered a technology that
could be implemented in the time frame
of this program for the HD pickup and
van sector. The fact that no HD pickup
or van hydraulic hybrids have been, or
are the verge of being marketed makes
their widespread introduction before the
MY 2018 final year of the phase-in very
unlikely.
The technologies considered in the
agencies’ analysis are briefly described

PO 00000

Frm 00116

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

below. They fall into five broad
categories: engine technologies,
transmission technologies, vehicle
technologies, electrification/accessory
technologies, and hybrid technologies.
In this class of trucks and vans, diesel
engines are installed in about half of all
vehicles. The ratio between gasoline and
diesel engine purchases by consumers
has tended to track changes in the
overall cost of oil and the relative cost
of gasoline and diesel fuels. When oil
prices are higher, diesel sales tend to
increase. This trend has reversed when
oil prices fall or when diesel fuel prices
are significantly higher than gasoline. In
the context of our technology discussion
for heavy-duty pickups and vans, we are
treating gasoline and diesel engines
separately so each has a set of baseline
technologies. We discuss performance
improvements in terms of changes to
those baseline engines. Our cost and
inventory estimates contained
elsewhere reflect the current fleet
baseline with an appropriate mix of
gasoline and diesel engines. Note that
we are not basing the final standards on
a targeted switch in the mix of diesel
and gasoline vehicles. We believe our
final standards require similar levels of
technology development and cost for
both diesel and gasoline vehicles. Hence
the final program does not force, nor
does it discourage, changes in a
manufacturer’s fleet mix between
gasoline and diesel vehicles. Although
we considered setting a single standard
based on the performance level possible
for diesel vehicles, we are not finalizing
such an approach because the potential
disruption in the HD pickup and van
market from a forced shift would not be
justified. Types of engine technologies
that improve fuel efficiency and reduce
CO2 emissions include the following:
• Low-friction lubricants—low
viscosity and advanced low friction
lubricants oils are now available with
improved performance and better
lubrication. If manufacturers choose to
make use of these lubricants, they
would need to make engine changes and
possibly conduct durability testing to
accommodate the low-friction
lubricants.
• Reduction of engine friction
losses—can be achieved through 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.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
• Six-, seven-, and eight-speed
automatic transmissions—the gear ratio
spacing and transmission ratio are
optimized for a broader range of engine
operating conditions specific to the
mating engine.
Types of vehicle technologies
considered include:
• Low-rolling-resistance tires—have
characteristics that reduce frictional
losses associated with the energy
dissipated in the deformation of the
tires under load, therefore improving
fuel efficiency and reducing CO2
emissions.
• Aerodynamic drag reduction—is
achieved by changing vehicle shape or
reducing frontal area, including skirts,
air dams, underbody covers, and more
aerodynamic side view mirrors.
• Mass reduction and material
substitution—Mass reduction
encompasses a variety of techniques
ranging from improved design and
better component integration to
application of lighter and 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

and complexity for mass reduction and
material substitution technologies and
there are many techniques that
automotive suppliers and manufacturers
are using to achieve the levels of this
technology that the agencies have
modeled in our analysis for this
program.
Types of electrification/accessory and
hybrid technologies considered include:
• Electric power steering and 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.250
(2) How did the agencies determine the
costs and effectiveness of each of these
technologies?
Building on the technical analysis
underlying the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle rule, the agencies took a
fresh look at technology cost and
effectiveness values for purposes of this
final action. For costs, the agencies
reconsidered both the direct or ‘‘piece’’
costs and indirect costs of individual
components of technologies. For the
direct costs, the agencies followed a bill
of materials (BOM) approach employed
by NHTSA and EPA in the light-duty
rule.
For two technologies, stoichiometric
gasoline direct injection (SGDI) and
turbocharging with engine downsizing,
the agencies relied to the extent possible
on the available tear-down data and
scaling methodologies used in EPA’s
ongoing study with FEV, Incorporated.
This study consists of complete system
tear-down to evaluate technologies
down to the nuts and bolts to arrive at
very detailed estimates of the costs
associated with manufacturing them.251
250 See RIA Chapter 2.3 for more detailed
technology descriptions.
251 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Draft
Report—Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot

PO 00000

Frm 00117

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57221

For the other technologies,
considering all sources of information
and using the BOM approach, the
agencies worked together intensively to
determine component costs for each of
the technologies and build up the costs
accordingly. Where estimates differ
between sources, we have used
engineering judgment to arrive at what
we believe to be the best cost estimate
available today, and explained the basis
for that exercise of judgment.
Once costs were determined, they
were adjusted to ensure that they were
all expressed in 2009 dollars using a
ratio of gross domestic product (GDP)
values for the associated calendar
years,252 and indirect costs were
accounted for using the new approach
developed by EPA and used in the lightduty 2012–2016 MY vehicle rule.
NHTSA and EPA also reconsidered how
costs should be adjusted by modifying
or scaling content assumptions to
account for differences across the range
of vehicle sizes and functional
requirements, and adjusted the
associated material cost impacts to
account for the revised content,
although some of these adjustments may
be different for each agency due to the
different vehicle subclasses used in
their respective models.
Regarding estimates for technology
effectiveness, NHTSA and EPA used the
estimates from the light-duty rule as a
baseline but adjusted them as
appropriate, taking into account the
unique requirement of the heavy-duty
test cycles to test at curb weight plus
half payload versus the light-duty
requirement of curb plus 300 lb. The
adjustments were made on an
individual technology basis by assessing
the specific impact of the added load on
each technology when compared to the
use of the technology on a light-duty
vehicle. The agencies also considered
other sources such as the 2010 NAS
Report, recent CAFE compliance data,
and confidential manufacturer estimates
of technology effectiveness. NHTSA and
EPA engineers reviewed effectiveness
information from the multiple sources
for each technology and ensured that
such effectiveness estimates were based
on technology hardware consistent with
the BOM components used to estimate
costs. Together, the agencies compared
the multiple estimates and assessed
their validity, taking care to ensure that
common BOM definitions and other
Study,’’ Contract No. EP–C–07–069, Work
Assignment 1–3, September 3, 2009.
252 NHTSA examined the use of the CPI
multiplier instead of GDP for adjusting these dollar
values, but found the difference to be exceedingly
small—only $0.14 over $100.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57222

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

vehicle attributes such as performance
and drivability were taken into account.
The agencies note that the
effectiveness values estimated for the
technologies may represent average
values applied to the baseline fleet
described earlier, and do not reflect the
potentially-limitless spectrum of
possible values that could result from
adding the technology to different
vehicles. For example, while the
agencies have estimated an effectiveness
of 0.5 percent for low friction lubricants,
each vehicle could have a unique
effectiveness estimate depending on the
baseline vehicle’s oil viscosity rating.
Similarly, the reduction in rolling
resistance (and thus the improvement in
fuel efficiency and the reduction in CO2
emissions) due to the application of LRR
tires depends not only on the unique
characteristics of the tires originally on
the vehicle, but on the unique
characteristics of the tires being applied,
characteristics which must be balanced
between fuel efficiency, safety, and
performance. Aerodynamic drag
reduction is much the same—it can
improve fuel efficiency and reduce CO2
emissions, but it is also highly
dependent on vehicle-specific
functional objectives. For purposes of
this NPRM, NHTSA and EPA believe
that employing average values for
technology effectiveness estimates is an
appropriate way of recognizing the
potential variation in the specific
benefits that individual manufacturers
(and individual vehicles) might obtain
from adding a fuel-saving technology.
The following section contains a
detailed description of our assessment
of vehicle technology cost and
effectiveness estimates. The agencies
note that the technology costs included
in this NPRM take into account only
those associated with the initial build of
the vehicle.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(a) Engine Technologies
NHTSA and EPA have reviewed the
engine technology estimates used in the
light-duty rule. In doing so NHTSA and
EPA reconsidered all available sources
and updated the estimates as
appropriate. The section below
describes both diesel and gasoline
engine technologies considered for this
program.
(i) Low Friction Lubricants
One of the most basic methods of
reducing fuel consumption in both
gasoline and diesel engines is the use of
lower viscosity engine lubricants. More
advanced multi-viscosity engine oils are
available today with improved
performance in a wider temperature
band and with better lubricating

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

properties. This can be accomplished by
changes to the oil base stock (e.g.,
switching engine lubricants from a
Group I base oils to lower-friction, lower
viscosity Group III synthetic) and
through changes to lubricant additive
packages (e.g., friction modifiers and
viscosity improvers). The use of 5W–30
motor oil is now widespread and auto
manufacturers are introducing the use of
even lower viscosity oils, such as 5W–
20 and 0W–20, to improve cold-flow
properties and reduce cold start friction.
However, in some cases, changes to the
crankshaft, rod and main bearings and
changes to the mechanical tolerances of
engine components may be required. In
all cases, durability testing would be
required to ensure that durability is not
compromised. The shift to lower
viscosity and lower friction lubricants
will also improve the effectiveness of
valvetrain technologies such as cylinder
deactivation, which rely on a minimum
oil temperature (viscosity) for operation.
Based on the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle rule, and 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 2009 dollars using
the GDP price deflator and have used a
markup of 1.24 for a low complexity
technology to arrive at a value of $4 per
vehicle. As in the light-duty rule,
learning effects are not applied to costs
for this technology and, as such, this
estimate applies to all model years.253 254
(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
253 Note that throughout the cost estimates for this
HD analysis, the agencies have used slightly higher
markups than those used in the 2012–2016 MY
light-duty vehicle rule. The new, slightly higher
ICMs include return on capital of roughly 6%, a
factor that was not included in the light-duty
analysis. The markups are also higher than those
used the in proposal for this action. That change
has to do with our decision to base the ICMs solely
on EPA internal work rather than averaging that
work with earlier work done under contract to EPA
by RTI, International. That change is discussed in
Section VIII.C of this preamble and is detailed in
Chapter 2 of the RIA (See RIA 2.2.1)
254 Note that the costs developed for low friction
lubes for this analysis reflect the costs associated
with any engine changes that would be required as
well as any durability testing that may be required.

PO 00000

Frm 00118

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

subsystems. Approximately 10 percent
of the energy consumed by a vehicle is
lost to friction, and just over half is due
to frictional losses within the engine.255
Examples include improvements in 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
fuel efficiency improvement. The lightduty 2012–2106 MY vehicle rule, the
2010 NAS Report, and NESCCAF and
Energy and Environmental Analysis
reports, as well as confidential
manufacturer data, indicate a range of
effectiveness for engine friction
reduction to be between 1 to 3 percent.
NHTSA and EPA continue to believe
that this range is accurate.
Consistent with the light-duty rule,
the agencies estimate the cost of this
technology at $15 per cylinder
compliance cost (2008$), including the
low complexity ICM markup value of
1.24. Learning impacts are not applied
to the costs of this technology and, as
such, this estimate applies to all model
years. This cost is multiplied by the
number of engine cylinders.
(iii) Coupled Cam Phasing
Valvetrains with coupled (or
coordinated) cam phasing can modify
the timing of both the inlet valves and
the exhaust valves an equal amount by
phasing the camshaft of an overhead
valve engine. For overhead valve
engines, which have only one camshaft
to actuate both inlet and exhaust valves,
couple cam phasing is the only variable
valve timing implementation option
available and requires only one cam
phaser. Based on the light-duty rule,
previously-received confidential
manufacturer data, and the NESCCAF
report, NHTSA and EPA estimated the
effectiveness of couple cam phasing to
be between 1 and 4 percent. NHTSA
255 ‘‘Impact of Friction Reduction Technologies
on Fuel Economy,’’ Fenske, G. Presented at the
March 2009 Chicago Chapter Meeting of the
‘Society of Tribologists and Lubricated Engineers’
Meeting, March 18th, 2009. Available at: http://
www.chicagostle.org/program/2008–2009/
Impact%20of%20Friction%20Reduction%20
Technologies%20on%20Fuel%20Economy%20%20with%20VGs%20removed.pdf (last accessed
July 9, 2009).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
and EPA reviewed this estimate for
purposes of the NPRM, and continue to
find it accurate.
The agencies received comments
questioning the exclusion of cam
phasing from the technology packages.
During the rulemaking process,
manufacturers introduced many new or
updated gasoline engines resulting in
the majority of the 2010 gasoline heavyduty engines including cam phasing,
and so we now consider this technology
to be in the baseline fleet. Because of
this, the baseline analysis of technology
for the 2010 heavy-duty gasoline fleet
already includes the benefits of cam
phasing and therefore it is not
appropriate for the agencies to include
this as a technology that is available for
most manufactures to add to their
current gasoline engines.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(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 a range in which it can
deactivate the cylinders. Noise and
vibration issues reduce the operating
range to which cylinder deactivation is
allowed, although manufacturers are
exploring vehicle changes that enable
increasing the amount of time that
cylinder deactivation might be suitable.
Some manufacturers may choose to
adopt active engine mounts and/or
active noise cancellations systems to
address Noise Vibration and Harshness
(NVH) concerns and to allow a greater
operating range of activation. Cylinder
deactivation is a technology keyed to
more lightly loaded operation, and so
may be a less likely technology choice
for manufacturers designing for
effectiveness in the loaded condition
required for testing, and in the real

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

world that involves frequent operation
with heavy loads.
Cylinder deactivation has seen a
recent resurgence thanks to better
valvetrain designs and engine controls.
General Motors and Chrysler Group
have incorporated cylinder deactivation
across a substantial portion of their
light-duty V8-powered lineups.
Effectiveness improvements scale
roughly with engine displacement-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. For heavy-duty vehicles
tested and operated at loaded
conditions, the power to weight ratio is
considerably lower than the light-duty
case greatly reducing the opportunity
for ‘‘part-cylinder’’ mode and therefore
was not considered in this rulemaking
as an effective technology for heavyduty pickup truck and van applications.
(v) Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct
Injection
SGDI engines inject fuel at high
pressure directly into the combustion
chamber (rather than the intake port in
port fuel injection). SGDI requires
changes to the injector design, an
additional high pressure fuel pump,
new fuel rails to handle the higher fuel
pressures and changes to the cylinder
head and piston crown design. Direct
injection of the fuel into the cylinder
improves cooling of the air/fuel charge
within the cylinder, which allows for
higher compression ratios and increased
thermodynamic efficiency without the
onset of combustion knock. Recent
injector design advances, improved
electronic engine management systems
and the introduction of multiple
injection events per cylinder firing cycle
promote better mixing of the air and
fuel, enhance combustion rates, increase
residual exhaust gas tolerance and
improve cold start emissions. SGDI
engines achieve higher power density
and match well with other technologies,
such as boosting and variable valvetrain
designs.
Several manufacturers have recently
introduced vehicles with SGDI engines,
including GM and Ford and have
announced their plans to increase
dramatically the number of SGDI
engines in their portfolios.
The light-duty 2012–2016 MY vehicle
rule estimated the range of 1 to 2
percent for SGDI. NHTSA and EPA
reviewed this estimate for purposes of
the NPRM, and continue to find it
accurate.
Consistent with the light-duty rule,
NHTSA and EPA cost estimates for

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57223

SGDI take into account the changes
required to the engine hardware, engine
electronic controls, ancillary and NVH
mitigation systems. Through contacts
with industry NVH suppliers, and
manufacturer press releases, the
agencies believe that the NVH
treatments will be limited to the
mitigation of fuel system noise,
specifically from the injectors and the
fuel lines. For this analysis, the agencies
have estimated the costs at $481 (2009$)
in the 2014 model year. Flat-portion of
the curve learning is applied to this
technology. This technology was
considered for gasoline engines only, as
diesel engines already employ direct
injection.
(b) Diesel Engine Technologies
Diesel engines have several
characteristics that give them superior
fuel efficiency compared to
conventional gasoline, spark-ignited
engines. Pumping losses are much lower
due to lack of (or greatly reduced)
throttling. The diesel combustion cycle
operates at a higher compression ratio,
with a very lean air/fuel mixture, and
turbocharged light-duty diesels typically
achieve much higher torque levels at
lower engine speeds than equivalentdisplacement naturally-aspirated
gasoline engines. Additionally, diesel
fuel has a higher energy content per
gallon.256 However, diesel fuel also has
a higher carbon to hydrogen ratio,
which increases the amount of CO2
emitted per gallon of fuel used by
approximately 15 percent over a gallon
of gasoline.
Based on confidential business
information and the 2010 NAS Report,
two major areas of diesel engine design
will be improved during the 2014–2018
time frame. These areas include
aftertreatment improvements and a
broad range of engine improvements.
(i) Aftertreatment Improvements
The HD diesel pickup and van
segment has largely adopted the SCR
type of aftertreatment system to comply
with criteria pollutant emission
standards. As the experience base for
SCR expands over the next few years,
many improvements in this
aftertreatment system such as
construction of the catalyst, thermal
management, and reductant
optimization will result in a significant
reduction in the amount of fuel used in
the process. This technology was not
considered in the light-duty rule. Based
on confidential business information,
256 Burning one gallon of diesel fuel produces
about 15 percent more carbon dioxide than gasoline
due to the higher density and carbon to hydrogen
ratio.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57224

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

EPA and NHTSA estimate the reduction
in CO2 as a result of these improvements
at 3 to 5 percent.
The agencies have estimated the cost
of this technology at $25 for each
percentage improvement in fuel
consumption. This estimate is based on
the agencies’ belief that this technology
is, in fact, a very cost effective approach
to improving fuel consumption. As
such, $25 per percent improvement is
considered a reasonable cost. This cost
would cover the engineering and test
cell related costs necessary to develop
and implement the improved control
strategies that would allow for the
improvements in fuel consumption.
Importantly, the engineering work
involved would be expected to result in
cost savings to the aftertreatment and
control hardware (lower platinum group
metal loadings, lower reductant dosing
rates, etc.). Those savings are considered
to be included in the $25 per percent
estimate described here. Given the 4
percent average expected improvement
in fuel consumption results in an
estimated cost of $119 (2009$) for a
2014 model year truck or van. This
estimate includes a low complexity ICM
of 1.24 and flat-portion of the curve
learning from 2012 forward.
(ii) Engine Improvements
Diesel engines in the HD pickup and
van segment are expected to have
several improvements in their base
design in the 2014–2018 time frame.
These improvements include items such
as improved combustion management,
optimal turbocharger design, and
improved thermal management. This
technology was not considered in the
light-duty rule. Based on confidential
business information, EPA and NHTSA
estimate the reduction in CO2 as a result
of these improvements at 4 to 6 percent.
The cost for this technology includes
costs associated with low temperature
exhaust gas recirculation, improved
turbochargers and improvements to
other systems and components. These
costs are considered collectively in our
costing analysis and termed ‘‘diesel
engine improvements.’’ The agencies
have estimated the cost of diesel engine
improvements at $148 based on the cost
estimates for several individual
technologies. Specifically, the direct
manufacturing costs we have estimated
are: improved cylinder head, $9; turbo
efficiency improvements, $16; EGR
cooler improvements, $3; higher
pressure fuel rail, $10; improved fuel
injectors, $13; improved pistons, $2;
and reduced valve train friction, $95.
All values are in 2009 dollars and are
applicable in the 2014 MY. Applying a
low complexity ICM of 1.24 results in a

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

cost of $184 (2009$) applicable in the
2014 MY. We consider flat-portion of
the curve learning to be appropriate for
these technologies.
(c) Transmission Technologies
NHTSA and EPA have also reviewed
the transmission technology estimates
used in the light-duty rule. In doing so,
NHTSA and EPA considered or
reconsidered all available sources and
updated the estimates as appropriate.
The section below describes each of the
transmission technologies considered
for the final standards.
(i) Improved Automatic Transmission
Control (Aggressive Shift Logic and
Early Torque Converter Lockup)
Calibrating the transmission shift
schedule to upshift earlier and quicker,
and to lock-up or partially lock-up the
torque converter under a broader range
of operating conditions can reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions.
However, this operation can result in a
perceptible degradation in NVH. The
degree to which NVH can be degraded
before it becomes noticeable to the
driver is strongly influenced by
characteristics of the vehicle, and
although it is somewhat subjective, it
always places a limit on how much fuel
consumption can be improved by
transmission control changes. Given
that the Aggressive Shift Logic and Early
Torque Converter Lockup are best
optimized simultaneously due to the
fact that adding both of them primarily
requires only minor modifications to the
transmission or calibration software,
these two technologies are combined in
the modeling. We consider these
technologies to be present in the
baseline, since 6-speed automatic
transmissions are installed in the
majority of Class 2b and 3 trucks in the
2010 model year time frame.
(ii) Automatic 6- and 8-Speed
Transmissions
Manufacturers can also choose to
replace 4- 5- and 6-speed automatic
transmissions with 8-speed automatic
transmissions. Additional ratios allow
for further optimization of engine
operation over a wider range of
conditions, but this is subject to
diminishing returns as the number of
speeds increases. As additional
planetary gear sets are added (which
may be necessary in some cases to
achieve the higher number of ratios),
additional weight and friction are
introduced. Also, the additional shifting
of such a transmission can be perceived
as bothersome or busy to some
consumers, so manufacturers need to
develop strategies for smooth shifts.

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Some manufacturers are replacing 4and 5-speed automatics with 6-speed
automatics already, and 7- and 8-speed
automatics have entered production in
light-duty vehicles, albeit in lowervolume applications in luxury and
performance oriented cars.
As discussed in the light-duty rule,
confidential manufacturer data
projected that 6-speed transmissions
could incrementally reduce fuel
consumption by 0 to 5 percent from a
4-speed automatic transmission, while
an 8-speed transmission could
incrementally reduce fuel consumption
by up to 6 percent from a 4-speed
automatic transmission. GM has
publicly claimed a fuel economy
improvement of up to 4 percent for its
new 6-speed automatic
transmissions.257
NHTSA and EPA reviewed and
revised these effectiveness estimates
based on actual usage statistics and
testing methods for these vehicles along
with confidential business information.
When combined with improved
automatic transmission control, the
agencies estimate the effectiveness for a
conversion from a 4- to a 6-speed
transmission to be 5.3 percent and a
conversion from a 6- to 8-speed
transmission to be 1.7 percent. While 8speed transmissions were not
considered in the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle rule, they are considered as
a technology of choice for this analysis
in that manufacturers are expected to
upgrade the 6-speed automatic
transmissions being implemented today
with 8-speed automatic transmissions in
the 2014–2018 time frame. We are
estimating the cost of an 8-speed
automatic transmission at $281 (2009$)
relative to a 6-speed automatic
transmission in the 2014 model year.
This estimate is based from the 2010
NAS Report and we have applied a low
complexity ICM of 1.24 and flat-portion
of the curve learning. This technology
applies to both gasoline and diesel
pickup trucks and vans.
(d) Electrification/Accessory
Technologies
(i) Electrical Power Steering or
Electrohydraulic Power Steering
Electric power steering (EPS) or
Electrohydraulic power steering (EHPS)
provides a potential reduction in CO2
emissions and fuel consumption over
257 General Motors, news release, ‘‘From Hybrids
to Six-Speeds, Direct Injection And More, GM’s
2008 Global Powertrain Lineup Provides More
Miles with Less Fuel’’ (released Mar. 6, 2007).
Available at http:// www.gm.com/ experience/ fuel_
economy/ news/ 2007/ adv_ engines/ 2008powertrain- lineup- 082707.jsp (last accessed Sept.
18, 2008).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
hydraulic power steering because of
reduced overall accessory loads. This
eliminates the parasitic losses
associated with belt-driven power
steering pumps which consistently draw
load from the engine to pump hydraulic
fluid through the steering actuation
systems even when the wheels are not
being turned. EPS is an enabler for all
vehicle hybridization technologies since
it provides power steering when the
engine is off. EPS may be implemented
on most vehicles with a standard 12V
system. Some heavier vehicles may
require a higher voltage system which
may add cost and complexity.
The light-duty rule estimated a one to
two percent effectiveness based on the
2002 NAS report for light-duty vehicle
technologies, a Sierra Research report,
and confidential manufacturer data.
NHTSA and EPA reviewed these
effectiveness estimates and found them
to be accurate, thus they have been
retained for purposes of this NPRM.
NHTSA and EPA adjusted the EPS
cost for the current rulemaking based on
a review of the specification of the
system. Adjustments were made to
include potentially higher voltage or
heavier duty system operation for HD
pickups and vans. Accordingly, higher
costs were estimated for systems with
higher capability. After accounting for
the differences in system capability and
applying the ICM markup of low
complexity technology of 1.24, the
estimated costs are $115 for a MY 2014
truck or van (2009$). As EPS systems
are in widespread usage today, flatportion of the curve learning is deemed
applicable. EHPS systems are
considered to be of equal cost and both
are considered applicable to gasoline
and diesel engines.

during engine warm-up or cold ambient
temperature conditions which will
reduce warm-up time, reduce warm-up
fuel enrichment, and reduce parasitic
losses.
Indirect benefit may be obtained by
reducing the flow from the water pump
electrically during the engine warm-up
period, allowing the engine to heat more
rapidly and thereby reducing the fuel
enrichment needed during cold starting
of the engine. Further benefit may be
obtained when electrification is
combined with an improved, higher
efficiency engine alternator. Intelligent
cooling can more easily be applied to
vehicles that do not typically carry
heavy payloads, so larger vehicles with
towing capacity present a challenge, as
these vehicles have high cooling fan
loads.258
The agencies considered whether to
include electric oil pump technology for
the rulemaking. Because it is necessary
to operate the oil pump any time the
engine is running, electric oil pump
technology has insignificant effect on
efficiency. Therefore, the agencies
decided to not include electric oil pump
technology.
NHTSA and EPA jointly reviewed the
estimates of 1 to 2 percent effectiveness
estimates used in the light-duty rule and
found them to be accurate for Improved
Electrical Accessories. Consistent with
the light-duty rule, the agencies have
estimated the cost of this technology at
$93 (2009$) including a low complexity
ICM of 1.24. This cost is applicable in
the 2014 model year. Improved
accessory systems are in production
currently and thus flat-portion of the
curve learning is applied. This
technology was considered for diesel
pickup trucks and vans only.

(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 the pumping accessories
electrically, and only when needed
(‘‘on-demand’’). Alternator
improvements include internal changes
resulting in lower mechanical and
electrical losses combined with control
logic that charges the battery at more
efficient voltage levels and during
conditions of available kinetic energy
from the vehicle which would normally
be wasted energy such as braking during
vehicle decelerations.
Electric water pumps and electric fans
can provide better control of engine
cooling. For example, coolant flow from
an electric water pump can be reduced
and the radiator fan can be shut off

(e) Vehicle Technologies

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(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
258 In the CAFE model, improved accessories refer
solely to improved engine cooling. However, EPA
has included a high efficiency alternator in this
category, as well as improvements to the cooling
system.

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57225

reduction. For example, use of a
smaller, lighter engine with lower
torque-output subsequently allows the
use of a smaller, lighter-weight
transmission and drive line
components. Likewise, the compounded
weight reductions of the body, engine
and drivetrain reduce stresses on the
suspension components, steering
components, wheels, tires and brakes,
allowing further reductions in the mass
of these subsystems. The reductions in
unsprung masses such as brakes, control
arms, wheels and tires further reduce
stresses in the suspension mounting
points. This produces a compounding
effect of mass reductions.
Estimates of the synergistic effects of
mass reduction and the compounding
effect that occurs along with it can vary
significantly from one report to another.
For example, in discussing its estimate,
an Auto-Steel Partnership report states
that ‘‘These secondary mass changes can
be considerable—estimated at an
additional 0.7 to 1.8 times the initial
mass change.’’ 259 This means for each
one pound reduction in a primary
component, up to 1.8 pounds can be
reduced from other structures in the
vehicle (i.e., a 180 percent factor). The
report also discusses that a primary
variable in the realized secondary
weight reduction is whether or not the
powertrain components can be included
in the mass reduction effort, with the
lower end estimates being applicable
when powertrain elements are
unavailable for mass reduction.
However, another report by the
Aluminum Association, which
primarily focuses on the use of
aluminum as an alternative material for
steel, estimated a factor of 64 percent for
secondary mass reduction even though
some powertrain elements were
considered in the analysis.260 That
report also notes that typical values for
this factor vary from 50 to 100 percent.
Although there is a wide variation in
stated estimates, synergistic mass
reductions do exist, and the effects
result in tangible mass reductions. Mass
reductions in a single vehicle
component, for example a door side
259 ‘‘Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using
Empirical Subsystem Influence Coefficients,’’
Malen, D.E., Reddy, K. Auto-Steel Partnership
Report, May 2007, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0472–0169. Accessed on the Internet on May 30,
2009 at: http://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/
Mass%20Compounding%20-%20Final%20Report.
pdf.
260 ‘‘Benefit Analysis: Use of Aluminum
Structures in Conjunction with Alternative
Powertrain Technologies in Automobiles,’’ Bull, M.
Chavali, R., Mascarin, A., Aluminum Association
Research Report, May 2008, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2009–0472–0168. Accessed on the Internet on April
30, 2009 at: http://www.autoaluminum.org/
downloads/IBIS-Powertrain-Study.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57226

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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.
Mass reduction is broadly applicable
across all vehicle subsystems including
the engine, exhaust system,
transmission, chassis, suspension,
brakes, body, closure panels, glazing,
seats and other interior components,
engine cooling systems and HVAC
systems. It is estimated that up to 1.25
kilograms of secondary weight savings
can be achieved for every kilogram of
weight saved on a light-duty vehicle
when all subsystems are redesigned to
take into account the initial primary
weight savings.261 262
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
261 ‘‘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.
262 ‘‘Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using
Empirical Subsystem Influence Coefficients,’’
Malen, D.E., Reddy, K. Auto-Steel Partnership
Report, May 2007, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0472–0169. Accessed on the Internet on May 30,
2009 at: http://www.a-sp.org/database/custom/
Mass%20Compounding%20-%20Final%20
Report.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

maintaining or increasing performance.
Approximately half of the reduction is
due to these reduced powertrain output
requirements from reduced engine
power output and/or displacement,
changes to transmission and final drive
gear ratios. The subsequent reduced
rotating mass (e.g., transmission,
driveshafts/halfshafts, wheels and tires)
via weight and/or size reduction of
components are made possible by
reduced torque output requirements.
• Automotive companies have largely
used weight savings in some vehicle
subsystems to offset or mitigate weight
gains in other subsystems from
increased feature content (sound
insulation, entertainment systems,
improved climate control, panoramic
roof, etc.).
• Lightweight designs have also been
used to improve vehicle performance
parameters by increased acceleration
performance or superior vehicle
handling and braking.
Many manufacturers have already
announced final future products plans
reducing the weight of a vehicle body
through the use of high strength steel
body-in-white, composite body panels,
magnesium alloy front and rear energy
absorbing structures reducing vehicle
weight sufficiently to allow a smaller,
lighter and more efficient engine. Nissan
will be reducing average vehicle curb
weight by 15 percent by 2015.263 Ford
has identified weight reductions of 250
to 750 lb per vehicle as part of its
implementation of known technology
within its sustainability strategy
between 2011 and 2020.264 Mazda plans
to reduce vehicle weight by 220 pounds
per vehicle or more as models are
redesigned.265 266 Ducker International
estimates that the average curb weight of
light-duty vehicle fleet will decrease
approximately 2.8 percent from 2009 to
2015 and approximately 6.5 percent
from 2009 to 2020 via changes in
automotive materials and increased
change-over from previously used bodyon-frame automobile and light-truck
designs to newer unibody designs.263
While the opportunity for mass
reductions available to the light-duty
263 ‘‘Lighten Up!,’’ Brooke, L., Evans, H.
Automotive Engineering International, Vol. 117, No.
3, March 2009.
264 ‘‘2008/9 Blueprint for Sustainability,’’ Ford
Motor Company. Available at: http://
www.ford.com/go/sustainability (last accessed
February 8, 2010).
265 ‘‘Mazda to cut vehicle fuel consumption 30
percent by 2015,’’ Mazda press release, June 23,
2009. Available at: http://www.mazda.com/
publicity/release/2008/200806/080623.html (last
accessed February 8, 2010).
266 ‘‘Mazda: Don’t believe hot air being emitted by
hybrid hype,’’ Greimel, H. Automotive News,
March 30, 2009.

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

fleet may not in all cases be applied
directly to the heavy-duty fleet due to
the different designs for the expected
duty cycles of a ‘‘work’’ vehicle, mass
reductions are still available particularly
to areas unrelated to the components
and systems necessary for the work
vehicle aspects.
Due to the payload and towing
requirements of these heavy-duty
vehicles, engine downsizing was not
considered in the estimates for CO2
reduction in the area of mass reduction
and material substitution. NHTSA and
EPA estimate that a 3 percent mass
reduction with no engine downsizing
results in a 1 percent reduction in fuel
consumption. In addition, a 5 and 10
percent mass reduction with no engine
downsizing result in an estimated CO2
reduction of 1.6 and 3.2 percent
respectively. These effectiveness values
are 50 percent of the light-duty rule
values due to the elimination of engine
downsizing for this class of vehicle.
In the NPRM, EPA and NHTSA relied
on three studies to estimate the cost of
vehicle mass reduction. The agencies
used a value of $1.32 per pound of mass
reduction that was derived from a 2002
National Academy of Sciences study, a
2008 Sierra Research report, and a 2008
MIT study. The cost was estimated to be
constant, independent of the level of
mass reduction.
The agencies along with the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) have
recently completed work on an Interim
Joint Technical Assessment Report
(TAR) that considers light-duty GHG
and fuel economy standards for model
years 2017 through 2025 and have
continued this work to support the
light-duty vehicle NPRM, which is
expected to be issued this fall. Based on
new information from various industry
and literature sources, the TAR
modified the mass reduction/cost
relationship used in the light-duty
2012–2016 MY vehicle rule to begin at
the origin (zero cost at zero percent
mass reduction) and to have increasing
cost with increasing mass reduction.267
The resulting analysis showed costs for
5 percent mass reduction on light-duty
vehicles to be near zero or cost parity.
In the proposal for heavy-duty
vehicles, we estimated mass reduction
costs based on the 2012–2016 light-duty
analysis without accounting for the new
work completed in the Interim Joint
Technical Assessment and additional
267 ‘‘Interim Joint Technical Assessment Report:
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards for Model Years 2017–2025;’’ September
2010; available at http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/
regulations/ldv-ghg-tar.pdf and in the docket for
this rule.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
work the agencies have considered for
the upcoming light-duty vehicle NPRM.
Since the heavy-duty vehicle proposal,
the agencies have been able to consider
updated cost estimates in the context of
both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle
bodies of work. While the agencies
intend to discuss the additional work
for the light-duty NPRM in much more
detail in the documents for that
rulemaking, we think it appropriate to
explain here that after having
considered a number of additional and
highly-varying sources, the agencies
believe that the cost estimates used in
the TAR may have been lower than
would be reasonable for HD pickups
and vans, given their different and
work-related uses and thus different
construction as compared to the lightduty vehicles evaluated in the TAR. We
do not believe that all of the weight
reduction opportunities for light-duty
vehicles can be applied to heavy-duty
trucks. However, we do believe
reductions in the following components
and systems can be found that do not
affect the payload and towing
requirements of these heavy-duty
vehicles: Body, closure panels, glazing,
seats and other interior components,
engine cooling systems and HVAC
systems.
The agencies have reviewed and
considered many different mass
reduction studies during the technical
assessment for the heavy-duty vehicle
GHG and fuel efficiency rulemaking.
The agencies found that many of the
studies on this topic vary considerably
in their rigor, transparency, and
applicability to the regulatory
assessment. Having considered a variety
of options, the agencies for this heavyduty analysis have been unable to come
up with a way to quantitatively evaluate
the available studies. Therefore, the
agencies have chosen a value within the
range of the available studies that the
agencies believe is reasonable. The
studies and manufacturers’ confidential
business information relied upon in
determining the final mass reduction
costs are summarized in Figure 2.1,
Section 2.3.6 of the RIA. Each study
relied upon by the agencies in this
determination has also been placed in
the agencies’ respective dockets. See
NHTSA–2010–0079; EPA–HQ–0AR–
2010–0162.
The agencies note that the NAS 2010
study provided estimates of mass
reduction costs, but the agencies did not
consider using the NAS 2010 study as
the single source of mass reduction cost
estimates because the NAS 2010
estimates were not based on literature
reports that focused on trucks or were
necessarily appropriate for MD/HD

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

vehicles, and also because a variety of
newer and more rigorous studies were
available to the agencies than those
relied upon by the NAS in developing
its estimates. We note, however, that for
a 5 percent reduction in mass, the NAS
2010 report estimates a per pound cost
of mass reduction of $1.65.
Thus, we are estimating the direct
manufacturing costs for a 5 percent
mass reduction of a 6,000 lb vehicle at
a range of $75–$90 per vehicle. With
additional margin for uncertainty, we
arrive at a direct manufacturing cost of
$85–$100, which is roughly in the
upper middle of the range of values that
resulted from the additional and highlyvarying studies mentioned above that
were considered in the agencies’ review.
We have broken this down for
application to HD pickup trucks and
vans as follows: Class 2b gasoline $85,
Class 2b diesel $95, Class 3 gasoline
$90, and Class 3 diesel trucks $100.
Applying the low complexity ICM of
1.24 results in estimated total costs for
a 5 percent mass reduction applicable in
the 2016 model year as follows: Class 2b
gasoline $108, Class 2b diesel $121,
Class 3 gasoline $115, and Class 3 diesel
trucks $127. All mass reduction costs
stated here are in 2009 dollars.
(ii) Low Rolling Resistance Tires
Tire rolling resistance is the frictional
loss associated mainly with the energy
dissipated in the deformation of the
tires under load and thus influences fuel
efficiency and CO2 emissions. Other tire
design characteristics (e.g., materials,
construction, and tread design)
influence durability, traction (both wet
and dry grip), vehicle handling, and ride
comfort in addition to rolling resistance.
A typical LRR tire’s attributes would
include: increased tire inflation
pressure, material changes, and tire
construction with less hysteresis,
geometry changes (e.g., reduced aspect
ratios), and reduction in sidewall and
tread deflection. These changes would
generally be accompanied with
additional changes to suspension tuning
and/or suspension design.
EPA and NHTSA estimated a 1 to 2
percent increase in effectiveness with a
10 percent reduction in rolling
resistance, which was based on the 2010
NAS Report findings and consistent
with the light-duty rule.
Based on the light-duty rule and the
2010 NAS Report, the agencies have
estimated the cost for LRR tires to be $7
per Class 2b truck or van, and $10 per
Class 3 truck or van (both values in
2009$ and inclusive of a 1.24 low

PO 00000

Frm 00123

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57227

complexity markup).268 The higher cost
for the Class 3 trucks and vans is due
to the predominant use of dual rear tires
and, thus, 6 tires per truck. Due to the
commodity-based nature of this
technology, cost reductions due to
learning are not applied. This
technology is considered applicable to
both gasoline and diesel.
(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 marketcompetitive 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
are being applied. The latter list would
include revised front and rear fascias,
modified front air dams and rear
valances, addition of rear deck lips and
underbody panels, and lower
aerodynamic drag exterior mirrors.
The light-duty 2012–2016 MY vehicle
rule estimated that a fleet average of 10
to 20 percent total aerodynamic drag
reduction is attainable which equates to
incremental reductions in fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions of 2 to
3 percent for both cars and trucks. These
numbers are generally supported by
confidential manufacturer data and
public technical literature. For the
heavy-duty truck category, a 5 to 10
percent total aerodynamic drag
reduction was considered due to the
different structure and use of these
vehicles equating to incremental
reductions in fuel consumption and CO2
emissions of 1 to 2 percent.
Consistent with the light-duty rule,
the agencies have estimated the cost for
this technology at $58 (2009$) including
a low complexity ICM of 1.24. This cost
is applicable in the 2014 model year to
268 ‘‘Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,’’
Transportation Research Board Special Report 286,
National Research Council of the National
Academies, 2006, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0472–0146.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57228

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

both gasoline and diesel pickup trucks
and vans.
(3) What are the projected technology
packages’ effectiveness and cost?
The assessment of the final
technology effectiveness was developed
through the use of the EPA Lumped
Parameter model developed for the
light-duty rule. Many of the
technologies were common with the
light-duty assessment but the
effectiveness of individual technologies
was appropriately adjusted to match the
expected effectiveness when
implemented in a heavy-duty
application. The model then uses the

individual technology effectiveness
levels but then takes into account
technology synergies. The model is also
designed to prevent double counting
from technologies that may directly or
indirectly impact the same physical
attribute (e.g., pumping loss reductions).
To achieve the levels of the final
standards for gasoline and diesel
powered heavy-duty vehicles, the
technology packages were determined to
generally require the technologies
previously discussed respective to
unique gasoline and diesel technologies.
Although some of the technologies may
already be implemented in a portion of
heavy-duty vehicles, none of the

technologies discussed are considered
ubiquitous in the heavy-duty fleet. Also,
as would be expected, the available test
data shows that some vehicle models
will not need the full complement of
available technologies to achieve the
final standards. Furthermore, many
technologies can be further improved
(e.g., aerodynamic improvements) from
today’s best levels, and so allow for
compliance without needing to apply a
technology that a manufacturer might
deem less desirable.
Technology costs for HD pickup
trucks and vans are shown in Table III–
11.

TABLE III–11—TECHNOLOGY COSTS FOR HD PICKUP TRUCKS & VANS INCLUSIVE OF INDIRECT COST MARKUPS FOR THE
2014MY
[2009$]
Class 2b
gasoline

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Technology

Class 2b
diesel

Class 3
gasoline

Class 3
diesel

Low friction lubes .............................................................................................................
Engine friction reduction ..................................................................................................
Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection ...........................................................................
Engine improvements ......................................................................................................
8s automatic transmission (increment to 6s automatic transmission) ............................
Improved accessories ......................................................................................................
Low rolling resistance tires ..............................................................................................
Aerodynamic improvements ............................................................................................
Electric (or electro/hydraulic) power steering ..................................................................
Aftertreatment improvements ..........................................................................................
Mass reduction (5%) ........................................................................................................
Air conditioning ................................................................................................................
Total ..........................................................................................................................

$4
116
481
N/A
281
N/A
7
58
115
N/A
108
21
1,190

$4
N/A
N/A
184
281
93
7
58
115
119
121
21
1,003

$4
116
481
N/A
281
N/A
10
58
115
N/A
115
21
1,209

$4
N/A
N/A
184
281
93
10
58
115
119
127
21
1,013

At 15% phase-in in 2014 .................................................................................................

179

150

180

152

(4) Reasonableness of the Final
Standards
The final standards are based on the
application of the control technologies
described in this section. These
technologies are available within the
lead time provided, as discussed in RIA
Chapter 2.3. These controls are
estimated to add costs of approximately
$1,048 for MY 2018 heavy-duty pickups
and vans. Reductions associated with
these costs and technologies are
considerable, estimated at a 12 percent
reduction of CO2eq emissions from the
MY 2010 baseline for gasoline engineequipped vehicles and 17 percent for
diesel engine equipped vehicles,
estimated to result in reductions of 18
MMT of CO2eq emissions over the
lifetimes of 2014 through 2018 MY
vehicles.269 The reductions are cost
effective, estimated at $90 per ton of
CO2eq removed in 2030.270 This cost is
consistent with the light-duty rule
which was estimated at $100 per ton of
269 See
270 See

CO2eq removed in 2020 excluding fuel
savings. Moreover, taking into account
the fuel savings associated with the
program, the cost becomes ¥$230 per
ton of CO2eq (i.e. a savings of $230 per
ton) in 2030. The cost of controls is fully
recovered due to the associated fuel
savings, with a payback period in the
second year of ownership, as shown in
Table VIII–9 below in Section VIII.
Given the large, cost effective emission
reductions based on use of feasible
technologies which are available in the
lead time provided, plus the lack of
adverse impacts on vehicle safety or
utility, EPA and NHTSA regard these
final standards as appropriate and
consistent with our respective statutory
authorities under CAA section 202(a)
and NHTSA’s EISA authority under 49
U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). Based on the
discussion above, NHTSA believes these
standards are the maximum feasible
under EISA.

Table VI–4 of this preamble.
Table 0–3 of this preamble.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00124

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(5) Alternative HD Pickup Truck and
Van Standards Considered
The agencies rejected consideration of
any less stringent standards given that
the standards adopted are feasible at
reasonable cost and cost-effectiveness
within the lead time of the program.
Furthermore, as explained above,
because the standards are premised on
100 percent application of available
technologies during this period, the
agencies rejected adoption of more
stringent standards. The agencies have
also explained above why the phase-in
period for the standards is reasonable
and that attempting more aggressive
phase-ins would start to force changes
outside normal redesign cycles at likely
exorbitant cost.
C. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
Vocational vehicles cover a wide
variety of applications which influence
both the body style and usage patterns.
They also are built using a complex
process, which includes additional
entities such as body builders. These
factors create special sensitivity to

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
concerns of needed lead time, as well as
developing standards that do not
interfere with vocational vehicles’
utility. The agencies are adopting a
standard for vocational vehicles for the
first phase of the program that relies on
less extensive addition of technology
than do the other regulatory categories
as well as making the chassis
manufacturer the manufacturer subject
to the standard. We intend that future
rulemakings will consider increased
stringency and possibly more
application-specific standards. The
agencies are also finalizing standards for
the diesel and gasoline engines installed
in vocational vehicles, similar to those
discussed above for HD engines
installed in Class 7 and 8 tractors.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(1) What technologies did the agencies
consider to reduce the CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption of vocational
vehicles?
Similar to the approach taken with
tractors, the agencies evaluated
aerodynamic, tire, idle reduction,
weight reduction, hybrid powertrain,
and engine technologies and their
impact on reducing fuel consumption
and GHG emissions. The engines used
in vocational vehicles include both
gasoline and diesel engines, thus, each
type is discussed separately below. As
explained in Section II.D.1.b, the final
regulatory structure for heavy-duty
engines separates the compression
ignition (or ‘‘diesel’’) engines into three
regulatory subcategories—light heavy,
medium heavy, and heavy heavy diesel
engines—while spark ignition (or
‘‘gasoline’’) engines are a single
regulatory subcategory (an approach for
which there was consensus in the
public comments). Therefore, the
subsequent discussion will assess each
type of engine separately.
(a) Vehicle Technologies
Vocational vehicles typically travel
fewer miles than combination tractors.
They also tend to be used in more urban
locations (with consequent stop and
start drive cycles). Therefore the average
speed of vocational vehicles is
significantly lower than combination
tractors. This has a significant effect on
the types of technologies that are
appropriate to consider for reducing
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption.
The agencies considered the type of
technologies for vocational vehicles
based on the energy losses of a typical
vocational vehicle. The technologies are
similar to the ones considered for
combination tractors. Argonne National
Lab conducted an energy audit using
simulation tools to evaluate the energy
losses of vocational vehicles, such as a

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Class 6 pickup and delivery truck.
Argonne found that 74 percent of the
energy losses are attributed to the
engine, 13 percent to tires, 9 percent to
aerodynamics, two percent to
transmission losses, and the remaining
four percent of losses to axles and
accessories for a medium-duty truck
traveling at 30 mph.271
Low Rolling Resistance Tires: Tires
are the second largest contributor to
energy losses of vocational vehicles, as
found in the energy audit conducted by
Argonne National Lab (as just
mentioned). The range of rolling
resistance of tires used on vocational
vehicles today is large. This is in part
due to the fact that the competitive
pressure to improve rolling resistance of
vocational vehicle tires has been less
than that found in the line haul tire
market. In addition, the drive cycles
typical for these applications often lead
truck buyers to value tire traction and
durability more heavily than rolling
resistance. Therefore, the agencies
concluded that a regulatory program
that seeks to optimize tire rolling
resistance in addition to traction and
durability can bring about fuel
consumption and CO2 emission
reductions from this segment. The 2010
NAS report states that rolling resistance
impact on fuel consumption reduces
with mass of the vehicle and with drive
cycles with more frequent starts and
stops. The report found that the fuel
consumption reduction opportunity for
reduced rolling resistance ranged
between one and three percent in the
2010 through 2020 time frame.272 The
agencies estimate that average rolling
resistance from tires in 2010 model year
can be reduced by 10 percent for 50
percent of the vehicles by 2014 model
year based on the tire development
achievements over the last several years
in the line haul truck market.
Aerodynamics: The Argonne National
lab work shows that aerodynamics has
less of an impact on vocational vehicle
energy losses than do engines or tires.
In addition, the aerodynamic
performance of a complete vehicle is
significantly influenced by the body of
the vehicle. The agencies are not
regulating body builders in this phase of
regulations for the reasons discussed in
Section II. Therefore, we are not basing
any of the final standards for vocational
vehicles on aerodynamic improvements.
Nor would aerodynamic performance be
271 Argonne National Lab. Evaluation of Fuel
Consumption Potential of Medium and Heavy-duty
Vehicles through Modeling and Simulation.
October 2009. Page 89.
272 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 146.

PO 00000

Frm 00125

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57229

input into GEM to demonstrate
compliance.
Weight Reduction: NHTSA and EPA
are also not basing any of the final
vocational vehicle standards on use of
vehicle weight reduction. Thus, vehicle
mass reductions are not an input into
GEM. The agencies are taking this
approach despite comments suggesting
that the agencies make use of weight
reductions for this segment, because we
are unable to quantify the potential
impact of weight reduction on vehicle
utility in this broad segment. Vocational
vehicles serve an incredibly diverse
range of functions. Each of these unique
vehicle functions is likely to have its
own unique tradeoff between vehicle
utility and the potential for vehicle mass
reduction. The agencies have not been
able at this time to determine the degree
to which such tradeoffs exist nor the
specific level of the tradeoff for each
unique vehicle vocation. No commenter
provided data to inform this question.
Absent this information, the agencies
cannot at this time project the potential
for worthwhile weight reductions from
vocational vehicles.
Drivetrain: Optimization of vehicle
gearing to engine performance through
selection of transmission gear ratios,
final drive gear ratios and tire size can
play a significant role in reducing fuel
consumption and GHGs. Optimization
of gear selection versus vehicle and
engine speed accomplished through
driver training or automated
transmission gear selection can provide
additional reductions. The 2010 NAS
report found that the opportunities to
reduce fuel consumption in heavy-duty
vehicles due to transmission and
driveline technologies in the 2015 time
frame ranged between 2 and 8
percent.273 Initially, the agencies
considered reflecting transmission
choices and technology in our standard
setting process for both tractors and
vocational vehicles (see previous
discussion above on automated manual
and automatic transmissions for
tractors). We have however decided not
to do so for the following reasons.
The primary factors that determine
optimum gear selection are vehicle
weight, vehicle aerodynamics, vehicle
speed, and engine performance typically
considered on a two dimensional map
of engine speed and torque. For a given
power demand (determined by speed,
aerodynamics and vehicle mass) an
optimum transmission and gearing
setup will keep the engine power
delivery operating at the best speed and
torque points for highest engine
273 See

2010 NAS Report, Note 197, pp 134 and

137.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57230

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

efficiency. Since power delivery from
the engine is the product of speed and
torque a wide range of torque and speed
points can be found that deliver
adequate power, but only a smaller
subset will provide power with peak
efficiency. Said more generally, the
design goal is for the transmission to
deliver the needed power to the vehicle
while maintaining engine operation
within the engine’s ‘‘sweet spot’’ for
most efficient operation. Absent
information about vehicle mass and
aerodynamics (which determines road
load at highway speeds) it is not
possible to optimize the selection of
gear ratios for lowest fuel consumption.
Truck and chassis manufacturers today
offer a wide range of tire sizes, final gear
ratios and transmission choices so that
final bodybuilders can select an optimal
combination given the finished vehicle
weight, general aerodynamic
characteristics and expected average
speed. In order to set fuel efficiency and
GHG standards that would reflect these
optimizations, the agencies would need
to regulate a wide range of small entities
that are final bodybuilders, would need
to set a large number of uniquely
different standards to reflect the specific
weight and aerodynamic differences and
finally would need test procedures to
evaluate these differences that would
not themselves be excessively
burdensome. Finally, the agencies
would need the underlying data
regarding effectively all of the
vocational trucks produced today in
order to determine the appropriate
standards. Because the market is already
motivated to reach these optimizations
themselves today, because we have
insufficient data to determine
appropriate standards, and finally,
because we believe the testing burden
would be unjustifiably high, we are not
finalizing to reflect transmission and
gear ratio optimization in our GEM or in
our standard setting.
Some commenters suggested that the
agencies predicate the vocational
vehicle standard on the use of specific
transmission technologies for example
automated manual transmissions
believing that these mechanically more
efficient designs would inherently
provide better fuel efficiency and lower
greenhouse gas emissions than
conventional torque convertor
automatic transmission designs.
However as discussed above the
agencies believe that the small
mechanical efficiency differences
between these transmission designs are
relatively insignificant in the context of
the dominant impact of proper gear ratio
selection in determining a vehicle’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

overall performance. In many cases, the
mechanically more efficient design may
prove less effective in use if other
aspects of vehicle performance (such a
vehicle launch under load) compromise
the selection of gear ratios. This
somewhat surprising outcome can be
seen most readily by looking at modern
passenger cars where mechanically less
efficient torque converter automatic
models often produce equal or better
fuel economy when compared to the
more mechanically efficient manual
transmission versions of the same
vehicles. Given this reality, we do not
believe it would be appropriate to base
the vocational truck standard on the use
of a particular transmission technology.
In the future, if we develop a complete
vehicle chassis test approach to
regulating this segment, we would then
be able to incorporate transmission
performance as we already do for the
heavy-duty pickup truck and van
segment.
Idle Reduction: Episodic idling by
vocational vehicles occurs during the
workday, unlike the overnight idling of
combination tractors (see discussion in
Section III.A.2.a). Vocational vehicle
idling can be divided into two typical
types. The first type is idling while
waiting—such as during a pickup or
delivery. This type of idling can be
reduced through automatic engine 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.274 EPA conducted a work
assignment to assist in characterizing
PTO operations. The study of a utility
truck used in two different
environments (rural and urban) and a
refuse hauler found that the PTO
operated on average 28 percent of time
relative to the total time spent driving
and idling.275 The use of hybrid
powertrains to reduce idling is
discussed below.
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
274 Gaines, Linda, A. Vyas, J. Anderson (Argonne
National Laboratory). Estimation of Fuel Use by
Idling Commercial Trucks. January 2006.
275 Southwest Research Institute. Power Take Off
Cycle Development and Testing. 2010. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162–3335.

PO 00000

Frm 00126

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

currently developing many variations of
hybrid powertrain systems. The hybrids
developed to date have seen fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions
reductions between 20 and 50 percent
in the field. However, there are still
some key issues that are restricting the
penetration of hybrids, including overall
system cost, battery technology, and
lack of cost-effective electrified
accessories. We have not predicated the
standards based on the use of hybrids
reflecting the still nascent level of
technology development and the very
small fraction of vehicle sales they
would be expected to account for in this
time frame—on the order of only a
percent or two. Were we to overestimate
the number of hybrids that could be
produced, we would set a standard that
is not feasible. We believe that it is more
appropriate given the status of
technology development and our hopes
for future advancements in hybrid
technologies to encourage their
production through incentives. Thus, to
create an incentive for early
introduction of hybrid powertrains into
the vocational vehicle fleet, the agencies
are adopting the proposed advanced
technology credits if hybrid powertrains
are used as a technology to meet the
vocational vehicle standard (or any
other vehicle standard), as described in
Section IV.
(b) Gasoline Engine Technologies
The gasoline (or spark ignited)
engines certified and sold as loose
engines into the heavy-duty truck
market are typically large V8 and V10
engines produced by General Motors
and Ford. The basic architecture of
these engines is the same as the versions
used in the heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans. Therefore, the technologies
analyzed by the agencies mirror the
gasoline engine technologies used in the
heavy-duty pickup truck analysis in
Section III.B above.
Building on the technical analysis
underlying the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle rule, the agencies took a
fresh look at technology effectiveness
values for purposes of this analysis
using as a starting point the estimates
from that rule. The agencies then
considered the impact of test procedures
(such as higher test weight of HD pickup
trucks and vans) on the effectiveness
estimates. The agencies also considered
other sources such as the 2010 NAS
Report, recent CAFE compliance data,
and confidential manufacturer estimates
of technology effectiveness. NHTSA and
EPA engineers reviewed effectiveness
information from the multiple sources
for each technology and ensured that
such effectiveness estimates were based

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
on technology hardware consistent with
the BOM components used to estimate
costs.
The agencies note that the
effectiveness values estimated for the
technologies may represent average
values, and do not reflect the
potentially-limitless spectrum of
possible values that could result from
adding the technology to different
vehicles. For example, while the
agencies have estimated an effectiveness
of 0.5 percent for low friction lubricants,
each vehicle could have a unique
effectiveness estimate depending on the
baseline vehicle’s oil viscosity rating.
For purposes of this final rulemaking,
NHTSA and EPA believe that employing
average values for technology
effectiveness estimates is an appropriate
way of recognizing the potential
variation in the specific benefits that
individual manufacturers (and
individual engines) might obtain from
adding a fuel-saving technology.
Baseline Engine: Similar to the
gasoline engine used as the baseline in
the light-duty rule, the agencies
assumed the baseline engine in this
segment to be a naturally aspirated,
overhead valve V8 engine.276 The
agencies did not receive any comments
regarding the baseline engine
assumptions in the proposal. The
following discussion of effectiveness is
generally in comparison to 2010
baseline engine performance.
For the final rulemaking, the agencies
considered the same set of technologies
for loose gasoline engines at proposal.
The agencies received comments which
suggested that the agencies consider
electrification of accessories to reduce
the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions from heavy-duty gasoline
engines. Electrification may result in a
reduction in power demand, because
electrically powered accessories (such
as the air compressor or power steering)
operate only when needed if they are
electrically powered, but they impose a
parasitic demand all the time if they are
engine driven. In other cases, such as
cooling fans or an engine’s water pump,
electric power allows the accessory to
run at speeds independent of engine
speed, which can reduce power
consumption. However, technologies
such as these improvements to
accessories are not demonstrated using
the engine dynamometer test procedures
being adopted in this final rule because
those systems are not installed on the
engine during the testing. Thus, the
276 The

agencies note that baseline did not
include coupled cam phasing for loose HD gasoline
engines. The HD loose engines are slightly different
than the ones used in the HD pickup trucks. They
tend to be the older versions of the same engine.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

technologies the agencies considered
include the following:
Engine Friction Reduction: In addition
to low friction lubricants, manufacturers
can also reduce friction and improve
fuel consumption by improving the
design of engine components and
subsystems. Examples include
improvements in low-tension piston
rings, piston skirt design, roller cam
followers, improved crankshaft design
and bearings, material coatings, material
substitution, more optimal thermal
management, and piston and cylinder
surface treatments. The 2010 NAS,
NESCCAF 277 and EEA 278 reports as
well as confidential manufacturer data
used in the light-duty vehicle
rulemaking suggested a range of
effectiveness for engine friction
reduction to be between 1 to 3 percent.
NHTSA and EPA continue to believe
that this range is accurate.
Coupled Cam Phasing: Valvetrains
with coupled (or coordinated) cam
phasing can modify the timing of both
the inlet valves and the exhaust valves
an equal amount by phasing the
camshaft of a single overhead cam
engine or an overhead valve engine.
Based on the light-duty 2012–2016 MY
vehicle rule, previously-received
confidential manufacturer data, and the
NESCCAF report, NHTSA and EPA
estimated the effectiveness of couple
cam phasing CCP to be between 1 and
4 percent. NHTSA and EPA reviewed
this estimate for purposes of the NPRM,
and continue to find it accurate.
Cylinder Deactivation: In
conventional spark-ignited engines
throttling the airflow controls engine
torque output. At partial loads,
efficiency can be improved by using
cylinder deactivation instead of
throttling. Cylinder deactivation can
improve engine efficiency by disabling
or deactivating (usually) half of the
cylinders when the load is less than half
of the engine’s total torque capability—
the valves are kept closed, and no fuel
is injected—as a result, the trapped air
within the deactivated cylinders is
simply compressed and expanded as an
air spring, with reduced friction and
heat losses. The active cylinders
combust at almost double the load
required if all of the cylinders were
operating. Pumping losses are
significantly reduced as long as the
engine is operated in this ‘‘part
cylinder’’ mode. Effectiveness
improvements scale roughly with
277 Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future.
‘‘Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from LightDuty Motor Vehicles.’’ September 2004.
278 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.
‘‘Technology to Improve the Fuel Economy of Light
Duty Trucks to 2015.’’ May 2006.

PO 00000

Frm 00127

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57231

engine displacement-to-vehicle weight
ratio: The higher displacement-toweight vehicles, operating at lower
relative loads for normal driving, have
the potential to operate in part-cylinder
mode more frequently. Cylinder
deactivation is less effective on heavilyloaded vehicles because they require
more power and spend less time in
areas of operation where only partial
power is required. The technology also
requires proper integration into the
vehicles which is difficult in the
vocational vehicle segment where often
the engine is sold to a chassis
manufacturer or body builder without
knowing the type of transmission or
axle used in the vehicle or the precise
duty cycle of the vehicle. The cylinder
deactivation requires fine tuning of the
calibration as the engine moves into and
out of deactivation mode to achieve
acceptable NVH. Additionally, cylinder
deactivation would be difficult to apply
to vehicles with a manual transmission
because it requires careful gear change
control. NHTSA and EPA adjusted the
2012–16 MY light-duty rule estimates
using updated power to weight ratings
of heavy-duty trucks and confidential
business information and downwardly
adjusted the effectiveness to 0 to 3
percent for these vehicles to reflect the
differences in drive cycle and
operational opportunities compared to
light-duty vehicles. Because of the
complexities associated with integrating
cylinder deactivation in a nonintegrated vehicle assembly process and
the low effectiveness of the technology,
the agencies did not include cylinder
deactivation in the final gasoline engine
technology package.
Stoichiometric gasoline direct
injection: SGDI (also known as 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 light-duty 2012–2016 MY
vehicle rule estimated the effectiveness

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57232

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

of SGDI to be between 2 and 3 percent.
NHTSA and EPA revised these
estimated accounting for the use and
testing methods for these vehicles along
with confidential business information
estimates received from manufacturers
while developing the program. Based on
these revisions, NHTSA and EPA
estimate the range of 1 to 2 percent for
SGDI.
(c) Diesel Engine Technologies
Different types of diesel engines are
used in vocational vehicles, depending
on the application. They fall into the
categories of Light, Medium, and Heavy
Heavy-duty Diesel engines. The Light
Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically
range between 4.7 and 6.7 liters
displacement. The Medium Heavy-duty
Diesel engines typically have some
overlap in displacement with the Light
Heavy-duty Diesel engines and range
between 6.7 and 9.3 liters. The Heavy
Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically are
represented by engines between 10.8
and 16 liters.
Baseline Engine: There are three
baseline diesel engines, a Light,
Medium, and a Heavy Heavy-duty
Diesel engine. The agencies developed
the baseline diesel engine as a 2010
model year engine with an
aftertreatment system which meets
EPA’s 0.2 grams of NOX/bhp-hr
standard with an SCR system along with
EGR and meets the PM emissions
standard with a diesel particulate filter
with active regeneration. The engine is
turbocharged with a variable geometry
turbocharger. As noted above in Section
III.A.1.b, the agencies received
comments from Navistar stating that the
agencies used an artificially low
baseline CO2 emissions level which was
tilted toward the use of SCR
aftertreatment system. As discussed in
Section III.A.1.b, the agencies disagree
with the statement that SCR is
infeasible. Additional responses from
the agencies are available in the
Response to Comments document,
Section 6.2.279 The following discussion
of technologies describes improvements
over the 2010 model year baseline
engine performance, unless otherwise
noted. Further discussion of the
baseline engine and its performance can
be found in Section III.C.2.(c)(i) below.
The following discussion of
effectiveness is generally in comparison
to 2010 baseline engine performance,
and is in reference to performance in
279 U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—
EPA Response to Comments Document for Joint
Rulemaking. EPA–420–R–11–004. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
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
turbocompounding or a bottoming
cycle.
Engine Friction Reduction: Reduced
friction in bearings, valve trains, and the
piston-to-liner interface will improve
efficiency. Any friction reduction must
be carefully developed to avoid issues
with durability or performance
capability. Estimates of fuel
consumption improvements due to
reduced friction range from 0.5 to 1.5
percent.280
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 in280 See

PO 00000

TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4–15.

Frm 00128

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

cylinder approaches.281 As more
effective low-temperature catalysts are
developed, the NOX conversion
efficiency of the SCR system will
increase. Next-generation SCR systems
could then enable still further efficiency
improvements; alternatively, these
advances could be used to maintain
efficiency while down-sizing the
aftertreatment. We estimate that
continued optimization of the catalyst
could offer 1 to 2 percent reduction in
fuel use over 2010 model year systems
in the 2014 model year.282 The agencies
also estimate that continued refinement
and optimization of the SCR systems
could provide an additional 2 percent
reduction in the 2017 model year.
Improved Combustion Process: Fuel
consumption reductions in the range of
1 to 4 percent are identified in the 2010
NAS report through improved
combustion chamber design, higher fuel
injection pressure, improved injection
shaping and timing, and higher peak
cylinder pressures.283
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.284
281 Stanton, D. ‘‘Advanced Diesel Engine
Technology Development for High Efficiency, Clean
Combustion.’’ Cummins, Inc. Annual Progress
Report 2008 Vehicle Technologies Program:
Advanced Combustion Engine Technologies, U.S.
Department of Energy. Pp 113–116. December 2008.
282 See TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4–9
283 See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 56.
284 See TIAX. Note 198, Pages 3–5.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(2) What is the projected technology
package’s effectiveness and cost?
(a) Vocational Vehicles
(i) Baseline Vocational Vehicle
Performance
The baseline vocational vehicle model
is defined in the GEM, as described in
RIA Chapter 4.4.6. At proposal, the
agencies used a baseline rolling
resistance coefficient for today’s
vocational vehicle fleet of 9.0 kg/metric
ton.285 As discussed in Section II.D.1,
the agencies conducted a tire rolling
resistance evaluation of tires used in
vocational vehicles. The agencies found
that the average rolling resistance of the
tires was lower than the agencies’
assessment at proposal. Based on this
new information and our understanding
of the potential to improve tire rolling
resistance by 2014, the agencies are
setting the vocational truck standard
premised on the use of tires with a

rolling resistance coefficient of 7.7 kg/
metric ton. This value is consistent with
the average performance of the subset of
tires the agencies tested. We are
projecting this standard will drive a 5
percent reduction in tire rolling
resistance on average across the fleet.
We are projecting this 5 percent
reduction based on our expectation that
manufacturers will desire to bring all of
their tires below the standard (not just
comply on average) and knowing
manufacturers will need some degree of
overcompliance to ensure despite
manufacturing variability and test to test
variability their products are compliant
with the emission standards. In order to
reflect both this tighter standard (based
on 7.7) and the 5 percent reduction in
rolling resistance we project it will
accomplish, we are modeling the
baseline performance of vocational
truck tires as 8.1 kg/metric ton.
Further vehicle technology is not
included in this baseline, as discussed

57233

below in the discussion of the baseline
vocational vehicle. The baseline engine
fuel consumption represents a 2010
model year diesel engine, as described
in RIA Chapter 4. Using these values,
the baseline performance of these
vehicles is included in Table III–12.
The agencies note that the baseline
performance derived for the final rule
slightly differs from the values derived
for the NPRM. The first difference is due
to the change in rolling resistance from
9.0 to 8.1 kg/metric ton based on the
agencies’ post-proposal test results.
Second, there are minor differences in
the fuel consumption and CO2
emissions due to the small
modifications made to the GEM, as
noted in RIA Chapter 4. In addition, the
HHD vocational vehicle baseline
performance for the final rule uses a
revised payload assumption from 38,000
to 15,000 pounds, as described in
Section II.D.3.c.iii.

TABLE III–12—BASELINE VOCATIONAL VEHICLE PERFORMANCE
Vocational vehicle
Heavy-duty
Fuel Consumption Baseline (gallon/1,000 ton-mile) .........................................................................
CO2 Baseline (grams CO2/ton-mile) ..................................................................................................

(ii) Vocational Vehicle Technology
Package
The final program for vocational
vehicles for this phase of regulatory
standards is based on the performance
of tire and engine technologies.
Aerodynamics technology, weight
reduction, drive train improvement, and
hybrid power trains are not included for
the reasons discussed above in Section
III.C (1) and Section II.D.

The assessment of the final
technology effectiveness was developed
through the use of the GEM. To account
for the two final engine standards, EPA
is finalizing the use of a 2014 model
year fuel consumption map in the GEM
to derive the 2014 model year truck
standard and a 2017 model year fuel
consumption map to derive the 2017
model year truck standard. (These fuel
consumption maps reflect the main
standards for HD diesel engines, not the
alternative engine standards.) The

Medium
heavy-duty

40.0
408

Heavy
heavy-duty

24.3
247

23.2
236

agencies estimate that the rolling
resistance of 50 percent of the tires can
be reduced by 10 percent in the 2014
model year, for an overall reduction in
rolling resistance of 5 percent. The
vocational vehicle standards for all
three regulatory categories were
determined using a tire rolling
resistance coefficient of 7.7 kg/metric
ton in the 2014 model year. The set of
input parameters which are modeled in
GEM are shown in Table III–13.

TABLE III–13—GEM INPUTS FOR FINAL VOCATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS

Engine ......................................................................................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Tire Rolling Resistance (kg/metric ton) ...................................................................................

2014 MY

2017 MY

2014 MY 7L for LHD/
MHD and 15L for HHD
Trucks
7.7

2017 MY 7L for LHD/
MHD and 15L for HHD
Trucks.
7.7

The agencies developed the final
standards by using the engine and tire
rolling resistance inputs in the GEM, as

shown in Table III–13. The percent
reductions shown in Table III–14 reflect
improvements over the 2010 model year

baseline vehicle with a 2010 model year
baseline engine.

285 The baseline tire rolling resistance for this
segment of vehicles was derived for the proposal
based on the current baseline tractor and passenger
car tires. The baseline tractor drive tire has a rolling
resistance of 8.2 kg/metric ton based on SmartWay

testing. The average passenger car has a tire rolling
resistance of 9.75 kg/metric ton based on a
presentation made to CARB by the Rubber
Manufacturer’s Association. As noted above, further
analysis has resulted in an estimate of improved

performance in the baseline fleet, which is based
entirely on use of LRR tires on vocational vehicles
(not cars). Additional details are available in the
RIA chapter 2.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00129

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57234

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III–14—FINAL VOCATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS AND PERCENT REDUCTIONS
Vocational vehicle
Light heavyduty

2016 MY Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/1,000 ton-mile) ...................................................
2017 MY Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/1,000 ton-mile) ...................................................
2014 MY CO2 Standard (grams CO2/ton-mile) ...........................................................................
2017 MY CO2 Standard (grams CO2/ton-mile) ...........................................................................
Percent Reduction from 2010 baseline in 2014 MY ...................................................................
Percent Reduction from 2010 baseline in 2017 MY ...................................................................

(iii) Technology Package Cost
The agencies did not receive any
substantial comments on the engine
costs proposed. Thus the agencies are
projecting the costs of the technologies
used to develop the final standards
based on the costs used in the proposal,
but revised to reflect 2009$, new ICMs,
and a 50 percent penetration rate of low
rolling resistance tires (as explained
above). EPA and NHTSA developed the
costs of LRR tires based on the ICF
report. The estimated cost per truck is
$81 (2009$) for LHD and MHD trucks
and $97 (2009$) for HHD trucks. These
costs include a low complexity ICM of
1.18 and are applicable in the 2014
model year.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(iv) Reasonableness of the Final
Vocational Vehicle Standards
The final standards would not only
add only a small amount to the vehicle
cost, but are highly cost effective, an
estimated $20 ton of CO2eq per vehicle
in 2030.286 This is even less than the
estimated cost effectiveness for CO2eq
removal under the light-duty vehicle
rule, already considered by the agencies
to be a highly cost effective
reduction.287 Moreover, the modest cost
of controls is recovered almost
immediately due to the associated fuel
savings, as shown in the payback
analysis included in Table VIII–7. Given
that the standards are technically
feasible within the lead time afforded by
the 2014 model year, are inexpensive
and highly cost effective, and do not
have other adverse potential impacts
(e.g., there are no projected negative
impacts on safety or vehicle utility), the
final standards represent a reasonable
choice under section 202(a) of the CAA
and NHTSA’s EISA authority under 49
U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), and the agencies
believe that the standards are consistent
286 See

Section VIII.D.
noted above, the light-duty rule had an
estimated cost per ton of $50 when considering the
vehicle program costs only and a cost of ¥$210 per
ton considering the vehicle program costs along
with fuel savings in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table
III.H.3–1.
287 As

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

with their respective authorities. Based
on the discussion above, NHTSA
believes these standards are the
maximum feasible under EISA.
(v) Alternative Vehicle Standards
Considered
The agencies are not finalizing vehicle
standards less stringent than the final
standards because the agencies believe
these standards are highly cost effective,
as just explained.
The agencies considered finalizing
truck standards which are more
stringent reflecting the inclusion of
hybrid powertrains in those vocational
vehicles where use of hybrid
powertrains is appropriate. The agencies
estimate that a 25 percent utilization
rate of hybrid powertrains in MY 2017
vocational vehicles would add, on
average, $30,000 to the cost of each
vehicle and more than double the cost
of the rule for this sector. See the RIA
at chapter 6.1.8. The emission
reductions associated with these very
high costs appear to be modest. See the
RIA Table 6–14. In addition, the
agencies are finalizing flexibilities in the
form of generally applicable credit
opportunities for advanced
technologies, to encourage use of hybrid
powertrains. See Section IV.C. 2 below.
Several commenters recommended that
in addition to hybrid powertrains, the
agencies consider setting more stringent
standards based on the use of
aerodynamic improvements, weight
reduction, idle shutdown technologies,
vehicle speed limiters, and specific
transmission technologies. As described
above, we are not finalizing standards
based on these technologies for reasons
that related to the unique nature of the
very diverse vocational vehicle segment.
At this time, the agencies have no
means to determine the current baseline
aerodynamic performance of all
vocational vehicles (ranging from
concrete mixers to school buses), nor a
means to project to what degree the
aerodynamic performance could be
improved without compromising the
utility of the vehicle. Absent this
information, the agencies cannot set a

PO 00000

Frm 00130

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Medium
heavy-duty

38.1
36.7
388
373
5%
8%

23.0
22.1
234
225
5%
9%

Heavy heavyduty
22.2
21.8
226
222
4%
6%

standard based on improvements in
aerodynamic performance. The agencies
face similar obstacles regarding our
ability to project the utility tradeoffs
that may exist between limitations on
vehicle speed or reductions in vehicle
mass and utility and safety of vocational
vehicles. We are confident the answer to
those questions will differ for a school
bus compared to a concrete mixer
compared to a fire truck compared to an
ambulance. Absent an approach to set
distinct standards for each of the
vocational vehicle types and the
information necessary to determine the
appropriate level of performance for
those vehicles, the agencies cannot set
standards for vocational vehicles based
on the use of these technologies. For
these reasons, the agencies are not
adopting more comprehensive standards
for vocational vehicles. The agencies do
agree that at least some vocational
vehicles can be made more efficient
through the use of technologies,
including those technologies mentioned
in the comments, and the agencies fully
intend to take on the challenge of
developing the data, test procedures and
regulatory structures necessary to set
more comprehensive standards for
vocational trucks in the future.
(b) Gasoline Engines
(i) Baseline Gasoline Engine
Performance
EPA and NHTSA developed the
reference heavy-duty gasoline engines to
represent a 2010 model year engine
compliant with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX
standard for on-highway heavy-duty
engines.
NHTSA and EPA developed the
baseline fuel consumption and CO2
emissions for the gasoline engines from
manufacturer reported CO2 values used
in the certification of non-GHG
pollutants. The baseline engine for the
analysis was developed to represent a
2011 model year engine, because this is
the most current information available.
The average CO2 performance of the
heavy-duty gasoline engines was 660 g/
bhp-hour, which will be used as a

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
baseline. The baseline gasoline engines
are all stoichiometric port fuel injected
V–8 engines without cam phasers or
other variable valve timing technologies.
While they may reflect some degree of
static valve timing optimization for fuel
efficiency they do not reflect the
potential to adjust timing with engine
speed.
(ii) Gasoline Engine Technology Package
Effectiveness
The gasoline engine technology
package includes engine friction
reduction, coupled cam phasing, and
SGDI to produce an overall five percent
reduction from the reference engine
based on the Heavy-duty Lumped
Parameter model. The agencies are
projecting a 100 percent application rate
of this technology package to the 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 are
adopting gasoline engine standards that
begin in the 2016 model year based on
the agencies’ projection of the engine
redesign schedules for the small number
of engines in this category.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(iii) Gasoline Engine Technology
Package Cost
For the proposed costs, the agencies
considered both the direct or ‘‘piece’’
costs and indirect costs of individual
components of technologies. For the
direct costs, the agencies followed a
BOM approach employed by NHTSA
and EPA in the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle rule. In this final action, the
agencies are using marked up gasoline
engine technology costs developed for
the HD Pickup Truck and Van segment
because these engines are made by the
same manufacturers (primarily by Ford
and GM) and are simply, sold as loose
engines rather than as complete
vehicles. Hence the engine cost
estimates are fundamentally the same.
The agencies did not receive any
comments recommending adjustments
to the proposed gasoline engine
technology costs. The costs summarized
in Table III–15 are consistent with the
proposed values, but updated to reflect
2009$ and new ICMs. The costs shown
in Table III–15 include a low
complexity ICM of 1.24 and are
applicable in the 2016 model year. No
learning effects are applied to engine
friction reduction costs, while flatportion of the curve learning is
considered applicable to both coupled
cam phasing and SGDI.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

57235

TABLE III–15—HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE only be effectively applied through an
ENGINE TECHNOLOGY COSTS INCLU- integrated design and development
process. The four years lead time
SIVE OF INDIRECT COST MARKUPS

provided here is short in the context of
engine redesigns and is only possible in
2016 MY part because the standards align with
engine manufacturers’ planned redesign
Engine Friction Reduction ............
$95 processes that are either just starting or
Coupled Cam Phasing .................
46 will be starting within the year. These
Stoichiometric Gas Direct Injecstandards set a clear metric of
tion ............................................
452 performance for those planned
redesigns and we project will lead
Total .......................................
594
manufacturers to include a number of
technologies that would not otherwise
(iv) Reasonableness of the Final
have been incorporated into those
Standard
engines.
The final engine standards are
(v) Alternative Gasoline Engine
reasonable and consistent with the
Standards Considered
agencies’ respective authorities. With
respect to the 2016 MY standard, all of
The agencies are not finalizing
the technologies on which the standards gasoline standards less stringent than
are predicated have been demonstrated
the final standards because the agencies
and their effectiveness is well
believe these standards are feasible in
documented. The final standards reflect the lead time provided, inexpensive,
a 100 percent application rate for these
and highly cost effective.
technologies. The costs of adding these
The final rule reflects 100 percent
technologies remain modest across the
penetration of the technology package
various engine classes as shown in
on whose performance the standard is
Table 0–15. Use of these technologies
based, so some additional technology
would add only a small amount to the
would need to be added to obtain
cost of the vehicle,288 and the associated further improvements. The agencies
reductions are highly cost effective, an
considered finalizing gasoline engine
estimated $20 per ton of CO2eq per
standards which are more stringent
vehicle.289 This is even more cost
reflecting the inclusion of cylinder
effective than the estimated cost
deactivation and other advanced
effectiveness for CO2eq removal and fuel technologies. However, the agencies are
economy improvement under the lightnot finalizing this level of stringency
duty vehicle rule, already considered by because our assessment is that these
the agencies to be a highly cost effective technologies cannot be adapted to the
reduction.290 Accordingly, EPA and
higher average engine loads of heavyNHTSA view these standards as
duty vehicles for production by the
reflecting an appropriate balance of the
2017 model year. We intend to continue
various statutory factors under section
to evaluate the potential for further
202(a) of the CAA and under NHTSA’s
gasoline engine improvements building
EISA authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). on the work done for light-duty
Based on the discussion above, NHTSA
passenger cars and trucks as we begin
believes these standards are the
work on the next phase of heavy-duty
maximum feasible under EISA.
regulations.
Several commenters suggested that
(c) Diesel Engines
the lead time provided by the agencies
for heavy-duty pickups and vans and by (i) Baseline Diesel Engine Performance
extension the 2016 gasoline engine
EPA and NHTSA developed the
standards were unnecessarily long. The
baseline heavy-duty diesel engines to
agencies do not agree with this
represent a 2010 model year engine
assessment. The technologies that we
compliant with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX
are considering here cannot simply be
standard for on-highway heavy-duty
bolted on to an existing engine but can
engines.
The agencies utilized 2007 through
288 Sample 2010 MY vocational vehicles range in
price between $40,000 for a Class 4 work truck to
2011 model year CO2 certification levels
approximately $200,000 for a Class 8 refuse hauler.
from the Heavy-duty FTP cycle as the
See pages 16–17 of ICF’s ‘‘Investigation of Costs for
basis for the baseline engine CO2
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
performance. The pre-2010 data are
Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010.
289 See Vocational Vehicle CO savings and
subsequently adjusted to represent 2010
2
technology costs in Table 7–4 in RIA chapter 7.
model year engine maps by using
290 The light-duty rule had an estimated cost per
predefined technologies including SCR
ton of $50 when considering the vehicle program
and other systems that are being used in
costs only and a cost of ¥$210 per ton considering
current 2010 production. The engine
the vehicle program costs along with fuel savings
in 2030. See 75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3–1.
CO2 results were then sales weighted

PO 00000

[2009$]

Frm 00131

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57236

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

within each regulatory subcategory to
develop an industry average 2010 model
year reference engine, as shown in Table
III–16. The level of CO2 emissions and

fuel consumption of these engines
varies significantly, where the engine
with the highest CO2 emissions is
estimated to be 20 percent greater than

the sales weighted average. Details of
this analysis are included in RIA
Chapter 2.

TABLE III–16—2010 MODEL YEAR REFERENCE DIESEL ENGINE PERFORMANCE OVER THE HEAVY-DUTY FTP CYCLE
CO2 emissions
(g/bhp-hr)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

LHD Diesel .......................................................................................................................................
MHD Diesel ......................................................................................................................................
HHD Diesel ......................................................................................................................................

(ii) Diesel Engine Packages
The diesel engine technology
packages for the 2014 model year
include engine friction reduction,
improved aftertreatment effectiveness,
improved combustion processes, and
low temperature EGR system
optimization. The improvements in
parasitic and friction losses come
through piston designs to reduce
friction, improved lubrication, and
improved water pump and oil pump
designs to reduce parasitic losses. The
aftertreatment improvements are
available through lower backpressure of
the systems and optimization of the
engine-out NOX levels. Improvements to
the EGR system and air flow through the
intake and exhaust systems, along with
turbochargers can also produce engine
efficiency improvements. It should be
pointed out that individual technology
improvements are not additive to each
other due to the interaction of
technologies. The agencies assessed the
impact of each technology over the
Heavy-duty FTP and project an overall
cycle improvement in the 2014 model
year of 3 percent for HHD diesel engines
and 5 percent for LHD and MHD diesel
engines, as detailed in RIA Chapter
2.4.2.9 and 2.4.2.10. EPA used a 100
percent application rate of this
technology package to determine the
level of the final 2014 MY standards
Recently, EPA’s heavy-duty highway
engine program for criteria pollutants
provided new emissions standards for
the industry in three year increments.
The heavy-duty engine manufacturer
product plans have fallen into three year
cycles to reflect this environment. EPA
is finalizing CO2 emission standards
recognizing the opportunity for
technology improvements over this time
frame while reflecting the typical heavyduty engine manufacturer product plan
redesign cycles. Thus, the agencies are
establishing initial standards for the
2014 model year and a more stringent
standard for these heavy-duty engines
beginning in the 2017 model year.
The 2017 model year technology
package for LHD and MHD diesel engine

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

includes continued development and
refinement of the 2014 model year
technology package, in particular the
additional improvement to
aftertreatment systems. This package
leads to a projected 9 percent reduction
for LHD and MHD diesel engines in the
2017 model year. The HHD diesel
engine technology packages for the 2017
model year include the continued
development of the 2014 model year
technology package. A similar approach
to evaluating the impact of individual
technologies as taken to develop the
overall reduction of the 2014 model year
package was taken with the 2017 model
year package. The Heavy-duty FTP cycle
improvements lead to a 5 percent
reduction on the cycle for HHDD, as
detailed in RIA Chapter 2.4.2.13. The
agencies used a 100 percent application
rate of the technology package to
determine the final 2017 MY standards.
The agencies believe that bottom cycling
technologies are still in the
development phase and will not be
ready for production by the 2017 model
year.291 Therefore, these technologies
were not included in determining the
stringency of the final standards.
However, we do believe the bottoming
cycle approach represents a significant
opportunity to reduce fuel consumption
and GHG emissions in the future for
vehicles that operate under primarily
steady-state conditions like line-haul
tractors and some vocational vehicles.
As discussed above, we also considered
setting standards based on the use of
hybrid powertrains that are a better
match to many vocational vehicle duty
cycles but have decided for the reasons
articulated above to not base the
vocational vehicle standard on the use
of hybrid technologies in this first
regulation. However, EPA and NHTSA
are both finalizing provisions described
in Section IV to create incentives for
manufacturers to continue to invest to
291 TIAX noted in their report to the NAS panel
that the engine improvements beyond 2015 model
year included in their report are highly uncertain,
though they include waste heat recovery in the
engine package for 2016 through 2020 (page 4–29).

PO 00000

Frm 00132

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Fuel consumption
(gallon/100 bhp-hr)
630
630
584

6.19
6.19
5.74

develop these technologies in the
believe that with further development
these technologies can form the basis of
future standards.
The overall projected improvements
in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
over the baseline are included in
Table III–17.

TABLE III–17—PERCENT FUEL CONSUMPTION AND CO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS OVER THE HEAVY-DUTY
FTP CYCLE
2014
LHD Diesel .......................
MHD Diesel ......................
HHD Diesel .......................

5%
5
3

2017
9%
9
5

(iii) Technology Package Costs
NHTSA and EPA jointly developed
costs associated with the engine
technologies to assess an overall
package cost for each regulatory
category. Our engine cost estimates for
diesel engines used in vocational
vehicles include a separate analysis of
the incremental part costs, research and
development activities, and additional
equipment, such as emissions
equipment to measure N2O emissions.
Our general approach used elsewhere in
this action (for HD pickup trucks,
gasoline engines, Class 7 and 8 tractors,
and Class 2b–8 vocational vehicles)
estimates a direct manufacturing cost for
a part and marks it up based on a factor
to account for indirect costs. See also 75
FR 25376. We believe that approach is
appropriate when compliance with final
standards is achieved generally by
installing new parts and systems
purchased from a supplier. In such a
case, the supplier is conducting the bulk
of the research and development on the
new parts and systems and including
those costs in the purchase price paid
by the original equipment manufacturer.
The indirect costs incurred by the
original equipment manufacturer need
not include much cost to cover research
and development since the bulk of that
effort is already done. For the MHD and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
HHD diesel engine segment, however,
the agencies believe we can make a
more accurate estimate of technology
cost using this alternate approach
because the primary cost is not expected
to be the purchase of parts or systems
from suppliers or even the production of
the parts and systems, but rather the
development of the new technology by
the original equipment manufacturer
itself. Therefore, the agencies believe it
more accurate to directly estimate the
indirect costs. EPA commonly uses this
approach in cases where significant
investments in research and
development can lead to an emission
control approach that requires no new
hardware. For example, combustion
optimization may significantly reduce
emissions and cost a manufacturer
millions of dollars to develop but will
lead to an engine that is no more
expensive to produce. Using a bill of
materials approach would suggest that
the cost of the emissions control was
zero reflecting no new hardware and
ignoring the millions of dollars spent to
develop the improved combustion
system. Details of the cost analysis are
included in the RIA Chapter 2. To
reiterate, we have used this different
approach because the MHD and HHD

diesel engines are expected to comply in
large part via technology changes that
are not reflected in new hardware but
rather knowledge gained through
laboratory and real world testing that
allows for improvements in control
system calibrations—changes that are
more difficult to reflect through direct
costs with indirect cost multipliers.
The agencies developed the
engineering costs for the research and
development of diesel engines with
lower fuel consumption and CO2
emissions. The aggregate costs for
engineering hours, technician support,
dynamometer cell time, and fabrication
of prototype parts are estimated at $6.8
million (2009$) per manufacturer per
year over the five years covering 2012
through 2016. In aggregate, this averages
out to $284 per engine during 2012
through 2016 using an annual sales
value of 600,000 light, medium, and
heavy heavy-duty engines. The agencies
received comments from Horriba
regarding the assumption the agencies
used in the proposal that said
manufacturers would need to purchase
new equipment for measuring N2O and
the associated costs. Horriba provided
information regarding the cost of standalone FTIR instrumentation (estimated
at $50,000 per unit) and cost of

57237

upgrading existing emission
measurement systems with NDIR
analyzers (estimated at $25,000 per
unit). The agencies further analyzed our
assumptions along with Horriba’s
comments. Thus, we have revised the
equipment costs estimates and assumed
that 75 percent of manufacturers would
update existing equipment while the
other 25 percent would require new
equipment. The agencies are estimating
costs of $63,087 (2009$) per engine
manufacturer per engine subcategory
(light, medium, and heavy HD) to cover
the cost of purchasing photo-acoustic
measurement equipment for two engine
test cells. This would be a one-time cost
incurred in the year prior to
implementation of the standard (i.e., the
cost would be incurred in 2013). In
aggregate, this averages out to less than
$1 per engine in 2013 using an annual
sales value of 600,000 light, medium,
and heavy HD engines.
EPA also developed the incremental
piece cost for the components to meet
each the 2014 and 2017 standards.
These costs shown in Table III–18
which include a low complexity ICM of
1.15; flat-portion of the curve learning is
considered applicable to each
technology.

TABLE III–18—HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINE COMPONENT COSTS INCLUSIVE OF INDIRECT COST MARKUPS a
[2009$]
2014 Model year
Cylinder Head (flow optimized, increased firing pressure, improved
thermal management).
Exhaust Manifold (flow optimized, improved thermal management) ......
Turbocharger (improved efficiency) ........................................................
EGR Cooler (improved efficiency) ..........................................................
Water Pump (optimized, variable vane, variable speed) ........................
Oil Pump (optimized) ...............................................................................
Fuel Pump (higher working pressure, increased efficiency, improved
pressure regulation).
Fuel Rail (higher working pressure) ........................................................
Fuel Injector (optimized, improved multiple event control, higher working pressure).
Piston (reduced friction skirt, ring and pin) .............................................
Aftertreatment system (improved effectiveness SCR, dosing, dpf)a .......
Valve Train (reduced friction, roller tappet) ............................................

2017 Model year

$6 (MHD & HH), $11 (LHD) ..........

$6 (MHD & HHD), $10 (LHD).

$0 ...................................................
$18 .................................................
$4 ...................................................
$91 .................................................
$5 ...................................................
$5 ...................................................

$0.
$17.
$3.
$84.
$4.
$4.

$10 (MHD & HHD), $12 (LHD) .....
$11 (MHD & HHD), $15 (LHD) .....

$9 (MHD & HHD), $11 (LHD).
$10 (MHD & HHD), $13 (LHD).

$3 ...................................................
$0 (MHD & HHD), $111 (LHD) .....
$82 (MHD), $109 (LHD) ................

$3.
$0 (MHD & HHD), $101 (LHD).
$76 (MHD), $101 (LHD).

Note:
a Note that costs for aftertreatment improvements for MHD and HHD diesel engines are covered via the engineering costs (see text). For LH
diesel engines, we have included the cost of aftertreatment improvements as a technology cost.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

The overall costs for each diesel
engine regulatory subcategory are
included in Table III–19.

TABLE III–19—DIESEL ENGINE TECH- Reasonableness of the Final Standards
NOLOGY COSTS PER ENGINE—ConThe final engine standards appear to
tinued
be reasonable and consistent with the
[2009$]

TABLE III–19—DIESEL ENGINE
TECHNOLOGY COSTS PER ENGINE

2014

[2009$]
2014
LHD Diesel .......................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

$388

2017

MHD Diesel ......................
HHD Diesel .......................

234
234

$358

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00133

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

agencies’ respective authorities. With
respect to the 2014 and 2017 MY
2017
standards, all of the technologies on
which the standards are based have
216 already been demonstrated and their
216 effectiveness is well documented. The
final standards reflect a 100 percent
application rate for these technologies.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57238

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

The costs of adding these technologies
remain modest across the various engine
classes as shown in Table III–19. Use of
these technologies would add only a
small amount to the cost of the
vehicle,292 and the associated
reductions are highly cost effective, an
estimated $20 per ton of CO2eq per
vehicle.293 This is even more cost
effective than the estimated cost
effectiveness for CO2eq removal and fuel
economy improvement under the lightduty vehicle rule, already considered by
the agencies to be a highly cost effective
reduction.294 Accordingly, EPA and
NHTSA view these standards as
reflecting an appropriate balance of the
various statutory factors under section
202(a) of the CAA and under NHTSA’s
EISA authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
Based on the discussion above, NHTSA
believes these standards are the
maximum feasible under EISA.
(v) Alternative Diesel Engine Standards
Considered
Other than the specific option related
to legacy engine products, the agencies
are not finalizing diesel engine
standards less stringent than the final
standards because the agencies believe
these standards are highly cost effective.
The agencies have not considered
finalizing diesel engine standards which
are more stringent because we have
exhausted the list of engine technologies
that we believe are directly applicable to
medium- and heavy-duty diesel engines
used in vocational applications. We are
continuing to evaluate the potential for
bottoming cycle technologies to be used
in the future, however it is not clear
today that this technology, although
promising for more steady-state
operation will provide any significant
efficiency improvement under the more
transient operating cycles typical of
vocational vehicles. Moreover, as stated
at II.D above, the agencies do not believe
that this technology will be available in
the time frame of this rule in any case.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility
Provisions
This section describes flexibility
provisions intended to advance the
goals of the overall program while
providing alternate pathways to achieve
292 Sample 2010 MY vocational vehicles range in
price between $40,000 for a Class 4 work truck to
approximately $200,000 for a Class 8 refuse hauler.
See pages 16–17 of ICF’s ‘‘Investigation of Costs for
Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for
Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles.’’ July 2010.
293 See RIA chapter 7, Table 7–4.
294 The light-duty rule had a cost per ton of $50
when considering the vehicle program costs only
and a cost of ¥$210 per ton considering the vehicle
program costs along with fuel savings in 2030. See
75 FR 25515, Table III.H.3–1.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

those goals, consistent with the
agencies’ statutory authority, as well as
with Executive Order 13563.295 The
primary flexibility provisions for
combination tractors and vocational
vehicles and the engines installed in
these vehicles are incorporated in a
program of averaging, banking, and
trading of credits. For HD pickups and
vans, the primary flexibility provision is
also an ABT program expressed in the
fleet average form of the standards,
along with provisions for credit and
deficit carry-forward and for trading,
patterned after the agencies’ light-duty
vehicle GHG and CAFE programs.
Furthermore, EPA will allow
manufacturers to comply with the N2O
and CH4 standards using CO2 credits
and is providing an opportunity for
engine manufacturers to earn N2O
credits that can be used to comply with
the CO2 standards. However, EPA is not
adopting an emission credit program
associated with the CH4 or HFC
standards. This section also describes
other flexibility provisions that apply,
including advanced technology credits,
innovative technology credits and early
compliance credits.
A. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
Program
Averaging, Banking, and Trading
(ABT) of emissions credits have been an
important part of many EPA mobile
source programs under CAA Title II,
including engine and vehicle programs.
NHTSA has also long had an averaging
and banking program for light-duty
CAFE under EPCA, and recently gained
authority to add a trading program for
light-duty CAFE through EISA. ABT
programs are useful because they can
help to address many issues of
technological feasibility and lead-time,
as well as considerations of cost. They
provide manufacturers flexibilities that
assist the efficient development and
implementation of new technologies
and therefore enable new technologies
to be implemented at a more aggressive
pace than without ABT. ABT programs
are more than just add-on provisions
included to help reduce costs, and can
be, as in EPA’s Title II programs an
integral part of the standard setting
itself. A well-designed ABT program
can also provide important
environmental and energy security
benefits by increasing the speed at
which new technologies can be
295 Section 4 of EO 13563 states that ‘‘Where
relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, each
agency shall identify and consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.’’ 76
FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).

PO 00000

Frm 00134

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

implemented (which means that more
benefits accrue over time than with
slower-starting standards) and at the
same time increase flexibility for, and
reduce costs to, the regulated industry.
American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) has
commented that ABT and related
flexibilities should not be offered for
this program because the agencies are
not promoting the use of new
technologies but rather the use of
existing technologies. However, without
ABT provisions (and other related
flexibilities), standards would typically
have to be numerically less stringent
since the numerical standard would
have to be adjusted to accommodate
issues of feasibility and available lead
time. See 75 FR at 25412–13. By offering
ABT credits and additional flexibilities
the agencies can offer progressively
more stringent standards that help meet
our fuel consumption reduction and
GHG emission goals at a faster pace.
Section II above describes EPA’s GHG
emission standards and NHTSA’s fuel
consumption standards. For each of
these respective sets of standards, the
agencies also offer ABT provisions,
consistent with each agency’s statutory
authority. The agencies worked closely
to design these provisions to be
essentially identical to each other in
form and function. Because of this
fundamental similarity, the remainder
of this section refers to these provisions
collectively as ‘‘the ABT program’’
except where agency-specific
distinctions are required.
As discussed in detail below, the
structure of the GHG and fuel
consumption ABT program for HD
engines was based closely on EPA’s
earlier ABT programs for HD engines;
the program for HD pickups and vans
was built on the existing light-duty GHG
program flexibility provisions; and the
first-time ABT provisions for
combination tractors and vocational
vehicles are as consistent as possible
with EPA’s other HD vehicle
regulations. The flexibility provisions
associated with this new regulatory
category were intended to build
systematically upon the structure of the
existing programs.
As an overview, ‘‘averaging’’ means
the exchange of emission or fuel
consumption credits between engine
families or truck families within a given
manufacturer’s regulatory subcategories
and averaging sets. For example,
specific ‘‘engine families,’’ which
manufacturers create by dividing their
product lines into groups expected to
have similar emission characteristics
throughout their useful life, would be
contained within an averaging set.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Averaging allows a manufacturer to
certify one or more engine families (or
vehicle families, as appropriate) within
the same averaging set at levels worse
than the applicable emission or fuel
consumption standard. The increased
emissions or fuel consumption over the
standard would need to be offset by one
or more engine (or vehicle) families
within that manufacturer’s averaging set
that are certified better than the same
emission or fuel consumption standard,
such that the average emissions or fuel
consumption from all the
manufacturer’s engine families,
weighted by engine power, regulatory
useful life, and production volume, are
at or below the level of the emission or
fuel consumption standard 296 Total
credits for each averaging set within
each model year are determined by
summing together the credits calculated
for every engine family within that
specific averaging set.
‘‘Banking’’ means the retention of
emission credits by the manufacturer for
use in future model year averaging or
trading. ‘‘Trading’’ means the exchange
of emission credits between
manufacturers, which can then be used
for averaging purposes, banked for
future use, or traded to another
manufacturer.
In EPA’s current HD engine program
for criteria pollutants, manufacturers are
restricted to averaging, banking and
trading only credits generated by the
engine families within a regulatory
subcategory, and EPA and NHTSA
proposed to continue this restriction in
the GHG and fuel consumption program
for engines and vehicles. However, the
agencies sought comment on potential
alternative approaches in which fewer
restrictions are placed on the use of
credits for averaging, banking, and
trading. Particularly, the agencies
requested comment on removing
prohibitions on averaging and trading
between some or all regulatory
categories in the proposal, and on
removing restrictions between some or
all regulatory subcategories that are
within the same regulatory category
(e.g., allowing trading of credits between
Class 7 day cabs and Class 8 sleeper
cabs).
The agencies received many
comments on the restrictions proposed
for the ABT program, namely on the
proposal that credits could only be
averaged within the specified vehicle
and engine subcategories and not
296 The inclusion of engine power, useful life, and
production volume in the averaging calculations
allows the emissions or fuel consumption credits or
debits to be expressed in total emissions or
consumption over the useful life of the credit-using
or generating engine sales.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

averaged across subcategories or
between vehicle and engine categories.
Many commenters, including Union of
Concerned Scientist (UCS), NY Dept of
Transportation, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Oshkosh, and Autocar,
requested that the agencies maintain the
restrictions as proposed in the NPRM.
UCS argued that allowing credits to be
used across categories could undermine
further technology advancements, and
that manufacturers that have broad
portfolios would have advantages over
those manufacturers that do not. The
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)
argued that because of the various credit
opportunities in the ABT program and
the potential that manufacturers will
pay penalties rather than comply with
the standards, the program could
actually cause an increase in emissions
and a decrease in fuel efficiency. On the
other hand, several commenters,
including EMA/TMA, Cummins, Volvo,
and ATA, requested that the agencies
maintain the proposed restrictions of
averaging credits between the engine
and vehicle categories, but reduce the
restrictions on credit averaging across
vehicle subcategories or engine
subcategories or averaging sets within
similar vehicle and engine weight
classes (LHD, MHD and HHD).
Cummins requested that the agencies
allow credit averaging between engine
subcategories within the same weight
classes (LHD, MHD and HHD).
Cummins explained that tractor and
vocational engines in the corresponding
weight classes not only share the same
useful life but also use the same
emission and fuel consumption
technologies and therefore should be
placed into the same engine averaging
set. EMA/TMA argued that the NPRM
restrictions would inhibit a
manufacturer’s ability to use credits to
address market fluctuations, which
would reduce the flexibility that the
ABT program was intended to provide.
As an example, EMA/TMA stated that if
the line-haul market were depressed for
a period of time a manufacturer could
make up any deficit selling more lowroof tractors with regional hauling
operations. The same market shift could
eliminate a manufacturer’s ability to
generate credits using its aerodynamic
high-roof sleeper cab tractors and could
create a credit deficit if there is a
demand for more of the less
aerodynamic low-roof tractors. EMA/
TMA argued that credit exchanges
across vehicle categories within the
same weight classes within the tractor
subcategories and across vocational
vehicle and tractor subcategories would
allow a manufacturer more flexibility to

PO 00000

Frm 00135

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57239

deal with these types of market and
customer demand situations. Finally,
several commenters, including Ford,
DTNA NADA, NTEA and Navistar,
requested that the agencies reduce the
proposed restrictions even further by
allowing credit averaging between
vehicle categories and engine categories.
Navistar argued that more flexibility
was necessary for manufacturers like
itself to increase innovation at a
reasonable cost, stating that more
restrictions would increase costs within
a shorter time frame.
After considering these comments, the
agencies continue to believe that the
ABT program developed by the agencies
increases and accelerates the
technological feasibility of the GHG and
fuel consumption standards by
providing manufacturers flexibility in
implementing new technologies in a
way that may be more consistent with
their business practices and cost
considerations. In response to the
comments submitted by CBD, the
agencies disagree with CBD’s statements
that the ABT program will adversely
affect the fuel efficiency and GHG
emission goals of this regulation. This
joint final action requires vehicle and
engine manufacturers to meet
increasingly more stringent emission
and fuel consumption standards which
will result in emission reductions and
fuel consumption savings.
Manufacturers will not have the option
of not meeting the standards. The ABT
program simply provides each
manufacturer the flexibility to meet
these standards based upon their
individual products and
implementation plans.
By assuming the use of credits for
compliance, the agencies were able to
set the fuel consumption/GHG
standards at more stringent levels than
would otherwise have been feasible.
One reason is that use of ABT allows
each manufacturer maximum flexibility
to develop compliance strategies
consistent with its redesign cycles and
with its product plans generally,
allowing the agencies, in turn, to adopt
standards which are numerically more
stringent in earlier model years than
would be possible with a more rigid
program since those rigidities would be
associated with greater costs. Greater
improvements in fuel efficiency will
occur under more stringent standards;
manufacturers will simply have greater
flexibility to determine where and how
to make those improvements than they
would have without credit options.
Further, this is consistent with the
directive in EO 13563 to ‘‘seek to
identify, as appropriate, means to

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57240

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

achieve regulatory goals that are
designed to promote innovation.’’
The agencies further agree that certain
restrictions on use of ABT which were
proposed are unnecessary. The
proposed ABT program for engines was
somewhat more restrictive, in its
definition of averaging sets, than EPA’s
parallel ABT program for criteria
pollutant emissions from the same
engines. The final rules conform to the
ABT provisions for GHG heavy-duty
engine emissions to be consistent with
the parallel ABT provisions for criteria
pollutants with same weight engines
treated as a single averaging set
regardless of the vehicles in which they
are installed. We have applied this same
principle with respect to combination
tractors and vocational vehicles:
Treating like weight classes as an
averaging set. The agencies have
determined that these additional
flexibilities will help to reduce
manufacturing costs further and
encourage technology implementation
without creating an unfair advantage for
manufactures with vertically integrated
portfolios including engines and
vehicles. EPA’s experience in
administering the ABT program for
heavy-duty diesel engine criteria
pollutant emissions supports this
conclusion. Therefore, the agencies have
decided to allow credit averaging within
and across vocational vehicle and
tractor subcategories within the same
weight class groups, as well as credit
averaging across the same weight class
vocational and tractor engine groups.
This added flexibility beyond what was
proposed in the NPRM will not be
extended to the HD pickup truck and
van category because this group of
vehicles is comprised of only one
subcategory and is not broken down like
the other categories and corresponding
subcategories into different weight
classes, and the standard applies to the
entire vehicle, so that there are no
separate engine and vehicle standards.
Put another way, the HD pickup truck
and van category is one large averaging
set that will remain as proposed.
However, the agencies are
maintaining the restrictions against
averaging vehicle credits with engine
credits or between vehicle weight
classes or engine subcategories for this
first phase of regulation. We believe
averaging or trading credits between
averaging sets would be problematic
because of the diversity of applications
involved. This diversity creates large
differences in the real world conditions
that impact lifetime emissions—such as
actual operating life, load cycles, and
maintenance practices. In lieu of
conducting extensive and burdensome

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

real world tracking of these parameters,
along with corrective measures to
provide some assurance of parity
between credits earned and credits
redeemed, averaging sets provide a
reasonable amount of confidence that
typical engines or vehicles within each
set have comparable enough real world
experience to make such follow-up
activity unnecessary. The agencies
believe this approach will ensure that
CO2 emissions are reduced and fuel
consumption is improved in each
engine subcategory without interfering
with the ability of manufacturers to
engage in free trade and competition.
Again, EPA’s experience in
administering its ABT program for
criteria pollutant emissions from heavyduty diesel engines confirms these
views. The agencies also note that no
commenter offered an explanation of
why the restrictions on this ABT
program should differ from the parallel
ABT program respecting criteria
pollutants. As explained earlier in this
preamble, the agencies intend to reevaluate the appropriateness of the ABT
averaging sets and credit use restrictions
we are adopting here for the HD GHG
and fuel consumption program in the
future based on information we gain
implementing this first phase of
regulation.
Under previous ABT programs for
other rulemakings, EPA and NHTSA
have allowed manufacturers to carry
forward credit deficits for a set period
of time—if a manufacturer cannot meet
an applicable standard in a given model
year, it may make up its shortfall by
overcomplying in a subsequent year. In
the NPRM the agencies proposed to
allow manufacturers of engines, tractors,
HD pickups and vans, and vocational
vehicles to carry forward deficits for up
to three years before reconciling the
shortfall—the same period allowed in
numerous other EPA rules—but sought
comments on alternative approaches for
reconciling deficits. DTNA supported
the three year period and stated that it
was sufficient for reconciling deficits.
CBD did not support the use of the carry
forward of deficits because it would
delay investments and technological
innovation. The agencies respectfully
disagree with CBD and believe this
provision has enabled the agencies to
consider overall standards that are more
stringent and that will become effective
sooner than we could consider with a
more rigid program, one in which all of
a manufacturer’s similar vehicles or
engines would be required to achieve
the same emissions or fuel consumption
levels, and at the same time. Therefore
the agencies included in the final

PO 00000

Frm 00136

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

rulemaking the proposed 3 year
reconciliation period. However, the
agencies’ respective credit programs
require manufacturers to use credits to
offset a shortfall before credits may be
banked or traded for additional model
years. This restriction reduces the
chance of manufacturers passing
forward deficits before reconciling
shortfalls and exhausting those credits
before reconciling past deficits.
For the heavy-duty pickup and van
category, the agencies proposed a 5-year
credit life provision, as adopted in the
light-duty vehicle GHG/CAFE program.
Navistar requested that the agencies
drop the 5-year credit expiration date
proposed for the heavy-duty pickup and
van category and not specify an
expiration date for earned credits.
Navistar stated that such credits are
necessary to further improve the
flexibilities of this program in order to
meet the new stringent standards within
the limited lead time provided. The
agencies disagree. The 5-year credit life
is substantial, and allows credits earned
early in the phase-in to be held and
used without discounting throughout
the phase-in period.
For engines, vocational vehicles and
tractors, EPA also proposed that CO2
credits generated during this first phase
of the HD National Program could not
be used for later phases of standards,
but NHTSA did not expressly specify
the potential expiration of fuel
consumption credits. DTNA and
Cummins requested that the surplus
credits from the first phase of the
program not expire. DTNA suggested
that the agencies drop any reference to
credit expiration until the next
rulemaking, at which time the agencies
would have a better understanding of
actual credit balances and what kind of
lifespan for credits might be necessary
or appropriate. DTNA argued that in
some of EPA’s past programs, EPA had
delayed a final decision about credit
expiration until development of the
subsequent rule when, EPA had a better
understanding of associated credit
balances, along with the stringency of
the standards being proposed for future
model years. EPA had proposed to limit
the lifespan of credits earned to the first
phase of standards in the interest of
ensuring a level playing field before the
next phase begins. Upon further
consideration, the agencies recognize
that this is a new program and it is
unknown whether any manufacturers
will have credit surpluses by the end of
the first phase of standards, much less
whether some manufacturers will have
significantly larger credit surpluses that
might create an unlevel playing field
going into the next phase. The agencies

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

are adopting a 5-year credit life
provision for all regulatory categories, as
adopted in the light-duty vehicle
program and proposed for the HD
pickup trucks and vans.297
The following sections provide
further discussions of the flexibilities
provided in this action under the ABT
program and the agencies’ rationale for
providing them.
(1) Heavy-duty Engines
For the heavy-duty engine ABT
program, EPA and NHTSA proposed to
use six averaging sets per 40 CFR
1036.740 for EPA and 49 CFR 535.7(d)
for NHTSA, which aligned with the
proposed regulatory engine
subcategories. As described above, the
agencies have decided that these engine
averaging sets should be the same as for
criteria pollutants under the EPA heavyduty diesel engine rules, and agree with
commenters that increasing the size of
averaging sets from within subcategories
to across subcategories within the same
engine weight class would provide
important additional flexibilities for
engine manufacturers without
negatively impacting fuel savings or
emissions reductions. The agencies are
therefore adopting four engine averaging
sets rather than the proposed six. The
four engine averaging sets are light
heavy-duty (LHD) diesel, medium
heavy-duty (MHD) diesel, heavy heavyduty (HHD) diesel, and gasoline or spark
ignited engines without distinction for
the type of vehicle in which the engine
is installed. Thus, the final ABT
program will allow for averaging,
banking, and trading of credits between
HHD diesel engines which are certified
for use in vocational vehicles and HHD
diesel engines which are certified for
installation in tractors. Similarly, the
MHD diesel engines certified for use in
either vocational vehicles or tractors
will be treated as a single averaging set.
As noted in Section I.G above, the
agencies intend to monitor this program
and consider possibilities of more
widespread trading based on experience
in implementing the program as the first
engines and vehicles certified to the
new standards are introduced. Credits
generated by engine manufacturers
under this ABT program are restricted
for use only within their engine
averaging set, based on performance
against the standard as defined in
Section II.B and II.D. Thus, LHD diesel
engine manufacturers can only use their
LHD diesel engine credits for averaging,
297 Note, however, that manufacturers have no
property right in these credits, so no issues of
deprivation of property arise if later rules choose
not to recognize those credits. See 69 FR at 39001–
002 (June 29, 2004).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

banking and trading with LHD diesel
engines, not with MHD diesel or HHD
diesel engines. As noted, this limitation
is consistent with ABT provisions in
EPA’s existing criteria pollutant
program for engines and will help avoid
problems created by the diversity of
applications that the broad spectrum of
HD engines goes into, as discussed
above.
The compliance program for the final
rules adopts the proposed method for
generating a manufacturer’s CO2
emission and fuel consumption credit or
deficit. The manufacturer’s certification
test results would serve as the basis for
the generation of the manufacturer’s
Family Certification Level (FCL). The
agencies did not receive comment on
this, and continue to believe that it is
the best approach. The FCL is a new
term we proposed for this program to
differentiate the purpose of this credit
generation technique from the Family
Emission Limit (FEL) previously used in
a similar context in other EPA rules. A
manufacturer may define its FCL at any
level at or above the certification test
results. Credits for the ABT program are
generated when the FCL is compared to
its CO2 and fuel consumption standard,
as discussed in Section II. Credit
calculation for the Engine ABT program,
either positive or negative, is based on
Equation IV–1 and Equation IV–2:
Equation IV–1: Final HD Engine CO2
credit (deficit)
HD Engine CO2 credit (deficit)(metric
tons) = (Std ¥ FCL) × (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 CF
determined by the Heavy-duty FTP cycle
is used for engines certifying to the SET
standard.
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the engine family
UL = useful life of the engine (miles)
10-6 converts the grams of CO2 to metric tons

Equation IV–2: Final HD Engine Fuel
Consumption credit (deficit) in gallons
HD Engine Fuel Consumption credit
(deficit)(gallons) = (Std ¥ FCL) ×
(CF) × (Volume) × (UL) × 102
Where:

PO 00000

Frm 00137

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57241

Std = the standard associated with the
specific engine regulatory subcategory
(gallon/100 bhp-hr)
FCL = Family Certification Level for the
engine family (gallon/100 bhp-hr)
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor in
bhp-hr/mile which is the integrated total
cycle brake horsepower-hour divided by
the equivalent mileage of the Heavy-duty
FTP cycle. For gasoline heavy-duty
engines, the equivalent mileage is 6.3
miles. For diesel heavy-duty engines, the
equivalent mileage is 6.5 miles. The CF
determined by the Heavy-duty FTP cycle
is used for engines certifying to the SET
standard.
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the engine family
UL = useful life of the engine (miles)
102 = conversion to gallons

To calculate credits or deficits,
manufacturers will determine an FCL
for each engine family they have
designated for the ABT program. The
agencies have defined engine families in
40 CFR 1036.230 and 49 CFR 535.4 and
manufacturers may designate how to
group their engines for certification and
compliance purposes. The FCL may be
above or below its respective
subcategory standard and is used to
establish the CO2 credits earned in
Equation IV–1 or the fuel consumption
credits earned in Equation IV–2. The
final CO2 and fuel consumption
standards are associated with specific
regulatory subcategories as described in
Sections II.B and II.D (gasoline, light
heavy-duty diesel, medium heavy-duty
diesel, and heavy heavy-duty diesel). In
the ABT program, engines certified with
an FCL below the standard generate
positive credits and an FCL above the
standard generates negative credits. As
discussed in Section II.B and II.D,
engine averaging sets that include
engine families for which a manufacture
elects to use the alternative standard of
a percent reduction from the engine
family’s 2011 MY baseline are ineligible
to either generate or use credits. Credit
deficits accumulated in an averaging set
where engine families have used the
alternate standard can carry that deficit
forward for three years following the
model year for which that deficit was
generated at which time the deficit must
be reconciled with surplus credits.
The volume used in Equations IV–1
and IV–2 refers to the total number of
eligible engines sold per family
participating in the ABT program during
that model year. The useful life values
in Equation IV–1 and IV–2 are the same
as the regulatory classifications
previously used for the engine
subcategories. Thus, for LHD diesel
engines and gasoline engines, the useful
life values are 110,000 miles; for MHD

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57242

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

diesel engines, 185,000 miles; and for
HHD diesel engines, 435,000 miles.
As described in Section II.E above, for
purposes of EPA’s standards, an engine
manufacturer may choose to comply
with the N2O or CH4 cap standards
using CO2 credits.298 A manufacturer
choosing this option would convert its
N2O or CH4 test results into CO2eq to
determine the amount of CO2 credits
required. This approach recognizes the
correlation of these elements in
impacting global climate change. To
account for the different global warming
potential of these GHGs, manufacturers
will determine the amount of CO2
credits required by multiplying the
shortfall by the GWP. For example, a
manufacturer would use 25 kg of
positive CO2 credits to offset 1 kg of
negative CH4 credits. Or a manufacturer
would use 298 kg of positive CO2 credits
to offset 1 kg of negative N2O credits. In
general the agencies do not expect
manufacturers to use this provision, but
are providing it as an alternative in the
event an engine manufacturer has
trouble meeting the CH4 and/or N2O
emission caps. There are no ABT credits
for performance that falls below the CH4
cap. As described below, EPA is
adopting a provision applicable in MYs
2014 through 2016 to allow the creation
of CO2 credits by demonstrating N2O
below the current average baseline
performance, a value that is well below
the final N2O cap standard.
Manufacturers of engines that
generate a credit deficit at the end of the
model year for any of its averaging sets
can carry that deficit forward for three
years following the model year for
which that deficit was generated at
which time the deficit must be
reconciled with surplus credits.
Manufacturers must use credits once
those credits have been generated to
offset a shortfall before those credits can
be banked or traded for additional
model years. This restriction reduces
the chance of an engine manufacturer
passing forward deficits before
reconciling their shortfalls and
exhausting those credits before
reconciling past deficits. Deficits will
need to be reconciled at the reporting
dates for model year three. Surplus
credits earned in the engine categories
will expire after five model years. As
noted above, the agencies may
reconsider 5 year credit life during the
next phase of rulemaking.
Under the EPA and NHTSA programs,
engine manufacturers are provided
298 This option does not apply to the NHTSA fuel
consumption program, since NHTSA is not
regulating N2O or CH4 emissions, since they are
irrelevant to fuel consumption reductions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

flexibilities in complying with
compression ignition (CI) engine
standards. These flexibilities are
provided in order to: (1) Synchronize
the implementation schedules for the
upcoming EPA OBD regulatory changes
with the GHG and fuel consumption
regulatory requirements; (2) aid
manufacturers that produce legacy
engines in the early years of the HD
program; and (3) provide an opportunity
for manufacturers to earn early credits
as mentioned in sections II.B.(2)(b),
II.D.(1)(b)(i) and IV.B.(1) of this
document. The flexibilities provide
manufacturers of CI engines with four
different and distinct paths that can be
followed to meet the EPA and NHTSA
emission and fuel consumption
standards. Manufacturers do not have
these flexibility mechanisms for
gasoline engines, since the standards for
gasoline engines go into effect after the
flexibility mechanisms have expired. As
a general guideline applicable for each
of these four compliance paths, if a
manufacturer chooses to opt into the
NHTSA program prior to MY 2017,
which is the year the NHTSA
compression ignition engine standards
become mandatory, the path chosen
must be the same path chosen to meet
the EPA emission standards. Each of the
four paths is discussed below.
The first path is for a manufacturer to
meet the regular or ‘‘primary’’ standards
that become mandatory in MY 2014
under the EPA regulations. These
standards are voluntary in 2014, 2015,
and 2016 under the NHTSA program,
and become mandatory in 2017 in the
NHTSA program. The primary path
standards become more stringent in
model year 2017 in both the EPA and
NHTSA regulations. For the NHTSA
program, an engine manufacturer may
choose to voluntarily opt into the
program early, in any of the MYs 2014,
2015 or 2016 allowing that
manufacturer to earn credits for those
model years. In the NHTSA program
however, once the manufacturer has
made the decision to opt into the
program early it must remain in the
program during the subsequent model
years.
Path two allows manufacturers to earn
early credits as part of the ‘‘primary’’
MY 2014 emission standard path. Early
credits can be earned in MY 2013, as
discussed in section IV.B.(1). Under the
NHTSA fuel consumption program, an
engine manufacturer may also choose to
opt into the primary standards program
beginning in MY 2013 to obtain early
credits, but once the decision has been
made to opt into the program in MY
2013 the manufacturer must remain in
the program in the subsequent model

PO 00000

Frm 00138

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

years. If a manufacturer chooses to opt
into the NHTSA program prior to the
mandatory 2017 model year it must
follow that same path chosen to meet
the EPA emission standards.
If a manufacturer produces ‘‘legacy’’
engines, which typically have 2011
baseline emissions that are significantly
higher than the 2010 baseline for this
regulation, the manufacturer may
choose path three. This path allows a
manufacturer to meet alternate CI
engine standards in MYs 2014 through
2016 for specific engine families. More
details about this path are provided in
section II.B.(2)(b) and II.D.(1)(b)(i). This
path can only be taken if all other credit
opportunities have been exhausted and
the manufacturer still cannot meet the
primary standards under the first path.
Again, if a manufacturer chooses this
path to meet the EPA emission
standards in MY 2014–2016, and wants
to opt into the NHTSA fuel
consumption program in these same
MYs it must follow the exact path
followed under the EPA program.
The fourth path that a CI engine
manufacturer can take is referred to as
the alternative ‘‘OBD phase-in’’ path.
Manufacturers that wish to ‘‘bundle’’ or
combine design changes needed for the
2013 and 2016 heavy-duty OBD
requirements with design changes
needed for the GHG and fuel
consumption requirements may choose
this path. The EPA standards in this
path become mandatory in MY 2013
instead of 2014. In addition, in this path
emission and fuel consumption
standards increase in stringency in 2016
rather than in 2017. While the OBD
phase-in schedule requires engines built
in MYs 2013 and 2016 to achieve greater
reductions than those engines built in
the model years under the primary
program (path one above), it requires
lower reductions for engines built in
2014 and 2015. Under the NHTSA
program, an engine manufacturer may
choose to opt into the ‘‘OBD phase-in’’
path only if this is the same path chosen
under the EPA program and only if the
manufacturer is opting into the program
in MY 2013 and staying in the program
through MY 2016. If a manufacturer
chooses the OBD phase-in path to meet
the EPA emission standards and decides
to opt into the NHTSA program prior to
the mandatory MY 2017 requirement,
the manufacturer must follow the same
path under both the EPA and NHTSA
programs. Under this path the early
credit MY 2013 flexibility as discussed
in path two above is not available.
While it does not involve credits, the
agencies consider the alternative ‘‘OBD
phase-in’’ path to be an additional
flexibility.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Additional flexibilities for engines,
discussed later in Section IV.B, provide
manufacturers the opportunity to
generate early, advanced and innovative
technology credits.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(2) Heavy-Duty Vocational Vehicles and
Tractors
In addition to the engine ABT
program described above, the agencies
also proposed a heavy-duty vehicle ABT
program to facilitate reductions in GHG
emissions and fuel consumption based
on heavy-duty vocational vehicle and
tractor design changes and
improvements. EPA and NHTSA had
proposed averaging sets which aligned
with the proposed twelve regulatory
subcategories; however in response to
the comments described, which
requested that averaging sets be
expanded across subcategories within
similar weight classes, (analogous to the
principle on which ABT is structured
under EPA’s heavy-duty diesel engine
program for criteria pollutants), the
agencies are finalizing only three
averaging sets—LHD, MHD, and HHD
based upon the three weight classes. In
other words, all HHD (Class 8) tractors,
HHD vocational tractors, and HHD
vocational vehicles will be treated as a
single averaging set. Similarly, all MHD
(Class 7) tractors, MHD vocational
tractors, and MHD (Class 6–7)
vocational vehicles will be treated as a
single averaging set, and LHD vocational
vehicles (Class 2b–5) will be treated as
a single averaging set. For this category,
the structure of the final ABT program
should create incentives for vehicle
manufacturers to advance new, clean
technologies, or existing technologies
earlier than they otherwise would. ABT
provides manufacturers the flexibility to
deal with unforeseen shifts in the
marketplace that affect sales volumes.
At the same time, restricting trading to
within these segments gives the
agencies confidence that the reductions
are truly offsetting given the similarity
in products engaged in trading. This
structure also allows for a
straightforward compliance program for
each sector, with aspects that are
independently quantifiable and
verifiable.
Credit calculation for the final HD
Vocational Vehicle and Tractor CO2 and
fuel consumption credits, either positive
or negative, will be generated according
to Equation IV–3 and Equation IV–4:
Equation IV–3: The Final HD
Vocational Vehicle and Tractor CO2
credit (deficit)
HD Vocational Vehicle and Tractor CO2
credit (deficit)(metric tons) = (Std

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

¥ FEL) × (Payload Tons) ×
(Volume) × (UL) × (10-6)
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific regulatory subcategory (g/tonmile)
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each class in tons (12.5 tons for Class 7
tractors, 19 tons for Class 8 tractors, 2.85
tons for LHD vocational, 5.6 tons for
MHD vocational, and 7.5 tons for HHD
vocational vehicles)
FEL = Family Emission Limit for the vehicle
family which is equal to the output from
GEM (g/ton-mile)
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the vehicle family
UL = useful life of the vehicle (435,000 miles
for HHD, 185,000 miles for MHD, and
110,000 miles for LHD)
10-6 converts the grams of CO2 to metric tons

Equation IV–4: Final HD Vocational
Vehicle and Tractor Fuel Consumption
credit (deficit) in gallons
HD Vocational Vehicle and Tractor Fuel
Consumption Credit (deficit)
(gallons) = (Std ¥ FEL) × (Payload
Tons) × (Volume) × (UL) × 103
Where:
Std = the standard associated with the
specific regulatory subcategory (gallons/
1,000 ton-mile)
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each class in tons (12.5 tons for Class 7
tractors, 19 tons for Class 8 tractors, 2.85
tons for LHD vocational, 5.6 tons for
MHD vocational, and 7.5 tons for HHD
vocational vehicles)
FEL = Family Emission Limit for the vehicle
family (gallons/1,000 ton-mile)
Volume = (projected or actual) production
volume of the vehicle family
UL = useful life of the vehicle (435,000 miles
for HHD, 185,000 miles for MHD, and
110,000 miles for LHD)
103 = conversion to gallons

Manufacturers of vocational vehicles
and tractors that generate a credit deficit
at the end of the model year for any of
its averaging sets can carry that deficit
forward for three years following the
model year for which that deficit was
generated at which time the deficit must
be reconciled with surplus credits.
Manufacturers must use credits once
those credits have been generated to
offset a shortfall before those credits can
be banked or traded for additional
model years. This restriction reduces
the chance of a vehicle manufacturer
passing forward deficits before
reconciling their shortfalls and
exhausting those credits before
reconciling past deficits. Deficits will
need to be reconciled at the reporting
dates for model year three. Surplus
credits earned in the vehicle categories
will have a five year expiration date.
The agencies may reconsider the 5 year

PO 00000

Frm 00139

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57243

credit life during the next phase of the
rulemaking.
Additional flexibilities for HD
vocational vehicles and tractors,
discussed later in Section IV.B, provide
manufacturers the opportunity to
generate early, advanced, and
innovative technology credits.
(3) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van
Flexibility Provisions
The NPRM included specific
flexibility provisions for manufacturers
of HD pickups and vans, similar to
provisions adopted in the recent
rulemaking for light-duty car and truck
GHGs and fuel economy. The agencies
are finalizing the flexibilities as
proposed. In the heavy-duty pickup and
van category a manufacturer’s credit or
debit balance will be determined by
calculating their fleet average
performance and comparing it to the
manufacturer’s CO2 and fuel
consumption standards, as determined
by their fleet mix, for a given model
year. A target standard is determined for
each vehicle. These targets, weighted by
their associated production volumes, are
summed at the end of the model year to
derive the production volume-weighted
manufacturer annual fleet average
standard. A manufacturer will generate
credits if its fleet average CO2 or fuel
consumption level is lower than its
standard and will generate debits if its
fleet average CO2 or fuel consumption
level is above that standard. To receive
the benefit of the advanced technology
provisions, if the manufacturer’s fleet
includes conventional and advanced
technology vehicles, the manufacturer
will divide this fleet of vehicles into two
separate fleets for calculation of fleet
average credits. The end-of-year reports
will provide the appropriate data to
reconcile pre-compliance estimates with
final model year figures (see 40 CFR
1037.730 and 49 CFR 535.8).
The EPA credit calculation is
expressed in metric tons and considers
production volumes, the fleet standards
and performance, and a factor for the
vehicle useful life, as in the light-duty
GHG program. The NHTSA credit
calculation uses the fleet standard and
performance levels in fuel consumption
units (gallons per 100 miles), as
opposed to fuel economy units (mpg) as
done in the light-duty program, along
with the vehicle useful life, in miles,
allowing the expression of credits in
gallons. The total model year fleet credit
(debit) calculations will use the
following equations:
CO2 Credits (Mg) = [(CO2 Std ¥ CO2
Act) × Volume × UL] ÷ 1,000,000

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57244

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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 category
UL = the useful life for the regulatory
category (miles)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

As described above, HD pickup and
van manufacturers will be able to carry
forward deficits from their fleet-wide
average for three years before
reconciling the shortfall. Manufacturers
will be required to provide a plan in
their pre-model year reports showing
how they will resolve projected credit
deficits. However, just as in the engine
category, manufacturers will need to use
credits earned once those credits have
been generated to offset a shortfall
before those credits can be banked or
traded for additional model years. This
restriction reduces the chance of vehicle
manufacturers passing forward deficits
before reconciling their shortfalls and
exhausting those credits before
reconciling past deficits. Deficits will
need to be reconciled at the reporting
dates for model year three. Surplus
credits earned in the HD pickup and van
categories (like surplus credits for all
the other subcategories) will have a five
year expiration date. The agencies may
reconsider the 5 year credit life during
the next phase of the rulemaking.
Additional flexibilities for heavy-duty
pickup and van category are discussed
below in Section IV.B which provides
manufacturers the opportunity to
generate early, advanced and innovative
technology credits.
B. Additional Flexibility Provisions
The agencies proposed additional
provisions to facilitate reductions in
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
beginning in the 2014 model year.
While EPA and NHTSA believed the
ABT and flexibility structure would be
sufficient to encourage reduction efforts
by heavy-duty highway engine and
vehicle manufacturers, the agencies
understood that other efforts could
create additional opportunities for
manufacturers to reduce their GHG
emissions and fuel consumption. These
provisions would provide additional
incentives for manufacturers to innovate
and to develop new strategies and
cleaner technologies. The agencies
requested comment on these provisions,
as described below.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(1) Early Credit Option
The agencies proposed that
manufacturers of HD engines, HD
pickup trucks and vans, combination
tractors, and vocational vehicles be
eligible to generate early credits if they
demonstrate improvements in excess of
the standards prior to the model year
the standards become effective. As an
example, if a manufacturer’s MY 2013
subcategory of tractors exceeds the EPA
mandatory MY 2014 standard for those
same vehicles, then that manufacturer
could claim MY 2013 credits or ‘‘early
credits’’ to utilize in its ABT program
starting in the MY 2014. As noted in the
NPRM, the start dates for EPA’s GHG
standards and NHTSA’s fuel
consumption standards vary by
regulatory category (see Section II for
the model years when the standards
become effective), meaning that the
early credits provision, if selected by a
manufacturer, could begin during
different model years. The NPRM stated
that manufacturers would need to
certify their engines or vehicles to the
standards at least six months before the
start of the first model year of the
mandatory standards and that
limitations on the use of credits in the
ABT programs—i.e., limiting averaging
to within each vehicle or engine
averaging set—would apply for the early
credits as well. In the NPRM, NHTSA
and EPA requested comment on
whether a credit multiplier, specifically
a multiplier of 1.5, would be
appropriate to apply to early credits
from HD engines, combination tractors,
and vocational vehicles (but not to early
credits from HD pickups and vans), as
a greater incentive for early compliance.
See 75 FR at 74255.
The agencies received comments from
Cummins, DTNA, EMA/TMA, Navistar,
Eaton, Bosch, CBD and CALSTART
relating to these early credit provisions.
All of these commenters supported the
early credit provision for the most part,
but many requested that the agencies
eliminate some of the restrictions
relating to this provision. EMA/TMA
argued that MY 2012 should also be
considered for early credits and that the
requirement to certify six months before
the start of the first model year would
unnecessarily restrict manufacturers
from earning credits for technology
introduced within six months of the
respective model year. In addition,
EMA/TMA stated that requiring
certification of the entire averaging set
instead of individual vehicle
configurations would not allow for early
introduction of new technologies.
Cummins stated that the six month lead
time requirement should be removed

PO 00000

Frm 00140

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and that manufacturers be allowed to
earn early credits for individual engine
families rather than only for the entire
averaging set, stating that removal of
these restrictions would further benefit
the environment. CBD stated that early
credits should only be granted if the
emission and fuel consumption benefits
are in addition to or above the existing
performance levels and are quantifiable
and verifiable.
EPA and NHTSA have reviewed these
comments and decided to clarify the
proposed early credit provisions to
account for the above concerns. Early
credits are intended to be an incentive
to manufacturers to introduce more
efficient engines and vehicles earlier
than they otherwise would be. However,
the agencies do not want to provide a
windfall of credits to manufacturers that
may already have one or more products
that meet the standards. Therefore, the
final rules include the option for a
manufacturer to obtain early credits for
products if they certify their entire
subcategory at GHG emissions and fuel
consumption levels below the
standards. See 75 FR at 74255. Thus, for
example, early credits could be
generated for all HHD engines installed
in combination tractors. The agencies
are making a clarification in this action
that the manufacturers must certify their
entire subcategory, not necessarily their
entire averaging set, because the
averaging sets are broadened under the
final rulemaking from the categories
proposed in the NPRM. In addition, the
agencies are providing the flexibility for
combination tractor manufacturers to
obtain early credits for their additional
sales, as compared to their 2012 model
year sales, of SmartWay designated
combination tractors (which includes
high roof sleeper cabs only) in 2013
model year. The agencies view this
subcategory of vehicles as the only
segment of vehicles or engines where
the true additional reductions due to the
early credits can be quantified outside
of certifying an entire subcategory,
because the benefit is tied directly to the
increase in the SmartWay vehicles
manufactured in MY 2013 in excess of
those manufactured in MY 2012.
A manufacturer may opt to apply for
early credits from their 2013 model year
SmartWay designated combination
tractor sales by first calculating the
difference between the number of
SmartWay designated combination
tractors sold in 2012 MY versus 2013
model year. The increment in sales
determines the number of 2013 model
year SmartWay designated tractors
which can be used to certify for early
credits, at the manufacturer’s choice of
which vehicles to consider. The

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturer would then determine
each tractor configuration’s performance
by modeling in GEM, using each vehicle
configuration’s appropriate inputs for
coefficient of drag, tire rolling
resistance, idle reduction, weight
reduction, and vehicle speed limiter.
Next, the difference between a specific
tractor configuration’s performance and
the 2014 MY standard for the
appropriate regulatory subcategory (e.g.,
Class 8 sleeper cab high roof tractors)
would be calculated. The CO2 and fuel
consumption credits are calculated
using Equation IV–4 and IV–5.
As discussed above and in Section II,
manufacturers may opt into the NHTSA
voluntary program prior to when the
program becomes mandatory.
Manufacturers that opt in become
subject to NHTSA standards for all
regulatory categories. This provides
manufacturers the option of complying
with NHTSA fuel consumption
standards equivalent to the EPA
emission standards in order to
accumulate credits in the ABT program.
If a manufacturer opts into the EPA
early credit program, it may also opt
into an equivalent NHTSA early credit
program. In this case, the manufacturer
must enter the program concurrently
with the EPA program and will be
subject to the full MY 2014–2015/2016
NHTSA voluntary program. NHTSA
would like to clarify that for the early
credit provision, implementation must
occur in MY 2013 exactly as
implemented under the EPA emission
program, and not in the model year
immediately before the NHTSA
standards become mandatory (since
otherwise manufacturers would
generate credits under the fuel
consumption program as a result of
complying with mandatory GHG
standards—a windfall). Further, once a
manufacturer opts into the NHTSA
program it must stay in the program for
all the optional MYs and remain
standardized with the implementation
approach being used to meet the EPA
emission program. EPA and NHTSA
intend for manufacturers’ ABT credit
balances to remain equivalent wherever
possible.
The agencies also received comments
from EMA/TMA and Cummins
opposing the requirement to certify six
months prior to the first model year of
the mandatory standards for early
credits. The commenters argued and the
agencies agree that this restriction could
cause some delays in technology rollout
and are therefore not adopting this
provision. The agencies reviewed the
restriction and evaluated the light-duty
2012–2016 MY vehicle early credit
program. No such restriction exists for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

LD vehicles. We therefore believe that
this requirement is not necessary for our
implementation of the program. In
addition, we are adopting a provision
which allows manufacturers to generate
early credits for certifying less than a
full model year early.
Several commenters, including
DTNA, Edison Electric Institute, Eaton,
and Bosch, supported using a 1.5
multiplier for early credits, stating that
it would encourage early introduction of
technology. Cummins and UCS opposed
the multiplier stating that the
opportunity to earn credits at their
normal value should be sufficient
incentive for early compliance. The
agencies believe that this incentive will
further encourage faster implementation
of emission and fuel savings technology
and help to reduce the costs
manufacturers will incur in efforts to
comply with these rules. The agencies
have therefore decided to finalize a 1.5
multiplier for early credits earned in
MY 2013.299 However, the agencies note
that manufacturers may not apply an
additional 1.5 multiplier for advanced
technology credits which are also
certified as early credits.
With respect to heavy-duty pickups
and vans, the agencies proposed that
early credits could be generated on a
fleetwide basis by comparison of the
manufacturer’s 2013 heavy-duty pickup
and van fleet with the manufacturer’s
fleetwide targets, using the target
standards equations for the 2014 model
year. 75 FR at 74255. The agencies are
finalizing these provisions as proposed.
Under the structure for the fleet average
standards, this credit opportunity
entails certifying a manufacturer’s entire
HD pickup and van fleet in model year
2013. Industry commenters argued that
early credits should be calculated
against a target curve that is less
stringent than the 2014 curve. We
disagree. Because it is the first year of
a 5-year phase-in, the 2014 model year
has quite modest emissions and fuel
consumption reductions targets of only
15 percent of the 2018 model year
standards stringency. Targeting even
less significant improvements over the
baseline would unduly increase the
prospect for windfall credits by
individual manufacturers who may have
better than average baseline fleets. On
299 There is no multiplier for the early credit
provisions in the light-duty vehicle rule. However,
the situation there was more complicated, since
early credits needed to be correlated with credit
opportunities under the California GHG program for
light-duty vehicle, and also needed to be integrated
with statutory credits under EPCA/EISA for flexible
fuel vehicles. See 75 FR at 25440–443. Thus, the
light-duty vehicle rule early credit provisions are
not analogous to those adopted in this rule for the
heavy duty sector.

PO 00000

Frm 00141

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57245

the other hand, we are confident that
the early credit program, based as it is
on full fleet compliance with the MY
2014 targets, will not result in windfall
credits as it represents, in effect, a
complete bringing forward of the
program start date by one model year for
manufacturers who choose to pursue it.
Again, the agencies consider the
availability of early credits to be a
valuable complement to the overall
program to the extent that they
encourage early implementation of
effective technologies.
(2) Advanced Technology Credits
The NPRM proposed targeted
provisions that were expected to
promote the implementation of
advanced technologies. Specifically,
manufacturers that incorporate these
technologies would be eligible for
special credits that could be applied to
other heavy-duty vehicles or engines,
including those in other heavy-duty
categories. The credits are thus ‘special’
in that they can be applied across the
entire heavy-duty sector, unlike the
ABT and early credits discussed above
and the innovative technology credits
discussed in the following subsection.
The eligible technologies were:
• Hybrid powertrain designs that
include energy storage systems.
• Rankine cycle engines.300
• All-electric vehicles.
• Fuel cell vehicles.
NHTSA and EPA requested comment
on the list of technologies identified as
advanced technologies and whether
additional technologies should be added
to the list. In addition to the increased
fungibility of advanced technology
credits, NHTSA and EPA requested
comment on whether a credit
multiplier, specifically a multiplier of
1.5, would be appropriate to apply to
advanced technology credits, as a
greater incentive for the technologies’
introduction. See 75 FR at 74255.
MEMA asked that the agencies
expand the list of technologies that are
eligible for Advanced Technology
Credits to include advanced
transmission and drivetrain
technologies, tire and wheel accessories,
and advanced engine accessories
technologies (such as electronic air
control systems and clutched
turbocharged air compressor). Bendix
requested that weight reduction
approaches, improved transmission and
drivetrains, driver management and
coaching, and tire and wheel
improvements be allowed to receive
300 Although as noted in Section III above and in
Chapter 2 of the RIA, this technology is still under
development and so is not presently available.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57246

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

credit through the Advanced
Technology Credit Program.
The advanced technology credit
program is intended to encourage
development of technologies that are
not yet commercially available. In order
to provide incentives for the research
and development needed to introduce
these technologies, Advanced
Technology Credits can be applied to
any heavy-duty vehicle or engine and
are not limited to the vehicle or engine
categories generating the credit. Because
of this flexibility in the application of
these credits, it is important that the list
of eligible technologies only include
technologies that are not yet available in
the market. In addition, the technologies
must lend themselves to straight
forward methodologies for quantifying
emissions and fuel consumption
reductions. For some of the technologies
that MEMA and Bendix asked be
included in the program, such as
electrified accessories and improved
tires, the agencies have already
established a mechanism for quantifying
reductions associated with these
approaches. For example, the agencies
assumed in the regulatory impact
analysis that some electrified
accessories will be used to comply with
the regulations. Specifically, improved
water and oil pumps are assumed to be
used for 2014 LHD, MHD, and HHD FTP
and SET diesel engines to comply with
standards and if used, their performance
would be assessed in the engine
certification process. (See RIA Chapter
2.4). Any reductions in engine load and
resulting emissions and fuel
consumption resulting from accessory
electrification thus will be accounted for
in engine dynamometer testing.
However, other electrified accessories,
such as air conditioning do not impact
engine operation over the FTP and SET
cycles. As such, we are allowing credit
for tailpipe AC emissions (as opposed to
AC leakage) to be established through
the Innovative Technology Credit
Program described in section IV.B(3)
below. With regard to tire rolling
resistance improvements, light weight
wheels, and weight reduction associated
with the use of super single tires, these
are already part of the technology basis
for the standard for combination tractors
and are accounted for in the GEM, and
are also part of the technology basis for
the standards for heavy-duty pickups
and vans (See RIA Chapter 2.3). Some
improved transmissions—such as
automatic manuals—have been
available commercially for ten years and
as such, does not meet the criteria to be
included on the list of advanced
technologies. However, as described in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Section IV.B.(3), advanced
transmissions and drivetrains could be
eligible for credits in the Innovative
Technology Credit Program, and the
agencies acknowledge the importance of
including advanced transmissions and
drivetrains in the program. With regard
to weight reduction, the agencies are
allowing additional weight reduction
approaches to be used for tractors
through modeling using GEM and
through the innovative technology
program. And finally, for driver
management and coaching—while we
recognize that there could be significant
benefits to this, the difficulty in
establishing a baseline condition for
driver behavior limits the agencies’
ability to establish a reduction for this
approach at this time.
The agencies have decided not to
change the proposed list of technologies
evaluated as advanced technologies, but
are providing additional clarity in the
advanced technology list. The agencies
proposed that Rankine cycle engines be
included, but the agencies are adopting
the wording of Rankine cycle waste heat
recovery system attached to an engine.
The agencies received comments from
Bendix, Bosch, MEMA, Navistar,
Odyne, Green Truck Association, Eaton,
ArvinMeritor and Calstart, which
supported the 1.5 multiplier for
advanced technology credits. MEMA
argued that these added flexibilities are
absolutely necessary to help advanced
technologies penetrate the marketplace
and are the primary impetus to integrate
these technologies onto vehicles. The
agencies also received comments from
several stakeholders, including ACEEE
and Cummins opposing the 1.5
multiplier for advanced technology
credits. ACEEE argued that multipliers
should be avoided because they lessen
the total emission reductions by
allowing a greater increase in the
emissions of other vehicles than they
offset. After reviewing these comments,
the agencies have determined that the
relatively low volumes expected in this
time frame are likely to mitigate any
potential dilution of environmental
benefits and be outweighed by the
benefits of introduction of advanced
technology into the heavy-duty sector.
Further, the credit multiplier will
provide enough added benefit to the
nascent heavy-duty hybrid community
to help reduce barriers to market entry
for new technologies. Therefore, the
final rules include a multiplier of 1.5 for
advanced technology credits. However,
the agencies are also capping the
amount of advanced credits that can be
brought into any averaging set into any
model year at 60,000 Mg to prevent
market distortions.

PO 00000

Frm 00142

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(a) HD Pickup Truck and Van Hybrids
and all Electric Vehicles
For HD pickup and van hybrids, the
agencies proposed that testing would be
done using adjustments to the test
procedures developed for light-duty
hybrids. See 75 FR at 74255. NHTSA
and EPA also proposed that all-electric
and other zero tailpipe emission
vehicles produced in model years before
2014 be able to earn credits for use in
the 2014 and later HD pickup and van
compliance program, provided the
vehicles are covered by an EPA
certificate of conformity for criteria
pollutants. These credits would be
calculated based on the 2014 diesel
standard targets corresponding to the
vehicle’s work factor, and treated as
though they were earned in 2014 for
purposes of credit life. Manufacturers
would not have to early-certify their
entire HD pickup and van fleet in a
model year as for other early-complying
vehicles.
NHTSA and EPA also proposed that
model year 2014 and later EVs and other
zero tailpipe emission vehicles be
factored into the fleet average GHG and
fuel consumption calculations based on
the diesel standards targets for their
model year and work factor. A
manufacturer also has the option to
subtract these vehicles out of its fleet
and determine their performance as
advanced technology credits that can be
used for all other HD vehicle categories,
but these credits would, of course, not
then be reflected in the manufacturer’s
pickup and van category credit balance.
Commenters generally supported the
introduction of hybrid and zero tailpipe
emission vehicles, but did not comment
on the specific provisions discussed
above. The agencies also proposed in
determining advanced technology
credits for electric and zero emission
vehicles that in the credits equation the
actual emissions and fuel consumption
performance be set to zero (i.e. that
emissions be considered on a tailpipe
basis exclusively). We are finalizing
these provisions as proposed.
The proposal also solicited comment
on the accounting of upstream GHG
emissions. Some commenters argued
that EPA should maintain its traditional
focus in mobile source rulemakings on
vehicle tailpipe emissions and leave the
consideration of GHG emissions from
upstream fuel production and
distribution-related sources such as
refineries and power plants to EPA
regulatory programs which could focus
specifically on those sources. Others
argued that, since EPA accounts for
upstream GHG emissions in its benefits
assessments, the agency should reflect

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
upstream GHG emissions impacts in
vehicle compliance values as well. After
considering these comments, the
agencies have decided to base the credit
accounting on tailpipe emissions only.
The agencies believe that introduction
of EV technology into the heavy-duty
pickup and van sector in these model
years will be limited and that incentives
are important to encourage such
introduction. Similarly, the agencies
believe that use of EV technology for
these vehicles in these model years will
be infrequent so that there is no need to
adopt a cap whereby upstream
emissions would be counted after a
certain volume of sales. See 75 FR at
25434–438 (adopting such a cap for
light-duty vehicles under the 2012–2016
MY GHG standards). We also recognize
that the ongoing EPA/NHTSA
rulemaking to reduce GHGs and fuel
consumption in MY 2017 and later
light-duty vehicles is examining this
issue, and may yield information and
policy direction relevant to the planned
follow-on rulemaking for the heavy-duty
sector.
(b) Vocational Vehicle and Tractor
Hybrids
For vocational vehicles or
combination tractors incorporating
hybrid powertrains, we proposed two
methods for establishing the number of
credits generated—chassis
dynamometer and engine dynamometer
testing—each of which is discussed
next. As discussed in the NPRM the
agencies are not aware of models that
have been adequately peer reviewed
with data that can assess this technology

without the conclusion of a comparison
test of the actual physical product.
(i) Chassis Dynamometer Evaluation
For hybrid certification to generate
credits we proposed to use chassis
testing as an effective way to compare
the CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption performance of
conventional and hybrid vehicles. See
75 FR at 74256. We proposed that
heavy-duty hybrid vehicles be certified
using ‘‘A to B’’ vehicle chassis
dynamometer testing. This concept
allows a hybrid vocational vehicle
manufacturer to directly quantify the
benefit associated with use of its hybrid
system on an application-specific basis.
The concept would entail testing the
conventional vehicle, identified as ‘‘A’’,
using the cycles as defined in Section V.
The ‘‘B’’ vehicle would be the hybrid
version of vehicle ‘‘A’’. The ‘‘B’’ vehicle
would need to be the same exact vehicle
model as the ‘‘A’’ vehicle. As an
alternative, if no specific ‘‘A’’ vehicle
exists for the hybrid vehicle that is the
exact vehicle model, the most similar
vehicle model would need to be used
for testing. We proposed to define the
‘‘most similar vehicle’’ as a vehicle with
the same footprint, same payload, same
testing capacity, the same engine power
system, the same intended service class,
and the same coefficient of drag. We did
not receive any adverse comments to
this approach and are therefore adopting
the same criteria as proposed.
To determine the benefit associated
with the hybrid system for GHG
performance, the weighted CO2
emissions results from the chassis test of
each vehicle would define the benefit as
described below:

57247

1. (CO2_A ¥ CO2_B)/(CO2_A) = __
(Improvement Factor)
2. Improvement Factor × GEM CO2
Result_B = ___ (g/ton mile benefit)
Similarly, the benefit associated with
the hybrid system for fuel consumption
would be determined from the weighted
fuel consumption results from the
chassis tests of each vehicle as
described below:
3. (Fuel Consumption_A—Fuel
Consumption_B)/(Fuel Consumption_A)
= ___ (Improvement Factor)
4. Improvement Factor × GEM Fuel
Consumption Result_B = ___ (gallon/
1,000 ton mile benefit)
The credits for the hybrid vehicle
would be calculated as described in the
ABT program except that the result from
Equation 2 and Equation 4 above
replaces the (Std-FEL) value.
The agencies proposed two sets of
duty cycles to evaluate the benefit
depending on the vehicle application to
assess hybrid vehicle performance—
without and with PTO systems. The key
difference between these two sets of
vehicles is that one set (e.g., delivery
trucks) does not operate a PTO while
the other set (e.g., bucket and refuse
trucks) does.
The first set of duty cycles would
apply to the hybrid powertrains used to
improve the motive performance of the
vehicles without a PTO system (such as
pickup and delivery trucks). The typical
operation of these vehicles is very
similar to the overall drive cycles final
in Section II. Therefore, the agencies are
finalizing to use the same vehicle drive
cycle weightings for testing these
vehicles, as shown in Table IV–1.

TABLE IV–1—FINAL DRIVE CYCLE WEIGHTINGS FOR HYBRID VEHICLES WITHOUT PTO
Transient
(percent)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Vocational Vehicles .........................................................................................................
Day Cab Tractors ............................................................................................................
Sleeper Cab Tractors ......................................................................................................

The second set of duty cycles apply
to testing hybrid vehicles used in
applications such as utility and refuse
trucks which tend to have additional
benefits associated with use of stored
energy, in terms of avoiding main
engine operation and related CO2
emissions and fuel consumption during
PTO operation. To appropriately
address benefits, exercising the
conventional and hybrid vehicles using
their PTO would help to quantify the
benefit to GHG emissions and fuel
consumption reductions. The duty cycle

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

proposed to quantify the hybrid CO2
and fuel consumption impact over this
broader set of operation was the three
primary drive cycles plus a PTO duty
cycle. The PTO duty cycle as proposed
took into account the sales impact and
population of utility trucks and refuse
haulers. As described in RIA Chapter 3,
the agencies proposed to add an
additional PTO cycle to measure the
improvement achieved for this type of
hybrid powertrain application. The
agencies welcomed comments on the

PO 00000

Frm 00143

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

55 mph
(percent)

75%
19%
5%

9%
17%
9%

65 mph
(percent)
16%
64%
86%

final drive cycle weightings and the
final PTO cycle.
The agencies received comments from
Cummins stating that the proposed
weighting of the PTO cycle used a timebased weighting instead of a VMT-based
weighting. For the final rules, the
agencies derived new PTO cycle
weighting by calculating the average
speed of a vehicle during the motive
portion of its operation, as detailed in
RIA Chapter 3.7.1.1. The average speed
is used in a conversion factor to convert
the emissions from the PTO operation

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57248

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

measured in grams per hour into grams
per ton-mile. A number of comments
were received on the proposed hybrid
chassis testing approach.
The agencies received comments from
engine manufacturers, hybrid
manufacturers, and industry
associations, as well as nongovernmental organizations related to
proper characterization of hybrid
performance. To address concerns
raised by commenters regarding hybrid
testing several updates have been made
to clarify a hybrid engine and/or system
for pre-transmission, post-transmission,
and chassis dynamometer testing. As
described in 40 CFR 1036.801, a hybrid
engine or hybrid power train means an
engine or powertrain that includes
energy storage features other than a
conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel. Supplemental
electrical batteries and hydraulic
accumulators are examples of hybrid
energy storage systems. A hybrid
vehicle is defined in 40 CFR 1037.801
and it means a vehicle that includes
energy storage features (other than a
conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel) in addition to an
internal combustion engine or other
engine using consumable chemical fuel.
The duty cycles used for testing hybrid
systems as either the post-transmission
or complete chassis configuration will
be retained from the proposal, however
the weighting factors have been adjusted
so that the performance of applications
expected to be hybridized in the near
term is better reflected. The testing
provisions for evaluating the
performance including the driver model
definition, vehicle model, and overall
cycle performance have been enhanced
as described in 40 CFR 1036.525 and 40
CFR 1037.525. Additionally, provisions
for evaluating power take-off
performance improvement have been
addressed for charge-sustaining testing.
For those hybrid systems which utilize
shore power (e.g. plug-in hybrids), an
innovative technology approach in
which the certifier characterizes the
performance associated with the
operation of the system in a chargedepleting and charge-sustaining mode is
most appropriate given the potential for
variability in performance between
applications and system designs. To
address the issue of parity between
methods it should be clarified that the
approach taken for hybrid testing is
consistent for chassis cycle based
testing. This method used for both posttransmission and complete vehicle
chassis testing is the development of an
improvement factor which is then
related to the base system performance.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

The pre-transmission approach relies on
work based assessment of performance
as with the current engine standards.
Comments were received from EMA/
TMA, ACEEE, stating that the hybrid
definition and test methodology needs
to be more clearly defined. Cummins
and EMA/TMA asked that the control
volumes for the chassis test procedure
be specified. Allison stated that the
baseline configuration in A to B testing
needs clarification—as an example they
said it is not clear if the baseline vehicle
needs to be the same model year as the
hybrid configuration. They added that it
is unclear how to account for hotel or
accessory loads.
EMA/TMA, Allison, Odyne, and
American Trucking Association said
that the hybrid drive cycles do not
match real world hybrid applications,
and as such, will result in an
underestimation of benefits resulting
from hybrid use. Some or all of these
commenters asked that a hybrid drive
cycle be developed that consists mainly
of transient cycle, increased idle time,
low steady state operation, and high
acceleration and deceleration rates.
EMA/TMA said the proposed cycle—the
CARB heavy-heavy duty truck transient
mode cycle, was developed as a
composite cycle based on a wide range
of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles but
does not reflect the high acceleration
and deceleration of vehicles used in
urban applications and which is typical
for hybrid vehicles and does not reflect
the level of acceleration and
deceleration typical of hybrids. Eaton
asked that the agencies establish four
separate test cycles for hybrids rather
than two that more closely match what
actual hybrids do in use. Hino said that
energy recapture from regenerative
braking needs to be built into the test
cycle and as currently designed it is not.
Hino also urged the agencies to create
test cycles that capture variations in
different types of hybrids. Cummins
said that more representative vehicle
test cycles should be developed based
on the FTP and SET to ensure that the
test cycles are functionally equivalent
between vehicles and engines to ensure
fair evaluation of the technology. ICCT
articulated the same point on the need
for parity between engine and vehicle
test cycles.
EMA/TMA, DTNA, and Cummins
asked that manufacturers not be
required to conduct coastdown testing
for hybrid vehicles to establish road
loads for each type of vehicle. Instead,
they asked that the agencies define
default road load values for
manufacturers to use for hybrids. EMA/
TMA said that conducting coastdown
tests is expensive. They also argued that

PO 00000

Frm 00144

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

road load is irrelevant to determining
hybrid performance since the chassis
dynamometer method requires a
comparison of a vehicle that is identical
in all respects except those factors
directly relating to the hybrid
powertrain.
Cummins, ICCT, and Center for Clean
Air Policy expressed general support for
chassis dynamometer testing. Allison
said that the lack of dynamometer
infrastructure could limit the ability of
manufacturers to certify and get hybrids
into the market place. BAE said that
hybrids should not have to be tested on
a chassis dynamometer.
Given the options available for
certification of hybrid systems, the
constraints on available infrastructure
for traditional chassis testing and
coastdown testing has been mitigated.
Should a manufacturer contemplate
chassis testing or powerpack testing to
assess hybrid vehicle performance,
coastdown testing will still be needed
for vocational applications to develop
the road load values. To address
concerns regarding the baseline vehicle
definition, the following clarifications
are provided. The baseline vehicle must
be identical to the hybrid, with the
exception being the presence of the
hybrid vehicle. Should an identical
vehicle not be available as a baseline,
the baseline vehicle and hybrid vehicle
must have equivalent power or the
hybrid vehicle must have greater power.
Additionally, the sales volume of the
conventional vehicle from the previous
model year (the vehicle being displaced
by the hybrid), must be substantially
such that there can be a reasonable basis
to believe the hybrid certification and
related improvement factor are
authentic. Should no previous year
baseline or otherwise existing baseline
vehicle exist, the manufacturer shall
produce or provide a prototype
equivalent test vehicle. For pretransmission hybrid certification,
drivetrain components will not be
included in the testing, as is the case for
criteria pollutant engine certification
today on a brake-specific basis.
Manufacturers are expected to submit A
to B test results for the hybrid vehicle
certification being sought for each
vehicle family. Manufacturers may
choose the worst case performer as a
basis for the entire family. The agencies
continue to expect to use existing
precedent regarding treatment of
accessory loads for purposes of chassis
testing. Accessory loads for A to B
testing will not need to be accounted for
differently for hybrid A to B chassis
testing than for criteria pollutant chassis
testing. Based on the description of the
hybrid engines and vehicles as found in

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

40 CFR 1036 and 1037.801, the agencies
will not restrict hybrid configuration
certification. The expectation is that
hybrid engines and vehicles certified
under the provisions for GHG will use
certified engines. As stated previously,
based on data provided by commenters
and industry associations, the agencies
have revised the duty cycles for
complete vehicle and post-transmission
powerpack testing by revising the
weighting factors such that the
performance of the hybrid system is
more appropriately characterized. The
new weighting factors result in a
performance assessment that more
closely matches performance seen inuse by many of the applications most
likely to be hybridized in the near-term.
At this time the requirement to conduct
coastdown testing remains in place for
the vehicle to be chassis tested or for the
simulated vehicle in powertrain testing.
Absent appropriate coefficients that
accurately reflect vehicle performance,
making an assumption about vehicle
performance could lead to erroneous
results and/or errors in the performance
assessment. The agencies have provided
numerous flexibilities, so the options
available to those manufacturers who
choose to certify hybrid engines or
vehicles are not constrained to a single
test method for which limited
infrastructure may exist.
(ii) Engine Dynamometer Evaluation
The engine test procedure proposed
in the NPRM for hybrid evaluation
involved exercising the conventional
engine and hybrid-engine system based
on an engine testing strategy. The basis
for the system control volume, which
serves to determine the valid test article,
would need to be the most accurate
representation of real world
functionality. An engine test
methodology would be considered valid
to the extent the test is performed on a
test article that does not mischaracterize
criteria pollutant performance or actual
system performance. Energy inputs
should not be based on simulation data
which is not an accurate reflection of
actual real world operation. Pretransmission test protocols will include
both the engine and the hybrid system
for assessing GHG performance,
however EPA is not changing criteria
pollutant certification at this time for
engines. In effect, the engine will need
to be certified for criteria pollutant
performance, while the engine and
hybrid system in combination may be
certified for GHG performance. It is
clearly important to be sure credits are
generated based on known physical
systems. This includes testing using the
appropriate recovered vehicle kinetic

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

energy. Additionally, the duty cycle
over which this engine-hybrid system
would be exercised would need to
reflect the use of the application, while
not promoting a proliferation of duty
cycles which prevent a standardized
basis for comparing hybrid system
performance. The agencies proposed the
use of the Heavy-duty FTP cycle for
evaluation of hybrid vehicles, which is
the same test cycle final for engines
installed in vocational vehicles. For
powerpack testing, which includes the
engine and hybrid systems in a pretransmission format, the engine based
testing is applicable for determination of
brake-specific emissions benefit versus
the engine standard. For posttransmission powertrain systems and
vehicles, the comparison evaluation
based on the Improvement Factor and
the GEM result based on a vehicle drive
trace in a powertrain test cell or chassis
dynamometer test cell seem to
accurately reflect the performance
improvements associated with these test
configurations. It is important that
introduction of clean technology be
incentivized without compromising the
program intent of real world
improvements in GHG and fuel
consumption performance. In the NPRM
the agencies asked for comments on the
most appropriate test procedures to
accurately reflect the performance
improvement associated with hybrid
systems tested using these or other
protocols. 75 FR at 74257.
A number of comments were received
on the proposed engine testing
approaches. Comments were received
from EMA/TMA, Cummins, Allison,
Hino, and ICCT, stating that the hybrid
test methodology needs to be more
clearly defined. EMA/TMA, Cummins,
and Allison stated that the agencies
have not defined what they will accept
as a ‘‘complete hybrid system’’ and a
clearer definition for hybrids needs to
be developed. For example, Allison
stated that the DRIA says that a
‘‘complete hybrid system’’ can exclude
the transmission. They added that a
hybrid system must include a
transmission. EMA/TMA stated that
simulated engine dynamometer testing
should include hybrid components.
EMA/TMA stated that the agencies’
proposal that part 1065 may be
amended, but did not provide specifics
on how it might be amended. They
suggested the following changes to part
1065: (1) All engine and hybrid
components capable of providing or
recovering traction power be included
in the control volume; (2) use of hybrid
system torque curves rather than engine
torque curves; (3) reference to J2711 for

PO 00000

Frm 00145

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57249

management of energy storage devices;
(4) adhere to conventional calculation of
emissions with only positive work
counted; and (5) provide an estimate of
maximum available kinetic energy in
1065 to ensure that energy capture is
consistent with real world operation of
hybrids.
Hino said that energy recapture from
regenerative braking needs to be built
into the test cycle and as currently
designed it is not. Regenerative braking
provides fuel consumption and GHG
reduction benefits. Eaton said that the
proposed powerpack testing does not
capture true performance of hybrid
vehicles. As noted above, ICCT
commented on the need for parity
between engine and vehicle test cycles.
They supported hardware-in-the-loop
post-transmission testing, but only if an
equivalent cycle is used as for chassis
testing.
Concerns were raised by hybrid
system manufacturers that the potential
for a competitive advantage could exist
for hybrids using different methods for
certification based solely on the test
method chosen. For determination of
the allowable brake energy that may be
used for the test cycle with hybrid
engines, it is important to provide
consistency between test methods. For
that reason EPA is setting a brake energy
fraction limit based on the engine FTP
duty cycle which would apply to the
pre-transmission hybrid and defining
that as the limit for the posttransmission maximum available brake
energy as well. The brake energy
fraction will need to be determined
based on the engine performance and
the brake energy fraction limit will
apply for all powertrain test cell
(powerpack) testing. This limit on the
brake energy fraction will be ratio of
negative work to positive work as a
function of engine rated power.
The agencies are also finalizing that
the proposed duty cycles considered for
the proposal will continue to be used
with this final action. The agencies
proposed a transient duty cycle, a 55mile-per-hour steady state cruise and a
65-mile-per-hour steady state cruise.
The transient duty cycle, which has
been corrected to address a concern
related to shift events, is essentially the
same transient cycle proposed in the
NPRM with the exception that it
minimizes inappropriate shift events.
Additionally, the steady state cycles
proposed by the Agencies remain
essentially unchanged. The
modification being adopted with today’s
final action is to address the distribution
of the emissions impact associated with
each duty cycle. However, in response
to the concerns detailed above and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57250

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

raised by engine manufacturers, hybrid
system manufacturers, environmental
groups, and NGOs regarding the lack of
transient operation in the hybrid cycles,
the agencies are finalizing a change in
the weighting of the hybrid vehicle
cycles. The weighting factors will be
changed such that a greater emphasis on
the type of transient activity seen as
more characteristic of hybrid
applications will be evident. The new
weighting factors between duty cycles
for hybrid certification (without PTO)
will be 75 percent for the transient, 9
percent for the 55 mph cruise cycle, and
16 percent for the 65 mph cruise cycle.
The basis for this change may be seen
in the memorandum to OAR Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162 which
describes the data set used to describe
real world vehicle performance.
Additionally, provisions for addressing
brake energy fraction have been
provided in 40 CFR 1036.525 for hybrid
engine testing. The control volume for
testing hybrid systems for GHG and fuel
consumption assessment has included
all hybrid power systems and for
powertrain testing that is posttransmission, simulated components
including tires and regenerative braking
impacts. Additionally, provisions for
accounting for the hybrid system and
engine torque curve are available in the
hybrid test procedures of 40 CFR
1036.525.
In addition, the final rules allow
manufacturers that want to certify a
hybrid on a different test cycle than the
cycles described above for chassis and
engine dynamometer testing instead
make a demonstration using the
procedures set out in the Innovative
Technology Credit provisions. Likewise,
a manufacturer seeking to certify a
hybrid using an alternative approach,
such as simulation modeling, would
need to follow the procedure described
in the Innovative Technology Credit
section. However, manufacturers whose
alternative hybrid testing procedure is
approved through the Innovative
Technology Credit Program would
receive credits through the Advanced
Technology Credit Program so such
credits would be fungible across all
vehicle and engine categories and
would receive the 1.5 multiplier.
EMA/TMA also asked that in addition
to the above-described engine, chassis,
and powerpack testing, other yet-to-bedefined methods should be allowed so
that a novel application of hybrids can
be evaluated for credit. They included
hydraulic, kinetic, electro-mechanical,
and genset hybrids as examples of
additional configurations that should be
accommodated by additional test cycles.
Allison asked how emissions and fuel

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

consumption changes associated with
ageing of hybrid systems will be
accounted for. ACEEE encouraged the
agencies to finalize the three approaches
outlined in the NPRM for hybrid testing
in the final rules.
Cummins supported three proposed
options for evaluating hybrids. ICCT
supported option 1 and 3, but not 2.
ICCT stated that EPA and NHTSA need
to ensure that: (1) Each hybrid test
method/test cycle combination requires
the same amount of total energy to run
the cycle (for a specific vehicle weight),
(2) each test method/test cycle
combination has the same amount of
total energy available for capture as
regeneration by a hybrid system, and (3)
that this available regeneration energy
appears in similar increments in each
test method/test cycle combination.
In allowing for three options for
certification of hybrids, two of those
options require the use of a baseline
vehicle. The post-transmission hybrid
certification and the chassis
dynamometer certification options are
designed to allow for an assessment of
the improvement offered by
incorporating a hybrid system into the
vehicle. Determination of an
improvement factor for hybrid vehicle
performance is significantly influenced
by the selection of the baseline vehicle,
test article ‘‘A’’. The Agencies received
comments from engine and hybrid
system manufacturers that the options
for selection of the baseline should be
carefully considered to avoid an
unintended consequence of limited real
world improvement due to selection of
a baseline that was inappropriate.
Several concerns regarding an
inappropriate baseline were broached
including selection of technology that is
not actually available in the market,
selection of baseline technology that is
not representative of the application(s)
either by sales volume or use, or
selection of a baseline that in other ways
provides an advantage to a manufacturer
which creates an unfair competitive
advantage. To address the concern of
improvement factors that have a basis in
reality and demonstrate real world
improvements, as well as to continue to
create incentives for the introduction of
new technology the Agencies are
addressing the issue of the baseline
selection, as well as the determination
of a ‘‘most similar’’ vehicle basis in the
case where there may not be an existing
production vehicle upon which the
hybrid vehicle was based.
In making the determination of an
appropriate baseline, four options were
considered by the agencies. These
options included a fixed baseline weight
and definition by vehicle class, a non-

PO 00000

Frm 00146

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

hybrid baseline intended for production
vehicle and transmission system, a best
in class conventional application, or
vehicle based on highest sales volume.
Each of these options has benefits and
each raises potential concerns. The
determination based solely on a single
vehicle by class has the advantage of
providing a fixed baseline the entire
industry may easily target for assessing
improvements. It raises concerns
regarding the suitability of the vehicle
selection for all applications in the
weight class, as well as the
appropriateness of the selection based
on performance across the full range of
vehicles and weights in the weight
class. The ‘‘intended for production’’
conventional vehicle baseline ensures
the baseline and hybrid vehicle pair will
represent a real improvement for the
specific application. The challenge
exists when the conventional vehicle
version of the hybrid may not exist.
Another issue would exist if the
conventional vehicle in the pair had
performance characteristics such that
the hybrid version does not represent
significant improvements beyond other
conventional vehicles. The best in class
baseline vehicle approach provides
some assurance that the improvement
factor generated by the hybrid vehicle or
system would in fact represent
introduction of advanced technology
with improvements beyond existing
conventional technology. The
opportunity for confusion that exists
with a best in class determination
includes matching all of the appropriate
performance metrics with the
appropriate applications in a way that is
consistent with how the market values
those improvements. This can become a
moving target which could represent an
ever evolving design target and
eventually prove difficult for the
Agencies to implement in a way that
ensured a level playing field. The last
option attempts to include the benefits
of the previous options, while
maintaining the clarity needed for
manufacturers to design and build with
a clear understanding of design targets.
The highest sales volume application by
weight class for the previous model year
ensures benefits are measured based on
how the market values performance.
This has the potential to avoid
ambiguity regarding which vehicle
technology should serve as the baseline
and it addresses a concern raised by
some commenters regarding the use of
a baseline vehicle that clearly is not a
class leader. The presumption being that
the market will value the conventional
technology that provides the best value
over the lifetime of the vehicle for its

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

intended service class and application.
This approach is intended to be used in
conjunction with the basic premise that
the ‘‘A’’ vehicle will be the vehicle most
similar to the hybrid ‘‘B’’ vehicle.
Should no apparent baseline be
available, the vehicle being displaced by
the hybrid may be determined based on
several characteristics including but not
limited to vehicle class, vehicle
application, and complete power system
rated power (e.g. engine rated power for
the base vehicle versus combined rated
power for the engine-hybrid system).
The agencies will continue to use the
primary method of highest sales
volume, by application and vehicle
weight class in its assessment of the
manufacturers selection of a baseline,
however should there be a new
application introduced with no
apparent existing baseline, the closest
baseline vehicle may be selected by the
manufacturer and will be evaluated by
the agencies.
The commenters’ concerns will
continue to be reviewed by the agencies
as the program is implemented;
however, the approach suggested may
not be appropriate across every method.
To the extent that the pre-transmission
testing is a work based assessment
consistent with today’s engine testing,
we are remaining consistent with
current practices in which the engine
certification has applicability across
applications. With that said we have
defined a regenerative brake limit that
will align the relative energy
(regenerative to tractive) across all three
methods. This can be found in 40 CFR
1036.525.
Given the use of the same duty cycles
for both post-transmission and chassis
dynamometer testing, we are capturing
the performance of the powertrain by
exercising it in the same manner for
both methods, so the methods will be
equivalent in all three aspects that were
mentioned by the commenter.
(3) Innovative Technology Credits
The agencies proposed a credit
opportunity intended to apply to new
and innovative technologies that reduce
fuel consumption and CO2 emissions,
but for which the reduction benefits are
not captured over the test procedure,
including the GEM, used to determine
compliance with the standards (i.e., the
benefits are ‘‘off-cycle’’). See 75 FR at
74257–58; see also 75 FR 25438–25440
where EPA adopted a similar credit
program for MY 2012–2016 light-duty
vehicles.
The agencies explained in the NPRM
that EPA and NHTSA are aware of some
emerging and innovative technologies
and concepts in various stages of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

development with CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption reduction potential
that might not be adequately captured
on the final certification test cycles or
are not inputs to the GEM, and that
some of these technologies might merit
some additional CO2 and fuel
consumption credit generating potential
for the manufacturer. Eligible innovative
technologies are those technologies that
are newly introduced in one or more
vehicle models or engines, but that are
not yet widely implemented in the
heavy-duty fleet—and more specifically,
not yet widely implemented in the
averaging set for which the credit is
sought. Examples of such technologies
mentioned in the NPRM include
predictive cruise control, gear-down
protection, active aerodynamic features,
and adjustable ride height. Innovative
technologies can include known,
commercialized technologies if they are
not yet widely utilized in a particular
heavy-duty sector subcategory. Any
credits for these technologies would
need to be based on real-world fuel
consumption and GHG reductions that
can be measured with verifiable test
methods using representative driving
conditions typical of the engine or
vehicle application.
In the NPRM, the agencies stated that
we would not consider technologies to
be eligible for these credits if the
technology has a significant impact on
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption
over the primary test cycles, or if it is
one of the technologies on whose
performance the various vehicle and
engine standards are premised. The
agencies believe it is appropriate to
provide an incentive to encourage the
introduction of these types of
technologies and that a credit
mechanism is an effective way to do so.
Further, there needs to be a mechanism
to account for the emission reductions
and fuel efficiencies resulting when an
innovative technology is used. The
agencies proposed that this optional
credit opportunity would be available
through the 2018 model year reflecting
that technologies which are now
uncommon may be more widely utilized
by then, but the agencies sought
comment on the need to extend the
ability to earn credits beyond the model
year 2018. See generally 75 FR at
74257–258.
EPA and NHTSA also proposed that
credits generated using innovative
technologies be restricted within the
subcategory averaging set where the
credit was generated but requested
comments on whether these innovative
technology credits should be fungible
across vehicle and engine categories.

PO 00000

Frm 00147

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57251

The agencies also proposed that
manufacturers quantify CO2 and fuel
consumption reductions associated with
the use of the off-cycle technologies
such that the credits could be applied
based on the metrics (such as g/mile and
gal/100 mile for pickup trucks, g/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 data
would be submitted to EPA and
NHTSA, and would be subject to a
public evaluation process in which the
public would have opportunity for
comment. See 75 FR at 74258. We
proposed that the technologies upon
which the credits are based would be
subject to full useful life compliance
provisions, as with other emissions
controls. Unless the manufacturer can
demonstrate that the technology would
not be subject to in-use deterioration
over the useful life of the vehicle, the
manufacturer would have to account for
deterioration in the estimation of the
credits in order to ensure that the
credits are based on real in-use
emissions reductions over the life of the
vehicle.
In cases where the benefit of a
technological approach to reducing CO2
emissions and fuel consumption cannot
be adequately represented using existing
test cycles, it was proposed that EPA
and NHTSA would review and approve
as appropriate test procedures and
analytical approaches to estimate the
effectiveness of the technology for the
purpose of generating credits. The
demonstration program would have to
be robust, verifiable, and capable of
demonstrating the real-world emissions
benefit of the technology with strong
statistical significance.
Finally, the agencies explained in the
NPRM that the CO2 and fuel
consumption benefit of some
technologies may have to be
demonstrated with a modeling
approach. In other cases manufacturers
might have to design on-road test
programs that are statistically robust
and based on real world driving
conditions. As with the similar
procedure for alternative off-cycle
credits under the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle program, the agencies
would include an opportunity for public
comment as part of any approval
process.
The agencies requested comments on
the proposed approach for off-cycle
innovative technology emissions
credits, including comments on how

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57252

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

best to structure the program. EPA and
NHTSA particularly requested
comments on how the case-by-case
approach to assessing off-cycle
innovative technology credits could best
be designed, including ways to ensure
the verification of real-world emissions
benefits and to ensure transparency in
the process of reviewing manufacturer’s
proposed test methods.
The agencies received numerous
comments relating to all aspects of the
innovative technology credit flexibility
provision. The vast majority of the
commenters supported this provision as
proposed, but requested that certain
aspects be further clarified, so the
agencies are adopting the full provision
as proposed and providing further
discussion that addresses and clarifies
the provision in response to comments.
We also note generally that many
comments asserting that the GEM or
certain of the engine standards failed to
account for certain types of emission
reductions associated with technology
improvements did not consider the
availability of innovative technologies
for such technologies. These comments
are addressed specifically in the
Response to Comment Document or
elsewhere in this preamble.
A number of organizations, including
DTNA, MEMA, Navistar, Green Truck
Association, Eaton, ACEEE, and
NESCAUM, commented that
technologies such as advanced
transmissions, engine cooling strategies,
idle reduction, light-weight components
(including light-weight engines), and
advanced drivelines should be able to
receive credit through the innovative
technology program. The agencies agree
with these commenters. The NPRM did
not provide a specific list of
technologies that the agencies would
consider ‘‘innovative’’ because the
agencies intended that an innovative
technology could be any technology not
in widespread use in the subcategory
that can be proven to reduce CO2
emissions and fuel consumption but for
which the benefits are not captured
utilizing the FTP procedures, SET
procedures and GEM methodology used
to determine compliance with the
emission and fuel consumption
standards. Any of the suggested
technologies could be considered as an
innovative technology if the associated
emission and fuel consumption benefit
has not already been considered to have
widespread use in the subcategory, if
the associated emission and fuel savings
can be measured and validated, and if
the technology and measurement
methodology have been approved by the
agencies. NHTSA and EPA will
determine the impact of the technology

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

and each agency in turn will accept the
credits either jointly or independently
depending upon whether the technology
has a direct bearing upon GHG or fuel
consumption performance.
A number of commenters, including
Bendix, Bosch, Cummins, EMA/TMA,
Eaton, DTNA, Navistar, Volvo,
ArvinMeritor and USC requested that
the innovative technology process and
procedures be more clearly structured
and defined. Bendix requested that the
agencies prescribe specific processes
and procedures in the final rules by
which innovative technologies can be
submitted for review and approval.
EMA/TMA requested that the agencies
provide guidance on the certification
process, and suggested that existing fuel
consumption test procedures developed
jointly by the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) and the Technology &
Maintenance Council (TMC),
specifically that the Type II and Type III
procedures be used. Eaton requested
that the agencies identify test methods
that can be used for certification in
order to provide transparency and
certainty, and promote early technology
introduction. In response to these
comments, the agencies have further
defined the process in the final action.
In cases where the benefit of a
technological approach to reducing CO2
emissions and fuel consumption cannot
be adequately represented using existing
test cycles, EPA and NHTSA will review
and approve test procedures and
analytical approaches as appropriate to
estimate the effectiveness of the
technology for the purpose of generating
credits. The innovative technologies
will be evaluated in an A-to-B
comparison. The baseline engine and/or
vehicle configuration must represent a
configuration which is equivalent to the
engine and/or vehicle with the
innovative technology in terms of the
other aspects of the engine and/or
vehicle to prevent double counting of
emissions reductions or gaming.
Since innovative credits will be
available for use within the same
averaging set as the engine or vehicle
which employs the innovative
technology (for reasons explained
below), the agencies are defining
innovative credit approaches by
regulatory category.
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van
Innovative Technology Credits
For HD pickups and vans, EPA and
NHTSA proposed that they would
review and approve manufacturerprovided test procedures and analytical
approaches to estimate the effectiveness
of a technology for the purpose of
generating credits. The proposal also

PO 00000

Frm 00148

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

expressed the view that the 5-cycle
approach currently used in EPA’s fuel
economy labeling program for light-duty
vehicles may provide a suitable test
regime, provided it can be reliably
conducted on the dynamometer and can
capture the impact of the off-cycle
technology (see 71 FR 77872, December
27, 2006). EPA established the 5-cycle
test methods to better represent realworld factors impacting fuel economy,
including higher speeds and more
aggressive driving, colder temperature
operation, and the use of air
conditioning. Because we have not
firmly established the suitability of the
5-cycle approach for HD pickups and
vans at this time, and we received no
comments or data helping to establish it,
we are not adopting provisions to
specify its use. However, it remains a
candidate approach that manufacturers
may pursue in making their
demonstrations for innovative
technology credits, described below.
Manufacturer data submitted to the
agencies in pursuit of innovative
technology credits would be subject to
a public evaluation process in which the
public would have opportunity for
comment.301 Whether the approach
involves on-road testing, modeling, or
some other analytical approach, the
manufacturer would be required to
present a final methodology to EPA and
NHTSA. EPA and NHTSA would
approve the methodology and credits
only if certain criteria were met.
Baseline emissions and fuel
consumption 302 and control emissions
and fuel consumption would need to be
clearly demonstrated over a wide range
of real world driving conditions and
over a sufficient number of vehicles to
address issues of uncertainty with the
data. Data would need to be on a vehicle
model-specific basis unless a
manufacturer demonstrated modelspecific data was not necessary. The
agencies would publish a notice of
availability in the Federal Register
notifying the public of a manufacturer’s
proposed alternative off-cycle credit
calculation methodology and provide
opportunity for comment. The notice
will include details regarding the
methodology, but not include any
Confidential Business Information.
The agencies did not receive any
adverse comments on using the
proposed approach for HD pickup
trucks and vans. Consistent with the
proposal, the agencies are adopting the
301 See

75 FR 25440.
consumption is derived from measured
CO2 emissions using conversion factors of 8,887 g
CO2/gallon for gasoline and 10,180 g CO2/gallon for
diesel fuel.
302 Fuel

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

proposed innovative technology credit
provisions for HD pickup trucks and
vans.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engine, Combination
Tractor, and Vocational Vehicle
Innovative Technology Credits
Innovative technology credits
developed in the HD engine,
combination tractor, and vocational
vehicle categories will need to be
applied to the subcategory in which
they were generated. The agencies are
adopting provisions in § 1037.610 to
determine the separation of engine
credits and vehicle credits based on the
method which is selected by the
manufacturer to determine the
effectiveness of the innovative
technology. For example, improvements
to the engine that are demonstrated in
either the engine dynamometer test or
powerpack test will clearly be engine
credits. Improvements that are
demonstrated using chassis
dynamometer or on-road test will be
considered vehicle credits. However,
the agencies recognize that there may be
exceptions to this approach, and will
allow for the manufacturer to request an
alternate classification of credits. A
change in credit allocation will require
approval from the agencies and would
be subject to a public evaluation
process.
Furthermore, to address the concerns
of some commenters mentioned above,
the agencies are adopting an approach
for HD engines and vehicles that
provides two paths for approval of the
test procedure to measure the CO2
emissions and fuel consumption
reductions of an innovative off-cycle
technology used in the HD engine or
vehicle. These alternative approaches
are similar to those adopted in the lightduty vehicle rule. The first path will not
require a public approval process of the
test method. The ‘‘pre-approved’’ test
methods for HD engines and vehicles
will include the A-to-B chassis testing,
powerpack testing, and on-road testing.
The agencies are also adopting as
proposed a second test method approval
path that provides a manufacturer the
ability to submit an alternative
evaluation approach to EPA and
NHTSA, which must be approved by the
agencies prior to the demonstration
program. As with HD pickup trucks and
vans, such submissions of data should
be submitted to the agencies and would
be subject to a public evaluation process
in which the public would have
opportunity for comment.303 Baseline
emissions and control emissions would
need to be clearly demonstrated over a
303 See

75 FR 25440.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

wide range of real world driving
conditions and over a sufficient number
of vehicles to address issues of
uncertainty with the data. The agencies
will publish a notice of availability in
the Federal Register notifying the
public of a manufacturer’s proposed
alternative off-cycle credit calculation
methodology and provide opportunity
for comment. The notice will include
details regarding the methodology, but
not include any Confidential Business
Information. Approval of the approach
to determining a CO2 and fuel
consumption benefit would not imply
approval of the results of the program or
methodology; when the testing,
modeling, or analyses are complete the
results would likewise be subject to EPA
and NHTSA review and approval.
The pre-approved test procedures
include engine dynamometer,
powerpack, chassis dynamometer, and
on-road testing. Each of the test
procedures require the evaluation of a
baseline and control engine or vehicle
(A vs. B testing) to quantify the
improvement. Manufacturers may use
the engine dynamometer test procedures
using the HD engine FTP or SET cycle.
The chassis testing and powerpack
testing would be conducted the same as
described above for HD vocational
vehicle and tractor hybrid testing in
Section IV.B.2.b using the drive cycles
and weightings finalized in this action
for the primary program. If a
manufacturer requires the use of an
alternate duty cycle, then it will require
prior approval from the agencies.
The on-road testing would be tested
according to SAE J1321 Joint TMC/SAE
Fuel Consumption Test Procedure Type
II Reaffirmed 1986–10 or SAE J1526
Joint TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption InService Test Procedure Type III Issues
1987–06, with additional constraints to
improve the test repeatability. The first
constraint requires that the minimum
route distance be set at 100 miles. In
addition, the route selected must be
representative in terms of grade. The
agencies will take into account
published and relevant research in
determining whether the grade is
representative.304 Similarly, the speed
of the route must be representative of
the drive cycle weighting adopted for
each regulatory subcategory. For
304 The agencies would consider information such
as the study conducted by Oak Ridge National Lab
which found that 72 percent of their data records
were driven on flat terrain of less than 1 percent
grade to determine the representativeness of the
route. See Capps, G., O. Franzes, B. Knee, M.B.
Lascurain, and P. Otaduy. Class 8 Heavy Truck
Duty Cycle Project Final Report. ORNL/TM–2008/
122, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Last accessed
on April 14, 2011 at page 5–14 of http://
cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb29/Edition29_Chapter05.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00149

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57253

example, if the route selected for an
evaluation of a combination tractor with
a sleeper cab contains only interstate
driving, then the improvement factor
would only apply to 86 percent of the
weighted result. Lastly, the ambient air
temperature must be between 5 and
35 °C. The agencies also would allow
the use of a Portable Emissions
Measurement (PEMS) device for the
measurement of CO2 emissions during
the on-road testing. The agencies are not
pre-approving any routes for the on-road
testing. Manufacturers will be required
to submit the proposed route prior to
testing for approval.
The agencies requested comments on
whether credits generated using
innovative technologies should be
fungible across vehicle and engine
categories and received comments both
supporting and opposing the limited
fungibility of these credits. Cummins
did not support the fungibility of
innovative technology credits across
subcategories, arguing that it is not
advisable given the large number and
variability of different technology types
and the uncertainty in this provision.
DTNA stated that the credits should be
fungible across engine and vehicle
classes to be treated the same as
advanced technology credits. EPA and
NHTSA acknowledge that the HD
program is a new program and, though
the agencies continue to believe the
credit provision is an important
flexibility, the agencies are
implementing innovative technology
credits based on the ability to assign a
value for future technologies and test
methods that are as yet to be defined.
Given the fact that the agencies cannot
make a determination at this time of,
what innovative technologies will be
offered, and thus the impact of
increased fungibility to sectors outside
the original application of the
innovative technology might be, it is
premature to allow that credit to be
traded without restriction and with
additional credit. Until such uncertainty
can be understood and quantified, the
agencies believe the final rules should
continue to include restrictions on the
fungibility of innovative technology
credits across service classes and
categories.
The agencies proposed that this credit
opportunity be available through the
2018 model year, reflecting that
technologies may be common by then,
but sought comment on the need to
extend beyond model year 2018. The
agencies received comments from
DTNA, Navistar, Eaton, Cummins and
Bosch supporting the extension of this
provision beyond model year 2018.
Eaton stated that though some

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57254

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

technologies will be more common in
2018, new technologies will evolve
facing the same difficulties concerning
implementation and would benefit from
this provision. Bosch explained that
extension of the provision past 2018 is
important because at the time of the
final rule the GEM will not incorporate
any newer technology until it is updated
in phase two of the program, and
manufacturers will therefore continue to
need the innovative technology
provision for receiving credits for
technologies not accounted for in GEM.
The agencies have reviewed these
concerns and believe that they are valid.
Therefore, the final rule does not state
that this provision ends in model year
2018. Any action taken on these credits
in a subsequent rulemaking will be
addressed by the agencies at that time
in that future rulemaking.
(4) N2O Credit
EPA received a comment from an
industry stakeholder requesting a
provision to allow manufacturers of
heavy-duty engines to gain credit for
redesigning emission control systems to
reduce N2O emissions. The commenter
argued that unlike CH4, N2O emissions
from some NOX control technologies
can vary in inverse proportion to CO2
emissions. Given such a tradeoff, it
would be appropriate to allow
manufacturers to exploit that tradeoff to
achieve the lowest overall greenhouse
gas emissions possible. Thus, EPA is
adopting a provision which allows
engine manufacturers to generate CO2
credits for very low N2O emissions.
Specifically, manufacturers that certify
engines with full useful life N2O FEL
emissions which are less than 0.04 g/hphr could generate 2.98 grams of CO2
credit for 0.01 grams of N2O reduced
(consistent with the relative global
warming potentials of CO2 and N2O).
For example, where a manufacturer
certifies an engine family to have low
per-brake horsepower hour N2O
emissions of 0.01 g/hp-hr and applies
the 0.02 g/hp-hr assigned deterioration
factor, it could certify the engine family
to a 0.03 g/hp-hr N2O FEL and generate
enough CO2 credits to offset CO2
emissions 2.98 g/hp-hr above the
standard. The 0.04 g/hp-hr level is less
than the cap standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr
(so credits generated would not be
windfalls) and reflects EPA’s best
estimate of average N2O performance for
today’s engine technologies. See Table
II–22 above. This value has been chosen
to ensure the credit reflects
improvements beyond today’s baseline
performance level. EPA is limiting this
provision to model years 2014 through
2016, the same years that NHTSA’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

program is voluntary, to maintain
alignment between the CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption standards. EPA
considered allowing the provision to
continue beyond 2016 but decided
given its relatively small value (we
expect this credit to be worth
approximately 3 g/bhp-hr on a standard
of 460 g/bhp-hr) and the ultimate
desirability of alignment of the EPA and
NHTSA programs to limit the period of
this flexibility to the period of time
when the NHTSA program will be
voluntary.
V. NHTSA and EPA Compliance,
Certification, and Enforcement
Provisions
A. Overview
(1) Compliance Approach
This section describes EPA’s and
NHTSA’s final program to ensure
compliance with EPA’s final emission
standards for CO2, N2O, and CH4 and
NHTSA’s final fuel consumption
standards, as described in Section II. To
achieve the goals projected in the
proposal, it is important for the agencies
to have an effective and coordinated
compliance program for our respective
standards. As is the case with the lightduty vehicle rule, the final compliance
program for heavy-duty vehicles and
engines has two central priorities: (1) To
address the agencies’ respective
statutory requirements; and (2) to
streamline the compliance process for
both manufacturers and the agencies by
building on existing practice wherever
possible, and by structuring the program
such that manufacturers can use a single
data set to satisfy the requirements of
both agencies. It is also important to
consider the provisions of EPA’s
existing criteria pollutant program and
NHTSA’s existing LD program in the
development of the approach used for
heavy-duty certification and
compliance. The existing EPA heavyduty highway engine emissions program
has an established infrastructure and
methodology that will allow for an
effective integration with this final GHG
and fuel consumption program, without
needing to create new unique processes
in many instances. The HD compliance
program will address the importance of
the impact of new control methods for
heavy-duty vehicles as well as other
control systems and strategies that may
extend beyond the traditional purview
of the criteria pollutant program.
Section 202(b)(3)(A) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) defines ‘‘model year’’ to
mean ‘‘* * * the manufacturer’s annual
production period (as determined by the
Administrator) which includes January
1 of such calendar year’’ or to mean

PO 00000

Frm 00150

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

calendar year if the manufacturer has no
annual production period. Section
32901(a)(16) of EISA defines ‘‘model
year’’ with almost identical language.
Section 202(b)(3)(A) of the CAA also
allows the EPA Administrator to define
model year differently to assure ‘‘ * * *
that vehicles and engines manufactured
before the beginning of a model year
were not manufactured for purposes of
circumventing the effective date of a
standard * * *.’’ Consistent with this
statutory language, the NPRM proposed
regulatory text to define ‘‘model year,’’
in 40 CFR 1036.801, 40 CFR 1037.801
and 49 CFR 535.4. All three codified the
primary CAA and EISA definition, but
differed with respect to language
intended to prevent circumvention of
the standards. The proposed definition
for engines was in the proposed rule
published November 30, 2010, 75 FR
74377, which stated that ‘‘model year’’
means the manufacturer’s annual new
model production period, except as
restricted under this definition. It must
include January 1 of the calendar year
for which the model year is named, may
not begin before January 2 of the
previous calendar year, and it must end
by December 31 of the named calendar
year. Manufacturers may not adjust
model years to circumvent or delay
compliance with emission or standards
or to avoid the obligation to certify
annually.
The proposed definition for vehicles
was in the proposed rule published
November 30, 2010, 75 FR 74401, which
stated that ‘‘model year’’ means the
manufacturer’s annual new model
production period, except as restricted
under this definition and 40 CFR part
85, subpart X. It must include January
1 of the calendar year for which the
model year is named, may not begin
before January 2 of the previous
calendar year, and it must end by
December 31 of the named calendar
year. Use the date on which a vehicle is
shipped from the factory in which you
finish your assembly process as the date
of manufacture for determining your
model year. For example, where a
certificate holder sells a cab-complete
vehicle to a secondary vehicle
manufacturer, the model year is based
on the date the vehicle leaves the
factory as a cab-complete vehicle.
EPA’s and NHTSA’s vehicle model
year definitions differed slightly in
wording but were essentially the same
for §§ 1037.801 and 535.4. In creating
the model year definition for vehicles,
the agencies were mindful of the
confusion chassis manufacturers may
face in determining their model years in
a given period of production, for
example, due to manufacturing and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
shipping products at different levels of
completion and involving multiple
manufacturers. The agencies included
the term ‘‘ship date’’ in order to provide
chassis manufacturers a clear reference
date (‘‘in which you finish your
assembly process’’), as well as to
decrease the risk of gaming that might
occur if no reference date was specified
and there were therefore no parameters
on the choice of model year. The engine
definition was chosen based on
consistency with prior EPA definitions
for other mobile source programs.
The agencies received comments on
the definitions from EMA/TMA and
Navistar expressing concern over the
potential for unintended consequences.
The commenters argued that the use of
‘‘ship date’’ for vehicles could create
difficulty and uncertainty for
manufacturers for whom the ship date
can be delayed for reasons outside of
their control, such as late-arriving
components. They also argued that the
differences between the vehicle and
engine definitions would increase the
likelihood that a single vehicle would
be subject to different fuel efficiency
requirements during certain years of
transition in the standards, as it would
not be unlikely that a vehicle would be
a later model year than an engine. For
example, during the 2016–2017 period,
an engine may be model year 2016
while the vehicle is model year 2017.
NHTSA and EPA have considered
further whether there are benefits to
maintaining separate definitions for
‘‘model year’’ for the engine and vehicle
standards based on these comments. We
continue to believe that differences in
manufacturing practices for engines and
vehicles support the use of separate
definitions. However, for this final
action, we have decided to modify the
definitions to account for the above
concerns, address circumstances of
multiple manufacturers, and provide
increased consistency and clarity. Thus,
instead of ‘‘ship date,’’ the vehicle
definition for model year will refer to
the date when the certifying
manufacturer’s ‘‘manufacturing
operations were completed,’’ within the
specified year. The final definition also
specifies that each vehicle must be
assigned a model year before
introduction into U.S. commerce, but
allow a manufacturer to redesignate a
later model year if it does not complete
its manufacturing operations for the
vehicle within the initial model year.
To further standardize with EPA
definitions, NHTSA will add the EPA
engine model year definition to its
corresponding regulation 49 CFR 535.4.
We believe that this will address the
concerns raised by commenters because

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

it will provide standardization, more
specificity and account for current
manufacturer practices.
The agencies are aware that the
designation of a model year on a chassis
for the purposes of this heavy-duty
truck emission and fuel consumption
program may result in a complete
vehicle that has one model year
associated with its chassis for emission/
fuel consumption purposes and another
model year designation in its vehicle
identification number (VIN) for a motor
vehicle’s certification to Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. However, as
the chassis model year designation
would only be used on the certificate of
conformity by the responsible
manufacturer for the purpose of
complying with these rules, it would
not contradict other purposes for which
a VIN model year may be used.
EMA/TMA also argued that the
proposed dates used to specify the
model year would shorten the lead time
provided for manufacturers, because
production for HD vehicles often begins
in the early months of the year
preceding the model year. We are
addressing these concerns by finalizing
January 1, 2014 as the date certain when
manufacturers are required to comply.
Prior to this date, certification of the
vehicle would be optional. Thus, a
manufacturer could produce uncertified
model year 2014 vehicles through
December 31, 2013. The heavy-duty
compliance program uses a variety of
mechanisms to conduct compliance
assessments, including preproduction
certification and postproduction testing
and in-use monitoring once vehicles
enter customer service. Specifically, the
agencies are establishing a compliance
program that utilizes existing EPA
testing protocols and certification
procedures. Under the provisions of this
program, manufacturers will have
significant opportunity to exercise
implementation flexibility, based on the
program schedule and design, as well as
the credit provisions in the program for
advanced technologies. This program
includes a process to foster the use of
innovative technologies, not yet
contemplated in the current certification
process. EPA and NHTSA will conduct
compliance preview meetings which
provide the agencies an opportunity to
review a manufacturer’s new product
plans and ABT projections. Given the
nature of the final compliance program
that involves both engine and vehicle
compliance for some categories, it is
necessary for manufacturers to begin
pre-certification meetings with the
agencies early enough to address issues
of certification and compliance for both

PO 00000

Frm 00151

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57255

integrated and non-integrated product
offerings.
Based on feedback EPA and NHTSA
received during the light-duty GHG
comment period, both agencies are
seeking to ensure transparency in the
compliance process of this program. In
addition to providing information in
published reports annually regarding
the status of credit balances and
compliance on an industry basis, EPA
and NHTSA sought comments in the
NPRM on additional strategies for
providing information useful to the
public regarding industry’s progress
toward reducing GHG emissions and
fuel consumption from this sector while
protecting sensitive business
information. In response, commenters
(Sierra Club and UCS) also had strong
interests for the agencies to ensure that
any collected data is made available to
the public with an interest especially for
providing details on the credit balances
for each manufacturer and for data on
specific vehicle configuration
information data to better understand
the market and help with the
development of future programs.
Additional requests (ALA and EDF)
were also made for the agencies to
expand consumer education and
outreach for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles thereby empowering fleet
purchasers to make better informed
choices. Another commenter (ACEEE)
specifically requested that the agencies
publish a heavy-duty truck trend report
describing vehicles and engines sold,
including fuel efficiency and GHG
performance and the use of advanced
technology. It was further recommended
(by ALA and EDF) that the agencies
should create consumer education and
outreach programs for medium and
heavy-duty vehicles such as fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
information for all vehicles and engines
covered by the rules, in buyers guide
similar to the fuel economy guides that
EPA and NHTSA provide for the lightduty CAFE program. ICCT and UCS also
requested having a consumer based
label for heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans providing fuel economy and
emission information like in the lightduty CAFE program.
The agencies agree that there is a need
for sharing heavy-duty emissions and
fuel consumption information and
therefore will make information
publically available under this program.
(a) Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
The final compliance regulations (for
certification, testing, reporting, and
associated compliance activities) for
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
closely track both current practices and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57256

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the recently adopted greenhouse gas
regulations for light-duty vehicles and
trucks. Thus they are familiar to
manufacturers. EPA already oversees
testing, collects and processes test data,
and performs calculations to determine
compliance with both CAFE and CAA
standards for Light-Duty. For HeavyDuty products that closely parallel lightduty pickups and vans, under a
coordinated approach, the compliance
mechanisms for both programs for
NHTSA and EPA would be consistent
and non-duplicative for GHG pollutant
standards and fuel consumption
requirements. Vehicle emission
standards established under the CAA
apply throughout a vehicle’s full useful
life.
Under EPA’s existing criteria
pollutant emission standard program for
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans,
vehicle manufacturers certify a group of
vehicles called a test group. A test group
typically includes multiple vehicle lines
and model types that share critical
emissions-related features. The
manufacturer generally selects and tests
a single vehicle, typically considered
‘‘worst case’’ for criteria pollutant
emissions, which is allowed to
represent the entire test group for
certification purposes. The test vehicle
is the one expected to be the worst case
for the emission standard at issue.
Emissions from the test vehicle are
assigned as the value for the entire test
group. However, the compliance
program in the recent GHG regulations
for light-duty vehicles, which is
essentially the well-established CAFE
compliance program, allows and may
require manufacturers to perform
additional testing at finer levels of
vehicle models and configurations in
order to get more precise model-level
fuel economy and CO2 emission levels.
The agencies are adopting this same
approach for heavy-duty pickups and
vans. Additionally, like the light-duty
program’s use of analytically derived
fuel economy (ADFE) data, we will
allow manufacturers to predict CO2
levels (and corresponding fuel
consumption) of some vehicles in lieu
of testing, using a methodology deemed
appropriate by the agencies. Based on
manufacturer input, a method for
calculating analytically derived carbon
dioxide (ADCO2) is specified in
§ 1037.104 of this rule.305 At a
manufacturer’s request, EPA may
approve analytical methods alternate to
the method described in this rule if said
alternate methods are deemed to be
305 Memorandum from Don Kopinski, U.S. EPA to
docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162, July 7, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

more accurate than the analytical
method described in this rule.
(b) Heavy-Duty Engines
Heavy-duty engine certification and
compliance for traditional criteria
pollutants has been established by EPA
in its current general form since 1985.
In developing a program to address GHG
pollutants, it is important to build upon
the infrastructure for certification and
compliance that exists today. At the
same time, it is necessary to develop
additional tools to address compliance
with GHG emissions requirements,
since the final standard reflect control
strategies that extend beyond those of
traditional criteria pollutants. In so
doing, the agencies are finalizing use of
EPA’s current engine test based
strategy—currently used for criteria
pollutant compliance—to also measure
compliance for GHG emissions. The
agencies are also finalizing to add new
strategies to address vehicle specific
designs and hardware which impact
GHG emissions. The traditional engine
approach would largely match the
existing criteria pollutant control
strategy. This would allow the basic
tools for certification and compliance,
which have already been developed and
implemented, to be expanded for carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Engines with similar emissions control
technology may be certified in engine
families, as with criteria pollutants.
For EPA, the final approach for
certification will follow the current
process, which requires manufacturer
submission of certification applications,
approval of the application, and receipt
of the certificate of conformity prior to
introduction into commerce of any
engines. EPA proposed the certificate of
conformity be a single document that
would be applicable for both criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gas
pollutants. For NHTSA, a manufacturer
must submit certification applications
with equivalent fuel consumption
information. NHTSA will assess
compliance with its fuel consumption
standards based on the results of the
EPA GHG emissions compliance process
for each engine family.
(c) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
and Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
Currently, except for HD pickups and
vans, EPA does not directly regulate
exhaust emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles as a complete entity. Instead, a
compliance assessment of the engine is
undertaken as described above. Vehicle
manufacturers installing certified
engines are required to do so in a
manner that maintains all functionality
of the emission control system. While

PO 00000

Frm 00152

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

no process exists for certifying these
heavy-duty vehicles, the agencies
believe that a process similar to the one
we proposed to use for heavy-duty
engines can be applied to the vehicles.
The agencies are finalizing related
certification programs for heavy-duty
vehicles. Manufacturers will divide
their vehicles into families and submit
applications to each agency for
certification for each family. However,
the demonstration of compliance will
not require emission testing of the
complete vehicle, but will instead
involve a computer simulation model,
GEM. This modeling tool uses a
combination of manufacturer-specified
and agency-defined vehicle parameters
to estimate vehicle emissions and fuel
consumption. This model is then
exercised over certain drive cycles. EPA
and NHTSA are finalizing the duty
cycles over which Class 7 and 8
combination tractors would be exercised
to be: 65 mile per hour steady state
cruise cycle, the 55 mile per hour steady
state cruise cycle, and the California
ARB transient cycle. Additional details
regarding these duty cycles will be
addressed in Section V.D(1)(b) below.
Over each duty cycle, the simulation
tool will return the expected CO2
emissions, in g/ton-mile, and fuel
consumption, gal/1,000 ton-mile, which
would then be compared to the
standards.
B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
(i) Compliance Approach
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing,
largely as proposed, new emission
standards to control greenhouse gases
(GHGs) and reduce fuel consumption
from heavy-duty vehicles with gross
vehicle weight rating between 8,500 and
14,000 pounds that are not already
covered under the MY 2012–2016
medium-duty passenger vehicle
standards. In this section ‘‘trucks’’ refers
to heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans
between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds not
already covered under the light-duty
rule.
First, EPA is finalizing fleet average
emission standards for CO2 on a gram
per mile (g/mile) basis and NHTSA is
finalizing fuel consumption standards
on a gal/100 mile basis that would apply
to a manufacturer’s fleet of heavy-duty
trucks and vans with a GVWR from
8,500 pounds to14,000 pounds (Class 2b
and 3). CO2 is the primary pollutant
resulting from the combustion of
vehicular fuels, and the amount of CO2
emitted is highly correlated to the
amount of fuel consumed. In addition,
the EPA is finalizing separate emissions
standards for three other GHG

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
pollutants: CH4, N2O, and HFC. CH4 and
N2O emissions relate closely to the
design and efficient use of emission
control hardware (i.e., catalytic
converters). The standards for CH4 and
N2O would be set as caps that would
limit emissions increases and prevent
backsliding from current emission
levels. In lieu of meeting the caps, EPA
is allowing manufacturers the option of
offsetting any N2O emissions or any CH4
emissions above the cap by taking steps
to further reduce CO2. Separately, EPA
is finalizing to set standards to control
the leakage of HFCs from air
conditioning systems.
Previously, complete vehicles with a
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 8,500–
14,000 pounds could be certified
according to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
These heavy-duty chassis certified
vehicles were required to pass
emissions on both the Light-duty FTP
and HFET (California requirement).306
These rules will use the same testing
procedures already required for heavyduty chassis certification, namely the
Light-duty FTP and the HFET. Using the
data from these two tests, EPA and
NHTSA will compare the CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption results against the
attribute-based target. The attribute
upon which the CO2 standard is based
is a function of vehicle payload, vehicle
towing capacity and two-wheel versus
four-wheel drive configuration. The
attribute-based standard targets will be
used to determine a manufacturer fleet
standard. As discussed in section IV
above, manufacturers may use the ABT
program and other flexibilities in
achieving and demonstrating
compliance.
These rules will generally require
complete HD pickups and vans to have
CO2, CH4 and N2O values assigned to
them, either from actual chassis
dynamometer testing or from the results
of a representative vehicle in the test
group with appropriate adjustments
made for differences. Manufacturers
will be allowed to exclude vehicles they
sell to secondary manufacturers as
incomplete vehicles, unless these
vehicles are chassis-certified for criteria
(non-GHG) pollutants. To the extent
manufacturers are allowed to engine- or
chassis-certify for criteria pollutant
requirements today, they will be
allowed to continue to do so under the
final regulations. See subsection
V.B(1)(e) for discussion of special
provisions for chassis-certification to
GHG and fuel consumption standards.

Because this program for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans is so similar to
the program recently adopted for lightduty trucks and codified in 40 CFR part
86, subpart S, EPA will apply most of
those subpart S regulatory provisions to
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans and
not recodify them in the new part 1037.
Most of the new part 1037 thus would
not apply for heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans. How 40 CFR part 86 applies,
and which provisions of the new 40
CFR part 1037 apply for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans is described in
§ 1037.104. Similarly NHTSA’s
requirements for these vehicles in
§ 535.6(a) are based on 40 CFR part 86.
(a) Certification Process
CAA section 203(a)(1) prohibits
manufacturers from introducing a new
motor vehicle into commerce unless the
vehicle is covered by an EPA-issued
certificate of conformity. Section
206(a)(1) of the CAA describes the
requirements for EPA issuance of a
certificate of conformity, based on a
demonstration of compliance with the
emission standards established by EPA
under section 202 of the Act. The
certification demonstration requires
emission testing, and certification is
required for each model year.307
Under existing heavy-duty chassis
certification and other EPA emission
standard programs, vehicle
manufacturers certify a group of
vehicles called a test group. A test group
typically includes multiple vehicle car
lines and model types that share critical
emissions-related features.308
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
307 CAA

306 Diesel

engines are engine-certified with the
option to chassis certification Federally and for
California.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
308 The

PO 00000

Frm 00153

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57257

before the certificate is issued. The
certification process for the existing
heavy-duty chassis program is an
efficient way for manufacturers to
conduct the needed testing well in
advance of certification, and to receive
certificates in a time frame which allows
for the orderly production of vehicles.
The use of conditions on the certificate
has been an effective way to ensure that
manufacturers comply throughout their
useful life and meet fleet standards
when the model year is complete and
the accounting for the individual model
sales is performed. EPA has also
adopted this approach as part of its
light-duty vehicle GHG compliance
program.
These rules will similarly condition
each certificate of conformity for the
GHG program upon a manufacturer’s
good faith demonstration of compliance
with the manufacturer’s fleetwide
average CO2 standard. The following
discussion explains how the agencies
will integrate this new vehicle
certification program into the existing
certification program.
An integrated approach with NHTSA
has been undertaken to allow
manufacturers a single point of entry to
address certification and compliance.
Vehicle manufacturers will initiate the
formal certification process with their
submission of application for a
certificate of conformity to EPA, similar
to the light-duty program.
(b) Certification Test Groups and Test
Vehicle Selection
For heavy-duty chassis certification to
the criteria emission standards,
manufacturers currently, as mentioned
above, divide their fleet into ‘‘test
groups’’ for certification purposes. The
test group is EPA’s unit of certification;
one certificate is issued per test group/
evaporative family combination. These
groupings cover vehicles with similar
emission control system designs
expected to have similar emissions
performance (see 40 CFR 86.1827–01).
The factors considered for determining
test groups include Gross Vehicle
Weight, combustion cycle, engine type,
engine displacement, number of
cylinders and cylinder arrangement,
fuel type, fuel metering system, catalyst
construction and precious metal
composition, among others. Vehicles
having these features in common are
generally placed in the same test
group.309
This program will retain the current
test group structure for heavy-duty
309 EPA provides for other groupings in certain
circumstances, and can establish its own test groups
in cases where the criteria do not apply. See 40 CFR
86.1827–01(b), (c) and (d).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57258

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

pickups and vans in the certification
requirements for CO2 and fuel
consumption. At the time of
certification, manufacturers will use the
CO2 emission level from the Emission
Data Vehicle as a surrogate to represent
all of the models in the test group.
However, following certification further
testing will generally be allowed for
compliance with the fleet average CO2
and fuel consumption standards as
described below. EPA’s issuance of a
certificate will be conditioned upon the
manufacturer’s subsequent model level
testing and attainment of the actual fleet
average, much like light-duty CAFE and
GHG compliance requires. Under the
current program, complete heavy-duty
Otto-cycle vehicles under 14,000
pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating are
required to chassis certify (see 40 CFR
86.1801–01(a)). The current program
allows complete heavy-duty diesel
vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR to
optionally chassis certify (see 40 CFR
86.1863–07(a)). The new regulations we
are adopting will not change these
existing EPA certification options for
complete (or incomplete) HD vehicles.
EPA recognizes that the existing heavyduty chassis test group criteria do not
necessarily relate to CO2 emission
levels. See 75 FR 25472 (addressing the
same issue for light-duty vehicles). For
instance, while some of the criteria,
such as combustion cycle, engine type
and displacement, and fuel metering,
may have a relationship to CO2
emissions, others, such as those
pertaining to the some exhaust
aftertreatment features, may not. In fact,
there are many vehicle design factors
that impact CO2 generation and
emissions but are not major factors
included in EPA’s test group criteria.310
Most important among these may be
vehicle weight, horsepower,
aerodynamics, vehicle size, and
performance features. To remedy this,
EPA will allow manufacturers
provisions that are similar to the lightduty vehicle 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 will determine if this
310 EPA noted this potential lack of connection
between fuel economy testing and testing for
emissions standard purposes when it first adopted
fuel economy test procedures. See 41 FR 38677,
Sept. 10, 1976.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

approach is adequate method for N2O
and CH4 emissions compliance or if
testing on additional vehicles is
required to ensure their entire fleet
meets applicable standards.
As just discussed, the ‘‘worst case’’
vehicle a manufacturer selects as the
Emissions Data Vehicle to represent a
test group under the existing regulations
(40 CFR 86.1828–01) may not have the
highest levels of CO2 in that group. For
instance, there may be a heavier, more
powerful configuration that would have
higher CO2, but may, due to the way the
catalytic converter has been matched to
the engine, actually have lower NOX,
CO, PM or HC emissions. Therefore,
EPA is allowing the use of a single
Emission Data Vehicle to represent the
test group for both criteria pollutant and
CO2 certification. The manufacturer will
be allowed to initially apply the
Emission Data Vehicle’s CO2 emissions
value to all models in the test group,
even if other models in the test group
are expected to have higher CO2
emissions. However, as a condition of
the certificate, this surrogate CO2
emissions value will generally be
replaced with actual, model-level CO2
values based on results from additional
testing that occurs later in the model
year much like the light-duty CAFE
program, or through the use of approved
methods for analytically derived fuel
economy. This model level data will
become the official certification test
results (as per the conditioned
certificate) and will be used to
determine compliance with the fleet
average. If the test vehicle is in fact the
worst case CO2 vehicle for the test
group, the manufacturer may elect to
apply the Emission Data Vehicle
emission levels to all models in the test
group for purposes of calculating fleet
average emissions. Manufacturers may
be unlikely to make this choice, because
doing so would ignore the emissions
performance of vehicle models in their
fleet with lower CO2 emissions and
would unnecessarily inflate their CO2
fleet average. Testing at the model level,
in order to better represent the
improved performance of vehicles
within a test group other than the
Emission Data Vehicle, will necessarily
increase testing burden beyond the
minimum EDV testing.
As explained in earlier Sections, there
are two standards that the manufacturer
will be subject to, the fleet average
standard and the in-use standard for the
useful life of the vehicle. Compliance
with the fleet average standard is based
on production weighted averaging of the
test data that applies for each model. To
address commenter concerns regarding
test variability due to facility and build

PO 00000

Frm 00154

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

variation for each model, the in-use and
SEA standards are set at 10 percent
higher than the level used for that
model in calculating the fleet average.
The certificate covers both of the fleet
and in-use standards, and the
manufacturer has to demonstrate
compliance with both of these standards
for purposes of receiving a certificate of
conformity. The certification process for
the in-use standard is discussed above.
(c) Demonstrating Compliance
(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption Fleet
Standards
As noted, attribute-based CO2 and fuel
consumption standards result in each
manufacturer having fleet average CO2
and fuel consumption standards unique
to its heavy-duty truck fleet of GVWR
between 8,500–14,000 pounds and that
standard will be separate from the
standard for passenger cars, light-trucks,
and other heavy-duty trucks. The
standards depend on those attributes
corresponding to the relative capability,
or ‘‘work factor’’, of the vehicle models
produced by that manufacturer. The
final attributes used to determine the
stringency of the CO2 and fuel
consumption standards are payload and
towing capacity as described in Section
II. Generally, fleets with a mix of
vehicles with increased payloads or
greater towing capacity (or utilizing four
wheel drive configurations) will face
numerically less stringent standards
(i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile standards
or fuel consumption gallons/100 miles
standards) than fleets consisting of less
powerful vehicles. (However, the
standards will be expected to be equally
challenging and achieve similar percent
reductions.) Although a manufacturer’s
fleet average standard could be
estimated throughout the model year
based on projected production volume
of its vehicle fleet, the final compliance
values will be based on the final model
year production figures. A
manufacturer’s calculation of fleet
average emissions and fuel consumption
at the end of the model year will be
based on the production-weighted
average emissions and fuel consumption
of each model in its fleet. The payload
and towing capacity inputs used to
determine manufacturer compliance
will be the advertised values.
The agencies will use the same
general vehicle category definitions that
are used in the current EPA HD chassis
certification (See 40 CFR 86.1816–05).
The new vehicle category definitions
differ slightly from the EPA definitions
for Heavy-duty Vehicle definitions for
the existing program, as well as other
EPA vehicle programs. Mainly,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturers will be able to test, and
possibly model, more configurations of
vehicles than were historically possible.
The existing criteria pollutant program
requires the worst case configuration be
tested for emissions certification. For
HD chassis certification, this usually
meant only testing the vehicle with the
highest ALVW, road-load, and engine
displacement within a given test group.
This worst case configuration may only
represent a small fraction of the test
group production volume. By testing the
worst case, albeit possibly small
volume, vehicle configuration, the EPA
had a reasonable expectation that all
represented vehicles would pass the
given emissions standards. Since CO2
standards are a fleet standard based on
a combination of sales volume and work
factor (i.e., payload and towing
capability), it may be in a
manufacturer’s best interest to test
multiple configurations within a given
test group to more accurately estimate
the fleet average CO2 emission levels
and not accept the worst case vehicle
test results as representative of all
models. Additionally, vehicle models
for which a manufacturer desires to use
analytically derived fuel economy
(ADFE) to estimate CO2 emission levels
may need additional actual test data for
vehicle models of similar but not
identical configurations. The agencies
are allowing the use of ADFE similar to
that allowed for light-duty vehicles in
40 CFR 600.006–08(e). Some
commenters, including the American
Automotive Policy Council, were
concerned that adopting the light-duty
ADFE program with its current
minimum test requirements would
unduly increase testing burden. In
addition to concerns over implementing
the light-duty ADFE program for heavyduty GHG compliance, commenters
noted the need to develop a new HD
ADFE methodology that addressed
unique HD concerns. EPA and NHTSA
have continued to work with
stakeholders to address the above
concerns with using a modified LD
ADFE program. To address these
concerns, the agencies will expand the
allowed use of ADFE beyond that which
is allowed in the LD program. Since
ADFE equations are not final at the time
of this action, updates to the HD ADFE
program will be made through guidance
or future rulemaking. The GHG and fuel
economy rulemaking for light-duty
vehicles adopted a carbon balance
methodology used historically to
determine fuel consumption for the
light-duty labeling and CAFE programs,
whereby the carbon-related combustion
products HC and CO are included on an

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

adjusted basis in the compliance
calculations, along with CO2. The
resulting carbon-related exhaust
emissions (CREE) of each test vehicle
are calculated and it is this value, rather
than simply CO2 emissions, that is used
in compliance determinations. The
difference between the CREE and CO2 is
typically very small. See generally 75
FR at 25472.
NHTSA and EPA are not adopting the
CREE methodology for HD pickups and
vans, and so will not adjust CO2
emissions to further account for
additional HC and CO. The basis of the
CREE methodology in historical labeling
and CAFE programs is not relevant to
HD pickups and vans, because these
historical programs do not exist for HD
vehicles. Furthermore, test data used in
this rulemaking for standards-setting
has not been adjusted for this effect, and
so it would create an inconsistency,
albeit a small one, to apply it for
compliance with the numerical
standards we are finalizing. Finally, it
would add complexity to the program
with little real world benefit.
(ii) CO2 In-Use Standards and Testing
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA requires
emission standards to apply to vehicles
throughout their statutory useful life.
Section II discusses in-use standards.
Currently, EPA regulations require
manufacturers to conduct in-use testing
as a condition of certification for 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).
An in-use program was already set
forth in the light-duty 2012–2016 MY
vehicle rule similar to the heavy-duty
pickups and vans. The In-Use
Verification Program for heavy-duty
pickups and vans will follow the same
general provisions of the light-duty
program in regard to testing, vehicle
selection, and reporting. See 75 FR
25474–25476.
(d) Special Provisions for Chassis
Certification
We proposed to include most cabchassis Class 2b and 3 vehicles (vehicles
sold as incomplete vehicles with the cab
substantially in place but without the
primary load-carrying enclosure) in the
complete HD pickup and van program.
Because their numbers are relatively
small, and to reduce the testing and
compliance tracking burden to

PO 00000

Frm 00155

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57259

manufacturers, we proposed to treat
these vehicles as equivalent to the
complete van or truck product from
which they are derived. The
manufacturer would determine which
complete vehicle configuration it
produces most closely matches the cabchassis product leaving its facility, and
would include each of these cab-chassis
vehicles in the fleet averaging
calculations as though it were identical
to the corresponding complete ‘‘sister’’
vehicle. See 75 FR at 74263.
Commenters opposed this proposed
requirement for a number of reasons: (1)
It would have the unintended
consequence of dual certification for
some of these vehicles—engine
certification for criteria pollutants and
vehicle certification for GHGs, and viceversa for some other vehicles, (2) it
would be of modest benefit because
most of these cab-chassis vehicles
would receive the desired aerodynamic
and other non-engine improvements
even without chassis certification, in
virtue of their derivation from complete
vehicles, and (3) a readily-identifiable
sister vehicle may not exist in every
case. Based on the comments, the
agencies have re-evaluated the proposed
approach for cab-chassis certification
and are restructuring our compliance
approach to provide significantly more
flexibility while still ensuring
comparable or better GHG and fuel
consumption performance overall.
We are not requiring that cab-chassis
vehicles be chassis-certified, but are
retaining chassis-certification for them
as an option using the proposed sister
vehicle concept. We are instead
requiring that vehicles that are chassiscertified for criteria pollutants be
chassis-certified for GHGs and fuel
consumption, and likewise that vehicles
with engines certified for criteria
pollutants (which in this case would be
engines installed in vocational vehicles
exclusively) be certified to the
vocational vehicle standards for GHGs
and fuel consumption, with minor
exceptions detailed below. We believe
that this approach involving consistent
chassis- and engine-certification for
criteria pollutants and GHGs is the most
sensible way to structure a program to
minimize both the testing burden and
the potential for gaming.
We are allowing use of the sister
vehicle concept for incomplete vehicle
certification to include the selection of
sister vehicles not actually produced for
sale by the certifying manufacturer. For
the great majority of vehicles this will
not be an issue because the sister
vehicle will obviously be the complete
pickup truck or van from which the cabchassis vehicle is derived. However if

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57260

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the complete sister vehicle ceases
production but the corresponding
incomplete vehicle does not, a
manufacturer may continue to use the
sister vehicle emissions data through
the carryover process that is already
practiced today. If carryover is not
appropriate because of, for example, an
emissions-impacting recalibration of the
engine, the manufacturer may conduct
new emissions testing using the
coastdown data collected on the original
sister vehicle. This would still save
substantial effort without sacrificing
data quality because coastdowns are
rather resource-intensive but are not
much affected by engine changes.
Another potentially inappropriate
situation would exist where no sister
vehicle exists because the manufacturer
does not sell a related complete vehicle.
In this case, the manufacturer may
coastdown a mocked-up vehicle made
from its incomplete vehicle and an
added open or closed cargo box that
simulates a complete van or pickup
truck, or may coastdown one of its
customers’ completed vehicles.
EPA and NHTSA requested comment
on whether Class 4 vehicles that are
very similar to complete Class 3 pickup
truck models should be chassis-certified
and regulated as part of the HD pickup
and van category, instead of as
vocational vehicles. Commenters argued
convincingly that there are a number of
important differences between the Class
4 and Class 3 trucks that make such
regulation inappropriate as a general
matter. As a result, we are keeping Class
4 trucks in the vocational vehicle
category. However, we are adding an
optional provision that allows
manufacturers to certify Class 4 or 5
(14,001 to 19,500 lb GVWR) complete or
incomplete vehicles to GHG and fuel
consumption standards, in the same
way as Class 2b and 3 vehicles, and thus
be included within the Class 2b/3 fleet
average. The engines in these vehicles
will continue to be engine-certified for
criteria pollutants, but the
manufacturers could include the
vehicles in their fleet average standard
and annual compliance calculations,
using the same certification and
compliance provisions as for the smaller
vehicles, including the equations for
determining work factors and target
standards, in-use requirements,
reporting requirements, credit
generation and use, and sister vehicle
provisions for incomplete vehicles.
Such vehicles would not be required to
meet the vocational vehicle standards.
Because sales volumes of Class 4 and 5
trucks are relatively small, and because
we expect these Class 4 and 5 and Class

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

2b and 3 trucks to generally use the
same technologies and face roughly the
same technology challenge in meeting
their standards targets, we do not
believe that this provision will dilute
the stringency of the fleet average
standards.
Any in-use testing of vehicles that are
chassis-certified using the sister vehicle
provisions would involve loading of the
tested vehicle to a total weight equal to
the ALVW of the corresponding
complete vehicle configuration. If the
secondary manufacturer had altered or
replaced any vehicle components in a
way that would substantially affect CO2
emissions from the tested vehicle (e.g.,
axle ratio has been changed for a special
purpose vehicle), the vehicle
manufacturer could request that EPA
not test the vehicle or invalidate a test
result. Secondary (finisher)
manufacturers who finish incomplete
vehicles certified using the sister
vehicle provisions would not be subject
to requirements under these regulations,
other than to comply with antitampering regulations. However, if they
modify vehicle components in such a
way that GHG emissions and fuel
consumption are substantially affected,
they become manufacturers subject to
the standards we are establishing in
these rules.
Finally, we are adopting a related
special provision involving chassiscertification aimed at simplifying
compliance for manufacturers of
complete HD pickups and vans that also
sell a relatively small number of engines
that are designed for other
manufacturers’ heavy-duty vehicles—
normally referred to as ‘loose’ engines.
Today these loose engines must be
engine-certified for criteria pollutants,
even though most of the vehicles that
use the engines are chassis-certified.
Our new provision does not change this,
but it does provide manufacturers with
an option to focus their energy on
improving the GHG and fuel
consumption performance of their
complete vehicle products (including,
most likely, significant engine
improvements), rather than on
concurrently calibrating for both vehicle
and engine test compliance.
These loose engines would not be
certified to engine-based GHG and fuel
consumption standards, but instead
would be treated as though they were
additional sales of the manufacturer’s
complete pickup and van products, on
a one-for-one basis. The pickup/van
vehicle so chosen must be the vehicle
with the highest ETW that uses the
engine (as this vehicle is likely to have
the highest GHG emissions and fuel
consumption). However, if this vehicle

PO 00000

Frm 00156

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

is a credit-generator under the HD
pickup and van fleet averaging program,
no credits would be generated by these
engine-as-vehicle contributors to the
fleet average; they would be treated as
just achieving the target standard. If, on
the other hand, the vehicle is a credituser, the appropriate number of
additional credits would be needed to
offset the engine-as-vehicle contributors.
The purchaser of the engine would treat
it as any other certified engine, and
would still need to meet applicable
vocational vehicle standards for the
vehicles in which the engine is
installed.
Because it is our intent that this loose
engine provision simplifies compliance
for HD pickup/van manufacturers who
sell a relatively small number of engines
for other manufacturers’ applications,
we are limiting its use to 10 percent of
the total engines (15,000 maximum) of
the same design that a manufacturer
produces in each model year for U.S.directed heavy-duty application—
including complete vehicles,
incomplete vehicles, and the loose
engines themselves. We are further
limiting both this provision and the
above-described provision for chassis
certification of Class 4/5 vehicles to
spark-ignition (gasoline) engines,
because we believe that the HD diesel
engine business is more focused on
designing for and marketing into a wide
variety of vehicles products, instead of
into the engine manufacturer’s own
chassis-certified vehicle products with a
small loose engine business on the side,
as is common for HD gasoline engines.
This dynamic is also reflected in the
existing provision for criteria pollutants
allowing complete HD vehicles to use
certified diesel engines but not certified
gasoline engines.
Together these provisions provide a
robust approach to regulating these
vehicles and engines. Although these
certification options are not as
straightforward as the certification
provisions for complete Class 2b/3
pickups and vans, they are technically
appropriate (for the reasons explained
above) and should accomplish more
improvement in GHG and fuel
consumption performance than simply
applying the vocational vehicle and
engine standards.
(2) Labeling Provisions
HD pickups and vans currently have
vehicle emission control information
labels showing compliance with criteria
pollutant standards, similar to emission
control information labels for engines.
As with engines, we believe this label is
sufficient.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Other Certification Issues
(a) Carryover Certification Test Data
EPA’s final certification program for
vehicles allows manufacturers to carry
certification test data over from one
model year to the next, when no
significant changes to models are made.
EPA will also apply this policy to CO2,
N2O and CH4 certification test data.
(b) Compliance Fees
The CAA allows EPA to collect fees
to cover the costs of issuing certificates
of conformity for the classes of vehicles
and engines covered by this rulemaking.
On May 11, 2004, EPA updated its fees
regulation based on a study of the costs
associated with its motor vehicle and
engine compliance program (69 FR
51402). At the time that cost study was
conducted the current rulemaking was
not considered.
At this time the extent of any added
costs to EPA as a result of this
rulemaking is not known. EPA will
assess its compliance testing and other
activities associated with the program
and may amend its fees regulations in
the future to include any justifiable new
costs.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(4) Compliance Reports
(a) Pre-Model Year Report
In the NPRM, EPA and NHTSA
proposed that manufacturers must
submit early model year compliance
reports demonstrating how their entire
fleets of heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans would comply with GHG
emissions and fuel consumption
standards. The agencies understood that
early model year reports would contain
estimates that may change over the
course of a model year and that
compliance information manufactures
submit prior to the beginning of a new
model year may not represent the final
compliance outcome. The agencies
viewed the necessity for requiring early
model reports as a manufacturer’s good
faith projection for demonstrating
compliance with emission and fuel
consumption standards. The preamble
language indicated that the compliance
reports would be submitted prior to the
beginning of the model year and prior
to the certification of any test group.
Preferably, a manufacturer would
submit its reports during its annual
certification preview meeting.
Precertification preview meetings are
typically held with a manufacturer
before the earliest date that the model
year can begin which is January 2nd of
the calendar year prior to the model
year. Manufacturers voluntarily choose
to participate in precertification
compliance meetings but meetings are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

not required by EPA and NHTSA
regulations. Manufacturers opt to
participate in precertification meetings
because of the advantage it gives to
exploring with the agencies any possible
compliance problems that may arise
prior to seeking approval for certificates
of conformity. The NPRM preamble text
did not specify an exact date for
manufacturers to submit early
compliance reports to the agency.
NHTSA attempted to adopt
requirements in its regulatory text for
manufactures to submit their early
compliance reports no later than the end
of December two years prior to the
model year. NHTSA also proposed for
manufacturers to provide compliance
information for the current model year
and to the extent possible two years into
the future. NHTSA chose its submission
deadline and model years for reporting
based upon the same dates required by
EPA in its CAFE provisions for lightduty pickups and vans beginning in
model year 2012.
The NPRM included requirements for
manufacturers to submit early model
year compliance reports separately to
each agency based upon limitations
existing in the statutory authorities
prescribed under EISA and CAA and the
long-standing precedent set in the LD
CAFE programs for receiving reports.
The EPA report, called the pre-model
year report, and NHTSA report, called
the pre-certification compliance report,
were proposed to include an estimate of
the manufacturer’s attribute-based
standards, along with a demonstration
of compliance with the standards based
on projected model-level and fleet CO2
emissions and fuel consumption results,
and were to include an estimate of the
manufacturer’s production volumes.
The NPRM also included a proposal for
submitting a credit plan for
manufacturers seeking to take advantage
of credit flexibilities and a credit deficit
plan for manufacturers planning to
accrue deficits during the model years.
Additionally, NHTSA attempted to
reduce the burden on manufacturers by
allowing them to submit copies of EPA’s
proposed pre-model year reports or
applications for certifications of
conformity, as a substitute to its own
compliance report, so long as EPA’s
reports were submitted with equivalent
fuel consumption information. In either
case, NHTSA reserved the right to ask
manufacturers to provide additional
information if necessary to verify its fuel
consumption requirements under this
program. EPA and NHTSA also
proposed to review the compliance
reports for technical viability and to
conduct a certification preview

PO 00000

Frm 00157

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57261

discussion with the manufacturer. It
was further proposed that the EPA
Administrator would have to approve a
manufacturer’s pre-model year report
before it would consider issuing any
certificate of compliance for the
manufacturer.
Comments were received to the
NPRM from EMA and TMA strongly
opposing providing separate reports to
EPA and NHTSA and requested that the
agencies implement a single uniform
reporting template that could be
submitted to both agencies
simultaneously. DTNA requested that
NHTSA eliminate its pre-certification
compliance report, arguing that report
was overly burdensome.
For the final rules, the agencies have
decided to require manufacturers to
submit a single report, hereafter
referenced as the pre-model year report,
to satisfy both agencies requirements for
receiving compliance reports in advance
of the model year. The agencies
considered the commenters’ requests
and determined that the benefit gained
by receiving separate or distinct
compliance reports would not outweigh
the burden placed on manufacturers in
reporting. Therefore, the final rules
establish a harmonized approach by
which manufacturers will submit a
single report through the EPA database
system as the single point of entry for
all information required for this national
program and both agencies will have
access to the information. If by model
year 2012, the agencies are not prepared
to receive information through the EPA
database system, manufacturers are
expected to submit written reports to
the agencies. EPA and NHTSA have
determined that requiring
manufacturers to submit a joint premodel year report for their combined
fleet of heavy-duty pickup trucks
containing both emissions and
equivalent fuel consumption
information falls within each agencies’
statutory authority. The final rules
require a manufacturer to submit the
joint pre-model year report as early as
the date of the manufacturer’s annual
certification preview meeting, or prior
to the manufacturer submitting its first
application for a certificate for the given
model year. Consequently, a
manufacturer choosing to comply in
model year 2014 could submit its premodel year report during its
precertification meeting, which could
occur before January 2, 2013.
Alternately, the manufacturer could
provide its pre-model year report any
time prior to submitting its first
application. In either case, a
manufacturer would not be able to
certify any of its test groups until the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57262

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

EPA Administrator approves its premodel year report. NHTSA will use the
pre-model year report as preliminary
model year data.
The agencies are adopting similar
requirements for the pre-model year
reports as proposed. As mentioned, the
agencies proposed that reports would
include an estimate of the
manufacturer’s attribute-based
standards, expected testing results and
estimated production volumes. The
agencies agree that this information is
essential for tracking compliance of
manufacturers and is therefore adopted
for the final rules. The final rules
require manufacturers to identify any
vehicle exclusions and other flexibilities
afforded for heavy-duty pickups and
vans. The summary of the required
information for each pre-model year
report is as follows:
• A list of each unique vehicle
configuration included in the
manufacturer’s fleet describing the make
and model designations, attribute basedvalues (GVWR, GCWR, Curb Weight and
drive configurations) and standards.
• The emission and fuel consumption
fleet average standard derived from the
unique vehicle configurations;
• The estimated vehicle
configuration, test group and fleet
production volumes;
• The expected emissions and fuel
consumption test group results and fleet
average performance;
• A statement declaring whether the
manufacturer chooses to comply early
in MY 2013 for EPA and NHTSA. The
manufacturers must acknowledge that
once selected, the decision cannot be
reversed and the manufacturer will
continue to comply with the fuel
consumption standards for subsequent
model years;
• A statement declaring whether the
manufacturer will use fixed or
increasing standards; acknowledging
that once selected, the decision cannot
be reversed and the manufacturer must
continue to comply with the same
alternative for subsequent model years;
• A statement declaring whether the
manufacturer chooses to comply
voluntarily with NHTSA’s fuel
consumption standards for model years
2014 through 2015. The manufacturers
must acknowledge that once selected,
the decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer will continue to comply
with the fuel consumption standards for
subsequent model years;
• The list of Class 2b–3 cab-complete
vehicles and the method use to certify,
as vocational vehicles and engines, or as
complete pickups and vans identifying
the most similar complete vehicles used

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

to derive the target standards and
performance test results;
• The list of Class 2b–3 incomplete
vehicles and the method use to certify,
as vocational vehicles and engines, or as
complete pickups and vans identifying
the most similar complete vehicles used
to derive the target standards and
performance test results;
• The list of Class 4 and 5 incomplete
and complete vehicles and the method
use to certify, as vocational vehicles and
engines, or as complete pickups and
vans identifying the most similar
complete vehicles used to derive the
target standards and performance test
results;
• List of loose engines included in the
heavy-duty pickup and van category
and the list of vehicles used to derive
target standards.
• Copy of any notices a vehicle
manufacturer sends to the engine
manufacturer to notify the engine
manufacturers that their engines are
subject to emissions and fuel
consumption standards and that it
intends to use their engines in excluded
vehicles; and
• A credit plan identifying the
manufacturers estimated credit
balances, planned credit flexibilities
(i.e., credit balances, planned credit
trading, innovative, advanced and early
credits and etc.) and if needed a credit
deficit plan demonstrating how it plans
to resolve any credit deficits that might
occur for a model year within a period
of up to three model years after that
deficit has occurred.
(b) Final Reports
The NPRM proposed for
manufacturers participating in the ABT
program to provide two types of year
end reports; end-of-the-year (EOY)
reports and final reports. The EOY
reports for the ABT program were
required to be submitted by
manufacturers no later than 90 days
after the calendar year and final report
no later than 270 days after the calendar
year.311 Manufacturers not participating
in the ABT program were required to
provide an EOY report within 45 days
after the calendar year but no final
reports were required. The submission
deadline of the final ABT report was
established to coincide with EPA’s
existing criteria pollutant report for
heavy-duty engines. The EOY report is
used by the agencies to review a
manufacturer’s preliminary final
estimates and to identify manufacturers
that might have a credit deficit for the
given model year. Manufacturers with a
credit surplus at the end of each model
311 Corresponding

PO 00000

Frm 00158

to the compliance model year

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

year could submit a request to the
agencies to receive a waiver from
providing EOY reports. As proposed,
the remaining manufacturers were
required to submit reports to EPA and
send copies of those reports to NHTSA
with equivalent fuel consumption
values. Manufacturers requesting to
exempt vehicles in accordance with the
agencies’ off-road vehicle exemption
were required to a submit EOY reports
to the agencies identifying the vehicle
applicable to each report within 90 days
after the model year ended.
Comments in response to the NPRM
did not oppose providing EOY reports
to the agencies but instead requested
that they be allowed to consolidate the
various EOY reports into one single
submission to the agencies.
Upon consideration of commenters’
requests, the agencies agree that only
one consolidated EOY report should be
submitted in place of the separate
reports proposed in the NPRM. The
consolidated EOY report should include
the combination of all the required
information that is applicable to a
manufacturer’s fleet. The agencies also
agree to allow manufacturers to no
longer provide separate EOY reports to
each agency independently but rather to
submit the single report through the
EPA database system as the single point
of entry for all information required for
this national program. The consolidated
EOY report is required to contain both
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
information. EPA will provide access to
the information for both agencies.
Likewise, manufacturers will be
required to electronically provide one
single final report through the EPA
database system. If by model year 2012,
the agencies are not prepared to receive
information through the EPA database
system, manufacturers are expected to
submit written reports to the agencies.
The required information for EOY and
final reports that manufacturers must
submit is as follows: A finalized list of
each unique vehicle configuration
included in the manufacturers fleet
describing the designations, attribute
based-values (GVWR, GCWR, Curb
Weight and drive configurations) and
standards.
• The final emission and fuel
consumption fleet average standard
derived from the unique vehicle
configurations;
• The final vehicle configuration, test
group and fleet production volumes;
• The final emissions and fuel
consumption test group results and fleet
average performance;
• The final list of cab-complete
vehicles and the method use to certify,
as vocational vehicles and engine, or as

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
complete pickups and vans identifying
the most similar complete vehicles used
to derive the target standards and
performance test results;
• A final credit plan identifying the
manufacturers estimated credit
balances, planned credit flexibilities
(i.e., credit balances, planned credit
trading, innovative, advanced and early
credits, and etc.) and if needed a credit
deficit plan demonstrating how it plans
to resolve any credit deficits that might
occur for a model year within a period
of up to three model years after that
deficit has occurred;
• A plan describing the vehicles that
were exempted such as for off-road or
small business purposes; and
• A plan describing any alternative
fueled vehicles that were produced for
the model year identifying the
approaches used to determine
compliance and the production
volumes.
C. Heavy-Duty Engines
(i) Compliance Approach

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Section 203 of the CAA requires that
all motor vehicles and engines sold in
the United States carry a certificate of
conformity issued by the U.S. EPA. For
heavy-duty engines, the certificate
specifies that the engine meets all
requirements as set forth in the
regulations (40 CFR part 86, subpart N,
for criteria pollutants) including the
requirement that the engine be
compliant with emission standards.
This demonstration is completed
through emission testing as well as
durability testing to determine the level
of emissions deterioration throughout
the useful life of the engine. In addition
to comply with emission standards,
manufacturers are also required to
warrant their products against emission
defects, and demonstrate that a service
network is in place to correct any such
conditions. The engine manufacturer
also bears responsibility in the event
that an emission-related recall is
necessary. Finally, the engine
manufacturer is responsible for tracking
and ensuring correct installation of any
emission related components installed
by a second party (i.e., vehicle
manufacturer). EPA and NHTSA believe
this compliance structure is also valid
for administering the final GHG
regulations for heavy-duty engines.
(a) Certification Process
In order to obtain a certificate of
conformity, engine manufacturers must
complete a compliance demonstration,
normally consisting of test data from
relatively new (low-hour) engines as
well as supporting documentation,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

showing that their product meets
emission standards and other regulatory
requirements. To account for aging
effects, low-hour test results are coupled
with testing-based deterioration factors
(DFs), which provide a ratio (or offset)
of end-of-life emissions to low-hour
emissions for each pollutant being
measured. These factors are then
applied to all subsequent low-hour test
data points to predict the emissions
behavior at the end of the useful life.
For purposes of this compliance
demonstration and certification, engines
with similar engine hardware and
emission characteristics throughout
their useful life may be grouped together
in engine families, consistent with
current criteria-pollutant certification
procedures. Examples of such engine
characteristics that are normally used to
combine emissions families include
similar combustion cycle, aspiration
methods, and aftertreatment systems.
Under this system, the worst-case
engine (‘‘parent rating’’) is selected
based on having the highest fuel feed
per engine stroke, and all emissions
testing is completed on this model. All
other models within the family (‘‘child
ratings’’) are expected to have emissions
at or below the parent model and
therefore in compliance with emission
standards. Any engine within the family
can be subject to selective enforcement
audits, in-use, confirmatory, or other
compliance testing.
We are continuing the use of this
approach for the selection of the worstcase engine (‘‘parent rating’’) for fuel
consumption and GHG emissions as
well. As at proposal, we believe this is
appropriate because this worst case
engine configuration would be expected
to have the highest in-use fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
within the family. See 75 FR at 72264
for further information. We note that
lower engine ratings contained within
this family would be expected to have
a higher fuel consumption rate when
measured over the Federal Test
Procedures as expressed in terms of fuel
consumption per brake horsepower
hour. However, this higher fuel
consumption rate is misleading in the
context of comparing engines within a
single engine family. This apparent
contradiction can be most easily
understood in terms of an example. For
a typical engine family a top rating
could be 500 horsepower with a number
of lower engine ratings down to 400
horsepower or lower included within
the family. When installed in identical
trucks the 400 and 500 horsepower
engines would be expected to operate
identically when the demanded power
from the engines is 400 horsepower or

PO 00000

Frm 00159

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57263

less. So in the case where in-use driving
never included acceleration rates
leading to horsepower demand greater
than 400 horsepower, the two trucks
with the 400 and 500 horsepower
engines would give identical fuel
consumption and GHG performance.
When the desired vehicle acceleration
rates were high enough to require more
than 400 horsepower, the 500
horsepower truck would accelerate
faster than the 400 horsepower truck
resulting in higher average speeds and
higher fuel consumption and GHG
emissions measured on a per mile or per
ton-mile basis. Hence, the higher rated
engine family would be expected to
have the highest in-use fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions
consistent with our current approach
requiring manufacturers to certify the
worst case configuration.
As explained at proposal, the reason
that the lower engine ratings appear to
have worse fuel consumption relates to
our use of a brake specific work metric.
The brake specific metric measures
power produced from the engine and
delivered to the vehicle ignoring the
parasitic work internal to the engine to
overcome friction and air pumping work
within the engine. The fuel consumed
and GHG emissions produced to
overcome this internal work and to
produce useful (brake) work are both
measured in the test cycle but only the
brake work is reflected in the
calculation of the fuel consumption rate.
This is desirable in the context of
reducing fuel consumption as this
approach rewards engine designs that
minimize this internal work through
better engine designs. The less work that
is needed internal to the engine, the
lower the fuel consumption will be. If
we included the parasitic work in the
calculation of the rate, we would
provide no incentive to reduce internal
friction and pumping losses. However,
when comparing two engines within the
very same family with identical internal
work characteristics, this approach gives
a misleading comparison between two
engines as described above. This is the
case because both engines have an
identical fuel consumption rate to
overcome internal work but different
rates of brake work with the higher
horsepower rating having more brake
work because the test cycle is
normalized to 100 percent of the
engine’s rated power. The fuel
consumed for internal work can be
thought of as a fixed offset identical
between both engines. When this fixed
offset is added to the fuel consumed for
useful (brake) work over the cycle, it
increases the overall fuel consumption

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57264

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(the numerator in the rate) without
adding any work to the denominator.
This fixed offset identical between the
two engines has a bigger impact on the
lower engine rating. In the extreme this
can be seen easily. As the engine ratings
decrease and approach zero, the brake
work approaches zero and the
calculated brake specific fuel
consumption approaches infinity. For
these reasons, we are finalizing that the
same selection criteria, as outlined in 40
CFR part 86, subpart N, be used to
define a single engine family
designation for both criteria pollutant
and GHG emissions. Further, we are
finalizing that for fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions only any selective
enforcement audits, in-use,
confirmatory, or other compliance
testing would be limited to the parent
rating for the family. Consistent with the
current regulations, manufacturers may
electively subdivide a grouping of
engines which would otherwise meet
the criteria for a single family if they
have evidence that the emissions are
different over the useful life. The
agencies received comments from
engine and truck manufacturers which
indicated the useful life provisions
applicable to criteria pollutants seemed
appropriate for GHG emissions. For that
reason, the agencies are retaining many
of the same provisions for GHG
certification for family useful life
provisions as developed for criteria
pollutants.
EPA utilizes a 12-digit naming
convention for all mobile-source engine
families (and test groups for light-duty
vehicles). This convention is also shared
by the California Air Resources Board
which allows manufacturers to
potentially use a single family name for
both EPA and California ARB
certification. Of the 12 digits, 9 are EPAdefined and provide identifying
characteristics of the engine family. The
first digit represents the model year,
through use of a predefined code. For
example, the code ‘‘A’’ corresponds to
the 2010 model year and ‘‘B’’
corresponds to the 2011 model year.
The 5th position corresponds to the
industry sector code, which includes
such examples as light-duty vehicle (V)
and heavy-duty diesel engines (H). The
next three digits are a unique
alphanumeric code assigned to each
manufacturer by EPA. The next four
digits describe the displacement of the
engine; the units of which are
dependent on the industry segment and
a decimal may be used when the
displacement is in liters. For engine
families with multiple displacements,
the largest displacement is used for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

family name. For on-highway vehicles
and engines, the tenth character is
reserved for use by California ARB. The
final characters (including the 10th
character in absence of California ARB
guidance) left to the manufacturer to
determine, such that the family name
forms a unique identifying characteristic
of the engine family.
This convention is well understood
by the regulated industries, provides
sufficient detail, and is flexible enough
to be used across a wide spectrum of
vehicle and engine categories. In
addition, the current harmonization
with other regulatory bodies reduces
complications for affected
manufacturers. For these reasons, we are
not finalizing any major changes to this
naming convention for this rulemaking.
There may be additional categories
defined for the 5th character to address
heavy-duty vehicle families, however
that will be discussed later.
As with criteria pollutant standards,
the heavy-duty diesel regulatory
category is subdivided into three
regulatory subcategories, depending on
the GVW of the vehicle in which the
engine will be used. These regulatory
subcategories are defined as light-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
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 vehicle rule. During the light-duty
vehicle rulemaking, the conclusion was
reached that no significant deterioration
would occur over the useful life.
Therefore, EPA is recommending that
manufacturers use assigned DFs for CO2.
For this final action, we believe
appropriate values are zero (for additive
DFs) and one (for multiplicative DFs).
EPA will continue to collect data
regarding deterioration of CO2 emissions
and may revisit these assigned values if
necessary.
For the medium heavy-duty and
heavy heavy-duty diesel engine
segments, the regulatory useful lives are
significantly longer (185,000 and

PO 00000

Frm 00160

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

435,000 miles, respectively). For this
reason, the EPA cannot rule out the
possibility that engine/aftertreatment
wear will have a negative impact on
GHG emissions. To address useful life
compliance for MHD and HHD diesel
engines certified to GHG standards, EPA
therefore believes that the criteria
pollutant approach for developing DFs
is appropriate. Using CO2 as an
example, many types of engine
deterioration will affect CO2 emissions.
Reduced compression, as a result of
wear, will cause higher fuel
consumption and increase CO2
production. In addition, as
aftertreatment devices age (primarily
particulate traps), regeneration events
may become more frequent and take
longer to complete. Since regeneration
commonly requires an increase in fuel
rate, CO2 emissions would likely
increase as well. Finally, any changes in
EGR levels will affect heat release rates,
peak combustion temperatures, and
completeness of combustion. Since
these factors could reasonably be
expected to change fuel consumption,
CO2 emissions would be expected to
change accordingly. However, we
expect engine manufacturers to consider
performance degradation in the design
of engine and aftertreatment systems
given the market incentive to reduce
fuel consumption and related CO2
emissions. For these reasons, EPA is not
eliminating the DF from this program,
but will allow for an assigned DF of
zero.
HHD diesel engines may also require
some degree of aftertreatment
maintenance throughout their useful
life. For example, one major heavy-duty
engine manufacturer specifies that their
diesel particulate filters be removed and
cleaned at intervals between 200,000
and 400,000 miles, depending on the
severity of service. Another major
engine manufacturer requires servicing
diesel particulate filters at 300,000
miles. This maintenance or lack thereof
if service is neglected, could have
serious negative implications to CO2
emissions. In addition, there may be
emissions-related warranty implications
for manufacturers to ensure that if
rebuilding or specific emissions related
maintenance is necessary, it will occur
at the prescribed intervals. Therefore, it
is imperative that manufacturers
provide detailed maintenance
instructions. Lean-NOX aftertreatment
devices may also facilitate GHG
reductions by allowing engines to run
with higher engine-out NOX levels in
exchange for more efficient calibrations.
In most cases, these aftertreatment
devices require a consumable reductant,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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 derating strategy that will limit engine
power or vehicle speed in absence of
this required maintenance.
If the manufacturer determines that
maintenance is necessary on critical
emission-related components within the
useful life period, it must have a
reasonable basis for ensuring that this
maintenance will be completed as
scheduled. This includes any
adjustment, cleaning, repair, or
replacement of critical emission-related
components. Typically, EPA has only
allowed manufacturers to schedule such
maintenance if the manufacturer can
demonstrate that the maintenance is
reasonably likely to be done at the
recommended intervals. This
demonstration may be in the form of
survey data showing at least 80 percent
of in-use engines get the prescribed
maintenance at the correct intervals.
Another possibility is to provide the
maintenance free of charge. We see no
reason to depart from this approach for
GHG-related critical emission-related
components. For reasons stated
previously regarding the useful life
provisions, EPA is retaining many of the
same provisions for GHG certification
for family useful life provisions as
developed for criteria pollutants.
(b) Demonstrating Compliance with the
Standards

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(i) CO2 Standards
The final test results (adjusted for
deterioration, if applicable) form the
basis for the Family Certification Limit
(FCL), which the manufacturer must
specify to be at or above the certification
test results. This FCL becomes the
emission standard for the family and
any certification or confirmatory testing
must show compliance with this limit.
In addition, manufacturers may choose
an FCL at any level above their certified
emission level to provide a larger
compliance margin. If subsequent
certification or confirmatory testing
reveals emissions above the FCL, the
new, higher result becomes the FCL.
As proposed, the FCL is also used to
determine the Family Emission Limit
(FEL), which serves as the emission

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

limit for any subsequent field testing
conducted after the time of certification.
This would primarily include selective
enforcement audits, but also may
include in-use testing for GHGs. The
FEL differs from the FCL in that it
includes an EPA-defined compliance
margin; which has been defined at 3
percent for the final rule. Our proposal
included a two percent margin based on
round-robin testing of the same engine
at several laboratories. Since that time,
additional confidential data provided by
manufacturers has indicated that it may
be more appropriate to use a three
percent margin to also account for
production variability between
engines.312 Under this final action, the
FEL will always be three percent higher
than the FCL.
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
312 See

PO 00000

discussion in RIA 3.1.2.3.

Frm 00161

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57265

cold combustion chamber surfaces tend
to inhibit mixing and vaporization of
fuel and aftertreatment devices do not
tend to function well at low
temperatures.
Following the first test, the engine is
shut off for a period of 20 minutes,
during which emission analyzer checks
are performed and preparations are
made for the second test (also known as
the ‘‘hot’’ test). After completion of the
second test, the results from the cold
and hot tests are weighted and a single
composite result is calculated for each
pollutant. Based on typical in-use duty
cycles, the cold test results are given a
1⁄7 weighting and the hot test results are
given a 6⁄7 weighting. Deterioration
factors are applied to the final weighted
results and the results are then
compared to the emission standards.
Prior to 2007, compliance only
needed to be demonstrated over the
Heavy-duty FTP. However, a number of
events brought to light the fact that this
transient cycle may not be as well suited
for engines which spend much of their
duty cycle at steady cruise conditions,
such as those used in line-haul 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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57266

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

between EPA-measured city and
highway fuel economy ratings assigned
to all new light-duty passenger vehicles.
For this heavy-duty engine and
vehicle rule, we believe it is important
to assess CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption over both transient and
steady state test cycles, as all vehicles
will operate in conditions typical of
each cycle at some point in their useful
life. However, due to the drive cycle
dependence of CO2 emissions, we do
not believe it is reasonable to have a
single CO2 standard which must be met
for both cycles. As we discussed at
proposal, a single CO2 standard would
likely prove to be too lax for steady-state
conditions while being too strict for
transient conditions. Therefore, the
agencies are finalizing that all heavyduty engines be tested over both
transient and steady-state tests.
However, only the results from either
the transient or steady-state test cycles
will be used to assess compliance with
GHG standards, depending on the type
of vehicle in which the engine will be
used. Engines that will be used in Class
7 and 8 combination tractors will use
the ramped-modal cycle for GHG
certification, and engines used in
vocational vehicles will use the Heavyduty FTP cycle. In both cases, results
from the other test cycle will be
reported but not used for a compliance
decision. Engines will continue to be
required to show criteria pollutant
compliance over both cycles, in
addition to NTE requirements.
The agencies proposed that
manufacturers submit both data sets
from the transient test at the time of
certification. This includes providing
both cold start and hot start transient
heavy-duty FTP emissions results, as
well as the composite emissions at the
time of certification. The proposed rules
also required that manufacturers submit
modal data from the ramped-modal
cycle test. This was proposed in an
effort to improve the accuracy of the
simulation model being used for
assessing CO2 and fuel consumption
performance and overall engine
emissions performance.
However several commenters were
concerned that modal data was nondiscernable when batch sampling was
used for certification testing. Thus, an
additional certification test (or tests)
would need to be done using either
continuous analyzers or batch sampling
at each mode; each option raising the
cost and complexity of certification
testing. The agencies agree that (at this
time) this raises practical issues for
certification testing, however we also
believe that manufacturers have
significant data from these modal points

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

which could be used to satisfy our
model refinement goals.
The agencies also recognize that even
minor variations in test fuel properties
can have an impact on measured CO2
emissions. Therefore, measured CO2
results are to be corrected using a
reference energy content, which is
defined in the regulations. This
correction must be performed for each
test and each batch of test fuel.
However, manufacturers may develop
robust testing procedures that reduce
the variation in test fuel properties to
within the level of measurement
uncertainty of the fuel properties
themselves. If this is the case, an annual
review is still necessary to confirm the
validity of this constant value.
As explained above in Section II, the
agencies are finalizing an alternative
standard whereby manufacturers may
elect that certain of their engine families
meet an alternative percent reduction
standard, measured from the engine
family’s 2011 baseline, instead of the
main 2014 MY standard. As part of the
certification process, manufacturers
electing this standard would not only
have to notify the agency of the election
but also demonstrate the derivation of
the 2011 baseline CO2 emission level for
the engine family. Manufacturers would
also have to demonstrate that they have
exhausted all credit opportunities.
Durability testing
Another element of the current
certification process is the requirement
to complete durability testing to
establish DFs. As previously mentioned,
manufacturers are required to
demonstrate that their engines comply
with emission standards throughout the
regulatory compliance period of the
engine. This demonstration is
commonly made through the
combination of low-hour test results and
testing based deterioration factors.
For engines without aftertreatment
devices, deterioration factors primarily
account for engine wear as service is
accumulated. This commonly includes
wear of valves, valve seats, and piston
rings, all of which reduce in-cylinder
pressure. Oil control seals and gaskets
also deteriorate with age, leading to
higher lubricating oil consumption.
Additionally, flow properties of EGR
systems may change as deposits
accumulate and therefore alter the mass
of EGR inducted into the combustion
chamber. These factors, amongst others,
may serve to reduce power, increase
fuel consumption, and change
combustion properties; all of which
affect pollutant emissions.
For engines equipped with
aftertreatment devices, DFs take into

PO 00000

Frm 00162

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

account engine deterioration, as
described above, in addition to aging
affects on the aftertreatment devices.
Oxidation catalysts and other catalytic
devices rely on active precious metals to
effectively convert and reduce harmful
pollutants. These metals may become
less active with age and therefore
pollutant conversion efficiencies may
decrease. Particulate filters may also
experience reduced trapping efficiency
with age due to ash accumulation and/
or degradation of the filter substrate,
which may lead to higher tailpipe PM
measurements and/or increased
regeneration frequency. If a pollutant is
predominantly controlled by
aftertreatment, deterioration of emission
control depends on the continued
operation of the aftertreatment device
much more so than on consistent
engine-out emissions.
At this time, we anticipate that most
engine component wear will not have a
significant negative impact on CO2
emissions. However, wear and aging of
aftertreatment devices may or may not
have a significant negative impact on
CO2 emissions. In addition, future
engine or aftertreatment technologies
may experience significant deterioration
in CO2 emissions performance over the
useful life of the engine. For these
reasons, we believe that the use of DFs
for CO2 emissions is both appropriate
and necessary. As with criteria pollutant
emissions, these DFs are preferably
developed through testing the engine
over a representative duty cycle for an
extended period of time. This is
typically either half or full useful life,
depending on the regulatory category.
The DFs are then calculated by
comparing the high-hour to low-hour
emission levels, either by division or
subtraction (for multiplicative &
additive DFs, respectively).
This testing process may be a
significant cost to an engine
manufacturer, mainly due to the amount
of time and resources required to run
the engine out to half or full useful life.
For this reason, durability testing for the
determination of DFs is not commonly
repeated from model year to model year.
In addition, some DFs may be allowed
to carry over between families sharing a
common architecture and aftertreatment
system. EPA prefers to have
manufacturers develop testing-based
DFs for their products. However, we do
understand that for the reasons stated
above, it may be impractical to expect
manufacturers to have testing-based
deterioration factors available for these
final rules. Therefore, we are allowing
manufacturers to use EPA-assigned DFs
for CO2. However, we also understand
that CO2 is traditionally measured as

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

part of normal engine dynamometer
testing. Therefore, we are requiring that
manufacturers include CO2 data over
their criteria pollutant durability
demonstrations (if available), which will
aid the agency in developing more
accurate assigned DFs. This action is
being taken in the context of engine
manufacturers’ concerns regarding the
impact of deterioration of emissions
components relative to the GHG
standards. Engine manufacturers
commented that there would be no
deterioration of components used to
reduce GHG emissions in Phase 1. As
part of the Clean Air Act responsibility
to demonstrate compliance throughout
the useful life, manufacturer will need
to provide data already collected during
traditional criteria pollutant testing for
full useful life performance.
IRAFs/Regeneration Impacts on CO2
Heavy-duty engines may be equipped
with exhaust aftertreatment devices
which require periodic ‘‘regeneration’’
to return the device to a nominal state.
A common example is a diesel
particulate filter, which accumulates
PM as the engine is operated. When the
PM accumulation reaches a threshold
such that exhaust backpressure is
significantly increased, exhaust
temperature is actively increased to
oxidize the stored PM. The increase in
exhaust temperature is commonly
facilitated through late combustion
phasing and/or raw fuel injection into
the exhaust system upstream of the
filter. Both methods impact emissions
and therefore must be accounted for at
the time of certification. In accordance
with § 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

additionally, separate factors are
commonly developed for transient and
steady-state test cycles.
The impact of regeneration events on
criteria pollutants varies by pollutant
and the aftertreatment device(s) used. In
general, the adjustment factor can have
a very significant impact on compliance
with the NOX standard. For this reason,
heavy-duty vehicle and engine
manufacturers are already very well
motivated to extend the regeneration
frequency to as long an interval as
possible and to reduce the duration of
the regeneration as much as possible.
Both of these actions significantly
reduce the impact of regeneration on
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption.
We do not believe that adding an
adjustment factor for infrequent
regeneration to the CO2 or fuel
efficiency standards would provide a
significant additional motivation for
manufacturers to reduce regenerations.
Moreover, doing so would add
significant and unnecessary uncertainty
to our projections of CO2 and fuel
consumption performance in 2014 and
beyond. In addressing that uncertainty,
the agencies would have to set less
stringent fuel efficiency and CO2
standards for heavy-duty trucks and
engines. Therefore, we are not requiring
the use of infrequent regeneration
adjustment factors for CO2 or fuel
efficiency in this program. This is
consistent with comments received from
engine manufacturers.
Auxiliary Emission Control Devices
As part of the engine control strategy,
there may be devices or algorithms
which reduce the effectiveness of
emission control systems under certain
limited circumstances. These strategies
are referred to as Auxiliary Emission
Control Devices (AECDs). One example
would be the reduced use of EGR during
cold engine operation. In this case, low
coolant temperatures may cause the
electronic control unit to reduce EGR
flow to improve combustion stability.
Once the engine warms up, normal EGR
rates are resumed and full NOX control
is achieved.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers are required to disclose
all AECDs and provide a full
explanation of when the AECD is active,
which sensor inputs effect AECD
activation, and what aspect of the
emission control system is affected by
the AECD. Manufacturers are further
required to attest that their AECDs are
not ‘‘defeat-devices,’’ which are
intentionally targeted at reducing
emission control effectiveness.
Several common AECDs disclosed for
criteria pollutant certification will have

PO 00000

Frm 00163

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57267

a similarly negative influence on GHG
emissions as well. One such example is
cold-start enrichment, which provides
additional fueling to stabilize
combustion shortly after initially
starting the engine. From a criteria
pollutant perspective, HC emissions can
reasonably be expected to increase as a
result. From a GHG perspective, the
extra fuel does not result in a similar
increase in power output and therefore
the efficiency of the engine is reduced,
which has a negative impact on CO2
emissions. In addition, there may be
AECDs that uniquely reduce GHG
emission control effectiveness.
Therefore, consistent with today’s
certification procedures, we are
finalizing that a comprehensive list of
AECDs covering both criteria pollutant,
as well as GHG emissions is required at
the time of certification.
(ii) EPA’s N2O and CH4 Standards
In 2009, EPA issued rules requiring
manufacturers of mobile-source engines
to report the emissions of CO2, N2O, and
CH4 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009).
Although CO2 is commonly measured
during certification testing, CH4 and
N2O are not. CH4 has traditionally not
been included in criteria pollutant
regulations because it is a relatively
stable molecule and does not contribute
significantly to ground-level ozone
formation. In addition, N2O is
commonly a byproduct of lean-NOX
aftertreatment systems. Until recently,
these types of systems were not widely
used on heavy-duty engines and
therefore N2O emissions were
insignificant. As noted in section II
above, both species, while emitted in
small quantities relative to CO2, have
much higher global warming potential
than CO2 and therefore must be
considered as part of a comprehensive
GHG regulation.
EPA is requiring that CH4 and N2O be
reported at the time of certification,
however we will allow manufacturers to
submit a compliance statement based on
good engineering judgment for the first
year of the program in lieu of direct
measurement of N2O. However,
beginning in the 2015 model year, the
agency is requiring the direct
measurement of N2O for certification.
The intent of the CH4 and N2O
standards are more focused on
prevention of future increases in these
compounds, rather than forcing
technologies that reduce these
pollutants. As one example, we envision
manufacturers satisfying this
requirement by continuing to use
catalyst designs and formulations that
appropriately control N2O emissions
rather than pursuing a catalyst that may

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57268

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

increase N2O. In many ways this
becomes a design-based criterion in that
the decision of one catalyst over another
will effectively determine compliance
with N2O standards over the useful life
of the engine. As discussed above, in
cases where N2O emissions directly
tradeoff with CO2 emissions, EPA is
allowing manufacturers to exploit this
relationship to produce engines with the
lowest overall GHG emissions. Direct
measurement of N2O emissions is
required in the case of engines utilizing
this temporary credit program.
Since catalytic activity generally
changes with age and service
accumulation, it is not unreasonable to
expect changes in N2O and CH4
emissions over the useful life of the
engine. We also believe that low-hour
test results coupled with deterioration
factors provides an adequate
representation of end-of-life emission
levels for these pollutants. However, the
requirement to measure N2O and CH4
during testing is relatively new and we
do not expect that manufacturers have
consistent durability data to formulate
deterioration factors for today’s action.
We also do not believe it is appropriate
to require all new durability testing to
satisfy this requirement, as this would
result in a nontrivial burden to engine
manufacturers. Instead we will be
assigning deterioration factors for N2O
and CH4 for this action. If the use of
assigned deterioration factors
jeopardizes compliance with the
emission standards, we will also allow
manufacturers to propose unique
testing-based deterioration factors for
these pollutants. In response to
comments received from engine
manufacturers regarding the timing
needed to generate deterioration factors
the agencies are taking this approach.
Concerns had also been raised by
engine manufacturers regarding
measurement techniques for quantifying
N2O emissions. In an effort to expand
testing options, we are adding an
allowance to use laser infrared analyzers
for N2O measurement in 40 CFR part
1065.275. This is to reflect the recent
development of this technology for N2O
measurement. We would also like to
serve notice that in an upcoming
rulemaking, we will be tightening the
interference tolerance (both positive and
negative) for engines and vehicles that
are required to certify to an N2O
standard. This will consist of an
interference limit based on interference
as a percentage of the flow weighted
mean concentration of N2O expected at
the standard. For example we may set
the interference limit at ±10 percent of
the flow weighted mean concentration
of N2O expected at the standard and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

strongly recommend a lower
interference that is within ±5 percent.
(c) Additional Compliance Provisions
(i) Warranty & Defect Reporting
Under section 207 of the CAA, engine
manufacturers are required to warrant
that their product is free from defects
that would cause the engine to not
comply with emission standards. This
warranty must be applicable from when
the engine is introduced into commerce
through a period generally defined as
half of the regulatory useful life
(specified in hours and years, whichever
comes first). The exact time of this
warranty is dependent on the regulatory
category of the engine. In addition,
components that are considered ‘‘high
cost’’ are required to have an extended
warranty. Examples of such components
would be exhaust aftertreatment devices
and electronic control units.
Current warranty provisions in 40
CFR part 86 define the warranty periods
and covered components for heavy-duty
engines. The current list of components
is comprised of any device or system
whose failure would result in an
increase in criteria pollutant emissions.
We remain convinced that this list is
adequate for addressing GHG emissions
as well, based on comments received
from the proposed rules. The following
list identifies items commonly defined
as critical emission-related components:
• Electronic control units.
• Aftertreatment devices.
• Fuel metering components.
• EGR–System components.
• Crankcase-ventilation valves.
• All components related to charge-air
compression and cooling.
All sensors and actuators associated
with any of these components.
When a manufacturer experiences an
elevated rate of failure of an emission
control device, they are required to
submit defect reports to the EPA. These
reports will generally have an
explanation of what is failing, the rate
of failure, and any possible corrections
taken by the manufacturer. Based on
how successful EPA believes the
manufacturer to be in addressing these
failures, the manufacturer may need to
conduct a product recall. In such an
instance, the manufacturer is
responsible for contacting all customers
with affected units and repairing the
defect at no cost to them. We believe
this structure for the reporting of criteria
pollutant defects, and recalls, is
appropriate for components related to
complying with GHG emissions as well.
(ii) Maintenance
Engine manufacturers are required to
outline maintenance schedules that

PO 00000

Frm 00164

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

ensure their product will remain in
compliance with emission standards
throughout the useful life of the engine.
This schedule is required to be
submitted as part of the application for
certification. Maintenance that is
deemed to be critical to ensuring
compliance with emission standards is
classified as ‘‘critical emission-related
maintenance.’’ Generally, manufacturers
are discouraged from specifying that
critical emission-related maintenance is
needed within the regulatory useful life
of the engine. However, if such
maintenance is unavoidable,
manufacturers must have a reasonable
basis for ensuring it is performed at the
correct time. This may be demonstrated
through several methods including
survey data indicating that at least 80
percent of engines receive the required
maintenance in-use or manufacturers
may provide the maintenance at no
charge to the user. During durability
testing of the engine, manufacturers are
required to follow their specified
maintenance schedule.
Maintenance relating to components
relating to reduction of GHG emissions
is not expected to present unique
challenges. Therefore, we are not
finalizing any changes to the provisions
for the specification of emission-related
maintenance as outlined in 40 CFR part
86.
(2) Enforcement Provisions
(a) Emission Control Information Labels
Current provisions for engine
certification require manufacturers to
equip their product with permanent
emission control information labels.
These labels list important
characteristics, parameters, and
specifications related to the emissions
performance of the engine. These
include, but are not limited to, the
manufacturer, model, displacement,
emission control systems, and tune-up
specifications. In addition, this label
also provides a means for identifying
the engine family name, which can then
be referenced back to certification
documents. This label provides
essential information for field inspectors
to determine that an engine is in fact in
the certified configuration.
We do not anticipate any major
changes needing to be made to emission
control information labels as a result of
new GHG standards and a single label
is appropriate for both criteria pollutant
and GHG emissions purposes. Perhaps
the most significant addition will be the
inclusion of Family Certification Levels
or Family Emission Limits for GHG
pollutants, if the manufacturer is
participating in averaging, banking, and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

trading. In addition, the label will need
to indicate whether the engine is
certified for use in vocational vehicles,
tractors, or both. Finally, if an engine
family is uniquely certified for use in
hybrid powertrain applications, a
compliance statement indicating this
will need to be included on the
emission control label.
In response to comments from engine
and truck manufacturers that tractors
should be allowed to obtain engines
certified for vocational use and likewise
a limited number of engines certified for
tractor use should be available for the
appropriate vocational applications, the
agencies are allowing limited use of
engines certified in other categories. To
address compliance needs and to
discourage abuse of the provisions,
proper labeling of the engines is
essential.
(b) In-Use Standards
In-use testing of engines provides a
number of benefits for ensuring useful
life compliance. In addition to verifying
compliance with emission standards at
any given point in the useful life, it can
be used along with manufacturer defect
reporting, to indentify components
failing at a higher than normal rate. In
this case, a product recall or other
service campaign can be initiated and
the problem can be rectified. Another
key benefit of in-use testing is the
discouragement of control strategies
catered to the certification test cycles. In
the past, engine manufacturers were
found to be producing engines that
performed acceptably over the
certification test cycle, while changing
to alternate operating strategies ‘‘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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

speed/torque map of the engine, known
as the NTE zone, are compared to the
emission standards. To account for
potential increases in measurement and
operational variability, certain
allowances are applied to the standard
which results in the standard for NTE
measurements (NTE limit) to be at or
above the duty cycle emission
standards.
In addition, EPA conducts an annual
in-use testing program of heavy-duty
engines. Testing procured vehicles with
specific engines over well-defined drive
routes using a constant trailer load
allows for a consistent comparison of 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,
possibly involving a product recall, or
proceed with enforcement action against
the manufacturer.
The GHG reporting rule requires
manufacturers to submit CO2 data from
all engine testing (beginning in the 2011
model year), which we believe is
equally applicable to in-use
measurements. Methods of CO2 in-situ
measurement are well established and
most, if not all, PEMS devices measure
and record CO2 along with criteria
pollutants. CH4 and N2O present in-situ
measurement challenges that may be
impractical to overcome for this testing,
and therefore they are not included in
in-use testing requirements at this time.
While measurement of CO2 may be
practical and important, implementing
an NTE emission standard for CO2 is
challenging. As previously discussed,
CO2 emissions are highly dependent on
the drive cycle of the vehicle, which
does not lend itself well to the NTEbased test procedure. Therefore, we
proposed and are adopting that
manufacturers be required to submit
CO2 data from in-situ testing, in both
g/bhp-hr and g/ton-mile, but these data
will be used for reference purposes only
(there would be no NTE limit/standard
for CO2). For the purposes of calculating
the g/ton-mile metric, we prefer that
manufacturers use the measured vehicle
weight. However it has been brought to
our attention that this may not always
be available, in which case an estimated
vehicle weight can be used along with
a written justification for the basis of the
estimation. For engine-based
(dynamometer) in-use testing,
compliance with CO2 emission
standards will be judged off of the FCL
of the engine family.

PO 00000

Frm 00165

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57269

(3) Other Certification Provisions
(a) Carryover/Carry Across Certification
Test Data
EPA’s current certification program
for heavy-duty engines allows
manufacturers to carry certification test
data over and across certification testing
from one model year to the next, when
no significant changes to models are
made. EPA will also apply this policy to
CO2, N2O and CH4 certification test data.
(b) Certification Fees
The CAA allows EPA to collect fees
to cover the costs of issuing certificates
of conformity for the classes of engines
covered by this rulemaking. On May 11,
2004, EPA updated its fees regulation
based on a study of the costs associated
with its motor vehicle and engine
compliance program (69 FR 51402). At
the time that cost study was conducted,
the current rulemaking was not
considered. At this time the extent of
any added costs to EPA as a result of
this program is not known. EPA will
assess its compliance testing and other
activities associated with the rules and
may amend its fees regulations in the
future to include any justifiable new
costs.
(c) Onboard Diagnostics
(a) Onboard Diagnostics
Beginning with the 2010 model year,
manufacturers have been phasing in onboard diagnostic (OBD) systems on
heavy-duty engines pursuant to the
heavy-duty OBD rulemaking finalized
by the EPA in 2009.313 These systems
monitor the activity of the emission
control system and issue alerts when
faults are detected. These diagnostic
systems are currently being developed
based around components and systems
that influence criteria pollutant
emissions. Consistent with the lightduty 2012–2016 MY vehicle
rulemaking, we believe that monitoring
of these components and systems for
criteria pollutant emissions will have an
equally beneficial effect on CO2
emissions.314 Therefore, we have not
finalized any additional unique onboard
diagnostic provisions for heavy-duty
GHG emissions. In the NPRM, EPA did
313 U.S. EPA, ‘‘Control of Air Pollution from New
Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines;
Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard
Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty
Engines Used in Highway Applications Over 14,000
Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic
Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty
Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,’’ published
February 24, 2009. Available here: http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obdfrm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf.
314 See the Light-Duty 2012–2016 Vehicle Rule,
Note 5, above.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57270

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

not propose new or different diagnostic
requirements from those finalized in the
2009 heavy-duty OBD rule.
The agencies received comments from
engine manufacturers, hybrid system
manufacturers, and related trade groups
which broached concerns regarding the
feasibility of applying on-board
diagnostics to hybrid applications
starting in 2013. The commenters stated
that engine manufacturers would need
several years to adapt their engine OBD
systems to hybrids, and therefore
requested a delay of OBD requirements
for hybrid applications until 2020 with
a phase-in of enforcement liability
starting that same year. Details, which
the agencies believe have merit, are set
out below. In response, EPA is taking an
approach that is consistent with certain
provisions of the existing final action for
heavy-duty OBD, finalized in 2009. To
that end, manufacturers who certify
hybrid systems will continue to have
the responsibility of implementing
compliant diagnostic systems, however,
we are extending the OBD phase-in for
engines with hybrid systems to allow
time for manufacturers to be able to
address communication protocol
development concerns (e.g. SAE J1939,
communication with diagnostic
scantools), component development
concerns (e.g. hardware and software),
and to address the availability of heavyduty OBD compliant engines with
sufficient lead-time for additional
hybrid diagnostic system development
given resource constraints as engine
manufacturers are focused on meeting
the 2013 requirements for conventional
products at this time.
Since publication of the NPRM, the
EPA has undertaken extensive outreach
to hybrid manufacturers, engine
manufacturers, and related industry
groups to further understand the
technical issues involved with the
implementation of full OBD on enginehybrid systems.315 Hybrid
manufacturers have indicated that the
interaction between hybrid systems and
OBD compliant engines is not well
understood at this time, for example, if
the system shuts down the vehicle at
idle (as is common), the OBD idle
diagnostics cannot run. In addition,
there are many different hybrid systems
being developed which make much of
this technology both immature and low
volume, and engine manufacturers are
concerned that this will result in high
costs due to frequent design changes
that could occur as this technology
develops and have asked for flexibility
315 See EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162
for memos describing meetings held as a part of this
outreach.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

for unique hybrid applications.
Consistent with the goal to incentivize
the development of hybrid designs
(systems designed to capture wasted
energy and reduce fuel consumption)
the EPA is allowing hybrid
manufacturers time to develop their
systems while simultaneously
developing the capability to meet HD
OBD requirements.
Communication protocol
development is an integral part of
developing hybrid OBD capability for
the heavy-duty industry which is not
vertically integrated. There are different
protocols required to be used for OBD
communication in a vehicle depending
on the type of engine (gasoline or
diesel). These protocols are developed
in part to standardize the transmission
of electronic signals and control
information among vehicle components.
The J1939 communication protocol is
developed by committee through SAE
and is required for use with diesel
engines. J1939 defines communications
messages, diagnostic messages for
communications between a module and
diagnostic scantool, and fault codes.
Messages sent through a J1939 network
contain a series of information (e.g. an
identifier, message priority, data, etc.)
and these parameters must be agreed
upon through the SAE committee and
tailored to work for all manufacturers.
The development of this
communication protocol includes
developing criteria for the messages,
and determining a single set of fault
codes that can work for all
manufacturers and all hybrid system
configurations; this is expected to take
a substantial amount of time and
collaboration. OBD cannot exist without
fault codes to report, therefore
development of this protocol is critical.
Hybrid manufacturers have stated that
until such time as a ‘plug and play
scheme’ is available, hybrid volumes
will not be able to increase significantly.
At this time, there are only a few such
messages that have been developed for
use in hybrid systems, and there is
much additional development that
needs to take place. The type of
messages needed must first be identified
once 2013 HD OBD compliant engines
are available for use in HD hybrid OBD
system development. After needed
messages are identified, the content of
each message must be developed and
agreed upon through a ballot process.
Manufacturers have stated that this will
be an iterative process and will likely
take at least two years to develop the
protocol for use with different variations
of hybrid systems and architectures,
different types of energy storage

PO 00000

Frm 00166

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

systems, and for systems used in the
wide variety of applications in the
heavy-duty market, and we agree with
this assessment. While a level of
communication exists today between
engines and transmissions for this
industry, the level of control and impact
on engine system operation becomes
much more significant once hybrid
technology is introduced. The purpose
of the hybrid energy system is to
supplement overall vehicle power
demands. As such, the methods used for
integrating the energy from the hybrid
system into overall vehicle operation
vary from allowing additional internal
combustion engine lower power
operation to potentially decreasing the
amount of engine ‘‘on’’ time. This range
of performance impacts will serve to
reduce GHG emissions by reducing
demands on the engine. Conventional
transmission systems and other
powertrain components do not exercise
the level of control the hybrid will need
to exercise to effectively reduce GHG
emissions and improve fuel
consumption performance for internal
combustion engines; therefore, hybrid
OBD systems can reasonably be
expected to be more complicated as
well.
Component development concerns
raised by hybrid manufacturers include
both changes that may be required to
software and/or hardware systems on
both existing hybrid products and on
hybrid systems currently under
development. Software systems in
existing products have been developed
that provide proprietary diagnostic
capability (as no standardized system
such as J1939 had been developed for
these systems), however, these software
systems are not OBD compliant. These
products will likely require entirely new
software systems developed for them
which may result in hardware changes
as well. Manufacturers have stated that
a complete software system can take up
to 2 years to develop and validate.
Hardware may also need to be changed
to accommodate OBD on hybrid
systems. In particular, hardware
changes would affect current production
systems which may not have controllers
that can support full OBD. The low
volume sales and high cost of a
controller program (which can reach
into the millions of dollars) means that
most companies cannot justify the cost
of a hardware change for hybrids alone,
rather, existing hybrid systems will have
to wait until such a hardware upgrade
is planned for other reasons. In
addition, new hardware programs, such
as developing a new Electronic Control
Unit, can take 3–4 years to complete.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
While it is possible for some of this
work to be done concurrently, how
much can be done this way is
dependent on the configuration of each
individual system. Finally,
manufacturers may have contractual
agreements with hardware and software
suppliers that will have to be
reconfigured to address a complete OBD
program.
Hybrid manufacturers have stated that
they will be unable to produce hybrid
systems that will be OBD compliant in
2013. Given the concerns discussed
above and the general lack of
availability of OBD compliant engines
until the completion of the HD OBD
phase-in, to require manufacturers of
systems that depend on the availability
of those OBD complaint engines to then
be able to immediately implement
additional requirements may be
impractical or infeasible in many
instances. Given the phase-in of HD
OBD requirements that already exists
however, we do not believe a delay to
2019 or 2020 is warranted. While not all
of the engines that would potentially
have hybrid systems incorporated into
their design are available in their final
OBD configuration at the time of this
action, it is clear that some engine
systems will be available. Additionally,
there is an expectation that engine
manufacturers, their suppliers and
customers will have to continue to work
cooperatively to deliver products for the
market. This cooperation must include
a level of concurrent engineering prior
to products being brought to market. At
this time we believe a delay to 2016 for
the phase-in of OBD for heavy-duty
engines equipped with hybrid systems
should provide the requisite lead time
from the date of this action to the date
of implementation for development of
components and protocols necessary for
successful integration of complete OBD
systems for engines equipped with
hybrid systems.
Manufacturers will be required to
implement feasible controls for these
hybrid systems that do not adversely
impact emissions performance in 2013
and by 2016–17, all systems must be
fully compliant with OBD requirements.
The phase in period takes into account
that current production systems are
likely to be smaller in terms of sales
volumes than newly developed systems,
and may require more hardware and
software development as some of these
systems have been in production for
nearly a decade and have developed a
proprietary system diagnostic capability
that does not meet OBD requirements.
Therefore, this extended phase-in
provides them an additional year of
time to comply with the heavy-duty

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

OBD regulations. Hybrid systems put
into production after January 1, 2013
will be required to meet the 2009 heavyduty OBD requirements in 2016
consistent with the next phase-in date
for heavy-duty OBD, while those hybrid
systems released prior to January 1,
2013 have until 2017 to be compliant
with these OBD requirements.
If a manufacturer certifies an enginehybrid system with CARB OBD in
California prior to the required phase-in
date (2016 or 2017), and its diagnostics
meet or exceed the requirements for full
2013 OBD, the manufacturer must either
use the CARB certified package for
Federal release or phase in the package
and certify it with full EPA OBD.
In the interim, engine system
diagnostics must show that they meet or
exceed CARB’s Engine Manufacturer
Diagnostic Systems Requirements
(EMD) including system monitoring
requirements for NOX aftertreatment,
fuel systems, exhaust gas recirculation,
particulate matter traps, and emissionrelated electronic components.316
Specific EMD requirements will be
considered met if they are redundant
due to the installed engine’s fully
functioning OBD content. Most
manufacturers have already certified
their engines with EMD for the 2011
model year, and full OBD as required in
2013 exceeds EMD requirements,
therefore no new cost burden is
expected as a result of this provision. In
addition, new engines may be
introduced in 2013 for hybrid-only use
and, in lieu of meeting full OBD,
meeting EMD would result in cost
savings because of the flexibility in
scan-tool reporting and diagnostic
content.
In addition, the engine-hybrid system
must maintain existing OBD capability
for engines where the same or
equivalent engine (e.g. displacement)
has been OBD certified. An equivalent
engine is one produced by the same
engine manufacturer with the same
fundamental design, but that may have
no more than minor hardware or
calibration differences, such as slightly
different displacement, rated power, or
fuel system. Though the OBD capability
must be maintained, it does not have to
meet detection thresholds and in-use
performance frequency requirements;
for example, a manufacturer may
modify detection thresholds to prevent
false detection.
As stated earlier, existing hybrid
systems sold today have proprietary
316 California

Air Resources Board, Final
Regulation Order for EMD, Section 1971 of Title 13,
California Code of Regulations, effective December
30, 2004. Available here; http://www.arb.ca.gov/
regact/emd2004/fro.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00167

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57271

diagnostic capability that is non-OBD
compliant, but nonetheless will notify
the driver of potential problems with
the system. Hybrid manufacturers must
also continue to maintain this existing
diagnostic capability to ensure proper
function consistent with the
performance for which the hybrid
system is certified as well as, safe
operation of the hybrid system.
Finally, during the interim part of the
phase-in, manufacturers that are not
fully-OBD compliant must also submit
an annual pre-compliance report to the
EPA for model years 2013 and later. The
engine manufacturers must submit this
report with their engine certification
information. Hybrid manufacturers that
are not certifying the engine-hybrid
systems must also submit an annual precompliance report to the EPA. The
report must include a description of the
engine-hybrid system being certified
and related product plans, information
as to activities undertaken and progress
made by the manufacturer in achieving
full OBD certification including
monitoring, diagnostics, and
standardization; and deviations from an
originally certified full-OBD package
with engineering justification.
(d) Applicability of Current High
Altitude Provisions to Greenhouse
Gases
EPA is requiring that engines covered
by this program must meet CO2, N2O
and CH4 standards at elevated altitudes.
The CAA requires emission standards
under section 202 for heavy-duty
engines to apply at all altitudes. EPA
does not expect engine CO2, CH4, or
N2O emissions to be significantly
different at high altitudes based on
engine calibrations commonly used at
all altitudes. Therefore, EPA will retain
its current high altitude regulations so
manufacturers will not normally be
required to submit engine CO2 test data
for high altitude. Instead, they will be
required to submit an engineering
evaluation indicating that common
calibration approaches will be utilized
at high altitude. Any deviation in
emission control practices employed
only at altitude will need to be included
in the AECD descriptions submitted by
manufacturers at certification. In
addition, any AECD specific to high
altitude will be required to include
emissions data to allow EPA to evaluate
and quantify any emission impact and
validity of the AECD.
(e) Emission-Related Installation
Instructions
Engine manufacturers are currently
required to provide detailed installation
instructions to vehicle manufacturers.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57272

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

These instructions outline how to
properly install the engine,
aftertreatment, and other supporting
systems, such that the engine will
operate in its certified configuration. At
the time of certification, manufacturers
may be required to submit these
instructions to EPA to verify that
sufficient detail has been provided to
the vehicle manufacturer.
We do not anticipate any major
changes to this documentation as a
result of regulating GHG emissions. The
most significant impact will be the
addition of language prohibiting vehicle
manufacturers from installing engines
into vehicle categories in which they are
not certified for. An example would be
a tractor manufacturer installing an
engine certified for only vocational
vehicle use. Explicit instructions on
behalf of the engine manufacturer that
such acts are prohibited will serve as
sufficient notice to the vehicle
manufacturers and failure to follow
such instructions will result in the
vehicle manufacturer being in noncompliance.
(f) Alternate CO2 Emission and Fuel
Consumption Standards
Under the final rules, engine
manufacturers have the option of
certifying to alternate CO2 emission and
fuel consumption standards for model
years 2014 through 2016. These
alternate standards are defined as a
certain percentage below a baseline
value established from their
corresponding 2011 model-year
products. For instance, the alternate
emission standard for light and medium
heavy duty FTP-certified (vocational)
engines is equal to 0.975 times the
baseline value. If a manufacturer elects
to participate in this program it must
indicate this on its certification
application. In addition, sufficient
details must be submitted regarding the
baseline engine such that the agency can
verify that the correct optional CO2
emission and fuel consumption
standards have been calculated. These
data will need to include the engine
family name of the baseline engine, so
references to the original certification
application can be made, as well as test
data showing the CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption of the baseline engine.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(4) Compliance Reports
(a) Early Model Year Data
NHTSA’s regulatory text in the NPRM
included specifications for
manufacturers to submit precertification compliance reports for
heavy-duty engines. The precertification reports included

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

requirements for manufacturers to
submit information to identify the types
of engines, expected test results,
production volumes and credits. The
reporting requirements were general in
nature despite there being an existing
emissions program for heavy-duty
engines. The existing ABT program for
NOX and PM emissions for heavy-duty
engines has existed since 2001 (see 66
FR 5002 signed on January 18, 2001) but
does not require reporting early model
year compliance information. The
agencies sought comments on the report
provisions in the NPRM but
commenters failed to offer
recommendations on what content
should be required. As a result, the
agencies have decided to eliminate the
pre-certification report because engine
manufacturers have no experience in
providing GHG information and the
proposed information may not be
available until subsequent model years.
For the next phase of this GHG program,
the agencies may adopt a pre-model
year report for engines.
As an alternative to receiving early
compliance model year information in
the precertification reports, the agencies
have decided to use manufacturer’s
application for certificates of conformity
to obtain early model estimates.
Currently, the applications for
certificates are not required to include
the fuel consumption information
required by NHTSA. Therefore, the
agencies are adopting provisions in the
final rules for manufacturers to provide
emission and equivalent fuel
consumption estimates in the
manufacturer’s applications for
certification. The agencies will treat
information submitted in the
applications as a manufacturer’s
demonstration of providing early
compliance information, similar to the
pre-model year report submitted for
heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans.
The final rules establish a harmonized
approach by which manufacturers will
submit applications through the EPA
Verify database system as the single
point of entry for all information
required for this national program and
both agencies will have access to the
information. If by model year 2012, the
agencies are not prepared to receive
information through the EPA Verify
database system, manufacturers are
expected to submit written applications
to the agencies. This approach should
streamline this process and reduce
industry burden and provide sufficient
information for the agencies to carry out
their early compliance activities.

PO 00000

Frm 00168

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(b) Final Reports
For engines, the agencies proposed
that manufacturers would submit EOY
reports and final reports. An EOY report
for manufacturers using the ABT
program was required to be submitted
no later than 90 days after the calendar
year and final report no later than 270
days after the calendar year.317
Manufacturers not participating in the
ABT program were required to provide
an EOY report within 45 days after the
calendar year but no final reports were
required. The final ABT report due date
was established coinciding with EPA’s
existing criteria pollutant report for
heavy-duty engines complying with
NOX and PM standards. Similar to that
program, the proposed EOY and final
reports required receiving engine type
designation, engine family and credit
plans for engine manufacturers.
There were no comments received on
the final reports for engines. For the
final rules, the agencies will retain the
provisions as proposed for the EOY and
final reports. However, the agencies will
consolidate the reporting as done for
other vehicle categories and will require
emissions and equivalent fuel
consumption information to be
submitted to EPA. The final rules
establish a harmonized approach by
which manufacturers will submit
applications to EPA as the single point
of entry for all information required for
this national program and both agencies
will have access to the appropriate
information. If by model year 2012, the
agencies are not prepared to receive
information through a database system,
manufacturers are expected to submit
written applications to the agencies. The
agencies are also combining the EOY
reports for manufacturers not using ABT
to provide a product volume report due
90 days after the end of the model year
and the ABT report required 90 days
after the model year. A summary of the
required information in the final rules
for EOY and final reports is as follows:
• Engine family designation and
averaging set.
• Engine emissions and fuel
consumption standards including any
alternative standards used.
• Engine family FCLs.
• Final production volumes.
• Certified test cycles.
• Useful life values for engine
families.
• A credit plan identifying the
manufacturers actual credit balances,
credit flexibilities, credit trades and a
credit deficit plan if needed
demonstrating how it plans to resolve
317 Corresponding

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

to the compliance model year.

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
any credit deficits that might occur for
a model year within a period of up to
three model years after that deficit has
occurred.

submit various reports to the agencies to
comply with various aspects of the
program. These reports have differing
criteria for submission and approval.
Table V–1 below provides a summary
of the types of submission, required
submission dates and the EPA and

(c) Additional Required Information
Throughout the model year,
manufacturers may be required to

57273

NHTSA regulations that apply for
engines and engine manufacturers.
The agencies will review and grant
any appropriate requests considering
the timeliness of the submissions and
the completeness of the requests.

TABLE V–1—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR HD ENGINE COMPLIANCE
NHTSA
regulation
reference

Applies to

Required submissions date

Small business exemptions

Engine manufacturers meeting the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
size criteria of a small business as
described in 13 CFR 121.201.
The provisions apply with respect to
tractors and vocational vehicles produced in model years before 2014.
Engine manufacturers seeking early
compliance in model years 2014 to
2016.
Manufacturers that choose to show
compliance with the MY 2014 N2O
standards requesting to use an engineering analysis.
Manufacturers with surplus credits at
the end of the model year.
Engine manufacturers not able to comply with 1036.104 and wanting to
use the alternative engine standard.

Before introducing any excluded vehicle into U.S. for commerce.

§ 1036.150

§ 535.8

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for
certificates of conformity.
NHSAT must be notified before the
manufacturer submits it applications
for certificates of conformity.
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for
certificates of conformity.

§ 1036.150

§ 535.8

NA

§ 535.8

§ 1036.150

NA

90-days after the calendar year ends ..

§ 1036.730

§ 535.8

EPA and NHTSA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for certificates of conformity.
EPA and NHTSA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for certificates of conformity.

§ 1036.150

§ 535.8

§ 1036.150

§ 535.8

Incentives for early introduction.
Voluntary compliance for
NHTSA standards.
Model year 2014 N2O
standards..
Exemption from EOY reports.
Alternative engine standards.
Alternate phase-in .............

Engine manufacturers want to comply
with alternate phase in standards.

D. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
(1) Compliance Approach

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

EPA regulation
reference

Submission

In addition to requiring engine
manufacturers to certify their engines,
manufacturers of Class 7 and 8
combination tractors must also certify
that their vehicles meet the CO2
emission and fuel consumption
standards. This vehicle certification will
ensure that efforts beyond just engine
efficiency improvements are undertaken
to reduce GHG emissions and fuel
consumption. Some examples include
aerodynamic improvements, rolling
resistance reduction, idle reduction
technologies, and vehicle speed limiting
systems.
Unlike engine certification however,
this certification will be based on a
load-specific basis (g/ton-mile or gal/
1,000 ton-mile as opposed to 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 will also be
required to warrant their products
against emission control system defects,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

and demonstrate that a service network
is in place to correct any such
conditions. The vehicle manufacturer
also bears responsibility in the event
that an emission-related recall is
necessary.
(a) Certification Process
In order to obtain a certificate of
conformity for the tractor, the tractor
manufacturer will complete a
compliance demonstration, showing
that their product meets emission
standards as well as other regulatory
requirements. For purposes of this
demonstration, vehicles with similar
emission characteristics throughout
their useful life are grouped together in
vehicle families, which are defined
primarily by the regulatory subclass of
the vehicle. Manufacturers may further
classify vehicles together into subfamilies within a given vehicle family
for a given regulatory subcategory.
Examples of characteristics that would
define a vehicle sub-family for heavyduty vehicles are wheel and tire
package, aerodynamic profile, tire
rolling resistance, and vehicle speed
limiting system. Compliance with the

PO 00000

Frm 00169

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

emission standards (or FEL) will be
determined at the sub-family level.
Under this system, the worst-case
vehicle configuration would be selected
based on having the highest fuel
consumption, and all other
configurations within the family or subfamily are assumed to have emissions
and fuel consumption at or below the
parent model and therefore in
compliance with CO2 emission and fuel
consumption standards. Any vehicle
within the family can be subject to
selective enforcement auditing in
addition to confirmatory or other
administrator testing.
Vehicle families for Class 7 and 8
combination tractors will utilize the
standardized 12-digit naming
convention, as described along with the
engine certification process in Section
V.C.1.a, above. As with engines, each
certifying vehicle manufacturer will
have a unique three digit code assigned
to them. Currently, there is no 5th digit
(industry sector) code for this class of
vehicles, for which we proposed to use
the next available character, ‘‘2.’’ The
agencies originally proposed that engine
displacement be included in the vehicle

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57274

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

family name, however the wide range of
engines available across most regulatory
subcategories makes this requirement
irrelevant and unnecessary at the time
of this rulemaking. Therefore, we are
reserving the remaining characters for
California ARB and/or manufacturer
use, such that the result is a unique
vehicle family name.
Class 7 and 8 tractors share several
common traits, such as the trailer
attachment provisions, number of
wheels, and general construction.
However, further inspection reveals key
differences related to GHG emissions.
Payloads hauled by Class 7 tractors are
significantly less than Class 8 tractors.
In addition, Class 8 vehicles may have
provisions for hoteling (‘‘sleeper cabs’’),
which results in an increase in size as
well as the addition of comfort features
like power and climate control for use
while the truck is parked. Both
segments may have various degrees of
roof fairing to provide better
aerodynamic matching to the trailer
being pulled. This is a feature which
can help reduce CO2 emissions
significantly when properly matched to
the trailer, but can also increase CO2
emissions if improperly matched. Based
on these differences, it is reasonable to
expect differences in CO2 emissions,
and therefore these properties form the
basis for the final combination tractor
regulatory subcategories.
The various combinations of payload,
cab size, and roof profile result in nine
final regulatory subcategories for Class 7
and 8 tractors. Class 7 tractors are
divided into three regulatory
subcategories: one for low, one for mid
roof height profiles, and one for high
roof profiles. The Class 7 tractors are
subject to a 10 year, 185,000 regulatory
useful life. Class 8 tractors are split into
six regulatory subcategories reflecting
two cab sizes (day and sleeper) and
three roof height profiles (low, mid, and
high). All Class 8 tractors are subject to
a 10 year, 435,000 mile regulatory useful
life.
(b) Demonstrating Compliance With the
Final Standards

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption
Standards
As discussed at proposal, although
whole-vehicle certification may be
ultimately desirable for these vehicles, it
is essentially infeasible to require it
now. See 75 FR at 74270–71. Most
commenters agreed, as did the NAS
Report. Accordingly, again consistent
with the NAS Report, the agencies have
developed a predictive model for
demonstrating compliance with these
initial standards for combination

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

tractors. The agencies will continue to
work toward improved methods for
whole vehicle performance
characterization, as suggested by some
commenters.
Model
Vehicle modeling will be conducted
using the agencies’ simulation model,
the GEM, which is described in detail in
Chapter 4 of the RIA with responses to
comments in the Summary and Analysis
of Comments Document Section 7.
Basically, this model functions by
defining a vehicle configuration and
then exercises the model over various
drive cycles. Several initialization files
are needed to define a vehicle, which
include mechanical attributes, control
algorithms, and driver inputs. The
majority of these inputs will be
predetermined by EPA and NHTSA for
the purposes of vehicle certification.
The net results from the GEM are
weighted CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption values over the drive
cycles. The CO2 emission result will be
used for demonstrating compliance with
vehicle CO2 standards while the fuel
consumption result will be used for
demonstrating compliance with the fuel
consumption standards.
The vehicle manufacturer will be
responsible for entering up to seven
inputs relating to the GHG performance
of a vehicle configuration although,
depending on the regulatory category,
fewer inputs may be required. These
inputs include the regulatory category,
coefficient of drag, steer tire rolling
resistance, drive tire rolling resistance,
vehicle speed limit, vehicle weight
reduction, and idle reduction credit. For
the GEM inputs relating to
aerodynamics, the agencies have
finalized lookup tables for frontal area
and coefficient of drag based on typical
performance levels across the industry.
Manufacturers are responsible for
assessing the aerodynamic performance
of their vehicles through testing or a
combination of testing and modeling.
This test data is then used to select the
most appropriate agency-defined bin for
entry into the GEM.
Tire rolling resistance is simply the
measured rolling resistance of the tire in
kg per metric ton as described in ISO
28580:2009. This measured value is
expected to be the result of three repeat
measurements of three different tires of
a given design, giving a total of nine
data points. It is the average of these
nine results that will be entered into the
GEM. Tire rolling resistance may be
determined by either the vehicle or tire
manufacturer. In the latter case, a signed
statement from the tire manufacturer

PO 00000

Frm 00170

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

confirming testing was conducted in
accordance with this part is required.
As previously described, limiting
vehicle speed can have a significant
effect on fuel consumption and we
believe that manufacturers should be
recognized for including technology that
facilitates these limits. Also as
described, these vehicle speed limiters
are not likely to be a simple device with
a fixed top speed. ‘‘Soft top’’ limits
based on driver behavior and limit
expiration dates (or mileage) are two of
the most common scenarios. To
properly assess the GHG and fuel
consumption benefits in light of these
features, we are defining the proper
methodology for entering the vehicle
speed limit into the GEM. This is based
on an equation including terms for VSL
expiration (expiration factor) and VSL
soft-top (soft-top factor and soft-top
VSL). The result will be an effective
vehicle speed limit reflecting the
expected mileage and time that the limit
will be used for. Additional details
regarding this equation and its
derivation can be found in RIA Chapter
2.
For vehicle weight reduction, the
agencies are primarily addressing the
reduction of weight and perhaps
number of wheels. This reduction is
assessed relative to a standard
combination tractor configuration with
dual-wide rear tires with conventional
steel wheels. Manufacturers may elect to
use single-wide tires/wheels and/or
aluminum (or light-weight aluminum)
wheels or other components to reduce
the weight of their vehicles. The
agencies have defined standard weight
reduction levels associated with each
weight reduction technology for entry
into the GEM. These reductions are
listed in pounds per component, so
manufacturers will need to multiply this
reduction by the number of affected
components for their total weight
reduction entry into the GEM.
Manufacturers of sleeper cabs electing
to limit idle time to 300 seconds or less
can claim a GHG benefit of 5 g/ton-mile
and should be entered into the GEM as
such. This benefit cannot be scaled to
reflect shorter or longer allowed idle
times, but can be scaled based upon
expiration date.
The agencies will utilize the
appropriate engine map reflecting use of
a certified engine in the truck (and will
enter the same value even if an engine
family is certified to the temporary
percent reduction alternative standard,
in order to evaluate vehicle performance
independently of engine performance.)
We believe this approach reduces the
testing burden placed upon
manufacturers, yet adequately assesses

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
improvements associated with select
technologies. The model will be
publicly available and will be found on
EPA’s Web site.
The agencies reserve the right to
independently evaluate the inputs to the
model by way of Administrator testing
to validate those model inputs. The
agencies also reserve the right to
evaluate vehicle performance using the
inputs to the model provided by the
manufacturer to confirm the
performance of the system using GEM.
This could include generating emissions
results using the GEM and the inputs as
provided by the manufacturer based on
the agency’s own runs. This could also
include conducting comparable testing
to verify the inputs provided by the
manufacturer. In the event of such
testing or evaluation, the
Administrator’s results become the
official certification results, the
exception being that the manufacturer
may continue to use their data as
initially submitted, provided it
represents a worst-case condition over
the Administrator’s results.
To better facilitate the entry of only
the appropriate parameters, the agencies
will provide a graphical user interface
in the model for entering data specific
to each vehicle. In addition, EPA will
provide a template that facilitates batch
processing of multiple vehicle
configurations within a given family. It
is expected that this template will be
submitted to EPA as part of the
certification process for each certified
vehicle family or subfamily.
For certification, the model will
exercise the vehicle over three test
cycles; one transient and two steadystate. For the transient test, we are using
the heavy heavy-duty diesel truck
(HHDDT) transient test cycle, which
was developed by the California Air
Resources Board and West Virginia
University to evaluate heavy-duty
vehicles. The transient mode simulates
urban, start-stop driving, featuring 1.8
stops per mile over the 2.9 mile
duration. The two steady state test
points are reflective of the tendency for
some of these vehicles to operate for
extended periods at highway speeds.
Based on data from the EPA’s MOVES
database, and common highway speed
limits, we are finalizing these two
points to be 55 and 65 mph.
The model will predict the total
emissions results from each
configuration using the unique
properties entered for each vehicle.
These results are then normalized to the
payload and distance covered, so as to
yield a gram/ton-mile result, as well as
a fuel consumption (gal/1,000 ton-mile)
result for each test cycle. As with engine

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

and vehicle testing, certification will be
based on the worst-case configuration
within a vehicle family.
The results from all three tests are
then combined using weighting factors,
which reflect typical usage patterns. The
typical usage characteristics of Class 7
and 8 tractors with day cabs differ
significantly from Class 8 tractors with
sleeper cabs. The trucks with day cabs
tend to operate in more urban areas,
have a limited travel range, and tend to
return to a common depot at the end of
each shift. Class 8 sleeper cabs,
however, are typically used for long
distance trips which consist of mostly
highway driving in an effort to cover the
highest mileage in the shortest time. For
these reasons, we proposed that the
cycles are weighted differently for these
two groups of vehicles. For Class 7 and
8 trucks with day cabs, we propose
weights of 64%, 17%, and 19% (65
mph, 55 mph, and transient, resp.). For
Class 8 with sleeper cabs, the high
speed cruise tendency results in final
weights of 86%, 9%, and 5% (65 mph,
55 mph, and transient, respectively).
These final, weighted emission results
are compared to the emission standard
to assess compliance. The agencies
received comments regarding the duty
cycles and the weighting factors used
for assessing emissions compliance. In
making final determination for the cycle
weighting factors, the agencies
considered those comments, as well as
the agencies’ own data in determining
the final weighting factors and duty
cycles to be used for determining
emissions compliance. Demonstration of
compliance is also available through the
use of credits generated as part of the
Averaging, Banking, and Trading
Program (ABT) as described earlier in
this Preamble. Additionally, compliance
may be demonstrated through the use of
a Vehicle Speed Limiter (VSL) and the
application of the VSL is accounted for
as another input to the GEM for
assessing GHG and fuel consumption
emissions performance.
Durability Testing
As with engine certification, a
manufacturer must provide evidence of
compliance through the regulatory
useful life of the vehicle. Factors
influencing vehicle-level GHG
performance over the life of the vehicle
fall into two basic categories: vehicle
attributes and maintenance items. Each
category merits different treatment from
the perspective of assessing useful life
compliance, as each has varying degrees
of manufacturer versus owner/operator
responsibility.
The category of vehicle attributes
generally refers to aerodynamic features,

PO 00000

Frm 00171

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57275

such as fairings, side-skirts, air dams, air
foils, etc., which are installed by the
manufacturer to reduce aerodynamic
drag on the vehicle. These features have
a significant impact on GHG emissions
and their emission reduction properties
are assessed early in the useful life (at
the time of certification). These features
are expected to last the full life of the
vehicle without becoming detached,
cracked/broken, misaligned, or
otherwise not in a state which provides
the original GHG emissions reduction.
In the absence of the aforementioned
failure modes, the performance of these
features is not expected to degrade over
time and the benefit to reducing GHG
emissions is expected to last for the life
of the vehicle with no special
maintenance requirements. To assess
useful life compliance, we are following
a design-based approach which will
ensure that the manufacturer has
robustly designed these features so they
can reasonably be expected to last the
useful life of the vehicle.
The category of maintenance items
refers to items that are replaced,
renewed, cleaned, inspected, or
otherwise addressed in the preventative
maintenance schedule specified by the
vehicle manufacturer. Replacement
items that have a direct influence on
GHG emissions are primarily tires and
lubricants. Synthetic engine oil may be
used by vehicle manufacturers to reduce
the GHG emissions of their vehicles.
Manufacturers may specify that these
fluids be changed throughout the useful
life of the vehicle. If this is the case, the
manufacturer should have a reasonable
basis that the owner/operator will use
fluids having the same properties. This
may be accomplished by requiring (in
service documentation, labeling, etc.)
that only these fluids can be used as
replacements.
If the vehicle remains in its original
certified condition throughout its useful
life, it is not believed that GHG
emissions would increase as a result of
service accumulation. This is based on
the assumption that as components such
as tires wear, the rolling resistance due
to friction is likely to stay the same or
decrease. With all other components
remaining equal (tires, aerodynamics,
etc), the overall drag force would stay
the same or decrease, thus not
significantly changing GHG emissions at
the end of useful life. It is important to
remember however, that this vehicle
assessment does not take into account
any engine-related wear affects, which
may in fact increase GHG emissions
over time. The agencies received
comments from engine and tractor
manufacturers requesting an assigned
deterioration factor of zero for GHG

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57276

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

emissions. As discussed previously, the
agencies will allow the use of an
assigned deterioration factor of zero
where appropriate in Phase 1, however
this does not negate the responsibility of
the manufacturer to ensure compliance
with the emissions standards
throughout the useful life.
For the reasons explained above, we
believe that for the first phase of this
program, it is most important to ensure
that the vehicle remain in its certified
configuration throughout the useful life.
This can most effectively be
accomplished through engineering
analysis and specific maintenance
instructions provided by the vehicle
manufacturer. The vehicle manufacturer
would be primarily responsible for
providing engineering analysis
demonstrating that vehicle attributes
will last for the full useful life of the
vehicle. We anticipate this
demonstration will show that
components are constructed of
sufficiently robust materials and design
practices so as not to become
dysfunctional under normal operating
conditions. For instance, we expect
aerodynamic fairings to be constructed
of materials similar to that of the main
body of the vehicle (fiberglass, steel,
aluminum, etc) and have sufficient
support and attachment mechanisms so
as not to become detached or broken
under normal, on-highway driving.
(ii) EPA’s Air Conditioning Leakage
Standards
Heavy-duty vehicle air conditioning
systems contribute to GHG emissions in
two ways. First, operation of the air
conditioning unit places an accessory
load on the engine, which increases fuel
consumption. Second, most modern
refrigerants are HFC-based, which have
significant global warming potential
(GWP=1430). For heavy-duty vehicles,
the load added by the air conditioning
system is comparatively small compared
to other power requirements of the
vehicle. Therefore, we are not targeting
any GHG reduction due to decreased air
conditioning usage or higher efficiency
A/C units for this final action. However,
refrigerant leakage, even in very small
quantities, can have significant adverse
effects on GHG emissions.
Refrigerant leakage is a concern for
heavy-duty vehicles, similar to lightduty vehicles. To address this, EPA is
finalizing a design-based standard for
reducing refrigerant leakage from heavyduty pickups and vans and combination
tractors. This standard is based off using
the best practices for material selection
and interface sealing, as outlined in SAE
publication J2727. Based on design
criteria in this publication, a leakage

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

‘‘score’’ can be assessed and an
estimated annual leak rate can be made
for the A/C system based on the
refrigerant capacity. (There is no
requirement for vocational vehicle AC
leakage for reasons explained at 75 FR
74211.)
At the time of certification,
manufacturers will be required to
outline the design of their system,
including the specification of materials
and construction methods. They will
also need to supply the leakage score
developed using SAE J2727 and the
refrigerant volume of their system to
determine the leakage rate per year. If
the certifying manufacturer does not
complete installation of the air
conditioning unit, detailed instructions
must be provided to the final installer
who ensures that the A/C system is
assembled to meet the low-leakage
standards. These instructions will also
need to be provided at the time of
certification, and manufacturers must
retain all records relating to auditing of
the final assembler.
(c) In-Use Standards
As previously addressed, the 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 finalizing an
NTE-based in-use testing program for
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors for
this program.
In the absence of NTE-based in-use
testing, provisions are necessary for
verifying that production vehicles are in
the certified configuration, and remain
so throughout the useful life. Perhaps
the easiest method for doing this is to
verify the presence of installed
emission-related components. This
would basically consist of a vehicle
audit against what is claimed in the
certification application. This includes
verifying the presence of aerodynamic
components, such as fairings, sideskirts, and gap-reducers. In addition, the
presence of idle-reduction and speed
limiting devices would be verified. The
presence of LRR tires could be verified
at the point of initial sale; however
verification at other points throughout
the useful life would be non-enforceable
for the reasons mentioned previously.
The category of wear items primarily
relates to tires. It is expected that
vehicle manufacturers will equip their
trucks with LRR tires, as they may
provide a reduction in GHG emissions.
The tire replacement intervals for this
class of vehicle is normally in the range
of 50,000 to 100,000 miles, which

PO 00000

Frm 00172

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

means the owner/operator will be
replacing the tires at several points
within the useful life of the vehicle. We
believe that as LRR tires become more
common on new equipment, the
aftermarket prices of these tires will also
decrease. The primary barrier to the
introduction of more fuel efficient tire
designs into the truck market is the
upfront costs of tire development and
upfront capital costs for new production
machinery (e.g., new tire molds). Once
manufacturers have sunk these costs
into new tire designs and production
facilities in order to meet our vehicle
standards, there is little barrier for
bringing these better products into the
replacement tire market as well. Our
regulations will effectively force OEMs
to make these investments in tire
designs and, having done so, should
lead to better tires not only for new
vehicles but in the replacement tire
market as well. Along with decreasing
tire prices, the fuel savings realized
through use of LRR tires will ideally
provide enough incentive for owner/
operators to continue purchasing these
tires. Thus, the inventory modeling in
this final action reflects the continued
use of LRR tires through the life of the
vehicle.
(2) Enforcement Provisions
As identified above, a significant
amount of vehicle-level GHG reduction
is anticipated to come from the use of
components specifically designed to
reduce GHG emissions. Examples of
such components include LRR tires,
aerodynamic fairings, idle reduction
systems, and vehicle speed limiters. At
the time of certification, vehicle
manufacturers will specify which
components will be on their vehicle
when introduced into commerce. Based
on this list of installed components,
GHG emissions performance of the
vehicle will be assessed using the GEM,
and compliance with the family (or
subfamily) emissions limit will need to
be shown. Given the ability of
manufacturers to demonstrate
compliance through the use of
flexibility provisions, as previously
described, that will be taken into
account when assessing the
performance for purposes of
enforcement. Additionally, should
enforcement action be necessary against
systems certified using the flexibility
provisions, credit balances generated
through the use of the provisions may
be reduced as a consequence of
enforcement activity. As described in
the in-use testing section, it is important
to have the ability to determine if the
vehicle is in the certified configuration
at the time of sale.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Perhaps the most practical and basic
method of verifying that a vehicle is in
its certified configuration is through a
vehicle emissions control information
label, similar to that used for engines
and light-duty vehicles. We proposed
that this label list identifying features of
the vehicle, including model year,
vehicle model, certified engine family,
vehicle manufacturer, test group, and
GHG emissions category. In addition,
this label would list emission-related
components that an inspector could
reference in the event of a field
inspection. Possible examples may
include LRR (for LRR tires), ARF
(aerodynamic roof fairing), and ARM
(aerodynamic rearview mirrors). With
this information, inspectors could verify
the presence and condition of attributes
listed as part of the certified
configuration.
Several comments were received
voicing concern that the large number of
vehicle permutations within a given
vehicle family (and perhaps vehicle
subfamily) would lead to a large number
of unique labels, at significant cost and
labor burden to the manufacturer. In
addition, including generic emission
control system (EC) identifiers for
vehicles would add a significant burden
while providing little usable
information for inspectors. A common
example given in the comments was
that simply identifying ‘‘ARF’’ for a roof
fairing would not be sufficiently
detailed for an inspector to know
whether the correct roof fairing is
present. As a result of these concerns,
commenters suggested that vehicle
labels only include a minimal amount of
information such as a compliance
statement, vehicle family name, and
date of manufacture.
The agencies generally agree with the
concerns raised by the commenters and
do not wish to add burdensome and
arbitrary labeling requirements.
Concurrently, we also remain
committed to giving agency inspectors
adequate tools to ensure a vehicle is in
its certification at least at the time of
sale. Therefore, we are finalizing a
vehicle label requirement that includes:
—Compliance statement.
—Vehicle manufacturer.
—Vehicle family (and subfamily).
—Date of manufacture.
—Regulatory subcategory.
—Emission control system identifiers.
To address the concerns from vehicle
manufacturers identified above,
particularly related to emission control
(EC) identifiers, we believe a
combination of selectable information
on the label as well as a set of EPAdefined EC identifiers will provide a

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

useful, but not overly burdensome
labeling scheme. Since the intent of
these identifiers is to provide inspectors
with a means for simply verifying the
presence of a component, we do not
believe overly detailed identifiers are
necessary, particularly for tires and
aerodynamic components. For instance,
current engine regulations require that
three-way catalysts be identified on
engine labels as ‘‘TWC.’’ However,
unique details such as catalyst size,
loading, location, and even the number
of catalysts are not on the label. In
similar fashion, we believe that
identifying tires and aerodynamic
components in a general sense will
prove similarly effective in determining
if a vehicle has been built as intended
or if it has been modified prior to being
offered for sale.
EPA is requiring that components for
which vehicle certification is dependent
upon be identified on the label. This
includes limited aerodynamic
components (roof fairings, side skirts, &
gap reducers), vehicle speed limiters,
LRR tires, and idle reduction
components. If vehicle certification also
depends on the use of innovative or
advanced technologies, this too must be
included on the label. The following
identifiers must be used for the
emission control label:
Vehicle Speed Limiters
—VSL—Vehicle speed limiter.
—VSLS—‘‘Soft-top’’ vehicle speed
limiter.
—VSLE—Expiring vehicle speed
limiter.
—VSLD—Vehicle speed limiter with
both ‘‘soft-top’’ and expiration.
Idle Reduction Technology
—IRT5—Engine shutoff after 5 minutes
or less of idling.
—IRTE—Expiring engine shutoff.
Tires
—LRRD—Low rolling resistance tires—
Drive (CRR of 8.2 kg/metric ton or
less).
—LRRS—Low rolling resistance tires—
Steer (CRR of 7.8 kg/metric ton or
less).
—LRRA—Low rolling resistance tires—
All (meeting appropriate criteria for
steer & drive).
Aerodynamic Components
—ATS—Aerodynamic side skirt and/or
fuel tank fairing.
—ARF—Aerodynamic roof fairing.
—ARFR—Adjustable height
aerodynamic roof fairing.
—TGR—Gap reducing fairing (tractor to
trailer gap).

PO 00000

Frm 00173

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57277

Other Components
—ADV—Vehicle includes advanced
technology components.
—ADVH—Vehicle includes hybrid
powertrain.
—INV—Vehicle includes innovative
technology components.
On the vehicle label, several (if not
all), available EC identifiers available in
a given subfamily can be listed and the
appropriate selections can be made at
the time of assembly based on each
unique vehicle configuration. This
practice is common on engine ECI labels
(normally for month/year of
manufacture) and selections are made
using a punch, stamp, check mark or
other permanent method. This provides
inspectors with the information they
need while still affording flexibility to
manufacturers with several unique
vehicle configurations.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers will be required to
submit an example of their vehicle
emission control label such that EPA
can verify that all critical elements
mentioned above are present. In
addition to the label, manufacturers will
also need to describe where the unique
vehicle identification number and date
of production can be found on the
vehicle (if the date is not present on the
label).
The agencies received several
comments requesting the inclusion of
consumer-focused labels for heavy-duty
vehicles. These requests mainly
involved labels similar to those found
on passenger vehicles, allowing
consumers to easily determine and
compare fuel efficiency between
vehicles. While we agree that such
labels proven to be valuable to
consumers in the light-duty market
when shopping and comparing vehicles,
the vast array of in-use drive cycles for
heavy-duty vehicles and significant
impact on GHG emissions reduce the
intrinsic value of such fuel efficiency
data to consumers. Additionally, many
heavy-duty vehicles are unique and
purpose-built which prevents direct
comparison to other vehicles. The
agencies may revisit this topic for future
rulemaking activities, however there is
no consumer label requirement in this
final action.
(3) Other Certification Provisions
(a) Warranty
Section 207 of the CAA requires
manufacturers to warrant their products
to be free from defects that would
otherwise cause non-compliance with
emission standards. For purposes of this
regulation, vehicle manufacturers must
warrant all components which form the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57278

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

basis of the certification to the GHG
emission standards. The emissionrelated warranty covers vehicle speed
limiters, idle shutdown systems,
fairings, hybrid system components, and
other components to the extent such
components are included in the
certified emission controls. The
emission-related warranty also covers
tires and all components whose failure
would increase a vehicle’s evaporative
emissions (for vehicles subject to
evaporative emission standards, which
could include components which
received innovative or advanced
technology credits). In addition, the
manufacturer must ensure these
components and systems remain
functional for the warranty period
defined in 40 CFR part 86 for the engine
used in the vehicle, generally defined as
half of the regulatory useful life. As with
heavy-duty engines, manufacturers may
offer a more generous warranty,
however the emissions related warranty
may not be shorter than any other
warranty offered without charge for the
vehicle. If aftermarket components are
installed (unrelated to emissions
performance) which offer a longer
warranty, this will not impact emission
related warranty obligations of the
vehicle manufacturer. NHTSA, for this
phase of the program, is not finalizing
any warranty requirements relating to
its fuel consumption rule.
Several comments were received from
vehicle manufacturers voicing concern
that tire warranties should be the
responsibility of the tire manufacturer,
not the vehicle manufacturer. It has
been, and remains, EPA policy to hold
the certifying entities responsible for
warranty obligations. In this case, tire
manufacturers are not certificate holders
and therefore we do not believe it is
appropriate for them to independently
warrant their products. The agencies see
this as no different than requiring
turbocharger or fuel injector
manufacturers to provide warranties
related to heavy-duty engines. However,
we do believe that vehicle
manufacturers can and should hold tire
manufacturers responsible for warranty
of their products as part of their
sourcing and purchasing agreements. As
proposed, tires are only required to be
warranted for the first life of the tires
(vehicle manufacturers are not expected
to cover replacement tires). For heavyduty pickups and vans and combination
tractors, the vehicle manufacturer is also
required to warrant the A/C system
against design or manufacturing defects
causing refrigerant leakage in excess of
the standard. The warranty period for
the A/C system is identical to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

vehicle warranty period as described
above.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers must supply a copy of
the warranty statement that will be
supplied to the end customer. This
document should outline what is
covered under the GHG emissions
related warranty as well as the length of
coverage. Customers must also have
clear access to the terms of the warranty,
the repair network, and the process for
obtaining warranty service.
(b) Maintenance
Vehicle manufacturers are required to
outline maintenance schedules that
ensure their product will remain in
compliance with emission standards
throughout the useful life of the vehicle.
For heavy-duty vehicles, such
maintenance may include fluid/
lubricant service, fairing adjustments, or
service to the GHG emission control
system. This schedule is required to be
submitted as part of the application for
certification. Maintenance that is
deemed to be critical to ensuring
compliance with emission standards is
classified as ‘‘critical emission-related
maintenance.’’ Generally, manufacturers
are discouraged from specifying that
critical emission-related maintenance is
needed within the regulatory useful life
of the engine. However, if such
maintenance is unavoidable,
manufacturers must have a reasonable
basis for ensuring it is performed at the
correct time. This may be demonstrated
through several methods including
survey data indicating that at least 80
percent of engines receive the required
maintenance in-use or manufacturers
may provide the maintenance at no
charge to the user.
Manufacturers will be required to
submit the recommended emissionrelated maintenance schedule (and
other service related documentation) at
the time of certification. This
documentation should provide
sufficient detail to allow the owner/
operator of the vehicle to maintain the
emission control system in a way that
will ensure functionality as intended.
This would include items such as
periodic inspection of aerodynamic
components and maintenance unique to
advanced or innovative technologies. In
addition, these instructions should
provide the owner/operator with
adequate information to replace
consumable components (such as tires)
with comparable replacements.
Since low rolling resistance tires are
key emission control components under
this program, and will likely require
replacement at multiple points within
the life of a vehicle, it is logical to

PO 00000

Frm 00174

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

clarify how this fits into the emissionrelated maintenance requirements.
While the agencies encourage the
exclusive use of LRR tires throughout
the life of heavy-duty vehicles, we
recognize that it is inappropriate at this
time to hold vehicle manufacturers
responsible for ensuring that this
occurs. Additionally, we believe that
owner/operators have a legitimate
financial motivation for ensuring their
vehicles are as fuel efficient as possible,
which includes purchasing LRR
replacement tires. However owner/
operators may not have a sound
knowledge of which replacement tires
to purchase to retain the as-certified fuel
efficiency of their vehicle. To address
this concern and in response to
comments from vehicle manufacturers,
we are requiring that vehicle
manufacturers supply adequate
information in the owner’s manual to
allow the owner/operator of the vehicle
to purchase tires meeting or exceeding
the rolling resistance performance of the
original equipment tires. We expect that
these instructions will be submitted to
EPA as part of the application for
certification.
(c) Certification Fees
Similar to engine certification, the
agency will assess certification fees for
heavy-duty vehicles. The proceeds from
these fees are used to fund the
compliance and certification activities
related to GHG regulation for this
regulatory category. In addition to the
certification process, other activities
funded by certification fees include
EPA-administered in-use testing,
selective enforcement audits, and
confirmatory testing. At this point, the
exact costs associated with the heavyduty vehicle GHG compliance are not
well known. EPA will assess its
compliance program cost associated
with this program and assess the
appropriate level of fees. We anticipate
that fees will be applied based on
vehicle families, following the lightduty vehicle approach.
(d) Requirements for Conducting
Aerodynamic Assessment Using the
Modified Coastdown Reference Method
and Alternative Aerodynamic Methods
The requirements for conducting
aerodynamic assessment using the
modified coastdown reference method
and alternative aerodynamic methods
includes two key components:
adherence to a minimum set of
standardized criteria for each allowed
method and submittal of aerodynamic
values and supporting information on
an annual basis for the purposes of
certifying vehicles to a particular

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
aerodynamic bin as discussed in Section
II.
First, we are finalizing requirements
for conducting the modified coastdown
reference method and each of the
alternative aerodynamic assessment
methods. We will cite approved and
published standards and practices,
where feasible, but will define criteria
where none exists or where more
current research indicates otherwise. A
description of the requirements for each
method is discussed later in this
section. The manufacturer will be
required to provide performance data on
its vehicles and attest to the accuracy of
the information provided.
Second, to ensure continued
compliance, manufacturers will be
required to provide a minimum set of
information on an annual basis at
certification time 1) to support
continued use of an aerodynamic
assessment method and 2) to assign an

aerodynamic value based on the
applicable aerodynamic bins. The
information supplied to the agencies
should be based on an approved
aerodynamic assessment method and
adhere to the requirements for
conducting aerodynamic assessment
mentioned above.
The annual submission may be based
on coastdown testing conducted
consistent with the modified protocol
detailed in this rulemaking or with an
approved alternative method. The
coastdown testing must be conducted
using the Modified Protocol which uses
SAE J1263 as a basis with some
elements of SAE J2263 (e.g., postprocessing and analysis techniques), in
addition to the modifications developed
in response to industry comments
which raised concerns regarding test to
test variability.
In addition to 8 valid coastdown runs
in each direction, manufacturers using

57279

in-house test methods should provide
an adjustment factor for relating their
drag coefficient based on their in-house
method to the reference method,
modified coastdown. The basis for the
adjustment factor is:
Adjustment Factor = Cd coastdown /
Cd in-house
For the test article used for
certification that differs from the test
article used for reference method
testing, determine Cd to use for
aerodynamics bin determination as
described below.
Cd certification BIN = Adjustment Factor ×
Cdin-house measured
The specific requirements for the test
article used in reference method testing
using the coastdown procedures should
meet the requirements listed in Table
V–2 through Table V–5, below.

TABLE V–2—REFERENCE METHOD TEST VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
53′ air ride dry vans
Length ......................................................
Width ........................................................
Height ......................................................
Capacity ...................................................
Assumed trailer load/capacity .................
Suspension ..............................................
Corners ....................................................
Bogie/Rear Axle Position .........................
Skin ..........................................................
Scuff band ...............................................
Wheels .....................................................
Doors .......................................................
Undercarriage/Landing Gear ...................
Underride Guard ......................................

53 feet (636 inches) +/¥ 1 inch.
102 inches +/¥ 0.5 inches.
102 inches (162 inches or 13 feet, 6 inches (+ 0.0 inch/ ¥1 inch) from the ground).
3800 cubic feet.
45,000 lbs.
Any (see ‘‘trailer ride height’’ below).
Rounded with a radius of 5.5 inches +/¥ 0.5 inches.
Tandem axle (std), 146 inches +/¥ 3.0 inches from rear axle centerline to rear of trailer. Set to California position.
Generally smooth with flush rivets.
Generally smooth, flush with sides (protruding ≤ 1⁄8 inch).
22.5 inches. Duals. Std mudflaps.
Swing doors.
Std landing gear, no storage boxes, no tire storage, 105 inches +/¥ 4.0 inches from centerline of
king pin to centerline of landing gear.
Equipped in accordance with 49 CFR 393.86.

Tires for the Standard Trailer and the Tractor:
a. Size: 295/75R22.5 or 275/80R22.5.
b. CRR <5.1 kg/metric ton (In addition, the CRR for trailer tires in GEM should be updated to 5.0 kg/metric ton.).
c. Broken in per section 8.1 of SAE J1263.
d. Pressure per section 8.5 of SAE J1263.
e. No uneven wear.
f. No re-treads.
g. Should these tires or appropriate Smart Way tires not be available, the Administrator testing may include tires used by the manufacturer
for certification.
Test Conditions:
1. Tractor-trailer gap: 45 inches +/¥ 2.0 inches.
2. King pin setting: 36 inches +/¥ 0.5 inches from front of trailer to king pin center line.
3. Trailer ride height: 115 inches +/¥ 1.0 inches from top of trailer to fifth wheel plate, measured at the front of the trailer, and set within
trailer height boundary from ground as described above.
4. Mudflaps: Positioned immediately following wheels of last axle.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

TABLE V–3—REFERENCE METHOD COASTDOWN TEST TRACK CONDITION SPECIFICATIONS
Parameter

Range

Coastdown speed range ..........................................................................
Average wind speed at the test site (for each run in each direction) ......
Maximum wind speed (for each run in each direction) ............................
Average cross wind speed (for each run in each direction at the site) ...
All valid coastdown runs in one direction .................................................

70 mph to 15 mph.
<10 mph.
<12.3 mph.
<5 mph.
Within 2 standard deviations of the other valid coastdown runs in that
same direction.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00175

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57280

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V–3—REFERENCE METHOD COASTDOWN TEST TRACK CONDITION SPECIFICATIONS—Continued
Parameter

Range

Grade of the test track .............................................................................

<0.02% or account for the impact of gravity as described in SAE J2263
Equation 6.

TABLE V–4—STANDARD TANKER TRAILER FOR SPECIAL TESTING
Tanker
Length ......................................................
Width ........................................................
Height ......................................................
Capacity ...................................................
Suspension ..............................................
Tank .........................................................
Bogie ........................................................
Skin ..........................................................
Structures ................................................
Wheels .....................................................
Tanker Operation .....................................

42 feet ± 1 foot, overall.
40 feet ± 1 foot, tank.
96 inches ± 2.
140 inches (overall, from ground).
7,000 gallons.
Any (see ‘‘trailer ride height’’ below).
Generally cylindrical with rounded ends.
Tandem axle (std). Set to furthest rear position.
Generally smooth.
(1) Centered, manhole (20 inch opening), (1) ladder generally centered on side, (1) walkway (extends
lengthwise).
24.5 inches. Duals.
Empty.

TABLE V–5—STANDARD FLATBED REFERENCE TRAILER FOR SPECIAL TESTING
Flatbed
Length ......................................................
Width ........................................................
Flatbed Deck Heights ..............................
Wheels/Tires ............................................
Bogie ........................................................

53 feet.
102 inches.
Front: 60 inches ± 1⁄2 inch.
Rear: 55 inches ± 1⁄2 inch.
22.5 inch diameter tire with steel or aluminum wheels.
Tandem axles, may be in ‘‘spread’’ configuration up to 10 feet ± 2 inches.
Air suspension.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Load Profile: 25 inches from the centerline to either side of the load;
Mounted 4.5 inches above the deck.
Load height 31.5 inches above the load support.

Regardless of the method, all testing
using high-roof sleepers should be
performed with a tractor-trailer
combination to mimic real world usage.
Accordingly, it is important to match
the type of tractor with the correct
trailer. Although, as discussed
elsewhere in this rulemaking, the
correct tractor-trailer combination is not
always present or tractor-only operation
may occur, the majority of operation in
the real world involves correctly
matched tractor-trailer combinations
and we will attempt to reflect that here.
Therefore, when performing an
aerodynamic assessment for a Class 7
and 8 tractor with a high roof, a
standard box trailer must be used.
The definitions of the standard trailer
are further detailed in § 1037.501(g).
This ensures consistency and continuity
in the aerodynamic assessments, and
maintains the overlap with real world
operation. As mid-roof and low-roof
coastdown testing will be conducted
without the trailer if the aerodynamic
bin is not extrapolated from a high-roof
version, then testing using other

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

methods should also be conducted
based on the tractor alone.
(e) Standardized Criteria for
Aerodynamic Assessment Methods
(i) Coastdown Procedure Requirements
For coastdown testing, the test runs
should be conducted in a manner
consistent with SAE J1263 with
additional modifications as described in
the 40 CFR part 1066, subpart C, and in
Chapter 3 of the RIA using the mixed
model analysis method. Since the
coastdown procedure is the primary
aerodynamic assessment method, the
manufacturer would be required to
conduct the coastdown procedure
according to the requirements in this
final action and supply the following
information to the agency for approval:
• Facility information: name and
location, description and/or
background/history, equipment and
capability, track and facility elevation,
track grade and track size/length;
• Test conditions for each test result
including date and time, wind speed
and direction, ambient temperature and
humidity, vehicle speed, driving

PO 00000

Frm 00176

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

distance, manufacturer name, test
vehicle/model type, model year,
applicable model engine family, tire
type and rolling resistance, test weight
and driver name(s) and/or ID(s);
• Average Cd result as calculated in
40 CFR 1037.520(b) from valid tests
including, at a minimum, ten valid test
results, with no maximum number,
standard deviation, calculated error and
error bands, and total number of tests,
including number of voided or invalid
tests.
(ii) Wind Tunnel Testing Requirements
Wind tunnel testing would conform to
the following procedures and
modifications, where applicable,
including:
• SAE J1252, ‘‘SAE WIND TUNNEL
TEST PROCEDURE FOR TRUCKS AND
BUSES’’ (July 1981) shall be followed
with the following exceptions: section
5.2 is modified to specify a minimum
Reynold’s number (Remin) of 1.0×106 and
your model frontal area at zero yaw
angle may exceed the recommended 5
percent of the active test section area,
provided it does not exceed 25 percent;

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
section 6.0 is modified to add the
requirement that, for reduced-scale
wind tunnel testing, a one-eighth (1⁄8th)
or larger scale model of a heavy-duty
tractor and trailer must be used; for
reduced-scale wind tunnel testing,
section 6.1 is modified to add the
requirement that the model be of
sufficient design to simulate airflow
through the radiator inlet grill and
across an engine geometry
representative of those commonly in
your test vehicle.;
• J1594, ‘‘VEHICLE
AERODYNAMICS TERMINOLOGY’’
(December 1994); and
• J2071, ‘‘AERODYNAMIC TESTING
OF ROAD VEHICLES—OPEN THROAT
WIND TUNNEL ADJUSTMENT’’ (June
1994).
In addition, the wind tunnel used for
aerodynamic assessment would be a
recognized facility by the Subsonic
Aerodynamic Testing Association. If
your wind tunnel is not capable of
testing in accordance with these EPA
modified SAE procedures, you may
request EPA approval to use this wind
tunnel and must demonstrate that your
alternate test procedures produce data
sufficiently accurate for compliance.
This must be approved by EPA prior to
method validation and correlation factor
development. We are finalizing the
provisions that manufacturers that
perform wind tunnel testing do so based
on the requirements detailed in this
action. The wind tunnel tests should be
conducted at a zero yaw angle and, if so
equipped, utilizing the moving/rolling
floor (i.e., the moving/rolling floor
should be on during the test as opposed
to static) for comparison to the
coastdown procedure, which corrects to
a zero yaw angle for the oncoming wind.
However, manufacturers may be
required to test at yaw angles other than
zero (e.g., positive and negative six) if
they voluntarily seek to improve their
GHG emissions score for a given model
using additional yaw sweep.
The manufacturer is required to
supply the following:
• Facility information: Name and
location, description and background/
history, layout, wind tunnel type,
diagram of wind tunnel layout,
structural and material construction;
• Wind tunnel design details: Corner
turning vane type and material, air
settling, mesh screen specification, air
straightening method, tunnel volume,
surface area, average duct area, and
circuit length;
• Wind tunnel flow quality:
Temperature control and uniformity,
airflow quality, minimum airflow
velocity, flow uniformity, angularity
and stability, static pressure variation,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

turbulence intensity, airflow
acceleration and deceleration times, test
duration flow quality, and overall
airflow quality achievement;
• Test/Working section information:
Test section type (e.g., open, closed,
adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular,
square, oval), length, contraction ratio,
maximum air velocity, maximum
dynamic pressure, nozzle width and
height, plenum dimensions and net
volume, maximum allowed model scale,
maximum model height above road,
strut movement rate (if applicable),
model support, primary boundary layer
slot, boundary layer elimination method
and photos and diagrams of the test
section;
• Fan section description: Fan type,
diameter, power, maximum rotational
speed, maximum top speed, support
type, mechanical drive, sectional total
weight;
• Data acquisition and control (where
applicable): Acquisition type, motor
control, tunnel control, model balance,
model pressure measurement, wheel
drag balances, wing/body panel
balances, and model exhaust
simulation;
• Moving ground plane or Rolling
Road (if applicable): Construction and
material, yaw table and range, moving
ground length and width, belt type,
maximum belt speed, belt suction
mechanism, platen instrumentation,
temperature control, and steering; and
• Facility correction factors and
purpose.
(iii) CFD Requirements
Currently, there is no existing
standard, protocol or methodology
governing the use of CFD. Therefore, we
are establishing a minimum set of
criteria based on today’s practices and
coupling the use of CFD with empirical
measurements from coastdown and, for
gaining innovative technology credits,
wind tunnel procedures. Since there are
primarily two-types of CFD software
code, Navier-Stokes based and LatticeBoltzman based, we are outlining two
sets of criteria to address both types.
Therefore, the agencies are requiring
that manufacturers use commerciallyavailable CFD software code with a
turbulence model included or available.
Further details and criteria for each type
of commercially-available CFD software
code follows immediately and general
criteria for all CFD analysis are
subsequently described.
For Navier-Stokes based CFD code,
manufacturers must perform an
unstructured, time-accurate analysis
using a mesh grid size with total volume
element count of at least fifty million
cells of hexahedral and/or polyhedral

PO 00000

Frm 00177

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57281

mesh cell shape, surface elements
representing the geometry consisting of
no less than six million elements and a
near wall cell size corresponding to a y+
value of less than three hundred with
the smallest cell sizes applied to local
regions of the tractor and trailer in areas
of high flow gradients and smaller
geometry features. Navier-Stokes-based
analysis should be performed with a
turbulence model (e.g., k-epsilon (k-e),
shear stress transport k-omega (SST k-w)
or other commercially-accepted method)
and mesh deformation (if applicable)
enabled with boundary layer resolution
of +/¥ 95 percent. Finally, NavierStokes based CFD analysis for the
purposes of determining the Cd should
be performed once result convergence is
achieved. Manufacturers should
demonstrate convergence by supplying
multiple, successive convergence
values.
For Lattice-Boltzman based CFD code,
manufacturers must perform an
unstructured, time-accurate analysis
using a mesh grid size with total
number of volume elements of at least
fifty million with a near wall cell size
of no greater than six millimeters on
local regions of the tractor and trailer in
areas of high flow gradients and smaller
geometry features, with cell sizes in
other areas of the mesh grid starting at
twelve millimeters and increasing in
size from this value as the distance from
the tractor-trailer model increases.
In general for CFD, all analysis should
be conducted using the following
conditions: A tractor-trailer combination
using the manufacturer’s tractor and the
trailer according to the trailer
specifications in this regulation, an
environment with a blockage ratio of
less than or equal to 0.2 percent to
simulate open road conditions, a zero
degree yaw angle between the oncoming
wind and the tractor-trailer
combination, ambient conditions
consistent with the modified coastdown
test procedures outlined in this
regulation, open grill with
representative back pressures based on
data from the tractor model, turbulence
model and mesh deformation enabled (if
applicable), and tires and ground plane
in motion consistent with and
simulating a vehicle moving in the
forward direction of travel. For any CFD
analysis, the smallest cell size should be
applied to local regions on the tractor
and trailer in areas of high flow
gradients and smaller geometry features
(e.g., the a-pillar, mirror, visor, grille
and accessories, trailer leading and
trailing edges, rear bogey, tires, tractortrailer gap).
Finally, with administrator approval,
a manufacturer may request and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57282

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

perform CFD analysis using parameters
and criteria other than stated above if
the manufacturer can demonstrate that
the conditions above are not feasible
(e.g., insufficient computing power to
conduct such analysis, inordinate length
of time to conduct analysis, equivalent
flow characteristics with more feasible
criteria/parameters) or improved criteria
may yield better results (e.g., different
mesh cell shape and size). A
manufacturer must provide data and
information that demonstrates that their
parameters/criteria will provide a
sufficient level of detail to yield an
accurate analysis including comparison
of key characteristics between the
manufacturer’s criteria/parameters and
those stated above (e.g., pressure
profiles, drag build-up, and/or
turbulent/laminar flow at key points on
the front of the tractor and/or over the
length of the tractor-trailer
combination).
Alternative Aerodynamic Method
Comparison to the Coastdown Test
Procedure Reference Method
If a manufacturer uses any alternative
aerodynamic method, or any method
other than the coastdown reference
method, the manufacturer would have
to provide a comparison to the
coastdown test procedure reference
method. The manufacturer would be
required to perform the alternative
aerodynamic method and the coastdown
test procedure reference method on the
same model and compare the Cd results.
The alternative aerodynamic method, or
any other method using good
engineering judgment, and the
coastdown test procedure reference
method must be conducted under
similar test conditions and adhere to the
criteria discussed above for each
aerodynamic assessment method.
This demonstration would be
performed in the initial year of rule
implementation and would require
agency review and approval prior to use
of the alternative aerodynamic method
in future years and for other models.
The comparison would occur on one
model of the manufacturer’s highest
sales volume, Class 8, high roof, sleeper
cab family with a full aerodynamics
package, either equipped at the factory
or sold through a dealer specifically for
that model as an OEM part. If the
manufacturer does not have such a
model, the manufacturer may select a
comparable model in that family or a
model from another highest sales
volume family in the manufacturer’s
fleet.
For the comparison, the manufacturer
would be required to provide
information on the test conditions for

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

each test result including but not
limited to: test date and time, wind
speed (if applicable), temperature,
humidity, manufacturer and model,
model year, applicable model engine
family, tire type and rolling resistance
for actual model, model test weight,
equivalent vehicle test weight, actual
and simulated or equivalent vehicle
speed, Reynolds number (if applicable),
yaw angle (if applicable), blockage ratio,
either calculated or measured (if
applicable), model mounting (if
applicable), model geometry, body axis
force and moments (if applicable), total
test duration, test vehicle and type and
operator name(s) and/or ID(s). In
addition, the manufacturer must
provide the Cd results from valid tests.
Once the comparison is performed in
the initial year, the manufacturer is
required to perform this comparison
every three years on the highest sales
volume, Class 8, high roof, sleeper cab
family equipped with a full
aerodynamics package unless any or all
of the following occurs: the Class 8, high
roof, sleeper cab family/model used for
the original comparison is no longer
commercially available, and/or
significantly redesigned, with the
meaning of ‘‘significantly’’ based on
good engineering judgment, a
fundamental change is made to the
current alternative aerodynamic method
(e.g., change from facility A to facility B
as a source), and/or the alternative
aerodynamic method is changed to
something other than the coastdown test
procedure reference method (e.g.,
switch to wind tunnel testing from
coastdown, change wind tunnel testing
facilities or CFD software code).
However, the agency reserves the right
and has the authority under the Clean
Air Act (CAA) to request and have the
manufacturer perform a comparison in
any year and on any model that the
manufacturer has certified.
Finally, the data generated for the
purpose of this comparison can be used
in annual certification for that model,
also called the base model, and for
determining Cd for other models and/or
sub-families in the base model family,
or other families in the manufacturer’s
fleet.
Annual Certification Data Submittal for
Aerodynamic Assessment
For each model in the manufacturer’s
fleet, the manufacturer is required to
supply aerodynamic information on an
annual basis to the agencies in their
certification application. Once the
manufacturer has performed the
coastdown test procedure or the
comparison for an alternative
aerodynamic method, the aerodynamic

PO 00000

Frm 00178

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

assessment method can be used to
generate Cd values for all models the
manufacturer plans to certify and
introduce into commerce. For each
model, the manufacturer would
determine a predicted aerodynamic drag
(Cd times the frontal area, A). This
reduces burden on the manufacturer to
perform aerodynamic assessment but
provides data for all the models in a
manufacturer’s fleet. If a manufacturer
has previously performed aerodynamic
assessment on the other models, the
manufacturer may submit an
experimental Cd in lieu of a predicted
Cd.
The aerodynamic assessment data
will be used in one of two ways: the
manufacturer will use the Cd (times A)
values to determine the correct GEM
input according to agency-defined
tables, or the agencies will use the
manufacturer’s input data into the
model and assign a GHG value/score.
Since the agencies may input the data
into the model, manufacturers are
required to provide the information
from the coastdown test procedure,
alternative aerodynamic method or the
method comparison described above for
annual certification. In addition, the
manufacturer would supply
manufacturer fleet information to the
agency for annual certification purposes
along with the acceptance
demonstration parameters:
manufacturer name, model year, model
line (if different than manufacturer
name), model name, engine family,
engine displacement, transmission
name and type, number of axles, axle
ratio, vehicle dimensions, including
frontal area, predicted or measured
coefficient of drag, assumptions used in
developing the predicted or measured
Cd, justification for carry-across of
aerodynamic assessment data, photos of
the model line-up, if available, and
model applications and usage options.
Finally, the agencies reserve the right
to request that a manufacturer generate
or provide additional data, prior to
certification, to support and receive
annual certification approval.
(f) Aerodynamic Validation and
Compliance Audit
The agencies reserve the right to
perform aerodynamic validation and
compliance audit of the manufacturer’s
aerodynamic results. The agencies may
conduct a vehicle confirmatory
evaluation using a vehicle recruited
from the in-use fleet and performing the
reference method, coastdown test
procedures, either at the manufacturer’s
facility or an independent facility using
the agencies equipment and tools. If
there is a discrepancy between the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

• Step 2: Apply the aerodynamic
method adjustment factor to the positive
six, negative six and zero degrees yaw
Cd values for that model using the
equation;
Cd Adjusted = Adjustment Factor × Cd(∂6

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

degrees/¥6 degrees/0 degrees, model)

• Step 3: Calculate your Adjusted
zero yaw Cd*A
Adjusted Zero Yaw Cd*A(model) =
adjusted +/¥ Six Yaw
Cd(average,model) *A(model) × Zero Yaw
Cd*A(industry average) +/¥Six Yaw
Cd(average)*A(industry average)
• Step 4: Use the adjusted zero yaw
Cd*A for the model to determine
appropriate bin and the associated Cd
input for the GEM to determine your
Yaw Sweep Adjusted GHG score.
Essentially, this equation becomes y =
x * C where y is the adjusted zero yaw
Cd, × is the corrected average of the +/
¥ six degree yaw Cds for the
manufacturer’s model, and C is a
constant value based on the ratio of the
zero yaw Cd and WACd ratio for the
industry. The current default value for
this industry baseline ratio for this is
rulemaking is 0.8065 based on the Cd
values of current Class 8, high-roof, aero
sleeper cab models in the fleet. The
agencies may periodically review this
industry baseline ratio and adjust it, if
necessary, with notification to the
industry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

next highest bin, in this case Bin III). In
addition, the agencies may select any
model from the manufacturer’s fleet/
vehicle family to perform the
aerodynamic validation and
compliance.
(g) Aerodynamic Bin Category
Adjustment Using Yaw Sweep
Information
As discussed in Section II.B.2, the
agencies are finalizing aerodynamic
drag values which represent zero degree
yaw (i.e., representing wind from
directly in front of the vehicle, not from
the side). We recognize that wind
conditions, most notably wind
direction, have a greater impact on real
world CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of heavy-duty trucks than
of light-duty vehicles. To provide
additional incentive for manufacturers
using aerodynamic techniques (i.e.,
techniques that use assessment at yaw
angles more or less than zero degrees to

The yaw sweep adjustment described
above only applies to Class 7, high-roof
day cab and Class 8 high-roof day or
sleeper cab tractors and a manufacturer
seeking yaw sweep adjustment must use
an approved, alternative aerodynamic
method to generate the yaw sweep data.
Manufacturers may use a more yaw
sweep angles (e.g., zero, +/¥ 1, 3, 6, 9)
for their yaw sweep adjustment and, in
this case, must calculate the windaverage Cd (WACd) according to SAE
J1252 and use this value in lieu of the
average of the +/¥ six degree yaw Cds
in the equations above.
As stated elsewhere in this regulation,
the Agencies reserve the right to review
a manufacturer’s proposed adjustment
and discuss the proposed adjustment
with the manufacturer. The Agencies
will notify the manufacturer of the need
for a review and the manufacturer must
provide all information requested by the
Agencies to support the review and
subsequent discussion(s). The agencies
also reserve the right to deny
aerodynamic bin category adjustment
independent or as a result of the review/
discussions with the manufacturer. In
such case, the Agencies will notify the
manufacturer of denial prior to
certification to ensure the proper inputs
to the GEM are used.

PO 00000

Frm 00179

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

capture the influence of side winds and
calculate wind average drag coefficient),
the agencies are defining an approach to
allow manufacturers to account for
improved aerodynamic performance in
crosswind conditions similar to those
experienced by vehicles in use. If a
manufacturer can benefit from having a
model that performs in regimes or
conditions other than the scope of the
test parameters in this rulemaking, this
creates an incentive for the entire
industry. As a result, we are allowing
manufacturers to use the coefficient of
drag values at positive six, negative six,
and zero degrees yaw to improve their
GHG score.
The Yaw Sweep Adjustment would be
determined using the following steps
and equations:
• Step 1: Determine your aero method
adjustment factor as described above in
paragraph (d) of this section and using
the equation;

(4) Compliance Reports
(a) Early Model Year Data
The regulatory text of the NPRM
included specifications for
manufacturers to submit precertification compliance reports for each
of a manufacturer’s fleet of heavy-duty
tractors. Navistar and Volvo commented
that the requirements specified in the
NHTSA pre-certification reports are
overbroad and should be eliminated.
The pre-certification reports included
requirements for manufactures to
submit a wide variety of information on
these vehicles. The variety of
information was believed to be
necessary given that these vehicles had
no previous compliance information for
meeting fuel efficiency and emission
standards and the agencies wanted to
ensure that enough information was
obtain to ensure sufficient compliance
with the program. The agencies have
since reviewed the level of detail
required in the precertification reports
and are in agreement with commenters
that the required information may be
overly broad for compliance purposes
and given that this is the first time these
manufacturers have been regulated, the
level of information required may not be
available until subsequent model years.
Therefore, as discussed previously for
pickup trucks and vans, the agencies
have removed the requirement for

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.005

manufacturer’s data submitted for
certification and the agencies’ validation
results, the agency may perform a full
audit of the manufacturer’s source data
and aerodynamic assessment methods
and tools used by the manufacturer to
produce the data. The manufacturer
would be required to make all
equipment and tools available to the
agencies to conduct the full audit.
Based on this audit, the agencies may
require the manufacturer to make
changes to their aerodynamic
assessment methods ranging from minor
adjustments to method criteria to
switching allowed aerodynamic
assessment methods. For the purposes
of aerodynamic validation and
compliance audit, manufacturers will be
allowed an additional compliance
margin of one bin from the certified bin
for the model evaluated (e.g., if a
manufacturer certifies a model to Bin
IV, the results of the aerodynamic valid/
compliance audit must fall within the

57283

57284

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

manufactures to submit pre-certification
compliances reports for these classes of
vehicles.
As an alternative to receiving early
compliance model year information in
the precertification reports, the agencies
have decided to use manufacturer’s
application for certificates of conformity
to obtain early model estimates.
Currently, the applications for
certificates are not required to include
the fuel consumption information
required by NHTSA. Therefore, the
agencies are adopting provisions in the
final rules for manufacturers to provide
emission and equivalent fuel
consumption estimates in the
manufacturer’s applications for
certification. The agencies will treat
information submitted in the
applications as a manufacturer’s
demonstration of providing early
compliance information, similar to the
pre-model year report submitted for
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. The
final rule establishes a harmonized
approach by which manufacturers will
submit applications through an EPAadministered database, such as the
Verify system, as the single point of
entry for all information required for
this national program and both agencies
will have access to the information. If by
model year 2012, the agencies are not
prepared to receive information through
the EPA Verify database system,
manufacturers are expected to submit
written applications to the agencies.
This approach should streamline this
process and reduce industry burden and
provide sufficient information for the
agencies to carry out their early
compliance activities.
(b) Final Reports
The NPRM proposed for
manufacturers participating in the ABT
program to provide EOY and final
reports. The EOY reports for the ABT
program were required to be submitted
by manufacturers no later than 90 days
after the calendar year and final report
no later than 270 days after the calendar
year.318 Manufacturers not participating
in the ABT program were required to
provide an EOY report within 45 days
after the calendar year but no final
reports were required. The final ABT
report due was established coinciding
with EPA’s existing criteria pollutant
report for heavy-duty engines. The EOY
report was required in order to receive
preliminary final estimates and
identifies manufacturers that might have
a credit deficit for the given model year.
Manufacturers with a credit surplus at
the end of each model could receive a
318 Corresponding

VerDate Mar<15>2010

to the compliance model year.

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

waiver from providing EOY reports. As
proposed, the remaining manufacturers
were required to submit reports to EPA
and send copies of those reports to
NHTSA with equivalent fuel
consumption values.
In response to the NPRM, commenters
recommended collecting additional
data. One commenter requested
collecting information to develop and
refine test cycles that more accurately
reflect actual driving cycles for mediumand heavy-duty trucks. Several other
commenters (ACEE, Eaton, CALSTART,
NRDC and UCS) recommended
collecting advanced data on in-service
vehicles and that the collected data be
analyzed and characterized for each
vocational application, especially for
hybrid vehicles, in a cooperative
government and industry effort.
Commenters (ACEE, DTNA, NRGDC,
UCS and Volvo) also requested that the
agency’s data collection ensure to
include information on actual vehicle
configurations sold in the fleet.
Many commenters argued against the
burden placed upon the industry in
meeting the agencies’ proposed required
reporting provisions. One commenter
argued against providing actual
production information due to the
variability that exists in building heavyduty vehicles and in the influence of
changing fleet interest each year
indicating that only estimated
information should have to be provided.
Commenters (Volvo and Navistar)
generally objected stating that the
agency requirements in its reports are
both unnecessary and overly
burdensome. Comments in response to
the NPRM requested that for
manufacturers not using ABT
provisions, the EOY report due 45 days
after the end of the calendar year should
be combined with the ABT report due
90 days after the same model year.
Commenters also requested that the
exempted off-road vehicle report be
consolidated with the EOY report. Other
concerns raised by commenters were for
the agencies to remove any differences
in reporting provisions and implement
a single uniform reporting template that
manufacturers can submit to both
agencies.
One commenter (Volvo) requested
that the agencies simplify the reporting
requirements for vehicle configurations
in both the EOY and final reports,
commenting that the proposal as
outlined was extremely burdensome to
vehicle manufacturers. The NPRM
regulation stated that the manufacturer
must identify each distinguishable
vehicle configuration in the vehicle
family or sub-family and identification
of FELs for each subfamily. The

PO 00000

Frm 00180

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

regulation calls for reporting of results
and modeling inputs for each subfamily.
The commenter believed that the
burden of meeting these requirements
for the vast number of families/
subfamilies is substantial and
unjustified. For this commenter, there is
a potential for almost 45 million subfamilies in the vocational and tractor
categories. This approach should reduce
the number of vehicle families to an
amount that is suitable for reporting.
The BlueGreen Alliance and ACEEE
also requested the agencies to
implement a program as part of the final
rule to collect data, actual vehicle
configurations sold and their
performance as estimated by simulation
modeling, which will provide
information required to develop a fullvehicle program in the future.
For the final rules, the agencies are
requiring EOY and final reports, as
proposed. However, the agencies will
consolidate the reporting as requested
by comments and is requiring
equivalent fuel consumption
information for all reports submitted to
EPA. The final rules establish a
harmonized approach by which
manufacturers will submit reports
through an EPA-administered database,
such as the Verify system, as the single
point of entry for all information
required for this national program and
both agencies will have access to the
information. If by model year 2012, the
agencies are not prepared to receive
information through the EPA Verify
database system, manufacturers are
expected to submit written reports to
the agencies. The agencies are also
combining the EOY reports for
manufacturers not using ABT provisions
with other EOY reports and are
requiring a submission date 90 days
after the calendar year. The agencies
view the adopted requirements in the
final rules for EOY and final reports will
provide sufficient data requests to
satisfy these requests. The agencies also
agree with Volvo’s concerns and have
adopted a new classification system for
selecting vehicle families as described
elsewhere in this section. A summary of
the required information in the final
rules for EOY and final reports is as
follows:
• Vehicle family designation and
averaging set.
• Vehicle emissions and fuel
consumption standards including any
alternative standards used.
• Vehicle family FELs.
• Final production volumes.
• Certified test cycles.
• Useful life values for vehicle
families.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
• A credit plan identifying the
manufacturers actual credit balances,
credit flexibilities, credit trades and a
credit deficit plan if needed
demonstrating how it plans to resolve
any credit deficits that might occur for
a model year within a period of up to
three model years after that deficit has
occurred.
• A plan describing the vehicles that
were exempted such as for off-road or
small business purposes.

• A plan describing any alternative
fueled vehicles that were produced for
the model year identifying the
approaches used to determinate
compliance and the production
volumes.
(c) Additional Required Information
Throughout the model year,
manufacturers may be required to report
various submissions to the agencies to
comply with various aspects of the

57285

rules. These requests have differing
criteria for submission and approval.
Table V–6 below provides a summary of
the types of submission, required
submission dates and the EPA and
NHTSA regulations that apply. The
agencies will review and grant requests
considering the timeliness of the
submissions and the completeness of
the requests.

TABLE V–6—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR COMPLIANCE
NHTSA
regulation
reference

Applies to

Required submissions date

Small business exemptions

Vehicle manufacturers meeting the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
size criteria of a small business as
described in 13 CFR 121.201.
The provisions apply with respect to
tractors and vocational vehicles produced in model years before 2014.
Vehicle manufacturers seeking early
compliance in model years 2014 to
2016.
Tractors meeting § 1037.106 ................

Before introducing any excluded vehicle into U.S. commerce.

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its applications for
certificates of conformity.
NHSAT must be notified before the
manufacturer submits its applications
for certificates of conformity.
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its applications for
certificates of conformity.
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its applications for
certificates of conformity.
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for
certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

NA

§ 535.8

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

90-days after the calendar year ends ..

§ 1037.730

§ 535.8

Incentives for early introduction.
Voluntary compliance for
NHTSA standards.
Approval of alternate methods to determine drag
coefficients.
Off-road exemption ...........
Vocational Tractor .............

Exemption from EOY reports.

Manufacturers wanting to exclude tractors from vehicle standards.
Manufacturers wanting to reclassify
tractor as vocational tractors making
them applicable to vocational vehicle
standards.
Manufactures with surplus credits at
the end of the model year.

E. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles
(1) Final Compliance Approach

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

EPA regulation
reference

Submission

Like Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors, heavy-duty vocational vehicles
will be required to have both engine and
chassis certificates of conformity. As
discussed in the engine certification
section, engines that will be used in
vocational vehicles would need to be
certified using the heavy-duty FTP cycle
for GHG pollutants and show
compliance through the useful life of
the engine. This certification is in
addition to the current requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity for
criteria pollutant emissions.
For this final action, the majority of
the GHG reduction for vocational
vehicles is expected to come from the
use of LRR tires as well as increased
utilization of hybrid powertrain
systems. Other technologies such as
aerodynamic improvements and vehicle
speed limiting systems are not as
relevant for this class of vehicles, since
the typical duty cycle is much more
urban, consisting of lower speeds and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

frequent stopping. Idle reduction
strategies are expected to be
encompassed by hybrid technology,
which we anticipate will ultimately
handle PTO operation as well.
Therefore, for this final action,
certification of heavy-duty vocational
vehicles with conventional powertrains
will focus on quantifying GHG benefits
due to the use of LRR tires through the
GEM.
(a) Certification Process
Vehicles will be divided into vehicle
families for purposes of certification. As
with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors,
these are groups of vehicles within a
given regulatory subcategory that are
expected to share common emission
characteristics. Vocational vehicle
regulatory subcategories share the same
structure as those used for heavy-duty
engine criteria pollutant certification
and are based on GVWR. This includes
light-heavy (LHD) with a GVWR at or
below 19,500 pounds, medium-heavy
(MHD) with a GVWR above 19,500
pounds and at or below 33,000 pounds,

PO 00000

Frm 00181

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and heavy-heavy (HHD) with a GVWR
above 33,000 pounds. We anticipate
manufacturers will have one vehicle
family per regulatory subcategory,
however hybrid vehicles will need to be
separated into additional unique vehicle
families. Manufacturers may also
subdivide families into sub-families if
GHG emissions performance is expected
to change significantly within the
vehicle family. As with Class 7 and 8
combination tractors, we anticipate
using the standardized 12-digit naming
convention to identify vocational
vehicle families. As with engines and
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, each
certifying vehicle manufacturer would
have a unique three digit code assigned
to them. Currently, there is no 5th digit
(industry sector) code for this class of
vehicles and EPA will issue an update
to the current guidance explaining
which character(s) should be used for
vocational vehicles. The agencies
originally proposed that engine
displacement be included in the vehicle
family name, however the wide range of
engines available across most regulatory

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57286

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

subcategories makes this requirement
irrelevant and unnecessary at the time
of this rulemaking. Therefore, we are
reserving the remaining characters for
California ARB and/or manufacturer
use, such that the result is a unique
vehicle family name.
Each vehicle family must demonstrate
compliance with emission standards
using the GEM. GEM inputs for
conventional (i.e. non-hybrid)
vocational vehicles primarily involves
entering tire rolling resistance
information. Additional provisions are
available for certification of hybrid
vehicles or vehicles using other
advanced or innovative technologies, as
detailed in Section IV. If the vehicle
family consists of multiple
configurations, only results from the
worst-case configuration are necessary
for certification in addition to an
engineering evaluation demonstrating
that the modeled configuration indeed
reflects the worst-case configuration. If
the vehicle family is divided into
subfamilies, unique GEM results are
required for at least one configuration
per subfamily.
The agencies have received comments
from engine manufacturers, truck
manufacturers, and hybrid system
manufacturers raising concerns
regarding the duty cycles and the
weighting factors proposed for
evaluating transient applications. The
agencies proposed three methods for
evaluating hybrid system performance
in an effort to generate credits. The
proposed duty cycles considered for the
proposal will continue to be used with
this final action. The Agencies proposed
a transient duty cycle, a 55 mile-perhour steady state cruise and a 65 mile
per hour steady state cruise. The
transient duty cycle, is essentially the
same transient cycle proposed in the
NPRM with the exception that it
minimizes inappropriate shift events.
Additionally, the steady state cycles
proposed by the Agencies remain
essentially unchanged. In response to
concerns raised by engine
manufacturers and hybrid system
manufacturers regarding the operation
of vehicles most likely to be hybridized
in the near term, we are modifying the
weighting factors for each cycle to
address the distribution of the emissions
impact associated with each duty cycle.
The weighting factors will be changed
such that a greater emphasis on the type
of transient activity seen as more
characteristic of hybrid applications
will be evident. The new weighting
factors between duty cycles for hybrid
certification will be 75 percent for the
transient, 9 percent for the 55 mph
cruise cycle, and 16 percent for the 65

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

mph cruise cycle. The basis for this
change may be seen in the
memorandum to Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162, which describes the
data set used to describe real world
vehicle performance. In addition to this
modification, the Power-Take-Off (PTO)
operation will be characterized for
vehicles utilizing a PTO system for
which there is a benefit for use of the
hybrid technology. The testing
provisions for the comparison in the A
to B testing for complete vehicle or posttransmission powerpack testing may be
seen in 40 CFR 1037.525. The testing
provisions for work-specific pretransmission evaluation using an engine
based approach may be seen in 40 CFR
1036.525.
(b) Demonstrating Compliance With the
Final Standards
(i) CO2 and Fuel Consumption
Standards
Model
As stated above, the technology basis
for the final standards for vocational
vehicles is use of LRR tires. Similar to
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors,
compliance with the standards will be
demonstrated using the GEM predictive
model. However, the input parameters
entered by the vehicle manufacturer
would be limited to the properties of the
tires. The GEM will use the tire data,
along with inputs reflecting a baseline
truck and engine, to generate a complete
vehicle model. The test weight used in
the model will be based on the vehicle
class, as identified above. Light-heavyduty vehicles will have a test weight of
16,000 pounds; 25,150 pounds for
medium heavy-duty vehicles; and heavy
heavy-duty vocational vehicles will use
a test weight of 67,000 pounds. The
model would then be exercised over the
HHDDT transient cycle as well as 55
and 65 mph steady-state cruise
conditions. The results of each of the
three tests would be weighted at 16%,
9%, and 75% for 65 mph, 55 mph, and
transient tests, respectively. Innovative
technology credits may be used to
demonstrate compliance, however
because the technology would not be an
input into GEM, alternative procedures
would be needed to determine the value
of the credit as described in Preamble
Section IV.
It may seem more expedient and just
as accurate to require manufacturers use
tires meeting certain industry standards
for qualifying tires as having LRR. In
addition, CO2 and fuel consumption
benefits could be quantified for different
ranges of coefficients of rolling
resistance to provide a means for
comparison to the standard. However,

PO 00000

Frm 00182

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

we believe that as technology advances,
other aspects of vocational vehicles may
warrant inclusion in future rulemakings.
For this reason, we remain committed to
having the certification framework in
place to accommodate such additions.
While the modeling approach may seem
to be overly complicated for this phase
of the rules, it also serves to create a
certification pathway for future
rulemakings and therefore we believe
this is the best approach. Moreover, a
design standard would discourage use
of alternative technologies to meet the
standard, and otherwise impede
desirable flexibility.
In-use Standards
The category of wear items primarily
relates to tires. It is expected that
vehicle manufacturers will equip their
trucks with LRR tires, since the final
vehicle standard is predicated on LRR
tire performance. The tire replacement
intervals for this class of vehicle is
normally in the range of 50,000 to
100,000 miles, which means the owner/
operator will be replacing the tires at
several points within the useful life of
the vehicle. We believe that as LRR tires
become more common on new
equipment, the aftermarket prices of
these tires will also decrease. Along
with decreasing tire prices, the fuel
savings realized through use of LRR
tires will ideally provide enough
incentive for owner/operators to
continue purchasing these tires. The
inventory modeling in this rulemaking
package reflects the continued use of
LRR tires through the life of the vehicle.
(ii) Evaporative Emission Standards
Evaporative and refueling emissions
from heavy-duty highway engines and
vehicles are currently regulated under
40 CFR part 86. Even though these
emission standards apply to the same
engines and vehicles that must meet
exhaust emission standards, we require
a separate certificate for complying with
evaporative and refueling emission
standards. An important related point to
note is that the evaporative and
refueling emission standards always
apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust
emission standards may apply to either
the engine or the vehicle. For vehicles
other than pickups and vans, the
standards in this program to address
greenhouse gas emissions apply
separately to engines and to vehicles.
Since we will be applying both
greenhouse gas standards and
evaporative/refueling emission
standards to vehicle manufacturers, we
believe it will be advantageous to have
the regulations related to their
certification requirements written

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
together as much as possible. EPA
regards these final changes as discrete,
minimal, and for the most part
clarifications to the existing standards.
We have not finalized any changes to
the evaporative or refueling emission
standards, but we have come across
several provisions that warrant
clarification or correction:
• When adopting the most recent
evaporative emission change we did
not carry through the changes to the
regulatory text applying evaporative
emission standards for methanolfueled compression-ignition engine.
The final regulations correct this by
applying the new standards to all
fuels that are subject to standards.
• We are finalizing provisions to
address which standards apply when
an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is
installed in a motor vehicle, which is
currently not directly addressed in the
highway regulation. The final
approach requires testing complete
vehicles with any auxiliary engines
(and the corresponding fuel-system
components). Incomplete vehicles
must be tested without the auxiliary
engines, but any such engines and the
corresponding fuel system
components will need to meet the
standards that apply under our
nonroad program as specified in 40
CFR part 1060.
• We have removed the option for
secondary vehicle manufacturers to
use a larger fuel tank capacity than is
specified by the certifying
manufacturer without re-certifying the
vehicle. Secondary vehicle
manufacturers needing a greater fuel
tank capacity will need to either work
with the certifying manufacturer to
include the larger tank, or go through
the effort to re-certify the vehicle
itself. Our understanding is that this
provision has not been used and
would be better handled as part of
certification rather than managing a
separate process. We are also
finalizing corresponding changes to
the emission control information
label.
• Rewriting the regulations in a new
part in conjunction with the
greenhouse gas standards allows for
some occasions of improved
organization and clarity, as well as
updating various provisions. For
example, we have finalized a leaner
description of evaporative emission
families that does not reference
sealing methods for carburetors or air
cleaners. We have also clarified how
evaporative emission standards affect
engine manufacturers and are
finalizing more descriptive provisions
related to certifying vehicles above

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

26,000 pounds GVWR using
engineering analysis.
• Since we adopted evaporative
emission standards for gaseous-fuel
vehicles, we have developed new
approaches for design-based
certification (see, for example, 40 CFR
1060.240). We request comment on
changing the requirements related to
certifying gaseous-fuel vehicles to
design-based certification. This would
allow for a simpler assessment for
certifying these vehicles without
changing the standards that apply.
(2) Final Labeling Provisions
It is crucial that a means exist for
allowing field inspectors to identify
whether a vehicle is certified, and if so,
whether it is in the certified
configuration. As with engines and
tractors, we believe an emission control
information label is a logical first step
in facilitating this identification. For
vocational vehicles, the engine will
have a label that is permanently affixed
to the engine and identify the engine as
certified for use in a certain regulatory
subcategory of vehicle (i.e., MHD, etc).
The vehicle will also have a label
listing the manufacturer of the vehicle,
vehicle family (and subfamily, if
applicable), regulatory subcategory, date
of manufacture, compliance statement,
FEL, and emission control system
identifiers. The required content of this
label is consistent with the label
description provided earlier for Class 7
and 8 tractors. Since LRR tires are
expected to be the primary means for
vehicles to comply, it is expected that
LRR tires will be the only component
identified as part of the emission control
system on the label. For tires to qualify
as low rolling resistance (for purposes of
this vocational vehicle label), they need
to have a coefficient of rolling resistance
at or below 7.7 kg/metric ton. In
addition, if any other emission related
components are present, such as hybrid
powertrains, key components will also
need to be specified on the label. Like
the engine label, this will need to be
permanently affixed to the vehicle in an
area that is clearly visible to the owner/
operator. At the time of certification,
manufacturers will be required to
submit an example of their vehicle
emission control label such that EPA
can verify that all critical elements are
present. In addition to the label,
manufacturers will also need to describe
where the unique vehicle identification
number and date of production can be
found on the vehicle.

PO 00000

Frm 00183

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57287

(3) Other Certification Issues
Warranty
As with other heavy-duty engine and
vehicle regulatory categories, vocational
vehicle chassis manufacturers would be
required to warrant their product to be
free from defects that would result in
noncompliance with emission
standards. This warranty also covers the
failure of emission related components
for the warranty period of the vehicle.
For vocational vehicles, this primarily
applies to tires.
Manufacturers of chassis for
vocational vehicles would be required
to warrant tires to be free from defects
at the time of initial sale. As with Class
7 and 8 combination tractors, we expect
the chassis manufacturer to only
warrant the original tires against
manufacturing or design-related defects.
This tire warranty would not cover
replacement tires or damage from road
hazards or improper inflation.
As with Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors, all warranty documentation
would be submitted to EPA at the time
of certification. This should include the
warranty statement provided to the
owner/operator, description of the
service repair network, list of covered
components (both conventional and
high-cost), and length of coverage.
EPA Certification Fees
Similar to engine and tractor-trailer
vehicle certification, the agency will
assess certification fees for vocational
vehicles. The proceeds from these fees
are used to fund the compliance and
certification activities related to GHG
regulation for this industry segment. In
addition to the certification process,
other activities funded by certification
fees include EPA-administered in-use
testing, selective enforcement audits,
and confirmatory testing. At this point,
the exact costs associated with the
heavy-duty vehicle GHG compliance are
not well known. EPA will assess its
compliance program associated with
this program and assess the appropriate
level of fees. We anticipate that fees will
be applied based on certification
families, following the light-duty
vehicle approach.
Maintenance
Vehicle manufacturers are required to
outline a maintenance schedule that
ensures the emission control system
remains functional throughout the
useful life of the vehicle. For vocational
vehicles, this largely involves ensuring
that customers have sufficient
information to purchase replacement
tires that meet or exceed original
equipment specifications. As with Class

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57288

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

7 and 8 tractors, we believe that this
information should be included in the
owner’s manual to the vehicle. This
statement must be submitted to EPA at
the time of certification to verify that the
customer indeed has enough
information to purchase the correct
replacement tires.
F. General Regulatory Provisions
(1) Statutory Prohibited Acts
Section 203 of the CAA describes acts
that are prohibited by law. This section
and associated regulations apply equally
to the greenhouse gas standards as to
any other regulated emission. Acts that
are prohibited by section 203 of the
CAA include the introduction into
commerce or the sale of an engine or
vehicle without a certificate of
conformity, removing or otherwise
defeating emission control equipment,
the sale or installation of devices
designed to defeat emission controls,
and other actions. In addition, vehicle
manufacturers, or any other party, may
not make changes to the certified engine
that would result in it not being in the
certified configuration.
EPA will apply § 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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(2) Regulatory Amendments Related to
Heavy-Duty Engine Certification
We are adopting the new enginebased greenhouse gas emissions
standards in 40 CFR part 1036 and the
new vehicle-based standards in 40 CFR
part 1037. We are continuing to rely on
40 CFR parts 85 and 86 for conventional
certification and compliance provisions
related to criteria pollutants, but the
final regulations include a variety of
amendments that will affect the
provisions that apply with respect to
criteria pollutants. We are not intending
to change the stringency of, or otherwise
substantively change any existing
standards.
The introduction of new parts in the
CFR is part of a long-term plan to
migrate all the regulatory provisions
related to highway and nonroad engine
and vehicle emissions to a portion of the
CFR called Subchapter U, which
consists of 40 CFR parts 1000 through
1299. We have already adopted
emission standards, test procedures, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

compliance provisions for several types
of engines in 40 CFR parts 1033 through
1074. We intend eventually to capture
all the regulatory requirements related
to heavy-duty highway engines and
vehicles in these new parts. Moving
regulatory provisions to the new parts
allows us to publish the regulations in
a way that is better organized, reflects
updates to various certification and
compliance procedures, provides
consistency with other engine programs,
and is written in plain language. We
have already taken steps in this
direction for heavy-duty highway
engines by adopting the engine-testing
procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 and the
provisions for selective enforcement
audits in 40 CFR part 1068.
EPA sought comment on drafting
changes and additions. This solicitation
related solely to the appropriate
migration, translation, and enhancement
of existing provisions. EPA did not
solicit comment on the substance of
these existing rules, and did not amend,
reconsider, or otherwise re-examine
these provisions’ substantive effect.
The rest of this section describes the
most significant of these final redrafting
changes. The proposal includes several
changes to the certification and
compliance procedures, including the
following:
• We are requiring that engine
manufacturers provide installation
instructions to vehicle manufacturers
(see § 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
are including 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

PO 00000

Frm 00184

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

authorized agents and ports of entry),
and identifying a test lab in the United
States where EPA can perform testing
on certified engines. These steps are
part of our ongoing effort to ensure that
we have a compliance and enforcement
program that is as effective for imported
engines as for domestically produced
engines. We have already adopted these
same provisions for several types of
nonroad engines.
• § 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 revising 40 CFR 85.1701 to
apply the exemption provisions
described in 40 CFR part 1068 to heavyduty highway engines starting in 2014.
Manufacturers may optionally use the
exemption provisions from part 1068
earlier. This involves only very minor
changes in the terms and conditions
associated with the various types of
exemptions. This change will help us to
implement a consistent compliance
program for all engine and vehicle
categories. We are similarly revising 40
CFR 85.1511 to reference the
importation-related exemptions in part
1068 for all motor vehicles and motor
vehicle engines.
• We are finalizing a provision
allowing manufacturers to use the defect
reporting provisions of 40 CFR part
1068 instead of those in 40 CFR part 85.
This involves setting thresholds for
investigating and reporting defects
based on defect rates rather than
absolute numbers of defects. Once we
gain more experience with applying the
defect-reporting provisions in 40 CFR
part 1068 for motor vehicles, we will
consider making those provisions
mandatory, including any appropriate
adjustments.
In addition, we are revising 40 CFR
1068.210 and 1068.325 to address a
concern raised by engine manufacturers.
The provisions for importing engines
under a temporary exemption disallow
selling exempted engines even though
some of the situations addressed depend
on engine sales (such as delegated
assembly). We have added clarifying
language to the individual exemptions
to describe whether or how engines may
be sold or leased. In the case of the
testing exemption in § 1068.210, this
involves a further change to specify how

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

a manufacturer must track the status
and final disposition of exempted
engines or equipment. We are also
making a small change to the testing
exemption to remove the administrative
step of requiring an exchange of signed
documents for the exemption to be
effective. This will streamline the
process for the testing exemption and
make it more like that for other types of
exemptions.
(3) Test Procedures for Measuring
Emissions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles
We are finalizing a new part 1066 that
contains general chassis-based test
procedures for measuring emissions
from a variety of vehicles, including
vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR.
However, we are not finalizing
application of these procedures broadly
at this time. The test procedures in 40
CFR part 86 continue to apply for
vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR.
The final part 1066 procedures applies
only for any testing that would be
required for larger vehicles. This could
include ‘‘A to B’’ hybrid vehicle testing,
coastdown testing, and potentially
limited innovative technology testing.
Nevertheless, we will likely consider in
the future applying these procedures
also for other heavy-duty vehicle testing
and for light-duty vehicles, highway
motorcycles, and/or nonroad
recreational vehicles that rely on
chassis-based testing.
As noted above, engine manufacturers
are already using the test procedures in
40 CFR part 1065 instead of those
originally adopted in 40 CFR part 86.
The new procedures are written to
apply generically for any type of engine
and include the current state of
technology for measurement
instruments, calibration procedures, and
other practices. We are finalizing the
chassis-based test procedures in part
1066 to have a similar structure.
The final procedures in part 1066
reference large portions of part 1065 to
align test specifications that apply
equally to engine-based and 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

to setting up, calibrating, and operating
a chassis dynamometer. This also
includes the coastdown procedures that
are required for establishing the
dynamometer load settings to ensure
that the dynamometer accurately
simulates in-use driving.
Current testing requirements related
to dynamometer specifications rely on a
combination of regulatory provisions,
EPA guidance documents, and extensive
know-how from industry experience
that has led to a good understanding of
best practices for operating a vehicle in
the laboratory to measure emissions. We
attempted in this rulemaking to capture
this range of material, organizing these
specifications and verification and
calibration procedures to include a
complete set of provisions to ensure that
a dynamometer meeting these
specifications would allow for carefully
controlled vehicle operation such that
emission measurements are accurate
and repeatable.
The procedures are written with the
understanding that heavy-duty highway
manufacturers have, and need to have,
single-roll electric dynamometers for
testing. We are aware that this is not the
case for other applications, such as 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

PO 00000

Frm 00185

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57289

English or SI units. We believe there
would be a substantial advantage
toward the goal of achieving globally
harmonized test procedures if we would
write the test procedures based on SI
units. This would also in several cases
allow for more straightforward
calculations, and reduced risk of
rounding errors. For comparison, part
1065 is written almost exclusively in SI
units. We sought comment on the use of
units throughout part 1066. At this time
we are not finalizing changes from our
current approach.
A fundamental obstacle toward using
SI units is the fact that some duty cycles
are specified based on speeds in miles
per hour. To address this, it would be
appropriate to convert the applicable
driving schedules to meter-per-second
(m/s) values. Converting speeds to the
nearest 0.01 m/s would ensure that the
prescribed driving cycle does not
change with respect to driving
schedules that are specified to the
nearest 0.1 mph. The regulations would
include the appropriate mph (or kph)
speeds to allow for a ready
understanding of speed values (see 40
CFR part 1037, Appendix I). This
would, for example, allow for drivers to
continue to follow a mph-based speed
trace. The ±2 mph tolerance on driving
speeds could be converted to ±1.0 m/s,
which corresponds to an effective speed
tolerance of ±2.2 mph. This may involve
a tightening or loosening of the existing
speed tolerance, depending on whether
manufacturers used the full degree of
flexibility allowed for a mph tolerance
value that is specified without a decimal
place. Similarly, the Cruise cycles for
heavy-duty vehicles could be specified
as 24.5±0.5 m/s (54.8±1.1 mph) and
29.0±0.5 m/s (64.9±1.1 mph).
(4) Compliance Reports
(a) Early Model Year Data
This information is the same as for
tractors early model year data in Section
V.D(4)(a).
(b) Final Reports
This information is the same as for
tractors final reports in Section
V.D(4)(b).
(c) Additional Required Information
Table V–7 below provides a summary
of the types of requests, required
application submission dates and the
EPA and NHTSA regulations that apply.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57290

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V–7—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR COMPLIANCE
NHTSA
regulation
reference

Applies to

Required submissions date

Small business exemptions

Vehicle or engine manufacturers meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size criteria of a small
business as described in 13 CFR
121.201.
The provisions apply with respect to
tractors and vocational vehicles produced in model years before 2014.
Vocational Vehicles excluded from
§ 1037.115.

Before introducing any excluded vehicle into U.S. commerce.

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for
certificates of conformity.
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for
certificates of conformity.
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for
certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

End of December prior to model year ..

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for
certificates of conformity.
90-days after the calendar year ends ..

§ 1037.150

§ 535.8

§ 1037.730

§ 535.8

Incentives for early introduction.
Air condition leakage exemption for vocational
vehicles.
Model year 2014 N2O
standards.
Exemption for electric vehicles.
Off-road exemption ...........
Exemption from EOY reports.

Manufacturers that choose to show
compliance with the MY 2014 N2O
standards requesting to use an engineering analysis.
All electric vehicles are deemed to
have zero exhaust emissions of
CO2, CH4, and N2O.
Manufacturers wanting to exclude vocational vehicles from vehicle standards.
Manufactures with surplus credits at
the end of the model year.

G. Penalties
(1) Overview

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

EPA regulation
reference

Submission

In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to
assess 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 based on
the following discussions.
In cases of noncompliance, the agency
explained in the NPRM that it would
establish civil penalties based on
consideration of the following factors:
• Gravity of the violation.
• Size of the violator’s business.
• Violator’s history of compliance with
applicable fuel consumption
standards.
• Actual fuel consumption performance
related to the applicable standard.
• Estimated cost to comply with the
regulation and applicable standard.
• Quantity of vehicles or engines not
complying.
• Civil penalties paid under CAA
section 205 (42 U.S.C. 7524) for noncompliance for the same vehicles or
engines.
NHTSA proposed to consider these
factors in determining civil penalties in
order to help ensure, given the agency’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

wide discretion, that penalties would be
fair and appropriate, and not
duplicative of EPA penalties. The
NPRM expressly stated that neither
agency intended to impose duplicative
civil penalties, and that both agencies
would give consideration to civil
penalties imposed by the other in the
case of non-compliance with its own
regulations. See NPRM at 74280.
EMA, Volvo, the Truck Renting and
Leasing Association (TRALA), and
Navistar nevertheless commented that a
dual enforcement scheme with separate
NHTSA and EPA penalties could result
in duplicative penalties, as
manufacturers could be assessed
penalties twice for the same violation.
The possibility of more than one
prosecution or enforcement action
arising from the same overall body of
facts does not present a novel issue. It
commonly arises where there is
overlapping jurisdiction, such as where
the federal government and a state
government have jurisdiction. The issue
of multiple or sequential prosecutions
may be addressed as a matter of
administrative policy and discretion.319
Both NHTSA and EPA are charged
with regulating medium-duty and
heavy-duty trucks; NHTSA regulates
them under EISA and EPA regulates
319 A well-known example is the Department of
Justice’s petite policy, an internal guide on whether
to pursue federal prosecution after a state
prosecution. The petite policy is considered
‘‘merely a housekeeping provision,’’ and
prosecution remains entirely within the
Department’s discretion. U.S. v. Barrett, 496 F.3d
1079, 1120 (10th Cir. 2007).

PO 00000

Frm 00186

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

them under the CAA. Both agencies also
have compliance review and
enforcement responsibilities for their
respective regulatory requirements. The
same set of underlying facts may result
in a violation of EISA and a violation of
the CAA. The agencies recognize the
above concerns, and intend to address
them through appropriate consultation.
The details of the consultation and
coordination between the agencies
regarding enforcement will be set forth
in a memorandum of understanding to
be developed by EPA and NHTSA.
NHTSA believes that the above
description adequately describes the
process by which civil penalties may be
assessed by both agencies. Therefore, for
the final action, penalties for a violation
of a fuel consumption standard will be
based on the gravity of the violation, the
size of the violator’s business, the
violator’s history of compliance with
applicable fuel consumption standards,
the actual fuel consumption
performance related to the applicable
standard, the estimated cost to comply
with the regulation and applicable
standard, and the quantity of vehicles or
engines not complying. The
collaborative enforcement process will
ensure that the total penalties assessed
will not be duplicative or excessive.
NHTSA would also like to clarify that
the ‘‘estimated cost to comply with the
regulation and applicable standard,’’
will be used to ensure that penalties for
non-compliance will not be less than
the cost of compliance. It would be
contrary to the purpose of the regulation

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

for the penalty scheme to incentivize
noncompliance.
The final civil penalty amount
NHTSA could impose would not exceed
the limit that EPA is authorized to
impose under the CAA. The potential
maximum civil penalty for a
manufacturer would be calculated as
follows in Equation V–1:
Equation V–1: Aggregate Maximum
Civil Penalty
Aggregate Maximum Civil Penalty for a
Non-Compliant Regulatory Category
= (CAA Limit) × (production
volume within the regulatory
category)
EPA has occasionally in the past
conducted rulemakings to provide for
nonconformance penalties— monetary
penalties that allow a manufacturer to
sell engines or vehicles that do not meet
an emissions standard. Nonconformance
penalties are authorized for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles under section
206(g) of the CAA. Three basic criteria
have been established by rulemaking for
determining the eligibility of emissions
standards for nonconformance penalties
in any given model year: (1) The
emissions standard in question must
become more difficult to meet, (2)
substantial work must be required in
order to meet the standard, and (3) a
technological laggard must be likely to
develop (40 CFR 86.1103–87). A
technological laggard is a manufacturer
who cannot meet a particular emissions
standard due to technological (not
economic) difficulties and who, in the
absence of nonconformance penalties,
might be forced from the marketplace.
The process to determine if these
criteria are met and to establish penalty
amounts and conditions is carried out
via rulemaking, as required by the CAA.
The CAA (in section 205) also lays out
requirements for the assessment of civil
penalties for noncompliance with
emissions standards.
As discussed in detail in Section III,
the agencies have determined that the
final GHG and fuel consumption
standards are readily feasible, and we
do not believe a technological laggard
will emerge in any sector covered by
these final standards. In addition to the
standards being premised on use of
already-existing, cost-effective
technologies, there are a number of
flexibilities and alternative standards
built into the proposal. However, in the
case of potential non-conformance, civil
penalties will ensure that adequate
deterrence for non-conformance exists.
(2) NHTSA’s Penalty Process
NHTSA proposed a detailed
enforcement process in the NPRM. As

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

proposed, enforcement would begin
with a notice of violation, after which
the respondent may either pay the
penalty proposed in the notice of
violation or dispute it by requesting an
agency hearing. For a party that did not
pay the proposed penalty or request a
hearing within 30 days of the notice of
violation, a finding of default would be
entered and the penalty set forth in the
notice of violation assessed. If a hearing
is timely requested, the respondent
would receive written notice of the
time, date and location of the hearing.
The respondent would have the right to
counsel and to examine, respond to and
rebut evidence presented by the Chief
Counsel. If civil penalties greater than
$250,000,000 were assessed in the
Hearing Officer’s final order, that order
would contain a statement advising the
party of the right to appeal to the
NHTSA Administrator. In the event of a
timely appeal, the decision of the
Administrator would be a final agency
action. This structure was intended to
ensure that a party was afforded ample
opportunity to be heard.
Several manufacturers commented
that NHTSA’s penalty procedures
should be more formal than was
proposed in the NPRM. EMA, Volvo and
Navistar commented that the penalty
procedures should be subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
review requirements. EMA, Volvo and
Navistar, and TRALA commented that
the penalty procedures violated due
process requirements. EMA argued that
NHTSA must expressly grant a right to
judicial review, and EMA and Navistar
argued that the absence of an
administrative appeals process for
penalties under $250,000,000 would
violate due process. Volvo faulted
NHTSA for not classifying the hearing
officer’s decision as a final agency
action, and stated that specifications
regarding who could be a hearing officer
should align with those specified for the
light-duty program, which was laid out
in 49 CFR 511.3.
As noted in the NPRM, the APA
administrative hearing requirements of
Sections 554, 556, and 557 are not
required where formal procedures are
not required by statute (generally, the
organic statute must provide that the
administrative proceeding must be an
adjudication, determined on the record
after the opportunity for an agency
hearing, sometimes referenced as an
opportunity for hearing on the record).
See e.g., 5 U.S.C. Section 554. Where a
formal adjudication is not required by
statute, in general, agencies adopt and
apply informal processes. While the
compliance, civil penalty and appeals
provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 32911

PO 00000

Frm 00187

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57291

and 32914 require formal adjudication
in accordance with APA requirements,
those sections only apply to the lightduty fuel economy program. In contrast,
for the heavy-duty program of Section
32902(k), the Congress did not require
formal adjudication in accordance with
the APA. Therefore, informal
adjudication procedures may be
applied. NHTSA will not adopt the
procedures of by 5 U.S.C. Sections 554,
556, or 557 for the final rule.
While the APA requirements for
formal hearing procedures do not apply
to NHTSA’s enforcement under Section
32902(k), due process requirements do
apply. NHTSA believes that formal
procedures are neither required by
statute nor necessary for this
enforcement process to meet due
process requirements. NHTSA expects
that the cases will not be complex. In
general, there will be one or two issues:
(1) Compliance with the regulations
and, if not, (2) the appropriate civil
penalty. Compliance likely will involve
narrow technical questions under the
regulations being adopted today. Noncompliance with applicable fuel
consumption standards will be
determined by utilizing the certified and
reported CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption data provided by EPA as
described in this part, and after
considering all the flexibilities available
under Section 535.7. Much of the
evidence will be materials developed by
the respondent. There likely will not be
wide ranging issues. The parties will
have ample opportunity to present their
positions. A hearing officer can readily
address the sorts of questions that are
likely to arise. Second, if there is a
noncompliance, there will be the
question of the appropriate penalty.
NHTSA’s regulations contain factors to
be considered in assessing penalties.
Again, the parties will have ample
opportunity to present their positions.
Ultimately, the agency’s final decision
must be sufficiently reasoned to
withstand judicial review, based on the
arbitrary and capricious standard.
To address commenters’ concerns
about the process provided, NHTSA
made several adjustments and
clarifications in the final rule. The final
rule provides that there will be a written
decision of the Hearing Officer, and the
assessment of a civil penalty by a
hearing officer shall be set forth in an
accompanying final order. Together,
these constitute the final agency action.
NHTSA has also revisited the minimum
penalty level for an administrative
appeal to the NHTSA Administrator and
decided to lower the level significantly,
to $1,000,000. This provides a second
level of review. NHTSA believes this

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57292

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

will promote an efficient use of
administrative remedies and a further
opportunity to be heard at the
administrative level. Of course, if a
party files an appeal with the NHTSA
Administrator, the Hearing Officer’s
decision and order at that juncture shall
no longer be final agency action.
NHTSA has considered the
specifications of the Hearing Officer and
determined that they are adequate for
informal agency hearings of this nature.
However, the agency will add a
clarification to the final rule that
specifies that the Hearing Officer will be
appointed by the Administrator.
Further, in addition to having no prior
connection with the case and no
responsibility, direct or supervisory, for
the investigation of cases referred for the
assessment of civil penalties, the
Hearing Officer will have no duties
related to the light-duty fuel economy or
medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency
programs.
NHTSA has also considered EMA’s
comment that a right to judicial review
must be specified in the regulatory text.
The agency does not agree with this
concern. Parties, of course, cannot
confer jurisdiction; only Congress can
do so. Whitman v. Department of
Transportation, 547 U.S. 512, 514
(2006); Weinberger v. Bentex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 412 U.S. 645, 652
(1973). Moreover, judicial review of a
final agency action is presumed. United
States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 452
(1998), citing Abbot Laboratories v.
Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967). See
generally, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.
Therefore, NHTSA has determined that
the right to judicial review does not
need to be specified in the regulatory
text.

VI. How will this program impact fuel
consumption, GHG emissions, and
climate change?
A. What methodologies did the agencies
use to project GHG emissions and fuel
consumption impacts?
EPA and NHTSA used EPA’s official
mobile source emissions inventory
model named Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES2010),320 to estimate
emission and fuel consumption impacts
of these final rules. MOVES has the
capability to take in user inputs to
modify default data to better estimate
emissions for different scenarios, such
as different regulatory alternatives, state
implementation plans (SIPs), geographic
locations, vehicle activity, and
microscale projects.
The agencies performed multiple
MOVES runs to establish reference case
and control case emission inventories
and fuel consumption values. The
agencies ran MOVES with user input
databases that reflected characteristics
of the final rules, such as emissions
improvements and recent sales
projections. Some post-processing of the
model output was required to ensure
proper results. The agencies ran MOVES
for non-GHGs, CO2, CH4, and N2O for
calendar years 2005, 2018, 2030, and
2050. Additional runs were performed
for just the three greenhouse gases and
for fuel consumption for every calendar
year from 2014 to 2050, inclusive,
which fed the economy-wide modeling,
monetized greenhouse gas benefits
estimation, and climate impacts
analyses.
The agencies also used MOVES to
estimate emissions and fuel
consumption impacts for the other
alternatives considered and described in
Section IX.
B. MOVES Analysis
(i) Inputs and Assumptions
The analysis performed for the final
action mirrors what was done for the

proposal. The methods and models are
the same, with differences lying
primarily in the inputs, as a result of
updates in the program, standards, and
baseline data.
(a) Reference Run Updates
Since MOVES2010a vehicle sales and
activity data were developed from
AEO2009, EPA first updated these data
using sales and activity estimates from
AEO2011. MOVES2010a defaults were
used for all other parameters to estimate
the reference case emissions
inventories.
(b) Control Run Updates
EPA developed additional user input
data for MOVES runs to estimate control
case inventories. To account for
improvements of engine and vehicle
efficiency, EPA developed several user
inputs to run the control case in
MOVES. As explained at proposal, since
MOVES does not operate based on
Heavy-duty FTP cycle results, EPA used
the percent reduction in engine CO2
emissions expected due to the final
rules to develop energy inputs for the
control case runs. 75 FR at 74280. Also,
EPA used the percent reduction in
aerodynamic drag and tire rolling
resistance coefficients and reduction in
average total running weight (gross
combined weight) expected from the
final rules to develop road load input
for the control case. The sales and
activity data updates used in the
reference case were used in the control
case. Details of all the MOVES runs,
input data tables, and post-processing
steps are available in the docket (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162).
Table VI–1 and Table VI–2 describe
the estimated expected reductions from
these final rules, which were input into
MOVES for estimating control case
emissions inventories.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

TABLE VI–1—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN ENGINE CO2 EMISSION RATES 321
GVWR class

Fuel

Model years

HHD (Class 8a–8b) ......................................................

Diesel ............................................................................

MHD (Class 6–7) and LHD (Class 4–5) ......................

Diesel ............................................................................
Gasoline ........................................................................

320 MOVES homepage: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
models/moves/index.htm. Version MOVES2010
was used for emissions impacts analysis for this
action. Current version as of September 14, 2010 is
an updated version named MOVES2010a, available

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

directly from the MOVES homepage. To replicate
results from this action, MOVES2010 must be used.
321 Section II of this preamble discusses an
alternative engine standard for the HD diesel
engines in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 model years.

PO 00000

Frm 00188

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2014–2016
2017+
2014–2016
2017+
2016+

CO2 reduction
from 2010 MY
3%
6%
5%
9%
5%

To the extent that engines using this alternative are
expected to have baseline emissions greater than
the industry average, the reduction from the
industry average projected in this program would
be reduced.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57293

TABLE VI–2—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT, AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT, AND
GROSS COMBINED WEIGHT
Reduction in tire
CRR from
baseline
(percent)

Truck type

Combination long-haul .....................................................................................................
Combination short-haul ....................................................................................................
Straight trucks, refuse trucks, motor homes, transit buses, and other vocational vehicles ...............................................................................................................................

Since nearly all HD pickup trucks and
vans will be certified on a chassis
dynamometer, the CO2 reductions for

these vehicles will not be represented as
engine and road load reduction
components, but rather as total vehicle

Reduction in Cd
from baseline
(percent)

Weight reduction
(lbs.)

9.6
7.0

12.1
5.9

400
321

5.0

0

0

CO2 reductions. These estimated
reductions are described in Table VI–3.

TABLE VI–3—ESTIMATED TOTAL VEHICLE CO2 REDUCTIONS FOR HD PICKUP TRUCKS AND VANS
GVWR Class

Fuel

Model year

HD Pickup Trucks and Vans ....................................

Gasoline ...................................................................

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018+
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018+

Diesel ........................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

C. What are the projected reductions in
fuel consumption and GHG emissions?
EPA and NHTSA expect significant
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel
consumption from these final rules—
emission reductions from both
downstream (tailpipe) and upstream
(fuel production and distribution)
sources, and fuel consumption
reductions from more efficient vehicles.
Increased vehicle efficiency and
reduced vehicle fuel consumption will
also reduce GHG emissions from
upstream sources. The following
subsections summarize the GHG
emissions and fuel consumption
reductions expected from these final
rules.

CO2 reduction
from baseline
(percent)
1.5
2
4
6
10
2.3
3
6
9
15

(1) Downstream (Tailpipe)
Consistent with the proposal, EPA
used MOVES to estimate downstream
GHG inventories from these final rules.
We expect reductions in CO2 from all
heavy-duty vehicle categories. The
reductions come from engine and

vehicle improvements. EPA expects
N2O emissions to increase very slightly
because of a rebound in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and because significant
vehicle emissions reductions are not
expected from these final rules. In the
proposal, we did not account for
differences in methane emissions from
use of auxiliary power units (APUs)
during extended idling from sleeper cab
combination tractors. After accounting
for these differences, EPA expects
methane emissions to decrease
primarily due to differences in
hydrocarbon emission characteristics
between on-road diesel engines and
APUs. The amount of methane emitted
as a fraction of total hydrocarbons is
significantly less for APUs than for
diesel engines equipped with diesel
particulate filters. Overall, downstream
GHG emissions will be reduced
significantly and are described in the
following subsections.
For CO2 and fuel consumption, the
total energy consumption ‘‘pollutant’’

was run in MOVES rather than CO2
itself. The energy was converted to fuel
consumption based on fuel heating
values assumed in the Renewable Fuels
Standard and used in the development
of MOVES emission and energy rates.
These values are 117,250 kJ/gallon for
gasoline blended with ten percent
ethanol (E10) 322 and 138,451 kJ/gallon
for diesel.323 To calculate CO2, the
agencies assumed a CO2 content of
8,576 g/gallon for E10 and 10,180 g/
gallon for diesel. Table VI–4 shows the
fleet-wide GHG reductions and fuel
savings from reference case to control
case through the lifetime of model year
2014 through 2018 heavy-duty vehicles.
Table VI–5 shows the downstream GHG
emissions reductions and fuel savings in
2018, 2030, and 2050. The analysis
follows what was done for the proposal.
We did not receive comments indicating
that this analysis was inappropriate or
insufficient for estimating downstream
emissions impacts of this program.

322 Renewable Fuels Standards assumptions of
115,000 BTU/gallon gasoline (E0) and 76,330 BTU/

gallon ethanol (E100) weighted 90% and 10%,
respectively, and converted to kJ at 1.055 kJ/BTU.

323 MOVES2004 Energy and Emission Inputs.
EPA420–P–05–003, March 2005. http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420p05003.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00189

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57294

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VI–4—MODEL YEAR 2014 THROUGH 2018 LIFETIME GHG REDUCTIONS AND FUEL SAVINGS BY HEAVY-DUTY
TRUCK CATEGORY
Downstream GHG
reductions
(MMT CO2eq)
HD pickups/vans ..............................................................................................................................
Vocational ........................................................................................................................................
Combination short-haul (Day cabs) .................................................................................................
Combination long-haul (Sleeper cabs) ............................................................................................

Fuel Savings
(billion gallons)

18
24
50
135

1.9
2.4
4.9
12.9

TABLE VI–5—ANNUAL DOWNSTREAM GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND FUEL SAVINGS IN 2018, 2030, AND 2050
Downstream GHG
reductions
(MMT CO2eq)
2018 .........................................................................................................
2030 .........................................................................................................
2050 .........................................................................................................

(2) Upstream (Fuel Production and
Distribution)
Using the same approach as used in
the NPRM, the upstream GHG emission
reductions associated with the
production and distribution of fuel were
projected using emission factors from
DOE’s ‘‘Greenhouse Gases, Regulated
Emissions, and Energy Use in
Transportation’’ (GREET1.8) model,

Diesel Savings
(million gallons)

22
61
89

with some modifications consistent
with the Light-Duty 2012–2016 MY
vehicle rule. More information
regarding these modifications can be
found in the RIA Chapter 5. These
estimates include both international and
domestic emission reductions, since
reductions in foreign exports of finished
gasoline and/or crude make up a
significant share of the fuel savings

Gasoline Savings
(million gallons)

2,123
5,670
8,158

59
349
522

resulting from the GHG standards. Thus,
significant portions of the upstream
GHG emission reductions will occur
outside of the United States; a
breakdown and discussion of projected
international versus domestic
reductions is included in the RIA
Chapter 5. GHG emission reductions
from upstream sources can be found in
Table VI–6.

TABLE VI–6—ANNUAL UPSTREAM GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN 2018, 2030, AND 2050
CO2
(MMT)
2018 .................................................................................................
2030 .................................................................................................
2050 .................................................................................................

(3) HFC Emissions
Based on projected HFC emission
reductions due to the final AC leakage
standards, EPA estimates the HFC
reductions to be 120,000 metric tons of
CO2eq in 2018, 440,000 metric tons of
CO2eq emissions in 2030 and 600,000
metric tons CO2eq in 2050, as detailed
in RIA Chapter 5.3.4.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(4) Total (Upstream + Downstream +
HFC)
Table VI–7 combines downstream
results from Table VI–5, upstream
results Table VI–6, and HFC results to
show total GHG reductions for calendar
years 2018, 2030, and 2050.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

CH4
(MMT CO2eq)
5.1
12.2
16.4

N2O
(MMT CO2eq)

0.9
1.9
2.5

0.02
0.06
0.08

Total GHG
(MMT CO2eq)
6.0
14.2
19.0

activities. Transportation activities, in
TABLE VI–7—ANNUAL TOTAL GHG
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN 2018, aggregate, are the second largest
contributor to total U.S. GHG emissions
2030, AND 2050

(27 percent of total emissions) despite a
decline in emissions from this sector
during 2008.324
This section provides a summary of
2018 ..................................
29 observed and projected changes in GHG
2030 ..................................
76 emissions and associated climate
2050 ..................................
108 change impacts. The source document
for the section below is the Technical
D. Overview of Climate Change Impacts Support Document (TSD) 325 for EPA’s
From GHG Emissions
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute
Findings Under the Clean Air Act (74
Once emitted, GHGs that are the
FR 66496, December 15, 2009). Below is
subject of this regulation can remain in
the Executive Summary of the TSD
the atmosphere for decades to
which provides technical support for
millennia, meaning that 1) their
the endangerment and cause or
concentrations become well-mixed
contribute analyses concerning GHG
throughout the global atmosphere
emissions under section 202(a) of the
regardless of emission origin, and 2)
CAA. The TSD reviews observed and
their effects on climate are long lasting.
GHG emissions come mainly from the
324 U.S. EPA (2010) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. EPA–430–R–
gas), with additional contributions from 10–006, Washington, DC.
325 See Endangerment TSD, Note 10 above.
the clearing of forests and agricultural

PO 00000

GHG reductions
(MMT CO2eq)

Frm 00190

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
projected changes in climate based on
current and projected atmospheric GHG
concentrations and emissions, as well as
the related impacts and risks from
climate change that are projected in the
absence of GHG mitigation actions,
including this program and other U.S.
and global actions. The TSD was
updated and revised based on expert
technical review and public comment as
part of EPA’s rulemaking process for the
final Endangerment Findings. The key
findings synthesized here and the
information throughout the TSD are
primarily drawn from the assessment
reports of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP), the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP), and
NRC.326
In May 2010, the NRC published its
comprehensive assessment, ‘‘Advancing
the Science of Climate Change.’’ 327 It
concluded that ‘‘climate change is
occurring, is caused largely by human
activities, and poses significant risks
for—and in many cases is already
affecting—a broad range of human and
natural systems.’’ Furthermore, the NRC
stated that this conclusion is based on
findings that are ‘‘consistent with the
conclusions of recent assessments by
the U.S. Global Change Research
Program, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment
Report, and other assessments of the
state of scientific knowledge on climate
change.’’ These are the same
assessments that served as the primary
scientific references underlying the
Administrator’s Endangerment Finding.
Importantly, this recent NRC assessment
represents another independent and
critical inquiry of the state of climate
change science, separate and apart from
the previous IPCC and USGCRP
assessments.
(1) Observed Trends in Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Concentrations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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
326 For a complete list of core references from
IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP, NRC and others relied upon
for development of the TSD for EPA’s
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
See section 1(b), specifically, Table 1.1 of the TSD
Docket: EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0171–11645.
327 National Research Council (NRC) (2010).
Advancing the Science of Climate Change. National
Academy Press. Washington, DC.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

teragrams 328 of CO2 equivalent 329
(TgCO2eq). The dominant gas emitted is
CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion.
Methane is the second largest
component of U.S. emissions, followed
by N2O and the fluorinated gases (HFCs,
PFCs, and SF6). Electricity generation is
the largest emitting sector (34 percent of
total U.S. GHG emissions), followed by
transportation (27 percent) and industry
(19 percent).
Transportation sources under section
202(a) 330 of the CAA (passenger cars,
light-duty trucks, other trucks and
buses, motorcycles, and passenger
cooling) emitted 1,649 TgCO2eq in 2007,
representing 23 percent of total U.S.
GHG emissions. U.S. transportation
sources under section 202(a) made up
4.3 percent of total global GHG
emissions in 2005,331 which, in addition
to the United States as a whole, ranked
only behind total GHG emissions from
China, Russia, and India but ahead of
Japan, Brazil, Germany, and the rest of
the world’s countries. In 2005, total U.S.
GHG emissions were responsible for 18
percent of global emissions, ranking
only behind China, which was
responsible for 19 percent of global GHG
emissions. The scope of this final action
focuses on GHG emissions under
section 202(a) from heavy-duty source
categories (see Section II).
The global atmospheric CO2
concentration has increased about 38
percent from pre-industrial levels to
2009, and almost all of the increase is
due to anthropogenic emissions. The
global atmospheric concentration of CH4
has increased by 149 percent since preindustrial levels (through 2007); and the
N2O concentration has increased by 23
percent (through 2007). The observed
concentration increase in these gases
can also be attributed primarily to
anthropogenic emissions. The industrial
fluorinated gases, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6,
have relatively low atmospheric
328 One teragram (Tg) = 1 million metric tons. 1
metric ton = 1,000 kilograms = 1.102 short tons =
2,205 pounds.
329 Long-lived GHGs are compared and summed
together on a CO2-equivalent basis by multiplying
each gas by its global warming potential (GWP), as
estimated by IPCC. In accordance with United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) reporting procedures, the U.S. quantifies
GHG emissions in the official U.S. greenhouse gas
inventory submission to the UNFCCC using the
100-year time frame values for GWPs established in
the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report.
330 Source categories under Section 202(a) of the
CAA are a subset of source categories considered in
the transportation sector and do not include
emissions from non-highway sources such as boats,
rail, aircraft, agricultural equipment, construction/
mining equipment, and other off-road equipment.
331 More recent emission data are available for the
United States and other individual countries, but
2005 is the most recent year for which data for all
countries and all gases are available.

PO 00000

Frm 00191

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57295

concentrations but the total radiative
forcing due to these gases is increasing
rapidly; these gases are almost entirely
anthropogenic in origin.
Historic data show that current
atmospheric concentrations of the two
most important directly emitted, 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., from breathing/
inhalation).
The global average net effect of the
increase in atmospheric GHG
concentrations, plus other human
activities (e.g., land-use change and
aerosol emissions), on the global energy
balance since 1750 has been one of
warming. This total net heating effect,
referred to as forcing, is estimated to be
+1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) watts per square
meter (W/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. Nine of the 10
warmest years on record have occurred
since 2001. Global mean surface
temperature was higher during the last
few decades of the 20th century than
during any comparable period during
the preceding four centuries.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57296

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Most of the observed increase in
global average temperatures since the
mid-20th century is very likely due to
the observed increase in anthropogenic
GHG concentrations. Climate model
simulations suggest natural forcing
alone (i.e., changes in solar irradiance)
cannot explain the observed warming.
U.S. temperatures also warmed during
the 20th and into the 21st century;
temperatures are now approximately 1.3
°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 332 and the CCSP reports
attributed recent North American
warming to elevated GHG
concentrations. In the CCSP (2008)
report,333 the authors find that for North
America, ‘‘more than half of this
warming [for the period 1951–2006] is
likely the result of human-caused
greenhouse gas forcing of climate
change.’’
Observations show that changes are
occurring in the amount, intensity,
frequency and type of precipitation.
Over the contiguous United States, total
annual precipitation increased by 6.1
percent from 1901 to 2008. It is likely
that there have been increases in the
number of heavy precipitation events
within many land regions, even in those
where there has been a reduction in
total precipitation amount, consistent
with a warming climate.
There is strong evidence that global
sea level gradually rose in the 20th
century and is currently rising at an
increased rate. It is not clear whether
the increasing rate of sea level rise is a
reflection of short-term variability or an
increase in the longer-term trend. Nearly
all of the Atlantic Ocean shows sea level
rise during the last 50 years with the
rate of rise reaching a maximum (over
2 millimeters [mm] per year) in a band
along the U.S. east coast running eastnortheast.
Satellite data since 1979 show that
annual average Arctic sea ice extent has
shrunk by 4.1 percent per decade. The
size and speed of recent Arctic summer
332 Hegerl, G.C. et al. (2007) Understanding and
Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
333 CCSP (2008) Reanalysis of Historical Climate
Data for Key Atmospheric Features: Implications for
Attribution of Causes of Observed Change. A Report
by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and
the Subcommittee on Global Change Research
[Randall Dole, Martin Hoerling, and Siegfried
Schubert (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Climatic Data Center,
Asheville, NC, 156 pp.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

sea ice loss is highly anomalous relative
to the previous few thousands of years.
Widespread changes in extreme
temperatures have been observed in the
last 50 years across all world regions,
including the United States. Cold days,
cold nights, and frost have become less
frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and
heat waves have become more frequent.
Observational evidence from all
continents and most oceans shows that
many natural systems are being affected
by regional climate changes, particularly
temperature increases. However,
directly attributing specific regional
changes in climate to emissions of GHGs
from human activities is difficult,
especially for precipitation.
Ocean CO2 uptake has lowered the
average ocean pH (increased acidity)
level by approximately 0.1 since 1750.
Consequences for marine ecosystems
can include reduced calcification by
shell-forming organisms, and in the
longer term, the dissolution of carbonate
sediments.
Observations show that climate
change is currently affecting U.S.
physical and biological systems in
significant ways. The consistency of
these observed changes in physical and
biological systems and the observed
significant warming likely cannot be
explained entirely due to natural
variability or other confounding 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,334 through about 2030, the global
warming rate is affected little by the

choice of different future emissions
scenarios. By the end of the 21st
century, projected average global
warming (compared to average
temperature around 1990) varies
significantly depending on the emission
scenario and climate sensitivity
assumptions, ranging from 3.2 to 7.2 °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 335
to rise between 7.1 and 23 inches (18
and 59 centimeter [cm]), relative to
around 1990, in the absence of
increased dynamic ice sheet loss. Recent
rapid changes at the edges of the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets

334 Meehl, G.A. et al. (2007) Global Climate
Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

335 IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.
Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.

(3) Projections of Future Climate Change
With Continued Increases in Elevated
GHG Concentrations

PO 00000

Frm 00192

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
show acceleration of flow and thinning.
While an understanding of these ice
sheet processes is incomplete, their
inclusion in models would likely lead to
increased sea level projections for the
end of the 21st century.
Sea ice extent is projected to shrink in
the Arctic under all IPCC emissions
scenarios.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(4) Projected Risks and Impacts
Associated With Future Climate Change
Risk to society, ecosystems, and many
natural Earth processes increases with
increases in both the rate and magnitude
of climate change. Climate warming
may increase the possibility of large,
abrupt regional or global climatic events
(e.g., disintegration of the Greenland Ice
Sheet or collapse of the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet). The partial deglaciation of
Greenland (and possibly West
Antarctica) could be triggered by a
sustained temperature increase of 2 to 7
°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 336 reports that climate
change has the potential to accentuate
the disparities already evident in the
American health care system, as many
of the expected health effects are likely
to fall disproportionately on the poor,
the elderly, the disabled, and the
uninsured. The IPCC 337 states with very
high confidence that climate change
impacts on human health in U.S. cities
will be compounded by population
growth and an aging population.
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
336 Ebi, K.L., J. Balbus, P.L. Kinney, E. Lipp, D.
Mills, M.S. O’Neill, and M. Wilson (2008) Effects of
Global Change on Human Health. In: Analyses of
the effects of global change on human health and
welfare and human systems. A Report by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research.
[Gamble, J.L. (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J.
Wilbanks, (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 2–1
to 2–78.
337 Field, C.B. et al. (2007) North America. In:
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

increased heat-related mortality in the
United States due to climate change.
Increases in regional ozone pollution
relative to ozone levels without climate
change are expected due to higher
temperatures and weaker circulation in
the United States and other world cities
relative to air quality levels without
climate change. Climate change is
expected to increase regional ozone
pollution, with associated risks in
respiratory illnesses and premature
death. In addition to human health
effects, tropospheric ozone has
significant adverse effects on crop
yields, pasture and forest growth, and
species composition. The directional
effect of climate change on ambient
particulate matter levels remains
uncertain.
Within settlements experiencing
climate change, certain parts of the
population may be especially
vulnerable; these include the poor, the
elderly, those already in poor health, the
disabled, those living alone, and/or
indigenous populations dependent on
one or a few resources. Thus, the
potential impacts of climate change
raise environmental justice issues.
The CCSP 338 concludes that, with
increased CO2 and temperature, the life
cycle of grain and oilseed crops will
likely progress more rapidly. But, as
temperature rises, these crops will
increasingly begin to experience failure,
especially if climate variability
increases and precipitation lessens or
becomes more variable. Furthermore,
the marketable yield of many
horticultural crops (e.g., tomatoes,
onions, fruits) is very likely to be more
sensitive to climate change than grain
and oilseed crops.
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
338 Backlund, P., A. Janetos, D.S. Schimel, J.
Hatfield, M.G. Ryan, S.R. Archer, and D.
Lettenmaier (2008) Executive Summary. In: The
Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land
Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the
United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global
Change Research. Washington, DC., USA, 362 pp.

PO 00000

Frm 00193

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57297

Southwest, and Alaska, and will
continue to do so. Over North America,
forest growth and productivity have
been observed to increase since the
middle of the 20th century, in part due
to observed climate change. Rising CO2
will very likely increase photosynthesis
for forests, but the increased
photosynthesis will likely only increase
wood production in young forests on
fertile soils. The combined effects of
expected increased temperature, CO2,
nitrogen deposition, ozone, and forest
disturbance on soil processes and soil
carbon storage remain unclear.
Coastal communities and habitats will
be increasingly stressed by climate
change impacts interacting with
development and pollution. Sea level is
rising along much of the U.S. coast, and
the rate of change will very likely
increase in the future, exacerbating the
impacts of progressive inundation,
storm-surge flooding, and shoreline
erosion. Storm impacts are likely to be
more severe, especially along the Gulf
and Atlantic coasts. Salt marshes, other
coastal habitats, and dependent species
are threatened by sea level rise, fixed
structures blocking landward migration,
and changes in vegetation. Population
growth and rising value of infrastructure
in coastal areas increases vulnerability
to climate variability and future climate
change.
Climate change will likely further
constrain already over-allocated water
resources in some regions of the United
States, increasing competition among
agricultural, municipal, industrial, and
ecological uses. Although water
management practices in the United
States are generally advanced,
particularly in the West, the reliance on
past conditions as the basis for current
and future planning may no longer be
appropriate, as climate change
increasingly creates conditions well
outside of historical observations. Rising
temperatures will diminish snowpack
and increase evaporation, affecting
seasonal availability of water. In the
Great Lakes and major river systems,
lower water levels are likely to
exacerbate challenges relating to water
quality, navigation, recreation,
hydropower generation, water transfers,
and binational relationships. Decreased
water supply and lower water levels are
likely to exacerbate challenges relating
to aquatic navigation in the United
States.
Higher water temperatures, increased
precipitation intensity, and longer
periods of low flows will exacerbate
many forms of water pollution,
potentially making attainment of water
quality goals more difficult. As waters
become warmer, the aquatic life they

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57298

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

now support will be replaced by other
species better adapted to warmer water.
In the long term, warmer water and
changing flow may result in
deterioration of aquatic ecosystems.
Ocean acidification is projected to
continue, resulting in the reduced
biological production of marine
calcifiers, including corals.
Climate change is likely to affect U.S.
energy use and energy production and
physical and institutional
infrastructures. It will also likely
interact with and possibly exacerbate
ongoing environmental change and
environmental pressures in settlements,
particularly in Alaska where indigenous
communities are facing major
environmental and cultural impacts.
The U.S. energy sector, which relies
heavily on water for hydropower and
cooling capacity, may be adversely
impacted by changes to water supply
and quality in reservoirs and other
water bodies. Water infrastructure,
including drinking water and
wastewater treatment plants, and sewer
and stormwater management systems,
will be at greater risk of flooding, sea
level rise and storm surge, low flows,
and other factors that could impair
performance.
Disturbances such as wildfires and
insect outbreaks are increasing in the
United States and are likely to intensify
in a warmer future with warmer
winters, drier soils, and longer growing
seasons. Although recent climate trends
have increased vegetation growth,
continuing increases in disturbances are
likely to limit carbon storage, facilitate
invasive species, and disrupt ecosystem
services.
Over the 21st century, changes in
climate will cause species to shift north
and to higher elevations and
fundamentally rearrange U.S.
ecosystems. Differential capacities for
range shifts and constraints from
development, habitat fragmentation,
invasive species, and broken ecological
connections will alter ecosystem
structure, function, and services.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(5) Present and Projected U.S. Regional
Climate Change Impacts
Climate change impacts will vary in
nature and magnitude across different
regions of the United States.
Sustained high summer temperatures,
heat waves, and declining air quality are
projected in the Northeast,339
339 Northeast includes West Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts,
Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Southeast,340 Southwest,341 and
Midwest.342 Projected climate change
would continue to cause loss of sea ice,
glacier retreat, permafrost thawing, and
coastal erosion in Alaska.
Reduced snowpack, earlier spring
snowmelt, and increased likelihood of
seasonal summer droughts are projected
in the Northeast, Northwest,343 and
Alaska. More severe, sustained droughts
and water scarcity are projected in the
Southeast, Great Plains,344 and
Southwest.
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
340 Southeast includes Kentucky, Virginia,
Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South
Carolina, southeast Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
341 Southwest includes California, Nevada, Utah,
western Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico (except the
extreme eastern section), and southwest Texas.
342 The Midwest includes Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and
Missouri.
343 The Northwest includes Washington, Idaho,
western Montana, and Oregon.
344 The Great Plains includes central and eastern
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming,
Nebraska, eastern Colorado, Kansas, extreme
eastern New Mexico, central Texas, and Oklahoma.

PO 00000

Frm 00194

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

United States. The IPCC 345 identifies
the most vulnerable world regions as the
Arctic, because of the effects of high
rates of projected warming on natural
systems; Africa, especially the 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 Program’s GHG
Emissions Reductions
EPA examined 346 the reductions in
CO2 and other GHGs associated with
this rulemaking and analyzed the
projected effects on atmospheric CO2
concentrations, global mean surface
temperature, sea level rise, and ocean
pH which are common variables used as
indicators of climate change. The
analysis projects that the preferred
alternative of this program will reduce
atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
global climate warming and sea level
rise relative to the reference case.
Although the projected reductions and
improvements are small in comparison
to the total projected climate change,
they are quantifiable, directionally
consistent, and will contribute to
reducing the risks associated with
climate change. Climate change is a
global phenomenon and EPA recognizes
that this one national action alone will
not prevent it: EPA notes this would be
true for any given GHG mitigation
action when taken alone. EPA also notes
that a substantial portion of CO2 emitted
into the atmosphere is not removed by
natural processes for millennia, and
therefore each unit of CO2 not emitted
into the atmosphere due to this program
345 Parry, M.L. et al. (2007) Technical Summary.
In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)], Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp.
23S78.
346 Using the Model for the Assessment of
Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC)
5.3v2, http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/
), EPA estimated the effects of this rulemaking’s
greenhouse gas emissions reductions on global
mean temperature and sea level. Please refer to
Chapter 8.4 of the RIA for additional information.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
avoids essentially permanent climate
change on centennial time scales. The
heavy-duty program makes a significant
contribution towards addressing the
challenge by producing substantial
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
from a particularly large and important
source of emissions. As the Supreme
Court recognized in State of
Massachusetts v. EPA, [A]agencies, like
legislatures, do not generally resolve
massive problems like climate change in
one fell regulatory swoop. 549 U.S. 497,
524 (2008). They instead whittle away at
them over time. Id.
EPA determines that the projected
reductions in atmospheric CO2, global
mean temperature and sea level rise are
meaningful in the context of this final
action. In addition, EPA has conducted
an analysis to evaluate the projected
changes in ocean pH in the context of
the changes in emissions from this
rulemaking. The results of the analysis
demonstrate that relative to the
reference case, projected atmospheric
CO2 concentrations are estimated to be
reduced by 0.691 to 0.787 part per
million by volume (ppmv), global mean
temperature is estimated to be reduced
by 0.0017 to 0.0042°C, and sea-level rise
is projected to be reduced by
approximately 0.017–0.040 cm by 2100,
based on a range of climate sensitivities.
The analysis also demonstrates that
ocean pH will increase by 0.0003 pH
units by 2100 relative to the reference
case.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(1) Estimated Projected Reductions in
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration, Global
Mean Surface Temperatures, Sea Level
Rise, and Ocean pH
EPA estimated changes in the
atmospheric CO2 concentration, global
mean temperature, and sea level rise out
to 2100 resulting from the emissions
reductions in this rulemaking using the
GCAM (Global Change Assessment
Model, formerly MiniCAM), integrated
assessment model 347 coupled with the
Model for the Assessment of
Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate
347 GCAM is a long-term, global integrated
assessment model of energy, economy, agriculture
and land use, that considers the sources of
emissions of a suite of GHG’s, emitted in 14 globally
disaggregated regions, the fate of emissions to the
atmosphere, and the consequences of changing
concentrations of greenhouse related gases for
climate change. GCAM begins with a representation
of demographic and economic developments in
each region and combines these with assumptions
about technology development to describe an
internally consistent representation of energy,
agriculture, land-use, and economic developments
that in turn shape global emissions.
Brenkert A, S. Smith, S. Kim, and H. Pitcher,
2003: Model Documentation for the MiniCAM.
PNNL–14337, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Change (MAGICC, version 5.3v2).348
GCAM was used to create the globally
and temporally consistent set of climate
relevant variables required for running
MAGICC. MAGICC was then used to
estimate the projected change in these
variables over time. Given the
magnitude of the estimated emissions
reductions associated with this action, a
simple climate model such as MAGICC
is reasonable for estimating the
atmospheric and climate response. This
widely-used, peer reviewed modeling
tool was also used to project
temperature and sea level rise under
different emissions scenarios in the
Third and Fourth Assessments of the
IPCC.
The integrated impact of the following
pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions
changes are considered: CO2, CH4, N2O,
HFC–134a, NOX, CO2 and SO2, and
volatile organic compounds (VOC). For
CO2, CH4, HFC–134a, and N2O an
annual time-series of (upstream +
downstream) emissions reductions
estimated from the rulemaking were
input directly. The GHG emissions
reductions, from Section VI.C, were
applied as net reductions to a global
reference case (or baseline) emissions
scenario in GCAM to generate an
emissions scenario specific to this
rulemaking. For CO, VOCs, SO2, and
NOX, emissions reductions were
estimated for 2018, 2030, and 2050
(provided in Section VII.A). EPA then
linearly scaled emissions reductions for
these gases between a zero input value
in 2013 and the value supplied for 2018
to produce the reductions for 2014–
2018. A similar scaling was used for
2019–2029 and 2031–2050. The
emissions reductions past 2050 for all
gases were scaled with total U.S. road
transportation fuel consumption from
the GCAM reference scenario. Road
transport fuel consumption past 2050
does not change significantly and thus
emissions reductions remain relatively
constant from 2050 through 2100.
Specific details about the GCAM
reference case scenario can be found in
Chapter 8.4 of the RIA that accompanies
this preamble.
MAGICC calculates the forcing
response at the global scale from
changes in atmospheric concentrations
of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, and
tropospheric ozone. It also includes the
effects of temperature changes on
stratospheric ozone and the effects of
CH4 emissions on stratospheric water
vapor. Changes in CH4, NOX, VOC, and
348 Wigley, T.M.L. 2008. MAGICC 5.3.v2 User
Manual. UCAR—Climate and Global Dynamics
Division, Boulder, Colorado. http://
www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/.

PO 00000

Frm 00195

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57299

CO emissions affect both O3
concentrations and CH4 concentrations.
MAGICC includes the relative climate
forcing effects of changes in sulfate
concentrations due to changing SO2
emissions, including both the direct
effect of sulfate particles and the
indirect effects related to cloud
interactions. However, MAGICC does
not calculate the effect of changes in
concentrations of other aerosols such as
nitrates, black carbon, or organic carbon,
making the assumption that the sulfate
cooling effect is a proxy for the sum of
all the aerosol effects. Therefore, the
climate effects of changes in PM2.5
emissions and precursors (besides SO2)
which are presented in the RIA Chapter
5 were not included in the calculations
in this section. MAGICC also calculates
all climate effects at the global scale.
This global scale captures the climate
effects of the long-lived, well-mixed
greenhouse gases, but does not address
the fact that short-lived climate forcers
such as aerosols and ozone can have
effects that vary with location and
timing of emissions. Black carbon in
particular is known to cause a positive
forcing or warming effect by absorbing
incoming solar radiation, but there are
uncertainties about the magnitude of
that warming effect and the interaction
of black carbon (and other co-emitted
aerosol species) with clouds. While
black carbon is likely to be an important
contributor to climate change, it would
be premature to include quantification
of black carbon climate impacts in an
analysis of the final standards at this
time.
Changes in atmospheric CO2
concentration, global mean temperature,
and sea level rise for both the reference
case and the emissions scenarios
associated with this action were
computed using MAGICC. To calculate
the reductions in the atmospheric CO2
concentrations as well as in temperature
and sea level resulting from this action,
the output from the policy scenario
associated with the preferred approach
of this action was subtracted from an
existing Global Change Assessment
Model (GCAM, formerly MiniCAM)
reference emission scenario. To capture
some key uncertainties in the climate
system with the MAGICC model,
changes in atmospheric CO2, global
mean temperature and sea level rise
were projected across the most current
IPCC range of climate sensitivities, from
1.5 °C to 6.0 °C.349 This range reflects
349 In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate
sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the
annual mean global surface temperature following
a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon
dioxide concentration. The IPCC states that climate

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

Continued

15SER2

57300

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the uncertainty for equilibrium climate
sensitivity for how much global mean
temperature would rise if the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere were to double. The
information for this range come from
constraints from past climate change on
various time scales, and the spread of
results for climate sensitivity from
ensembles of models.350 Details about
this modeling analysis can be found in
the RIA Chapter 8.4.
The results of this modeling,
summarized in Table VI–8, show small,

projected to be reduced by
approximately 0.017–0.040 cm by 2100.
The range of reductions in global mean
temperature and sea level rise is larger
than that for CO2 concentrations
because CO2 concentrations are only
weakly coupled to climate sensitivity
through the dependence on temperature
of the rate of ocean absorption of CO2,
whereas the magnitude of temperature
change response to CO2 changes (and
therefore sea level rise) is more tightly
coupled to climate sensitivity in the
MAGICC model.

but quantifiable, reductions in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations,
projected global mean temperature and
sea level resulting from this action,
across all climate sensitivities. As a
result of the emission reductions from
the final standards for this action,
relative to the reference case the
atmospheric CO2 concentration is
projected to be reduced by 0.691–0.787
ppmv, the global mean temperature is
projected to be reduced by
approximately 0.0017–0.0042 °C by
2100, and global mean sea level rise is

TABLE VI–8—IMPACT OF GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ON PROJECTED CHANGES IN GLOBAL CLIMATE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE FINAL RULEMAKING (BASED ON A RANGE OF CLIMATE SENSITIVITIES FROM 1.5–6 °C)
Variable

Units

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration .....................................................................................
Global Mean Surface Temperature .................................................................................
Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................
Ocean pH .........................................................................................................................

Year

ppmv
°C
cm
pH units

Projected change
2100
2100
2100
2100

¥0.691 to ¥0.787.
¥0.0017 to ¥0.0042.
¥0.017 to ¥0.040.
0.0003 a.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Note:
a The value for projected change in ocean pH is based on a climate sensitivity of 3.0.

The projected reductions are small
relative to the change in temperature
(1.8–4.8 °C), sea level rise (27—51 cm),
and ocean acidity (¥0.30 pH units)
from 1990 to 2100 from the MAGICC
simulations for the GCAM reference
case. However, this is to be expected
given the magnitude of emissions
reductions expected from the program
in the context of global emissions. This
uncertainty range does not include the
effects of uncertainty in future
emissions. It should also be noted that
the calculations in MAGICC do not
include the possible effects of
accelerated ice flow in Greenland and/
or Antarctica: the recent NRC report
estimated a likely sea level increase for
the A1B SRES scenario of 0.5 to 1.0
meters.351 Further discussion of EPA’s
modeling analysis is found in the RIA,
Chapter 8.
EPA used the Program CO2SYS,352
version 1.05 to estimate projected
changes in ocean pH for tropical waters
based on the atmospheric CO2
concentration change (reduction)
resulting from this action. The program
performs calculations relating
parameters of the CO2 system in
seawater. EPA used the program to
calculate ocean pH as a function of

atmospheric CO2 concentrations, among
other specified input conditions. Based
on the projected atmospheric CO2
concentration reductions resulting from
this action, the program calculates an
increase in ocean pH of 0.0003 pH units
in 2100 relative to the reference case
(compared to a decrease of 0.3 pH units
from 1990 to 2100 in the reference case).
Thus, this analysis indicates the
projected decrease in atmospheric CO2
concentrations from the program will
result in an increase in ocean pH. For
additional validation, results were
generated using different known
constants from the literature. A
comprehensive discussion of the
modeling analysis associated with ocean
pH is provided in the RIA, Chapter 8.

millennia.353 Though the magnitude of
the avoided climate change projected
here is small in comparison to the total
projected changes, these reductions
represent a reduction in the adverse
risks associated with climate change
(though these risks were not formally
estimated for this action) across a range
of equilibrium climate sensitivities.
EPA’s analysis of the program’s
impact on global climate conditions is
intended to quantify these potential
reductions using the best available
science. EPA’s modeling results show
repeatable, consistent reductions
relative to the reference case in changes
of CO2 concentration, temperature, sealevel rise, and ocean pH over the next
century.

(2) Program’s Effect on Climate
As a substantial portion of CO2
emitted into the atmosphere is not
removed by natural processes for
millennia, each unit of CO2 not emitted
into the atmosphere avoids essentially
permanent climate change on centennial
time scales. Reductions in emissions in
the near-term are important in
determining long-term climate
stabilization and associated impacts
experienced not just over the next
decades but in the coming centuries and

VII. How will this final action impact
non-GHG emissions and their
associated effects?

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, http://www.ipcc.ch/.
350 Meehl, G.A. et al. (2007) Global Climate
Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
351 National Research Council, 2011. Climate
Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations,

and Impacts over Decades to Millenia. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
352 Lewis, E., and D. W. R. Wallace. 1998.
Program Developed for CO2 System Calculations.
ORNL/CDIAC–105. Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
353 See NRC 2011, Note 351.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00196

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

A. Emissions Inventory Impacts
(1) Upstream Impacts of the Program
Increasing efficiency in heavy-duty
vehicles will result in reduced fuel
demand and therefore reductions in the
emissions associated with all processes
involved in getting petroleum to the
pump. These projected upstream
emission impacts on criteria pollutants

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57301

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
are summarized in Table VII–1. Table
VII–2 shows the corresponding

projected impacts on upstream air toxic
emissions in 2030.

TABLE VII–1—OVERALL ESTIMATED UPSTREAM IMPACTS ON CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2018, 2030,
AND 2050
[Short tons]
Calendar year

VOC

NOX
¥6,475
¥9,975
¥14,243

2018 .................................................................................................
2030 .................................................................................................
2050 .................................................................................................

CO

¥1,765
¥4,367
¥6,379

PM2.5

¥2,217
¥3,331
¥4,785

¥971
¥1,379
¥1,998

TABLE VII–2—OVERALL ESTIMATED UPSTREAM IMPACTS ON AIR TOXICS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2018, 2030, AND 2050
[Short tons]
Calendar year

Benzene
¥12
¥19
¥28

2018 .................................................................
2030 .................................................................
2050 .................................................................

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

1,3-butadiene

Formaldehyde

¥0.6
¥0.9
¥1.2

Acetaldehyde

¥12
¥26
¥35

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 RIA chapter 5.
(2) Downstream Impacts of the Program
While these final rules do not regulate
non-GHG pollutants, EPA expects
reductions in downstream emissions of
most non-GHG pollutants. These
pollutants include NOX, SO2, VOC, CO,
and PM. The primary reasons for this
are the improvements in road load
(aerodynamics and tire rolling
resistance) under the program and the
agency’s anticipation of increased use of
APUs in combination tractors for GHG
reduction purposes during extended
idling. APUs exhibit different non-GHG
emissions characteristics compared to
the on-road engines they would replace
during extended idling. Another reason
is that emissions from certain pollutants

Acrolein

¥1
¥3
¥5

¥0.2
¥0.5
¥0.6

(e.g., SO2) are proportional to fuel
consumption. For vehicle types not
affected by road load improvements,
non-GHG emissions may increase very
slightly due to VMT rebound. EPA used
MOVES to determine non-GHG
emissions inventories for baseline and
control cases. Further information about
the MOVES analysis is available in
Section VI and RIA chapter 5. The
improvements in road load, use of
APUs, and VMT rebound were included
in the MOVES runs and post-processing.
Table VII–3 summarizes the
downstream criteria pollutant impacts
of this program. Most of the impacts
shown are through projected increased
APU use. Because APUs are required to
meet much less stringent PM standards
than on-road engines, the projected
widespread use of APUs leads to higher
PM2.5. Table VII–4 summarizes the
downstream air toxics impacts of this
program.

TABLE VII–3—OVERALL ESTIMATED DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ON CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
[Short tons]
Downstream
NOX

Calendar year
2018 .................................................................
2030 .................................................................
2050 .................................................................

Downstream
VOC

¥107,135
¥235,046
¥326,413

¥12,951
¥25,502
¥35,126

Downstream SO2

Downstream CO

¥145
¥423
¥614

¥25,614
¥52,212
¥72,049

Downstream
PM2.5 a
803
1,751
2,441

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Note:
a Positive number means emissions would increase from baseline to control case. PM
2.5 from tire wear and brake wear is included.

TABLE VII–4—OVERALL ESTIMATED DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ON AIR TOXICS
[Short tons]
Calendar year

Benzene

2018 .................................................................
2030 .................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

1,3-butadiene

¥158
¥341

Frm 00197

Fmt 4701

Formaldehyde

¥0.3
0.4

Sfmt 4700

Acetaldehyde

¥2,853
¥6,255

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

¥871
¥1,908

15SER2

Acrolein
¥120
¥263

57302

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VII–4—OVERALL ESTIMATED DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ON AIR TOXICS—Continued
[Short tons]
Calendar year

Benzene
¥472

2050 .................................................................

(3) Total Impacts of the Program
As shown in Table VII–5 and Table
VII–6, the agencies estimate that this
program would result in reductions of
NOX, VOC, CO, PM, and air toxics. For
NOX, VOC, and CO, much of the net
reductions are realized through the use
of APUs, which emit these pollutants at

1,3-butadiene

Formaldehyde

Acetaldehyde

¥8,689

0.8

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

Acrolein

¥2,650

¥365

fuel consumption; therefore a decrease
is seen in both upstream and
downstream sources. The downstream
increase in PM2.5 due to APU use is
mostly negated by upstream PM2.5
reductions, though our calculations
show a slight net increase in 2030 and
2050.354

TABLE VII–5—OVERALL ESTIMATED TOTAL IMPACTS (UPSTREAM PLUS DOWNSTREAM) ON CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
[Results are shown in both short tons and percent change from baseline to control case.]
VOC

NOX

SO2

CO

PM2.5

CY
short tons
2018 .................
2030 .................
2050 .................

%

¥113,610
¥245,129
¥340,656

short tons

¥6.2
¥21.0
¥23.7

¥14,715
¥29,932
¥41,506

%
¥5.6
¥16.0
¥18.3

short tons
¥4,566
¥6,888
¥9,857

%
¥4.5
¥10.1
¥11.0

short tons
¥27,832
¥55,579
¥76,834

%

short tons

¥1.0
¥2.1
¥2.2

¥167
356
443

%
¥0.2
10.1
10.1

TABLE VII–6—OVERALL ESTIMATED TOTAL IMPACTS ON AIR TOXICS (UPSTREAM PLUS DOWNSTREAM)
Benzene

1,3-butadiene

Formaldehyde

Acetaldehyde

Acrolein

CY
short tons
2018 .........................
2030 .........................
2050 .........................

¥170
¥359
¥500

%

short tons

¥4.8
¥15.0
¥17.4

¥0.1
¥0.1
¥0.1

short tons
¥2,865
¥6,282
¥8,725

%
¥18.3
¥46.2
¥49.5

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

354 Although the net impact is small when
aggregated to the national level, it is unlikely that
the geographic location of increases in downstream
PM2.5 emissions will coincide with the location of
decreases in upstream PM2.5 emissions. Impacts of

the emissions changes are included in the air
quality modeling, discussed in Section VII.D of this
preamble and in Chapter 8 of the RIA.
355 U.S. EPA (2009) Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).

B. Health Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
In this section we discuss health
effects associated with exposure to some
of the criteria and air toxic pollutants
impacted by the final heavy-duty
vehicle standards.
(1) Particulate Matter
(a) Background

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

¥0.9
¥0.5
¥0.4

%

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00198

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

short tons
¥873
¥1,912
¥2,655

%
¥13.9
¥40.2
¥44.2

short tons
¥120.0
¥263.0
¥365.4

%
¥12.4
¥40.0
¥44.5

include a complex mixture of different
pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon
and metal compounds. These particles
can remain in the atmosphere for days
to weeks and travel hundreds to
thousands of kilometers.
(b) Health Effects of PM
Scientific studies show ambient PM is
associated with a series of adverse
health effects. These health effects are
discussed in detail in EPA’s Integrated
Science Assessment for Particulate
Matter (ISA).355 Further discussion of
health effects associated with PM can
also be found in the RIA for this final
action. The ISA summarizes evidence
associated with PM2.5, PM10–2.5, and
ultrafine particles.
The ISA concludes that health effects
associated with short-term exposures
(hours to days) to ambient PM2.5 include
mortality, cardiovascular effects, such as
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F, Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

altered vasomotor function and hospital
admissions and emergency department
visits for ischemic heart disease and
congestive heart failure, and respiratory
effects, such as exacerbation of asthma
symptoms in children and hospital
admissions and emergency department
visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease and respiratory infections.356
The ISA notes that long-term exposure
to PM2.5 (months to years) is associated
with the development/progression of
cardiovascular disease, premature
mortality, and respiratory effects,
including reduced lung function
growth, increased respiratory
symptoms, and asthma development.357
The ISA concludes that the currently
available scientific evidence from
epidemiologic, controlled human
exposure, and toxicological studies
supports a causal association between
short- and long-term exposures to PM2.5
and cardiovascular effects and
mortality. Furthermore, the ISA
concludes that the collective evidence
supports likely causal associations
between short- and long-term PM2.5
exposures and respiratory effects. The
ISA also concludes that the scientific
evidence is suggestive of a causal
association for reproductive and
developmental effects and cancer,
mutagenicity, and genotoxicity and
long-term exposure to PM2.5.358
For PM10–2.5, the ISA concludes that
the current evidence is suggestive of a
causal relationship between short-term
exposures and cardiovascular effects,
such as hospitalization for ischemic
heart disease. There is also suggestive
evidence of a causal relationship
between short-term PM10–2.5 exposure
and mortality and respiratory effects.
Data are inadequate to draw conclusions
regarding the health effects associated
with long-term exposure to PM10–2.5.359
For ultrafine particles, the ISA
concludes that there is suggestive
evidence of a causal relationship
between short-term exposures and
cardiovascular effects, such as changes
in heart rhythm and blood vessel
function. It also concludes that there is
suggestive evidence of association
between short-term exposure to
ultrafine particles and respiratory
effects. Data are inadequate to draw
conclusions regarding the health effects
356 See U.S. EPA, 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355,
at Section 2.3.1.1.
357 See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355,
at page 2–12, Sections 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1.
358 See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355,
at Section 2.3.2.
359 See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355,
at Section 2.3.4, Table 2–6.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

associated with long-term exposure to
ultrafine particles.360
(2) Ozone
(a) Background
Ground-level ozone pollution is
typically formed by the reaction of VOC
and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. These pollutants,
often referred to as ozone precursors, are
emitted by many types of pollution
sources, such as highway and nonroad
motor vehicles and engines, power
plants, chemical plants, refineries,
makers of consumer and commercial
products, industrial facilities, and
smaller area sources.
The science of ozone formation,
transport, and accumulation is complex.
Ground-level ozone is produced and
destroyed in a cyclical set of chemical
reactions, many of which are sensitive
to temperature and sunlight. When
ambient temperatures and sunlight
levels remain high for several days and
the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and
its precursors can build up and result in
more ozone than typically occurs on a
single high-temperature day. Ozone can
be transported hundreds of miles
downwind from precursor emissions,
resulting in elevated ozone levels even
in areas with low local VOC or NOX
emissions.
(b) Health Effects of Ozone
The health and welfare effects of
ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA’s 2006 Air Quality
Criteria Document and 2007 Staff
Paper.361 362 People who are more
susceptible to effects associated with
exposure to ozone can include children,
the elderly, and individuals with
respiratory disease such as asthma.
Those with greater exposures to ozone,
for instance due to time spent outdoors
(e.g., children and outdoor workers), are
of particular concern. Ozone can irritate
the respiratory system, causing
coughing, throat irritation, and
breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce
lung function and cause pulmonary
inflammation in healthy individuals.
Ozone can also aggravate asthma,
leading to more asthma attacks that
require medical attention and/or the use
of additional medication. Thus, ambient
360 See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355,
at Section 2.3.5, Table 2–6.
361 U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for
Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final).
EPA/600/R–05/004aF–cF. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
362 U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy
Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–452/R–07–
003. Washington, DC, U.S. EPA. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.

PO 00000

Frm 00199

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57303

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.363
Animal toxicological evidence indicates
that with repeated exposure, ozone can
inflame and damage the lining of the
lungs, which may lead to permanent
changes in lung tissue and irreversible
reductions in lung function. The
respiratory effects observed in
controlled human exposure studies and
animal studies are coherent with the
evidence from epidemiologic studies
supporting a causal relationship
between acute ambient ozone exposures
and increased respiratory-related
emergency room visits and
hospitalizations in the warm season. In
addition, there is suggestive evidence of
a contribution of ozone to
cardiovascular-related morbidity and
non-accidental and cardiopulmonary
mortality.
(3) Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides
(a) Background
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of
the NOX family of gases. Most NO2 is
formed in the air through the oxidation
of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel
is burned at a high temperature. SO2, a
member of the sulfur oxide (SOX) family
of gases, is formed from burning fuels
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil
derived), extracting gasoline from oil, or
extracting metals from ore.
SO2 and NO2 can dissolve in water
droplets and further oxidize to form
sulfuric and nitric acid which react with
ammonia to form sulfates and nitrates,
both of which are important
components of ambient PM. The health
effects of ambient PM are discussed in
Section 0 of this preamble. NOX and
NMHC are the two major precursors of
363 National Research Council (NRC), 2008.
Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic
Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The
National Academies Press: Washington, DC Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57304

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(c) Health Effects of SO2

ozone. The health effects of ozone are
covered in Section 0.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(b) Health Effects of NO2
Information on the health effects of
NO2 can be found in the EPA Integrated
Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen
Oxides.364 The EPA has concluded that
the findings of epidemiologic,
controlled human exposure, and animal
toxicological studies provide evidence
that is sufficient to infer a likely causal
relationship between respiratory effects
and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA
concludes that the strongest evidence
for such a relationship comes from
epidemiologic studies of respiratory
effects including symptoms, emergency
department visits, and hospital
admissions. The ISA also draws two
broad conclusions regarding airway
responsiveness following NO2 exposure.
First, the ISA concludes that NO2
exposure may enhance the sensitivity to
allergen-induced decrements in lung
function and increase the 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
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.
364 U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science
Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria
(Final Report). EPA/600/R–08/071. Washington,
DC: U.S.EPA. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Information on the health effects of
SO2 can be found in the EPA Integrated
Science Assessment for Sulfur
Oxides.365 SO2 has long been known to
cause adverse respiratory health effects,
particularly among individuals with
asthma. Other potentially sensitive
groups include children and the elderly.
During periods of elevated ventilation,
asthmatics may experience symptomatic
bronchoconstriction within minutes of
exposure. Following an extensive
evaluation of health evidence from
epidemiologic and laboratory studies,
the EPA has concluded that there is a
causal relationship between respiratory
health effects and short-term exposure
to SO2. Separately, based on an
evaluation of the epidemiologic
evidence of associations between 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.366 The ISA concludes that
ambient concentrations of CO are
associated with a number of adverse
health effects.367 This section provides
a summary of the health effects
associated with exposure to ambient
concentrations of CO.368
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
365 U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science
Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides—Health
Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R–08/047F.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
366 U.S. EPA, 2010. Integrated Science
Assessment for Carbon Monoxide (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/019F, 2010.
Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162
367 The ISA evaluates the health evidence
associated with different health effects, assigning
one of five ‘‘weight of evidence’’ determinations:
causal relationship, likely to be a causal
relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship,
inadequate to infer a causal relationship, and not
likely to be a causal relationship. For definitions of
these levels of evidence, please refer to Section 1.6
of the ISA.
368 Personal exposure includes contributions from
many sources, and in many different environments.
Total personal exposure to CO includes both
ambient and nonambient components; and both
components may contribute to adverse health
effects.

PO 00000

Frm 00200

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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
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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(5) Air Toxics
Heavy-duty vehicle emissions
contribute to ambient levels of air toxics
known or suspected as human or animal
carcinogens, or that have noncancer
health effects. The population
experiences an elevated risk of cancer
and other noncancer health effects from
exposure to the class of pollutants
known collectively as ‘‘air toxics.’’ 369
These compounds include, but are not
limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein,
diesel particulate matter and exhaust
organic gases, polycyclic organic matter,
and naphthalene. These compounds
were identified as national or regional
risk drivers or contributors in the 2005
National-scale Air Toxics Assessment
and have significant inventory
contributions from mobile sources.370
(a) Diesel Exhaust
Heavy-duty diesel engines emit diesel
exhaust, a complex mixture composed
of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen,
water vapor, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
compounds, sulfur compounds and
numerous low-molecular-weight
hydrocarbons. A number of these
gaseous hydrocarbon components are
individually known to be toxic,
including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3butadiene. The diesel particulate matter
369 U.S. EPA. 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
nata12002/risksum.html Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
370 U.S. EPA 2009. National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment for 2002. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
nata2002/ Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

21:34 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

present in diesel exhaust consists
mostly of fine particles (< 2.5 μm),
including a significant fraction 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.371
(i) Diesel Exhaust: Potential Cancer
Effects
In EPA’s 2002 Diesel Health
Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),372
exposure to diesel exhaust was
classified as likely to be carcinogenic to
humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures, in accordance
with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA
cancer guidelines. A number of other
agencies (National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer, the World Health Organization,
California EPA, and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services) have made similar
classifications. However, EPA also
concluded in the Diesel HAD that it is
not possible currently to calculate a
cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due
to a variety of factors that limit the
current studies, such as limited
quantitative exposure histories in
occupational groups investigated for
lung cancer.
For the Diesel HAD, EPA reviewed 22
epidemiologic studies on the subject of
the carcinogenicity of workers exposed
371 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment
Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–
90/057F Office of Research and Development,
Washington DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009, from
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
372 See U.S. EPA (2002) Diesel HAD, Note 371, at
pp. 1–1, 1–2.

PO 00000

Frm 00201

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57305

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.373 374
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
103, reflecting the range of occupational
exposures that could be associated with
the relative and absolute risk levels
observed in the occupational studies.
Because of uncertainties, the analysis
acknowledged that the risks could be
lower than 10-4 or 10-5, and a zero risk
from diesel exhaust exposure was not
ruled out.
(ii) Diesel Exhaust: Other Health Effects
Noncancer health effects of acute and
chronic exposure to diesel exhaust
emissions are also of concern to the
EPA. EPA derived a diesel exhaust
reference concentration (RfC) from
373 Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998).
Diesel exposure and lung cancer. Epidemiology,
9(1), 84–91. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
374 Lipsett, M. Campleman, S. (1999).
Occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and lung
cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health, 80(7),
1009–1017. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57306

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

consideration of four well-conducted
chronic rat inhalation studies showing
adverse pulmonary effects.375 376 377 378
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.’’ 379

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(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 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.
375 Ishinishi, N. Kuwabara, N. Takaki, Y., et al.
(1988). Long-term inhalation experiments on diesel
exhaust. In: Diesel exhaust and health risks. Results
of the HERP studies. Ibaraki, Japan: Research
Committee for HERP Studies; pp.11–84. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
376 Heinrich, U., Fuhst, R., Rittinghausen, S., et al.
(1995). Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats
and two different strains of mice to diesel engine
exhaust, carbon black, and titanium dioxide. Inhal
Toxicol, 7, 553–556. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
377 Mauderly, J.L., Jones, R.K., Griffith, W.C., et al.
(1987). Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in
rats exposed chronically by inhalation. Fundam.
Appl. Toxicol., 9, 208–221. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
378 Nikula, K.J., Snipes, M.B., Barr, E.B., et al.
(1995). Comparative pulmonary toxicities and
carcinogenicities of chronically inhaled diesel
exhaust and carbon black in F344 rats. Fundam.
Appl. Toxicol, 25, 80–94. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
379 See U.S. EPA (2002), Diesel HAD at Note 371,
at p. 9–9.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(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 has 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.380, 381, 382 High ambient
particle concentrations have also been
reported near trucking terminals, truck
stops, and bus garages.383, 384, 385
380 Zhu, Y.; Hinds, W.C.; Kim, S.; Shen, S.;
Sioutas, C. (2002) Study of ultrafine particles near
a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic.
Atmospheric Environment 36: 4323–4335. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
381 Lena, T.S; Ochieng, V.; Holguı
´n-Veras, J.;
Kinney, P.L. (2002) Elemental carbon and PM2.5
levels in an urban community heavily impacted by
truck traffic. Environ Health Perspect 110: 1009–
1015. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
382 Soliman, A.S.M.; Jacko, J.B.; Palmer, G.M.
(2006) Development of an empirical model to
estimate real-world fine particulate matter emission
factors: the Traffic Air Quality model. J Air & Waste
Manage Assoc 56: 1540–1549. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
383 Davis, M.E.; Smith, T.J.; Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.;
Ryan, L.M.; Garshick, E. (2006) Modeling particle

PO 00000

Frm 00202

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Additional discussion of exposure and
health effects associated with traffic is
included below in Section 0.
(b) Benzene
The EPA’s Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) database lists benzene as
a known human carcinogen (causing
leukemia) by all routes of exposure, and
concludes that exposure is associated
with additional health effects, including
genetic changes in both humans and
animals and increased proliferation of
bone marrow cells in mice.386, 387, 388
EPA states in its IRIS database that data
indicate a causal relationship between
benzene exposure and acute
lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a
relationship between benzene exposure
and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia
and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The
International Agency for Research on
Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that
benzene is a human carcinogen and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) has characterized
benzene as a known human
carcinogen.389, 390
A number of adverse noncancer
health effects including blood disorders,
such as preleukemia and aplastic
anemia, have also been associated with
long-term exposure to benzene.391, 392
exposure in U.S. trucking terminals. Environ Sci
Techol 40: 4226–4232. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
384 Miller, T.L.; Fu, J.S.; Hromis, B.; Storey, J.M.
(2007) Diesel truck idling emissions—
measurements at a PM2.5 hot spot. Proceedings of
the Annual Conference of the Transportation
Research Board, paper no. 07–2609. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
385 Ramachandran, G.; Paulsen, D.; Watts, W.;
Kittelson, D. (2005) Mass, surface area, and number
metrics in diesel occupational exposure assessment.
J Environ Monit 7: 728–735. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
386 U.S. EPA. 2000. Integrated Risk Information
System File for Benzene. This material is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0276.htm. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
387 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
1982. Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
29. Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World
Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345–389.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
388 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.;
Henry, V.A. 1992. Synergistic action of the benzene
metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic
stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage
colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. 89:3691–3695. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
389 See IARC, Note 387, above.
390 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report
on Carcinogens available at: http://
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
391 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and
carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health
Perspect. 82: 193–197. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The most sensitive noncancer effect
observed in humans, based on current
data, is the depression of the absolute
lymphocyte count in blood.393, 394 In
addition, recent work, including studies
sponsored by the Health Effects Institute
(HEI), provides evidence that
biochemical responses are occurring at
lower levels of benzene exposure than
previously known.395, 396, 397, 398 EPA’s
IRIS program has not yet evaluated
these new data.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(c) 1,3-Butadiene
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene
as carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation.399 400 The IARC has
determined that 1,3-butadiene is a
human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS
has characterized 1,3-butadiene as a
known human carcinogen.401 402 There
392 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity.
Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3:
541–554. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
393 Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E.
Bechtold, G.E. Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi,
W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-Holland, L.P. Zhang,
W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes (1996)
Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily
exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29: 236–246.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
394 U.S. EPA (2002) Toxicological Review of
Benzene (Noncancer Effects). Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System, Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington
DC. This material is available electronically at
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
395 Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.;
Cohen, B.; Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport,
S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.; Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.;
Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok, E.; Li, Y.;
Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003) HEI Report
115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in
Workers Exposed to Benzene in China. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
396 Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B.
Cohen, et al. (2002) Hematological changes among
Chinese workers with a broad range of benzene
exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275–285.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
397 Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et
al. (2004) Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to
Low Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774–1776.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
398 Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003) Benzene
metabolism in rodents at doses relevant to human
exposure from Urban Air. Research Reports Health
Effect Inst. Report No.113. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
399 U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment of 1,3–
Butadiene. Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No.
EPA600–P–98–001F. This document is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/
buta-sup.pdf. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
400 U.S. EPA (2002) Full IRIS Summary for 1,3butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0). Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington,
DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
401 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(1999) Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.403
(d) Formaldehyde
Since 1987, EPA has classified
formaldehyde as a probable human
carcinogen based on evidence in
humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and
monkeys.404 EPA is currently reviewing
recently published epidemiological
data. For instance, research conducted
by the National Cancer Institute found
an increased risk of nasopharyngeal
cancer and lymphohematopoietic
malignancies such as leukemia among
workers exposed to formaldehyde.405 406
In an analysis of the
lymphohematopoietic cancer mortality
from an extended follow-up of these
workers, the National Cancer Institute
confirmed an association between
lymphohematopoietic cancer risk and
71, Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals,
hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97
(in preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon,
France. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
402 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (2005) National Toxicology Program 11th
Report on Carcinogens available at:
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724–
F1F6–975E–7FCE50709CB4C932. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162
403 Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al.
(1996) Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in
rats and mice by inhalation. Fundam. Appl.
Toxicol. 32:1–10. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
404 U.S. EPA (1987) Assessment of Health Risks
to Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents
from Exposure to Formaldehyde, Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April 1987.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
405 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.;
Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from
lymphohematopoetic malignancies among workers
in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National
Cancer Institute 95: 1615–1623. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
406 Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.;
Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid
cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries.
American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117–1130.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

PO 00000

Frm 00203

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57307

peak exposures.407 A recent National
Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health study of garment workers also
found increased risk of death due to
leukemia among workers exposed to
formaldehyde.408 Extended follow-up of
a cohort of British chemical workers did
not find evidence of an increase in
nasopharyngeal or
lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a
continuing statistically significant
excess in lung cancers was reported.409
Recently, the IARC re-classified
formaldehyde as a human carcinogen
(Group 1).410
Formaldehyde exposure also causes a
range of noncancer health effects,
including irritation of the eyes (burning
and watering of the eyes), nose and
throat. Effects from repeated exposure in
humans include respiratory tract
irritation, chronic bronchitis and nasal
epithelial lesions such as metaplasia
and loss of cilia. Animal studies suggest
that formaldehyde may also cause
airway inflammation—including
eosinophil infiltration into the airways.
There are several studies that suggest
that formaldehyde may increase the risk
of asthma—particularly in the
young.411 412
(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
407 Beane Freeman, L. E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J. H.;
Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Hoover, R. N.;
Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers
in formaldehyde industries: The National Cancer
Institute cohort. J. National Cancer Inst. 101: 751–
761. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
408 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a
cohort of garment workers exposed to
formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193–200. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
409 Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer.
2003. Extended follow-up of a cohort of British
chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. J
National Cancer Inst. 95:1608–1615. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
410 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
2006. Formaldehyde, 2–Butoxyethanol and 1-tertButoxypropan-2-ol. Volume 88. (in preparation),
World Health Organization, Lyon, France. Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162
411 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological profile for
Formaldehyde. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
412 WHO (2002) Concise International Chemical
Assessment Document 40: Formaldehyde.
Published under the joint sponsorship of the United
Nations Environment Programme, the International
Labour Organization, and the World Health
Organization, and produced within the framework
of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound
Management of Chemicals. Geneva. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57308

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

routes.413 Acetaldehyde is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen by
the U.S. DHHS in the 11th Report on
Carcinogens and is classified as possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by
the IARC.414 415 EPA is currently
conducting a reassessment of cancer risk
from inhalation exposure to
acetaldehyde.
The primary noncancer effects of
exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and
respiratory tract.416 In short-term (4
week) rat studies, degeneration of
olfactory epithelium was observed at
various concentration levels of
acetaldehyde exposure.417 418 Data from
these studies were used by EPA to
develop an inhalation reference
concentration. Some asthmatics have
been shown to be a sensitive
subpopulation to decrements in
functional expiratory volume (FEV1
test) and bronchoconstriction upon
acetaldehyde inhalation.419 The agency
is currently conducting a reassessment
of the health hazards from inhalation
exposure to acetaldehyde.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(f) Acrolein
Acrolein is extremely acrid and
irritating to humans when inhaled, with
acute exposure resulting in upper
respiratory tract irritation, mucus
hypersecretion and congestion. The
intense irritancy of this carbonyl has
been demonstrated during controlled
tests in human subjects, who suffer
intolerable eye and nasal mucosal
sensory reactions within minutes of
413 U.S. EPA. 1991. Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acetaldehyde. Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. Available at http://
www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
414 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report
on Carcinogens available at: ntp.niehs.nih.gov/
index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724–F1F6–975E–
7FCE50709CB4C932. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
415 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
1999. Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals,
hydrazine, and hydrogen peroxide. IARC
Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk
of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
416 See Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acetaldehyde, Note 413, above.
417 Appleman, L. M., R. A. Woutersen, V. J. Feron,
R. N. Hooftman, and W. R. F. Notten. 1986. Effects
of the variable versus fixed exposure levels on the
toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. J. Appl. Toxicol. 6:
331–336. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
418 Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J.
Feron. 1982. Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in
rats. I. Acute and subacute studies. Toxicology. 23:
293–297. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
419 Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.;
and Matsuda, T. 1993. Aerosolized acetaldehyde
induces histamine-mediated bronchoconstriction in
asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis.148(4 Pt 1): 940–3.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

exposure.420 These data and additional
studies regarding acute effects of human
exposure to acrolein are summarized in
EPA’s 2003 IRIS Human Health
Assessment for acrolein.421 Evidence
available from studies in humans
indicate that levels as low as 0.09 ppm
(0.21 mg/m3) for five minutes may elicit
subjective complaints of eye irritation
with increasing concentrations leading
to more extensive eye, nose and
respiratory symptoms.422 Lesions to the
lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats,
rabbits, and hamsters have been
observed after subchronic exposure to
acrolein.423 Acute exposure effects in
animal studies report bronchial hyperresponsiveness.424 In a recent study, the
acute respiratory irritant effects of
exposure to 1.1 ppm acrolein were more
pronounced in mice with allergic
airway disease by comparison to nondiseased mice which also showed
decreases in respiratory rate.425 Based
on these animal data and demonstration
of similar effects in humans (e.g.,
reduction in respiratory rate),
individuals with compromised
respiratory function (e.g., emphysema,
asthma) are expected to be at increased
risk of developing adverse responses to
strong respiratory irritants such as
acrolein.
EPA determined in 2003 that the
human carcinogenic potential of
acrolein could not be determined
because the available data were
inadequate. No information was
available on the carcinogenic effects of
acrolein in humans and the animal data
provided inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity.426 The IARC
420 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency). (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in
support of summary information on Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/
635/R–03/003. p. 10. Available online at: http://
www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
421 See U.S. EPA 2003 Toxicological review of
acrolein, Note 420, above.
422 See U.S. EPA 2003 Toxicological review of
acrolein, Note 420, at p. 11.
423 Integrated Risk Information System File of
Acrolein. Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. This material is available at
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
424 See U.S. 2003 Toxicological review of
acrolein, Note 420, at p. 15.
425 Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al.
2003. Immediate sensory nerve-mediated
respiratory responses to irritants in healthy and
allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol
94(4):1563–1571. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.
426 U.S. EPA. 2003. Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acrolein. Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

PO 00000

Frm 00204

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

determined in 1995 that acrolein was
not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity
in humans.427
(g) Polycyclic Organic Matter
The term polycyclic organic matter
(POM) defines a broad class of
compounds that includes the polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon compounds
(PAHs). One of these compounds,
naphthalene, is discussed separately
below. POM compounds are formed
primarily from combustion and are
present in the atmosphere in gas and
particulate form. Cancer is the major
concern from exposure to POM.
Epidemiologic studies have reported an
increase in lung cancer in humans
exposed to diesel exhaust, coke oven
emissions, roofing tar emissions, and
cigarette smoke; all of these mixtures
contain POM compounds.428,429 Animal
studies have reported respiratory tract
tumors from inhalation exposure to
benzo[a]pyrene and alimentary tract and
liver tumors from oral exposure to
benzo[a]pyrene. EPA has classified
seven PAHs (benzo[a]pyrene,
benz[a]anthracene, chrysene,
benzo[b]fluoranthene,
benzo[k]fluoranthene,
dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and
indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene) as Group B2,
probable human carcinogens.430 Recent
studies have found that maternal
exposures to PAHs in a population of
pregnant women were associated with
several adverse birth outcomes,
including low birth weight and reduced
length at birth, as well as impaired
cognitive development in preschool
children (3 years of age).431,432EPA has
not yet evaluated these recent studies.
427 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
1995. Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume
63. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and
other industrial chemicals, World Health
Organization, Lyon, France. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
428 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological profile for
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Atlanta,
GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service. Available
electronically at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=122&tid=25.
429 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment
Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–
90/057F Office of Research and Development,
Washington DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
430 U.S. EPA (1997). Integrated Risk Information
System File of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. Research
and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This
material is available electronically at http://
www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0457.htm.
431 Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W–Y.; et al. (2002)
Effect of transplacental exposure to environmental
pollutants on birth outcomes in a multiethnic
population. Environ Health Perspect. 111: 201–205.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(h) Naphthalene
Naphthalene is found in small
quantities in gasoline and diesel fuels.
Naphthalene emissions have been
measured in larger quantities in both
gasoline and diesel exhaust compared
with evaporative emissions from mobile
sources, indicating it is primarily a
product of combustion. EPA released an
external review draft of a reassessment
of the inhalation carcinogenicity of
naphthalene based on a number of
recent animal carcinogenicity
studies.433 The draft reassessment
completed external peer review.434
Based on external peer review
comments received, additional analyses
are being undertaken. This external
review draft does not represent official
agency opinion and was released solely
for the purposes of external peer review
and public comment. The National
Toxicology Program listed naphthalene
as ‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen’’ in 2004 on the basis
of bioassays reporting clear evidence of
carcinogenicity in rats and some
evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.435
California EPA has released a new risk
assessment for naphthalene, and the
IARC has reevaluated naphthalene and
re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly
carcinogenic to humans.436 Naphthalene
also causes a number of chronic noncancer effects in animals, including
abnormal cell changes and growth in
respiratory and nasal tissues.437

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(i) Other Air Toxics
In addition to the compounds
described above, other compounds in
432 Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai,
W.Y.; Tang, D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu,
Y.H.; Camann, D.; Kinney, P. (2006) Effect of
prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3
years of life among inner-city children. Environ
Health Perspect 114: 1287–1292.
433 U. S. EPA. 2004. Toxicological Review of
Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation
Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency,
Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
434 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
(2004). External Peer Review for the IRIS
Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403 Docket
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
435 National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2004).
11th Report on Carcinogens. Public Health Service,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Research Triangle Park, NC. Available from: http://
ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
436 International Agency for Research on Cancer.
(2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol.
82. Lyon, France. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles will be
affected by this final action. Mobile
source air toxic compounds that would
potentially be impacted include
ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde,
toluene, and xylene. Information
regarding the health effects of these
compounds can be found in EPA’s IRIS
database.438
(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.439
Numerous sources on roads contribute
to elevated roadside concentrations,
including exhaust and evaporative
emissions, and resuspension of road
dust and tire and brake wear.
Concentrations of several criteria and
hazardous air pollutants are elevated
near major roads. Furthermore, different
semi-volatile organic compounds and
chemical components of particulate
matter, including elemental carbon,
organic material, and trace metals, have
been reported at higher concentrations
near major roads.
Populations near major roads
experience greater risk of certain
adverse health effects. The Health
Effects Institute published a report on
the health effects of traffic-related air
pollution.440 It concluded that evidence
437 U. S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of
Naphthalene, Environmental Protection Agency,
Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
438 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database is available at: http://www.epa.gov/
iris.
439 Zhou, Y.; Levy, J.I. (2007) Factors influencing
the spatial extent of mobile source air pollution
impacts: A meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 7:89.
doi:10.1186/1471–2458–7–89 Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.

PO 00000

Frm 00205

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57309

is ‘‘sufficient to infer the presence of a
causal association’’ between traffic
exposure and exacerbation of childhood
asthma symptoms. The HEI report also
concludes that the evidence is either
‘‘sufficient’’ or ‘‘suggestive but not
sufficient’’ for a causal association
between traffic exposure and new
childhood asthma cases. A review of
asthma studies by Salam et al. (2008)
reaches similar conclusions.441 The HEI
report also concludes that there is
‘‘suggestive’’ evidence for pulmonary
function deficits associated with traffic
exposure, but concluded that there is
‘‘inadequate and insufficient’’ evidence
for causal associations with respiratory
health care utilization, adult-onset
asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease symptoms, and allergy. A
review by Holguin (2008) notes that the
effects of traffic on asthma may be
modified by nutrition status, medication
use, and genetic factors.442
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.443
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,
] Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
441 Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008)
Recent evidence for adverse effects of residential
proximity to traffic sources on asthma. Current
Opin Pulm Med 14: 3–8. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
442 Holguin, F. (2008) Traffic, outdoor air
pollution, and asthma. Immunol Allergy Clinics
North Am 28: 577–588. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
443 Adar, S.D.; Kaufman, J.D. (2007)
Cardiovascular disease and air pollutants:
evaluating and improving epidemiological data
implicating traffic exposure. Inhal Toxicol 19: 135–
149. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57310

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

but noted the inability to draw firm
conclusions based on limited
evidence.444
There is a large population in the
United States living in close proximity
of major roads. According to the Census
Bureau’s American Housing Survey for
2007, approximately 20 million
residences in the United States, 15.6
percent of all homes, are located within
300 feet (91 m) of a highway with 4+
lanes, a railroad, or an airport.445
Therefore, at current population of
approximately 309 million, assuming
that population and housing are
similarly distributed, there are over 48
million people in the United States
living near such sources. The HEI report
also notes that in two North American
cities, Los Angeles and Toronto, over 40
percent of each city’s population live
within 500 meters of a highway or 100
meters of a major road. It also notes that
about 33 percent of each city’s
population resides within 50 meters of
major roads. Together, the evidence
suggests that a large U.S. population
lives in areas with elevated trafficrelated 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.446 447 448
Students may also be exposed in
situations where schools are located
444 Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006) Air
pollution and childhood cancer: a review of the
epidemiological literature. Int J Cancer 118: 2920–
2929. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
445 U.S. Census Bureau (2008) American Housing
Survey for the United States in 2007. Series H–150
(National Data), Table 1A–7. [Accessed at http://
www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/
ahs07.html on January 22, 2009] Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162.
446 Lena, T.S.; Ochieng, V.; Carter, M.; Holguı
´nVeras, J.; Kinney, P.L. (2002) Elemental carbon and
PM2.5 levels in an urban community heavily
impacted by truck traffic. Environ Health Perspect
110: 1009–1015. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
447 Wier, M.; Sciammas, C.; Seto, E.; Bhatia, R.;
Rivard, T. (2009) Health, traffic, and environmental
justice: collaborative research and community
action in San Francisco, California. Am J Public
Health 99: S499–S504. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
448 Forkenbrock, D.J. and L.A. Schweitzer,
Environmental Justice and Transportation
Investment Policy. Iowa City: University of Iowa,
1997. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

near major roads. In a study of nine
metropolitan areas across the United
States, Appatova et al. (2008) found that
on average greater than 33 percent of
schools were located within 400 m of an
Interstate, U.S., or state highway, while
12 percent were located within 100
m.449 The study also found that among
the metropolitan areas studied, schools
in the Eastern United States were more
often sited near major roadways than
schools in the Western United States.
Demographic studies of students in
schools near major roadways suggest
that this population is more likely than
the general student population to be of
non-white race or Hispanic ethnicity,
and more often live in low
socioeconomic status locations.450 451 452
There is some inconsistency in the
evidence, which may be due to different
local development patterns and
measures of traffic and geographic scale
used in the studies.449
C. Environmental Effects of Non-GHG
Pollutants
In this section we discuss some of the
environmental effects of PM and its
precursors such as visibility
impairment, atmospheric deposition,
and materials damage and soiling, as
well as environmental effects associated
with the presence of ozone in the
ambient air, such as impacts on plants,
including trees, agronomic crops and
urban ornamentals, and environmental
effects associated with air toxics.
(1) Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree
to which the atmosphere is transparent
to visible light.453 Visibility impairment
is caused by light scattering and
absorption by suspended particles and
gases. Visibility is important because it
has direct significance to people’s
449 Appatova,

A.S.; Ryan, P.H.; LeMasters, G.K.;
Grinshpun, S.A. (2008) Proximal exposure of public
schools and students to major roadways: a
nationwide U.S. survey. J Environ Plan Mgmt
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
450 Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.;
McLaughlin, R.; Ostro, B. (2004) Proximity of
California public schools to busy roads. Environ
Health Perspect 112: 61–66. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.
451 Houston, D.; Ong, P.; Wu, J.; Winer, A. (2006)
Proximity of licensed child care facilities to nearroadway vehicle pollution. Am J Public Health 96:
1611–1617. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
452 Wu, Y.; Batterman, S. (2006) Proximity of
schools in Detroit, Michigan to automobile and
truck traffic. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 16:
457–470. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
453 National Research Council, 1993. Protecting
Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas.
National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze
in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC. Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162. This book can be viewed on the
National Academy Press Web site at http://
www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/.

PO 00000

Frm 00206

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

enjoyment of daily activities in all parts
of the country. Individuals value good
visibility for the well-being it provides
them directly, where they live and
work, and in places where they enjoy
recreational opportunities. Visibility is
also highly valued in significant natural
areas, such as national parks and
wilderness areas, and special emphasis
is given to protecting visibility in these
areas. For more information on visibility
see the final 2009 PM ISA.454
EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to
address visibility impairment. First,
EPA developed the regional haze
program (64 FR 35714) which was put
in place in July 1999 to protect the
visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal
areas. There are 156 national parks,
forests and wilderness areas categorized
as Mandatory Class I Federal areas (62
FR 38680–38681, July 18, 1997). These
areas are defined in CAA section 162 as
those national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and memorial
parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks which were in
existence on August 7, 1977. Second,
EPA has concluded that PM2.5 causes
adverse effects on visibility in other
areas that are not protected by the
Regional Haze Rule, depending on PM2.5
concentrations and other factors that
control their visibility impact
effectiveness such as dry chemical
composition and relative humidity (i.e.,
an indicator of the water composition of
the particles), and has set secondary
PM2.5 standards to address these areas.
The existing annual primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards have been
remanded by the DC Circuit (see
American Farm Bureau v. EPA, 559 F.
3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009) and are being
addressed in the currently ongoing PM
NAAQS review.
(2) Plant and Ecosystem Effects of
Ozone
Elevated ozone levels contribute to
environmental effects, with impacts to
plants and ecosystems being of most
concern. Ozone can produce both acute
and chronic injury in sensitive species
depending on the concentration level
and the duration of the exposure. Ozone
effects also tend to accumulate over the
growing season of the plant, so that even
low concentrations experienced for a
longer duration have the potential to
create chronic stress on vegetation.
Ozone damage to plants includes visible
injury to leaves and impaired
photosynthesis, both of which can lead
to reduced plant growth and
reproduction, resulting in reduced crop
yields, forestry production, and use of
454 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355.

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In
addition, the impairment of
photosynthesis, the process by which
the plant makes carbohydrates (its
source of energy and food), can lead to
a subsequent reduction in root growth
and carbohydrate storage below ground,
resulting in other, more subtle plant and
ecosystems impacts.
These latter impacts include
increased susceptibility of plants to
insect attack, disease, harsh weather,
interspecies competition and overall
decreased plant vigor. The adverse
effects of ozone on forest and other
natural vegetation can potentially lead
to species shifts and loss from the
affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss
or reduction in associated ecosystem
goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone
injury to leaves can result in a loss of
aesthetic value in areas of special scenic
significance like national parks and
wilderness areas. The final 2006 Ozone
Air Quality Criteria Document presents
more detailed information on ozone
effects on vegetation and ecosystems.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(3) Atmospheric Deposition
Wet and dry deposition of ambient
particulate matter delivers a complex
mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc,
lead, nickel, aluminum, cadmium),
organic compounds (e.g., polycyclic
organic matter, dioxins, furans) and
inorganic compounds (e.g., nitrate,
sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. The chemical form of the
compounds deposited depends on a
variety of factors including ambient
conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity,
oxidant levels) and the sources of the
material. Chemical and physical
transformations of the compounds occur
in the atmosphere as well as the media
onto which they deposit. These
transformations in turn influence the
fate, bioavailability and potential
toxicity of these compounds.
Atmospheric deposition has been
identified as a key component of the
environmental and human health
hazard posed by several pollutants
including mercury, dioxin and PCBs.455
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
455 U.S. EPA (2000) Deposition of Air Pollutants
to the Great Waters: Third Report to Congress.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA–
453/R–00–0005. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

nitrogen via atmospheric deposition.
The nitrogen-nutrient enrichment
contributes to toxic algae blooms and
zones of depleted oxygen, which can
lead to fish kills, frequently in coastal
waters. Deposition of heavy metals or
other toxics may lead to the human
ingestion of contaminated fish,
impairment of drinking water, damage
to the marine ecology, and limits to
recreational uses. Several studies have
been conducted in U.S. coastal waters
and in the Great Lakes Region in which
the role of ambient PM deposition and
runoff is investigated.456 457 458 459 460
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
456 U.S. EPA (2004) National Coastal Condition
Report II. Office of Research and Development/
Office of Water. EPA–620/R–03/002. Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
457 Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. 2002.
Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on
PM2.5 particulate matter over the New York-New
Jersey harbor estuary. Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077–
1086. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
458 Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M.
Church. 2000. Factors influencing the atmospheric
depositional fluxes of stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be
into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 65–79.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
459 Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. 2003.
Dry deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los
Angeles Basin and adjacent coastal waters. J.
Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11–1 to 11–24.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
460 Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al.
2002. Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes
Erie and Ontario: A comparative analysis. J. Great
Lakes Res. 28(3): 437–450. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0162.

PO 00000

Frm 00207

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57311

biogeochemical cycling. In aquatic
systems increased nitrogen can alter
species assemblages and cause
eutrophication. In terrestrial systems
nitrogen loading can lead to loss of
nitrogen sensitive lichen species,
decreased biodiversity of grasslands,
meadows and other sensitive habitats,
and increased potential for invasive
species. For a broader explanation of the
topics treated here, refer to the
description in Section 7.1.2 of the RIA.
Adverse impacts on soil chemistry
and plant life have been observed for
areas heavily influenced by atmospheric
deposition of nutrients, metals and acid
species, resulting in species shifts, loss
of biodiversity, forest decline and
damage to forest productivity. Potential
impacts also include adverse effects to
human health through ingestion of
contaminated vegetation or livestock (as
in the case for dioxin deposition),
reduction in crop yield, and limited use
of land due to contamination.
Atmospheric deposition of pollutants
can reduce the aesthetic appeal of
buildings and culturally important
articles through soiling, and can
contribute directly (or in conjunction
with other pollutants) to structural
damage by means of corrosion or
erosion. Atmospheric deposition may
affect materials principally by
promoting and accelerating the
corrosion of metals, by degrading paints,
and by deteriorating building materials
such as concrete and limestone.
Particles contribute to these effects
because of their electrolytic,
hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and
their ability to adsorb corrosive gases
(principally sulfur dioxide).
(4) Environmental Effects of Air Toxics
Emissions from producing,
transporting and combusting fuel
contribute to ambient levels of
pollutants that contribute to adverse
effects on vegetation. Volatile organic
compounds, some of which are
considered air toxics, have long been
suspected to play a role in vegetation
damage.461 In laboratory experiments, a
wide range of tolerance to VOCs has
been observed.462 Decreases in
harvested seed pod weight have been
reported for the more sensitive plants,
and some studies have reported effects
on seed germination, flowering and fruit
461 U.S. EPA. 1991. Effects of organic chemicals
in the atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3–
91/001. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
462 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M
Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD
Sharpe. 2003. Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants
in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341–343. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57312

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or
their role in conjunction with other
stressors (e.g., acidification, drought,
temperature extremes) have not been
well studied. In a recent study of a
mixture of VOCs including ethanol and
toluene on herbaceous plants,
significant effects on seed production,
leaf water content and photosynthetic
efficiency were reported for some plant
species.463
Research suggests an adverse impact
of vehicle exhaust on plants, which has
in some cases been attributed to
aromatic compounds and in other cases
to nitrogen oxides.464 465 466 The impacts
of VOCs on plant reproduction may
have long-term implications for
biodiversity and survival of native
species near major roadways. Most of
the studies of the impacts of VOCs on
vegetation have focused on short-term
exposure and few studies have focused
on long-term effects of VOCs on
vegetation and the potential for
metabolites of these compounds to
affect herbivores or insects.
D. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG
Pollutants
Air quality modeling was performed
to assess the impact of the heavy-duty

vehicle standards on criteria and air
toxic pollutants. In this section, we
present information on current modeled
levels of pollution as well as projections
for 2030, with respect to ambient PM2.5,
ozone, selected air toxics, visibility
levels and nitrogen and sulfur
deposition. The results are discussed in
more detail in Section 8.2 of the RIA.
We used the Community Multi-scale
Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical
model, version 4.7.1, for our analysis.
This version of CMAQ includes a
number of improvements to previous
versions of the model. These
improvements are discussed in Section
8.2.2 of the RIA.
(1) Ozone
(a) Current Levels
8-hour ozone concentrations
exceeding the level of the ozone
NAAQS occur in many parts of the
country. In 2008, the EPA amended the
ozone NAAQS (73 FR 16436, March 27,
2008). The final 2008 ozone NAAQS
rule set forth revisions to the previous
1997 NAAQS for ozone to provide
increased protection of public health
and welfare. On January 6, 2010, EPA
proposed to reconsider the 2008 ozone
NAAQS to ensure that they are requisite

to protect public health with an ample
margin of safety, and requisite to protect
public welfare (75 FR 2938, January 19,
2010). EPA intends to complete the
reconsideration by July 31, 2011. If, as
a result of the reconsideration, EPA
promulgates different ozone standards,
the new 2011 ozone standards would
replace the 2008 ozone standards and
the requirement to designate areas for
the replaced 2008 standards would no
longer apply.
As of April 21, 2011 there are 44 areas
designated as nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, comprising
242 full or partial counties with a total
population of over 118 million people.
These numbers do not include the
people living in areas where there is a
future risk of failing to maintain or
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The numbers above likely
underestimate the number of counties
that are not meeting the ozone NAAQS
because the nonattainment areas
associated with the more stringent 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS have not yet been
designated. Table VII–7 provides an
estimate, based on 2006–08 air quality
data, of the counties with design values
greater than the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.

TABLE VII–7—COUNTIES WITH DESIGN VALUES GREATER THAN THE OZONE NAAQS
Number of
counties

Standard
1997 Ozone Standard: counties within the 54 areas currently designated as nonattainment (as of 1/6/10) ........
2008 Ozone Standard: additional counties that would not meet the 2008 NAAQS (based on 2006–2008 air
quality data) b .......................................................................................................................................................
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................

Population a

266

122,343,799

156
422

36,678,478
159,022,277

Notes:
a Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
b Area designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have not yet been made. Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS would be based on three
years of air quality data from later years. Also, the county numbers in this row include only the counties with monitors violating the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS. The numbers in this table may be an underestimate of the number of counties and populations that will eventually be included in areas
with multiple counties designated nonattainment.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(b) Projected Levels Without This Final
Action
States with 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas are required to take
action to bring those areas into
compliance in the future. Based on the
final rule designating and classifying 8hour ozone nonattainment areas for the
1997 standard (69 FR 23951, April 30,
2004), most 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas will be required to attain the
ozone NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time

frame and then maintain the NAAQS
thereafter. As noted, EPA is
reconsidering the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
If EPA promulgates different ozone
NAAQS in 2011 as a result of the
reconsideration, these standards would
replace the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
there would no longer be a requirement
to designate areas for the 2008 NAAQS.
Attainment dates for any 2011 ozone
NAAQS would range from 3 to 20 years
from designation, depending on the
area’s classification.

EPA has already adopted many
emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient ozone levels
and assist in reducing the number of
areas that fail to achieve the ozone
NAAQS. Even so, our air quality
modeling projects that in 2030, with all
current controls but excluding the
impacts of the heavy-duty standards, up
to 10 counties with a population of over
30 million may not attain the 2008
ozone standard of 0.075 ppm (75 ppb).
These numbers do not account for those

463 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M
Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD
Sharpe. 2003. Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants
in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ.
Pollut. 124:341–343. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162.

464 Viskari E–L. 2000. Epicuticular wax of Norway
spruce needles as indicator of traffic pollutant
deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 121:327–
337. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
465 Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. 1997.
Uptake and transformation of benzene and toluene

by plant leaves. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 37:24–29.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.
466 Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A
Ziegler-Jons, D Knoppik, B Hock. 1987. Toxic
components of motor vehicle emissions for the
spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235–243.
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00208

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
areas that are close to (e.g., within 10
percent of) the 2008 ozone standard.
These areas, although not violating the
standards, will also be impacted by
changes in ozone as they work to ensure
long-term maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS.
(c) Projected Levels With This Final
Action
Our modeling indicates ozone design
value concentrations will decrease in
many areas of the country due to this
action. The decreases in ozone design
values are likely due to projected
tailpipe reductions in NOX and
projected upstream emissions decreases
in NOX and VOCs from reduced
gasoline production. The majority of the
ozone design value decreases are less
than 1 ppb. The maximum projected
decrease in an 8-hour ozone design
value is 1.57 ppb in Jefferson County,
Tennessee. On a population-weighted
basis, the average modeled 8-hour ozone
design values are projected to decrease
by 0.39 ppb in 2030 and the design
values for those counties that are
projected to be above the 2008 ozone
standard in 2030 will see populationweighted decreases of 0.16 ppb due to
the heavy-duty standards.
(2) Particulate Matter

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(a) Current Levels
PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the
level of the PM2.5 NAAQS occur in
many parts of the country. In 2005, EPA
designated 39 nonattainment areas for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 943,
January 5, 2005). These areas are
composed of 208 full or partial counties
with a total population exceeding 88
million. The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was
revised in 2006 and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on
December 18, 2006. On October 8, 2009,
the EPA issued final nonattainment area
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13,
2009). These designations include 32
areas composed of 121 full or partial
counties with a population of over 70
million. In total, there are 54 PM2.5
nonattainment areas composed of 243
counties with a population of almost
102 million people.
(b) Projected Levels Without This Final
Action
States with PM2.5 nonattainment areas
are required to take action to bring those
areas into compliance in the future.
Areas designated as not attaining the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS will need to attain
the 1997 standards in the 2010 to 2015
time frame, and then maintain them
thereafter. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5
nonattainment areas will be required to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in the 2014 to 2019 time frame and then
be required to maintain the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS thereafter. The
heavy-duty standards finalized in this
action become effective in 2012 and
therefore may be useful to states in
attaining or maintaining the PM2.5
NAAQS.
EPA has already adopted many
emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 levels
and which will assist in reducing the
number of areas that fail to achieve the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Even so, our air quality
modeling projects that in 2030, with all
current controls but excluding the
impacts of the heavy-duty standards
adopted here, at least 4 counties with a
population of almost 7 million may not
attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of
15 μg/m3 and 22 counties with a
population of over 33 million may not
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard
of 35 μg/m3. These numbers do not
account for those areas that are close to
(e.g., within 10 percent of) the PM2.5
standards. These areas, although not
violating the standards, will also benefit
from any reductions in PM2.5 ensuring
long-term maintenance of the PM2.5
NAAQS.
(c) Projected Levels With This Final
Action
Air quality modeling performed for
this final action shows that in 2030 the
majority of the modeled counties will
see decreases of less than 0.01 μg/m3 in
their annual PM2.5 design values. The
decreases in annual PM2.5 design values
that we see in some counties are likely
due to emission reductions related to
lower fuel production at existing oil
refineries and/or reductions in PM2.5
precursor emissions (NOX, SOX, and
VOCs) due to improvements in road
load. The maximum projected decrease
in an annual PM2.5 design value is 0.03
μg/m3 in Allen County, Indiana and
Canyon County, Idaho. On a populationweighted basis, the average modeled
2030 annual PM2.5 design value is
projected to decrease by 0.01 μg/m3 due
to this final action.
In addition to looking at annual PM2.5
design values, we also modeled the
impact of the standards on 24-hour
PM2.5 design values. Air quality
modeling performed for this final action
shows that in 2030 the majority of the
modeled counties will see changes of
between ¥0.05 μg/m3 and 0 μg/m3 in
their 24-hour PM2.5 design values. The
decreases in annual PM2.5 design values
that we see in some counties are likely
due to emission reductions related to
lower fuel production at existing oil
refineries and/or reductions in PM2.5

PO 00000

Frm 00209

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57313

precursor emissions (NOX, SOX, and
VOCs) due to improvements in road
load. The maximum projected decrease
in a 24-hour PM2.5 design value is 0.27
μg/m3 in Canyon County, ID. There are
also some counties that are projected to
see increases of less than 0.1 μg/m3 in
their 24-hour PM2.5 design values. These
small increases in 24-hour PM2.5 design
values are likely related to downstream
emission increases from APUs. On a
population-weighted basis, the average
modeled 2030 24-hour PM2.5 design
value is projected to decrease by 0.03
μg/m3 due to this final action. Those
counties that are projected to be above
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2030 will
see slightly smaller populationweighted decreases of 0.01 μg/m3 in
their design values due to this final
action.
(3) Air Toxics
(a) Current Levels
The majority of Americans continue
to be exposed to ambient concentrations
of air toxics at levels which have the
potential to cause adverse health
effects.467 The levels of air toxics to
which people are exposed vary
depending on where people live and
work and the kinds of activities in
which they engage, as discussed in
detail in U.S. EPA’s most recent Mobile
Source Air Toxics Rule.468 According to
the National Air Toxic Assessment
(NATA) for 2005,469 mobile sources
were responsible for 43 percent of
outdoor toxic emissions and over 50
percent of the cancer risk and noncancer
hazard. Benzene is the largest
contributor to cancer risk of all 124
pollutants quantitatively assessed in the
2002 NATA and mobile sources were
responsible for 59 percent of benzene
emissions in 2002. Over the years, EPA
has implemented a number of mobile
source and fuel controls resulting in
VOC reductions, which also reduce
benzene and other air toxic emissions.
(b) Projected Levels
Our modeling indicates that the
heavy-duty standards have relatively
little impact on national average
ambient concentrations of the modeled
air toxics. Additional detail on the air
toxics results can be found in Section
8.2.3.3 of the RIA.
467 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007).
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007.
468 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007).
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007.
469 U.S. EPA. (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
nata2005/. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57314

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
(a) Current Levels
Over the past two decades, the EPA
has undertaken numerous efforts to
reduce nitrogen and sulfur deposition
across the U.S. Analyses of long-term
monitoring data for the U.S. show that
deposition of both nitrogen and sulfur
compounds has decreased over the last
17 years although many areas continue
to be negatively impacted by deposition.
Deposition of inorganic nitrogen and
sulfur species routinely measured in the
U.S. between 2005 and 2007 were as
high as 9.6 kilograms of nitrogen per
hectare (kg N/ha) averaged over three
years and 20.8 kilograms of sulfur per
hectare (kg S/ha) averaged over three
years.470 The data show that reductions
were more substantial for sulfur
compounds than for nitrogen
compounds. These numbers are
generated by the U.S. national
monitoring network and they likely
underestimate nitrogen deposition
because neither ammonia nor organic
nitrogen is measured. In the eastern
U.S., where data are most abundant,
total sulfur deposition decreased by
about 44 percent between 1990 and
2007, while total nitrogen deposition
decreased by 25 percent over the same
timeframe.471

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(b) Projected Levels
Our air quality modeling projects
decreases in nitrogen deposition,
especially in the Midwest, as a result of
the heavy-duty standards required by
this final action. The heavy-duty
standards will result in annual percent
decreases of 0.5 percent to more than 2
percent in some cities in the Midwest,
Phoenix, Albuquerque, and some areas
in Texas. The remainder of the country
will see only minimal changes in
nitrogen deposition, ranging from
decreases of less than 0.5 percent to
increases of less than 0.5 percent. For a
map of 2030 nitrogen deposition
impacts and additional information on
these impacts, see Section 8.2.3.4 of the
RIA. The impacts of the heavy-duty
standards on sulfur deposition are
470 U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA’s Report on the
Environment (Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–
07/045F (NTIS PB2008–112484). Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162. Updated data available online at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction
=detail.viewInd&ch=46&subtop=341&lv=list.listBy
Chapter&r=201744.
471 U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA’s 2008 Report on the
Environment (Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–
07/045F (NTIS PB2008–112484). Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162. Updated data available online at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=
detail.viewInd&ch=46&subtop=341&lv=list.listBy
Chapter&r=201744.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

minimal, ranging from decreases of up
to 0.5 percent to increases of up to 0.5
percent.
(5) Visibility
(a) Current Levels
As mentioned in Section VII.D(1)(a),
millions of people live in nonattainment
areas for the PM2.5 NAAQS. These
populations, as well as large numbers of
individuals who travel to these areas,
are likely to experience visibility
impairment. In addition, while visibility
trends have improved in mandatory
class I federal areas, the most recent
data show that these areas continue to
suffer from visibility impairment. In
summary, visibility impairment is
experienced throughout the U.S., in
multi-state regions, urban areas, and
remote mandatory class I federal areas.
(b) Projected Levels
Air quality modeling conducted for
this final action was used to project
visibility conditions in 138 mandatory
class I federal areas across the U.S. in
2030. The results show that all the
modeled areas will continue to have
annual average deciview levels above
background in 2030.472 The results also
indicate that the majority of the
modeled mandatory class I federal areas
will see very little change in their
visibility, but some mandatory class I
federal areas will see improvements in
visibility due to the heavy-duty
standards and a few mandatory class I
federal areas will see visibility
decreases. The average visibility at all
modeled mandatory class I federal areas
on the 20 percent worst days is
projected to improve by 0.01 deciviews,
or 0.06 percent, in 2030. Section 8.2.3.5
of the RIA contains more detail on the
visibility portion of the air quality
modeling.
VIII. What are the agencies’ estimated
cost, economic, and other impacts of
the final program?
In this section, we present the costs
and impacts of the final HD National
Program. It is important to note that
NHTSA’s final fuel consumption
standards and EPA’s final GHG
emissions standards will both be in
effect, and each will lead to average fuel
efficiency increases and GHG emission
472 The level of visibility impairment in an area
is based on the light-extinction coefficient and a
unitless visibility index, called a ‘‘deciview,’’ which
is used in the valuation of visibility. The deciview
metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes
over the entire range of conditions, from clear to
hazy. Under many scenic conditions, the average
person can generally perceive a change of one
deciview. The higher the deciview value, the worse
the visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is
a decrease in deciview value.

PO 00000

Frm 00210

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

reductions. The two agencies’ final
standards comprise the HD National
Program.
The net benefits of the final HD
National Program consist of the effects
of the program on:
• The vehicle program costs (costs of
complying with the vehicle CO2
standards),
• Fuel savings associated with reduced
fuel usage resulting from the program,
• Reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions,
• The reductions in other (non-GHG)
pollutants,
• Costs associated with increases in
noise, congestion, and accidents
resulting from increased vehicle use,
• Improvements in U.S. energy security
impacts,
• Benefits associated with increased
vehicle use due to the ‘‘rebound’’
effect.
We also present the cost-effectiveness
of the standards, or the cost per ton of
emissions reduced. Where possible, we
identify the uncertain aspects of these
economic impacts and attempt to
quantify them when and if possible
(e.g., sensitivity ranges associated with
quantified and monetized GHG impacts;
probabilistic uncertainty associated
with non-GHG health benefits). For
some impacts, however, there is a lack
of adequate information to inform a
probabilistic assessment of uncertainty.
EPA continues to work toward
developing a comprehensive strategy for
characterizing the aggregate impact of
uncertainty in key elements of its
analyses and we will continue to work
to refine these uncertainty analyses in
the future as time and resources permit.
The program may have other effects
that are not included here. The agencies
sought comment on whether any costs
or benefits were omitted from this
analysis, so that they could be explicitly
recognized in the final rules. In
particular, as discussed in Section III
and in Chapter 2 of the RIA, the
technology cost estimates developed
here take into account the costs to hold
other vehicle attributes, such as size and
performance, constant. In addition, the
analysis assumes that the full
technology costs are passed along to
vehicle buyers. With these assumptions,
because welfare losses are monetary
estimates of how much buyers would
have to be compensated to be made as
well off as in the absence of the
change,473 the price increase measures
473 This approach describes the economic concept
of compensating variation, a payment of money
after a change that would make a consumer as well
off after the change as before it. A related concept,
equivalent variation, estimates the income change

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

the loss to the buyer.474 Assuming that
the full technology cost gets passed
along to the buyer as an increase in
price, the technology cost thus measures
the welfare loss to the buyer. Increasing
fuel efficiency would have to lead to
other changes in the vehicles that
buyers find undesirable for there to be
additional losses not included in the
technology costs.
The agencies sought comments,
including supporting data and
quantitative analyses, of any additional
impacts of the final standards on vehicle
attributes and performance, and other
potential aspects that could positively
or negatively affect the welfare
implications of this final rulemaking,
not addressed in this analysis.
The comments received by the
agencies did not provide any clear
insights into this question. Some
comments noted the diversity of the
trucking industry and expressed a
request that the program continue the
great variety of options for the industry,
because of the variation in needs for
different customers. Additional
comments noted that the separate
engine and vehicle programs support
the maintenance of variety and current
market structure. Though a few
commenters raised concerns, no
information was offered to indicate that
choice will in fact be limited by the
program, or that other vehicle attributes
are adversely affected.
The total monetized benefits
(excluding fuel savings) under the
program are projected to be $4.3 to
$11.1 billion in 2030, depending on the
value used for the social cost of carbon.
These benefits are summarized below in
Table 0–31. The costs of the program in
2030, presented in Table 0–29 are
estimated to be approximately $2.2
billion for new engine and truck
technology. The program is also
estimated to provide $20.6 billion in
savings realized by trucking operations
through fewer fuel expenditures
(calculated using pre-tax fuel prices), as
shown in Table 0–30. The present value
that would be an alternative to the change taking
place. The difference between them is whether the
consumer’s point of reference is her welfare before
the change (compensating variation) or after the
change (equivalent variation). In practice, these two
measures are typically very close together.
474 Indeed, it is likely to be an overestimate of the
loss to the buyer, because the buyer has choices
other than buying the same vehicle with a higher
price; she could choose a different vehicle, or
decide not to buy a new vehicle. The buyer would
choose one of those options only if the alternative
involves less loss than paying the higher price.
Thus, the increase in price that the buyer faces
would be the upper bound of loss of consumer
welfare, unless there are other changes to the
vehicle due to the fuel economy improvements that
make the vehicle less desirable to buyers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

of the total monetized benefits
(excluding fuel savings) under the
program is expected to range from $48.7
billion to $180.1 billion with a 3 percent
discount rate; with a 7 percent discount
rate, the total monetized benefits are
expected to range from $24.3 billion to
$155.7 billion. These values,
summarized in Table 0–31, depend on
the value used for the social cost of
carbon. The present value of costs of the
program for new engine and truck
technology, in Table 0–32, are expected
to be $47.4 billion using a 3 percent
discount rate, and $24.7 billion with a
7 percent discount rate. The present
value of fuel savings (calculated using
pre-tax fuel prices) is estimated at
$375.3 billion with a 3 percent discount
rate, and $166.5 billion with a 7 percent
discount rate, as shown in Table 0–32.
Total net present benefits (in Table 0–
32) are thus expected to range from
$376.6 billion to $508 billion with a 3
percent discount rate, and $166.1 billion
to $297.5 billion with a 7 percent
discount rate.
The estimates developed here are
measured against a baseline fuel
efficiency associated with MY 2010
vehicles. The agencies also considered
an alternate baseline associated with
AEO 2011 projections, which is further
discussed in Section IX. All calculations
presented in Section VIII use the
constant 2010 vehicle baseline. The
extent to which fuel efficiency
improvements may have occurred in the
absence of the rules affects the net
benefits associated with the program. If
trucks were to install technologies to
achieve the fuel savings and reduced
GHG emissions in the absence of this
program, then both the costs and
benefits of these fuel savings could be
attributed to market forces, not the
rules. As a baseline for estimates of the
extent of fuel-saving technologies that
might have been adopted in the absence
of the program, the proposal used the
level of these technologies in MY 2010
vehicles. We sought comment on
whether the agencies should use an
alternative baseline based on data
provided by commenters to estimate the
degree to which the technologies
discussed in the proposal would have
been adopted in the absence of these
rules. No comments were received on
this issue. One comment cites the EPA
draft RIA as noting a historic 1 percent
per year improvement in fuel efficiency,
and argues that the rules are therefore
not needed; the actual figure in the draft
RIA, however, was a 0.09 percent per
year improvement.
EPA has undertaken an analysis of the
economy-wide impacts of the final
heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency and

PO 00000

Frm 00211

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57315

GHG standards as an exploratory
exercise that EPA believes could
provide additional insights into the
potential impacts of the program.475
These results were not a factor regarding
the appropriateness of the final
standards. It is important to note that
the results of this modeling exercise are
dependent on the assumptions
associated with how manufacturers
would make fuel efficiency
improvements and how trucking
operations would respond to increases
in higher vehicle costs and improved
vehicle fuel efficiency as a result of the
final program.
Further information on these and
other aspects of the economic impacts of
our rules are summarized in the
following sections and are presented in
more detail in the RIA for this final
rulemaking.
A. Conceptual Framework for
Evaluating Impacts
This regulation is motivated primarily
by the goals of reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases and promoting U.S.
energy security by reducing
consumption and imports of 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.K.
In some cases, these classic
externalities are by themselves enough
to justify the costs of imposing fuel
efficiency standards. For some discount
rates and some projected social costs of
carbon, however, the reductions in these
external costs are less than the costs of
new fuel saving technologies needed to
meet the standards. (See Tables 9–24
and 9–25 in the RIA.) Nevertheless, this
regulation reduces trucking companies’
fuel costs; according to our estimates,
these savings in fuel costs are by
themselves sufficient to pay for the
475 See Memorandum to Docket, ‘‘Economy-Wide
Impacts of Heavy-Duty Truck Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards’’, May 20,
2011. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57316

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

technologies over periods of time
considerably shorter than vehicles’
expected lifetimes under the
assumptions used for this analysis (e.g.,
AEO 2011 projected fuel prices). If these
estimates are correct, then the entire
value of the reductions in external costs
represents additional net benefits of the
program, beyond those resulting from
the fact that the value of fuel savings
exceeds the costs of technologies
necessary to achieve them.
It is often asserted that there are costeffective fuel-saving technologies that
markets do not take advantage of. This
is commonly known as the ‘‘energy gap’’
or ‘‘energy paradox.’’ Standard
economic theory suggests that in
normally functioning competitive
markets, interactions between vehicle
buyers and producers would lead
producers to incorporate all costeffective technology into the vehicles
that they offer, without government
intervention. Unlike in the light-duty
vehicle market, the vast majority of
vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty
truck market are purchased and
operated by businesses with narrow
profit margins, and for which fuel costs
represent a substantial operating
expense.
Even in the presence of uncertainty
and imperfect information—conditions
that hold to some degree in every
market—we generally expect firms to
attempt to minimize their costs in an
effort to survive in a competitive
marketplace, and therefore to make
decisions that are in the best interest of
the company and its owners and/or
shareholders. In this case, the benefits of
the rules would be due exclusively to
reducing the economic costs of
externalities resulting from fuel
production and consumption. However,
as discussed below in Section VIII.E, the
agencies have estimated that the
application of fuel-saving technologies
in response to the final standards
would, on average, yield significant
private returns to truck owners (see
Tables VIII–9 through VIII–11, below).
The agencies have also estimated that
the application of these technologies
would be significantly lower in the
absence of the final standards (i.e.,
under the ‘‘no action’’ regulatory
alternative), meaning that truck buyers
and operators ignore opportunities to
make investments in higher fuel
efficiency that appear to offer significant
cost savings.
As discussed in the NPRM, there are
several possible explanations in the
economics literature for why trucking
companies do not adopt technologies
that would be expected to increase their
profits: there could be a classic market

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

failure in the trucking industry—market
power, externalities, or asymmetric or
incomplete (i.e., missing market)
information; there could be institutional
or behavioral rigidities in the industry
(union rules, standard operating
procedures, statutory requirements, loss
aversion, etc.), whereby participants
collectively do not minimize costs; or
the engineering estimates of fuel savings
and costs for these technologies might
overstate their benefits or understate
their costs in real-world applications.
See 75 FR at 74303–307.
To try to understand why trucking
companies have not adopted these
seemingly cost-effective fuel-saving
technologies, the agencies surveyed
published literature about the energy
paradox, and held discussions with
numerous truck market participants.
The proposal discussed five categories
of possible explanations derived from
these sources. Collectively, these five
hypotheses may explain the apparent
inconsistency between the engineering
analysis, which finds a number of costeffective methods of improving fuel
efficiency, and the observation that
many of these technologies are not
widely adopted.
These hypotheses include imperfect
information in the original and resale
markets, split incentives, uncertainty
about future fuel prices, and adjustment
and transactions costs. As the
discussion indicated, some of these
explanations suggest failures in the
private market for fuel-saving
technology in addition to the
externalities caused by producing and
consuming fuel that are the primary
motivation for the rules. Other
explanations suggest market-based
behaviors that may imply additional
costs of regulating truck fuel efficiency
that are not accounted for in this
analysis. As noted above, an additional
explanation—adverse effects on other
vehicle attributes—did not elicit
supporting information in the public
comments. Anecdotal evidence from
various segments of the trucking
industry suggests that many of the
hypotheses discussed here may play a
role in explaining the puzzle of why
truck purchasers appear to under-invest
in fuel efficiency, although different
explanations may apply to different
segments, or even different companies.
The published literature does not
appear to include empirical analysis or
data related to this question.
The agencies invited comment on
these explanations, and on any data or
information that could be used to
investigate the role of any or all of these
five hypotheses in explaining this
energy paradox as it applies specifically

PO 00000

Frm 00212

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to trucks. Some comments expressed
dissatisfaction about the explanations
presented; they argued that these
arguments were not sufficient to explain
the phenomenon. These comments
argued that the truck owners and
operators are better judges of the
appropriate amount of fuel efficiency
than are government agencies; they
choose not to invest because of
warranted skepticism about these
technologies. The agencies also
requested comment and information
regarding any other hypotheses that
could explain the appearance that costeffective fuel-saving technologies have
not been widely incorporated into
trucks. The following discussion
summarizes the fuller discussion
provided in the NPRM and includes
discussion of the comments received.
(1) Information Issues in the Original
Sale Markets
One potential hypothesis for why the
trucking industry does not adopt what
appear to be inexpensive fuel saving
technologies is that there is inadequate
or unreliable information available
about the effectiveness of many fuelsaving technologies for new vehicles. If
reliable information on the effectiveness
of many new technologies is absent,
truck buyers will understandably be
reluctant to spend additional money to
purchase vehicles equipped with
unproven technologies.
This lack of information can manifest
itself in multiple ways. For instance, the
problem may arise purely because
collecting reliable information on
technologies is costly (also see Section
VIII.A.5 below on transaction costs).
Moreover, information has aspects of a
public good, in that no single firm has
the incentive to do the costly
experimentation to determine whether
or not particular technologies are 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.
While its effect on information is
indirect, we expect the requirement for
the use of new technologies included in
this program will circumvent these
information issues, resulting in their
adoption, thus providing more readily
available information about their
benefits. The agencies appreciate,
however, that the diversity of truck
uses, driving situations, and driver
behavior will lead to variation in the
fuel savings that individual trucks or
fleets experience from using specific
technologies.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
One commenter noted that the
SmartWay program targets combination
tractor owners and thus should have the
largest impact on that sector, rather than
vocational or medium-duty trucks.
However, the gap between actual
investment in fuel efficiency and the
agencies’ estimates of optimal
investment is largest for combination
tractors. Some of the difference in
magnitude is likely to be due to the
higher vehicle miles traveled for
combination tractors compared to
medium-duty and vocational vehicles:
more driving means more fuel savings.
Additionally, not even a majority of
semi-trucks are owned by participants
in SmartWay; non-participants are
unlikely to get all the benefits of
participants. Other explanations, noted
below, are also likely to play a role. This
observation may also suggest some
limitations of improved information
provision as a means of addressing the
‘‘efficiency gap.’’

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(2) Information Issues in the Resale
Market
In addition to issues in the new
vehicle market, a second hypothesis for
why trucking companies may not adopt
what appear to be cost-effective
technologies to save fuel is that the
resale market may not adequately
reward the addition of fuel-saving
technology to vehicles to ensure their
original purchase by new truck buyers.
This inadequate payback for users
beyond the original owner may
contribute to the short payback period
that new purchasers appear to expect.476
The agencies requested data and
information on the extent to which costs
of fuel saving equipment can be
recovered in the resale truck market. No
data were received. One reviewer
disputed this theory on the basis that
people are willing to pay more for better
vehicles, new or used. It is not clear,
however, whether buyers of used
vehicles can tell which are the better
vehicles.477
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.
476 See

NAS 2010, Note 197, at p. 188.
477 Akerlof, George A. ‘‘The Market for ‘Lemons’
Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,’’
Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3) (1970): 488–
500 points out that asymmetric information—the
seller has better information than the buyer—can
potentially lead to complete failure of a market,
even when both buyers and sellers would benefit
from trade.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Because actual fuel efficiency of trucks
on the road depends on many factors,
including geography and driving styles
or habits, even objective sources such as
logs of truck performance for used
vehicles may not provide reliable
information about the fuel efficiency
that potential purchasers of used trucks
will experience.
A related possibility is that vehicles
will be used for different purposes by
their second owners than those for
which they were originally designed,
and the fuel-saving technology is
therefore of less value.
It is possible, though, that the fuel
savings experienced by the secondary
purchasers may not match those
experienced by their original owners if
the optimal secondary new use of the
vehicle does not earn as many benefits
from the technologies. One commenter
asks whether the fuel-saving technology
is unvalued because it is unproven or
overrated. In that case, the premium for
fuel-saving technology in the secondary
market should accurately reflect its
value to potential buyers participating
in that market, even if it is lower than
its value in the original market, and the
market has not failed. Because the
information necessary to optimize use
in the secondary market may not be
readily available or reliable, however,
buyers in the resale market may have
less ability than purchasers of new
vehicles to identify and gain the
advantages of new fuel-saving
technologies, and may thus be even less
likely to pay a premium for them.
For these reasons, purchasers’
willingness to pay for fuel efficiency
technologies may be even lower in the
resale market than in the original
equipment market. Even when fuelsaving technologies will provide
benefits in the resale markets,
purchasers of used vehicles may not be
willing to compensate their original
owners fully for their remaining value.
As a result, the purchasers of original
equipment may expect the resale market
to provide inadequate appropriate
compensation for the new technologies,
even when those technologies would
reduce costs for the new buyers. This
information issue may partially explain
what appears to be the very short
payback periods required for new
technologies in the new vehicle market.
(3) Split Incentives in the Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Truck Industry
A third hypothesis explaining the
energy paradox as applied to trucking
involves split incentives. When markets
work effectively, signals provided by
transactions in one market are quickly
transmitted to related markets and

PO 00000

Frm 00213

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57317

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. Truck fleets that rent
their vehicles may provide an example:
renters may observe the cost of renting
the truck, but not its fuel efficiency; if
so, then the purchasers will aim for
vehicles with lower costs, to lower the
cost of the rental. It might be possible
to test this theory by comparing the fuel
efficiency of trucks by owner-operators
with those that are leased by operators.
The agencies have not had the data to
conduct such a test.
One commenter noted that there are
always tradeoffs in an investment
decision: a purchaser may prefer to
invest in other vehicle attributes than
fuel efficiency. In an efficient market,
however, a purchaser should invest in
fuel-saving technology as long as the
increase in fuel-saving technology costs
less than the expected fuel savings. This
result should hold regardless of the
level of investment in other attributes,
unless there are constraints on a

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57318

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

purchaser’s access to investment capital.
The agencies believe that truck fleets do
have an incentive to make investments
in fuel efficiency, and that this
assumption is reflected in the regulatory
analysis. The agencies also believe,
however, that sufficient evidence
suggests that truck fleets are not availing
themselves of all the opportunities for
efficiency improvements.
In addition, the NAS report notes that
split incentives can arise between
tractor and trailer operators.478 Trailers
affect the fuel efficiency of shipping, but
trailer owners do not face strong
incentives to coordinate with truck
owners. EPA and NHTSA are not
regulating trailers in this action.
By itself, information provision may
be inadequate to address the potential
underinvestment in fuel efficiency
resulting from such split incentives. In
this setting, regulation may contribute to
fuel savings that otherwise may be
difficult to achieve.
(4) Uncertainty About Future Cost
Savings
Another hypothesis for the lack of
adoption of seemingly fuel saving
technologies may be uncertainty about
future fuel prices or truck maintenance
costs. When purchasers have less than
perfect foresight about future operating
expenses, they may implicitly discount
future savings in those costs due to
uncertainty about potential returns from
investments that reduce future costs. In
contrast, the immediate costs of the 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
efficiency and potential variance about
its expected rate may play a role in a
firm’s calculation of its payback period
on such investments.
In the context of energy efficiency
investments for the home, Metcalf and
Rosenthal (1995) and Metcalf and
Hassett (1995) observe that households
weigh known, up-front costs that are
essentially irreversible against an
unknown stream of future fuel
savings.479 Notably, in this situation,
478 See

NAS 2010, Note 197, at p. 182.
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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

479 Metcalf,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

requiring households to adopt
technologies more quickly may make
them worse off by imposing additional
risk on them.
Greene et al (2009) also finds support
for this explanation in the context of
light-duty fuel economy decisions: a
loss-averse consumer’s expected net
present value of increasing the fuel
economy of a passenger car can be very
close to zero, even if a risk-neutral
expected value calculation shows that
its buyer can expect significant net
benefits from purchasing a more fuelefficient car.480 Supporting this
hypothesis is a finding by Dasgupta et
al. (2007) that consumers are more
likely to lease than buy a vehicle with
higher maintenance costs because it
provides them with the option to return
it before those costs become too high.481
However, the agencies know of no
studies that have estimated the impact
of uncertainty on perceived future
savings for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles.
Purchasers’ uncertainty about future
fuel prices implies that mandating
improvements in fuel efficiency can
reduce the expected utility associated
with truck purchases. This is because
adopting such regulation requires
purchasers to assume a greater level of
risk than they would in its absence,
even if the future fuel savings predicted
by a risk-neutral calculation actually
materialize. One commenter expressed
support for this argument. Thus the
mere existence of uncertainty about
future savings in fuel costs does not by
itself assure that regulations requiring
improved fuel efficiency will
necessarily provide economic benefits
for truck purchasers and operators. On
the other hand, because risk aversion
reduces expected returns for businesses,
competitive pressures can reduce risk
aversion: risk-neutral companies can
make higher average profits over time.
Thus, significant risk aversion is
unlikely to survive competitive
pressures.
(5) Adjustment and Transactions Costs
Another hypothesis is that
transactions costs of changing to new
technologies (how easily drivers will
adapt to the changes, e.g.) may slow or
prevent their adoption. Because of the
diversity in the trucking industry, truck
480 Greene, D., J. German, and M. Delucchi (2009).
‘‘Fuel Economy: The Case for Market Failure’’ in
Reducing Climate Impacts in the Transportation
Sector, Sperling, D., and J. Cannon, eds. Springer
Science.
481 Dasgupta, S., S. Siddarth, and J. Silva-Risso
(2007). ‘‘To Lease or to Buy? A Structural Model of
a Consumer’s Vehicle and Contract Choice
Decisions.’’ Journal of Marketing Research 44: 490–
502.

PO 00000

Frm 00214

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

owners and fleets may like to see how
a new technology works in the field,
when applied to their specific
operations, before they adopt it. One
commenter expressed support for this
argument. If a conservative approach to
new technologies leads truck buyers to
adopt new technologies slowly, then
successful new technologies are likely
to be adopted over time without market
intervention, but with potentially
significant delays in achieving fuel
saving, environment, and energy
security benefits.
In addition, there may be costs
associated with training drivers to
realize the potential fuel savings
enabled by new technologies, or with
accelerating fleet operators’ scheduled
fleet turnover and replacement to hasten
their acquisition of vehicles equipped
with new fuel-saving technologies.
Here, again, there may be no market
failure; requiring the widespread use of
these technologies may impose
adjustment and transactions costs not
included in this analysis. As in the
discussion of the role of risk, these
adjustment and transactions costs are
typically immediate and undiscounted,
while their benefits are future and
uncertain; risk or loss aversion may
further discourage companies from
adopting new technologies.
To the extent that there may be
transactions costs associated with the
new technologies, then regulation gives
all new truck purchasers a level playing
field, because it will require all of them
to adjust on approximately the same
time schedule. If experience with the
new technologies serves to reduce
uncertainty and risk, the industry as a
whole may become more accepting of
new technologies. This could increase
demand for future new technologies and
induce additional benefits in the legacy
fleet through complementary efforts
such as SmartWay.
(6) Additional Hypotheses
In the public comments, two
additional ideas were raised for the lack
of adoption of what appears to be costeffective fuel-saving technology. The
first suggestion is that tighter diesel
emissions standards caused engine
manufacturers to invest heavily (both
financially and with personnel) in
emissions reduction technologies, and
hence, were unable to invest in fuel
efficiency technologies. A second
suggestion is that a truck may be a
‘‘positional good’’—that is, a good
whose value depends on how it
compares to the goods owned by others.
If trucks confer status on their owners
or operators, and if that status depends
on easily observable characteristics,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

then owners may invest
disproportionately in status-granting
characteristics rather than less visible
characteristics, such as fuel efficiency.
Because status depends on comparisons
to others, an ‘‘arms race’’ may develop
in which all parties spend additional
money on visible characteristics but
may not manage to make themselves
better off. In this case, regulation may
improve welfare: by increasing the
requirements for non-positional fuel
efficiency, regulation could reduce
expenditures made purely for
competition rather than actual increase
in welfare. In a competitive business,
cost reduction provides a major
opportunity cost to investing in status
rather than in fuel-saving technology;
thus, this argument may play less of a
role in the heavy-duty market than in
the consumer market for vehicles.
Both these hypotheses leave open the
question, though, why additional
investments were not made in fuel
efficiency if they would provide rapid
payback. Truck purchasers should, in
principle, be willing to buy additional
fuel-saving technology as long as it is
cost-effective, regardless of other vehicle
attributes. Limited access to capital, if it
is a problem in this sector, might
provide some reason for the ‘‘crowding
out’’ of the purchase of fuel-saving
technology. The agencies received no
evidence indicating that constrained
access to capital might explain the
efficiency gap in this market.
(7) Summary
On the one hand, commercial vehicle
operators are under competitive
pressure to reduce operating costs, and
thus their purchasers would be expected
to pursue and rapidly adopt 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
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

cost savings, but those may be difficult
to prove. As noted above, because
individual results of new technologies
vary, new truck purchasers may find it
difficult to identify or verify the effects
of fuel-saving technologies. Those who
are risk-averse are likely to avoid new
technologies out of concerns over the
possibility of inadequate returns on the
investment, or with other adverse
impacts. Competitive pressures in the
freight transport industry can provide a
strong incentive to reduce fuel
consumption and improve
environmental performance. However,
not every driver or trucking fleet
operating today has the requisite ability
or interest to access the technical
information, some of which is already
provided by SmartWay, nor the
resources necessary to evaluate this
information within the context of his or
her own freight operation.
It is unclear, as discussed above,
whether some or many of the
technologies would be adopted in the
absence of the program. To the extent
that they would have been adopted, the
costs and the benefits attributed to those
technologies may not in fact be due to
the program and may therefore be
overstated. Both baselines used project
substantially less adoption than the
agencies consider to be cost-effective.
The agencies will continue to explore
reasons for this slow adoption of costeffective technologies.
B. Costs Associated With the Final
Program
In this section, the agencies present
the estimated costs associated with the
final program. The presentation here
summarizes the costs associated with
new technology expected to be added to
meet the new GHG and fuel
consumption standards. The analysis
summarized here provides the estimate
of incremental costs on a per truck basis
and on an annual total basis.
The presentation here summarizes the
best estimate by EPA and NHTSA staff
as to the technology mix expected to be
employed for compliance. For details
behind the cost estimates associated
with individual technologies, the reader
is directed to Section III of this
preamble and to Chapter 2 of the RIA.
With respect to the cost estimates
presented here, the agencies note that,
because these estimates relate to
technologies which are in most cases
already available, these cost estimates
are technically robust.
(1) Costs per Truck
For the heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans, the agencies have used a
methodology consistent with that used

PO 00000

Frm 00215

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57319

for our recent light-duty joint
rulemaking since most of the
technologies expected for heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans is consistent
with that expected for the larger 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 RIA. Note also that all
cost estimates have been updated to
2009 dollars for this analysis while the
heavy-duty GHG emissions and fuel
efficiency proposal was presented in
2008 dollars and the light-duty rule was
presented in 2007 dollars.
For the loose heavy-duty gasoline
engines, we have generally used enginerelated costs from the heavy-duty
pickup truck and van estimates since
the loose heavy-duty gasoline engines
are essentially the same engines as those
sold into the heavy-duty pickup truck
and van market.
For heavy-duty diesel engines, the
agencies have estimated costs using a
different methodology than that
employed in the recent light-duty joint
rulemaking. In the light-duty 2012–2016
MY vehicle rule, the fixed costs were
included in the hardware costs via an
indirect cost multiplier. As such, the
hardware costs presented in that
analysis, and in the cost estimates for
Class 2b and 3 trucks, included both the
actual hardware and the associated
fixed costs. For this analysis, some of
the fixed costs are estimated separately
for HD diesel engines and are presented
separately from the hardware costs. For
details, the reader is directed to Chapter
2 of the RIA. Importantly, both
methodologies after the figures are
totaled account for all the costs
associated with the program. As noted
above, all costs are presented in 2009
dollars.
The estimates of vehicle compliance
costs cover the years leading up to—
2012 and 2013—and including
implementation of the program—2014
through 2018. Also presented are costs
for the years following implementation
to shed light on the long term (2022 and
later) cost impacts of the program. The
year 2022 was chosen here consistent
with the light-duty 2012–2016 MY
vehicle rule. That year was considered
long term in that analysis because the
short-term and long-term markup factors
described shortly below are applied in
five year increments with the 2012
through 2016 implementation span and

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57320

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

the 2017 through 2021 span both
representing the short-term. Since many
of the costs used in this analysis are
based on costs in the light-duty rule
analysis, consistency with that analysis
seems appropriate.
Some of the individual technology
cost estimates are presented in brief in
Section III, and account for both the
direct and indirect costs incurred in the
manufacturing and dealer industries (for
a complete presentation of technology
costs, please refer to Chapter 2 of the
RIA). To account for the indirect costs
on Class 2b and 3 pickup trucks and
vans, the agencies have applied an ICM
factor to all of the direct costs to arrive
at the estimated technology cost. The
ICM factor used was 1.24 in the shortterm (2014 through 2021) to account for
differences in the levels of R&D, tooling,
and other indirect costs that will be
incurred. Once the program has been
fully implemented, some of the indirect
costs will no longer be attributable to
these standards and, as such, a lower
ICM factor is applied to direct costs in
2022 and later. The agencies have also
applied ICM factors to Class 4 through
8 trucks and to heavy-duty diesel engine
technologies. Markup factors in these
categories range from 1.15 to 1.30 in the
short term (2014 through 2021)
depending on the complexity of the
given technology. We have modified the
manner in which ICMs are applied in
that they are no longer applied as a
simple multiplicative factor on top of
the direct manufacturing costs. Instead,
we have broken out the warranty cost
portion of the ICM and apply it in a
multiplicative manner then add the
non-warranty cost portion of the ICM to
that. The latter portion, that for nonwarranty costs, is determined for a given
year and held constant rather than
decreasing year-over-year. This new
approach, which responds to criticisms
from some that the multiplicative
approach used in the past essentially
double counts learning effects, is
discussed in Section VIII.C and is
detailed in chapter 2 of the RIA. Note
that, for the HD diesel engines, the
agencies have applied the ICMs to
ensure that our estimates are
conservative since we have estimated
fixed costs separately for technologies
applied to these categories—effectively
making the use of markups a double

counting of indirect costs. For the
details on the background and the
concept behind our use of ICMs to
calculate indirect costs, please refer to
the report that has been placed in the
docket for this final action.482
The agencies have also considered the
impacts of manufacturer learning on the
technology cost estimates by reflecting
the phenomenon of volume-based
learning curve cost reductions in our
modeling using two algorithms
depending on where in the learning
cycle (i.e., on what portion of the
learning curve) we consider a
technology to be—‘‘steep’’ portion of the
curve for newer technologies and ‘‘flat’’
portion of the curve for mature
technologies. The observed
phenomenon in the economic literature
which supports manufacturer learning
cost reductions are based on reductions
in costs as production volumes increase,
and the economic literature suggests
these cost reductions occur indefinitely,
though the absolute magnitude of the
cost reductions decrease as production
volumes increase (with the highest
absolute cost reduction occurring with
the first doubling of production). The
agencies use the terminology ‘‘steep’’
and ‘‘flat’’ portion of the curve to
distinguish among newer technologies
and more mature technologies,
respectively, and how learning cost
reductions are applied in cost analyses.
The steep learning algorithm applies for
the early, steep portion of the learning
curve and is estimated to result in 20
percent lower costs after two full years
of implementation (i.e., a 2016 MY cost
would be 20 percent lower than the
2014 and 2015 model year costs for a
new technology being implemented in
2014). The flat learning algorithm
applies for the flatter portion of the
learning curve and is estimated to result
in 3 percent lower costs in each of the
five years following first introduction of
a mature technology added in response
to this final action. Once two steep
learning steps have occurred (for
technologies having steep learning
applied), flat learning would begin. For
technologies to which flat learning is
applied, learning would begin in year 2
at 3 percent per year for 5 years. Beyond
5 years of flat learning at 3 percent per
year, 5 years of flat learning at 2 percent

per year, then 5 at 1 percent per year
become effective.
Learning impacts have been
considered on most but not all of the
technologies expected to be used
because some of the expected
technologies are already used rather
widely in the industry and, presumably,
learning impacts have already occurred.
The agencies have applied the steep
learning algorithm for only a handful of
technologies considered to be new or
emerging technologies such as energy
recovery systems and thermal storage
units which might one day be used on
big trucks. For most technologies, the
agencies have considered them to be
more established and, hence, the
agencies have applied the lower flat
learning algorithm. For more discussion
of the learning approach and the
technologies to which each type of
learning has been applied the reader is
directed to chapter 2 of the RIA.
The technology cost estimates
discussed in Section III and detailed in
Chapter 2 of the RIA are used to build
up technology package cost estimates.
For each engine and truck class, a single
package for each was developed capable
of complying with the final standards
and the costs for each package was
generated. The technology packages and
package costs are discussed in more
detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA. The
compliance cost estimates take into
account all credits and trading programs
and include costs associated with air
conditioning controls. Table VIII–1
presents the average incremental costs
per truck for this final action. For HD
pickup trucks and vans (Class 2b and 3),
costs increase as the standards become
more stringent in 2014 through 2018.
Following 2018, costs then decrease
going forward as learning effects result
in decreased costs for individual
technologies. By 2022, the long term
ICMs take effect and costs decrease yet
again. For vocational vehicles, cost
trends are more difficult to discern as
diesel engines begin adding technology
in 2014, gasoline engines begin adding
technology in 2016, and the trucks
themselves begin adding technology in
2014. With learning effects the costs, in
general, decrease each year except for
the heavy-duty gasoline engine changes
in 2016. Long term ICMs take effect in
2022 to provide more cost reductions.

482 RTI International. Heavy-duty Truck Retail
Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers. July
2010.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00216

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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–pertruck estimates remain constant for all
classes. Regarding the long term ICMs
taking effect in 2022, the agencies

57321

consider this the point at which some
indirect costs decrease or are no longer
considered attributable to the program
(e.g., warranty costs go down). Costs per
truck remain essentially constant
thereafter.

TABLE VIII–1—ESTIMATED COST PER TRUCK
[2009 dollars]
HD Pickups &
vans

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2020
2030
2040
2050

.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................

Vocational

$165
215
422
631
1,048
985
977
977
977

$329
320
397
387
378
366
311
305
304

Combination
$6,019
5,871
5,677
6,413
6,215
6,004
5,075
5,075
5,075

These costs would, presumably, have
some impact on new truck prices,
although the agencies make no attempt
at determining what the impact of
increased costs would be on new truck
prices. Nonetheless, on a percentage
basis, the costs shown in Table VIII–1
for 2018 MY trucks (when all final
requirements are fully implemented)
would be roughly three percent for a
typical HD pickup truck or van, less
than one percent for a typical vocational
vehicle, and roughly six percent for a
typical combination truck/tractor using
new truck prices of $40,000, $100,000
and $100,000, respectively. The costs
would represent lower or higher
percentages of new truck prices for new
trucks with higher or lower prices,
respectively. Given the wide range of
new truck prices in these categories—a
Class 4 vocational work truck might be
$40,000 when new while a Class 8
refuse truck (i.e., a large vocational
vehicle) might be as much as $200,000
when new—it is very difficult to reflect
incremental costs as percentages of new
truck prices for all trucks. What is
presented here is the average cost (Table
VIII–1) compared with typical new
truck prices.
As noted above, the fixed costs were
estimated separately from the hardware
costs for HD diesel engines that are
placed in vocational vehicles and
combination tractors. Those fixed costs
are not included in Table VIII–1. The
agencies have estimated the R&D costs
at $6.8 million per manufacturer per
year for five years and the new test cell
costs (to accommodate measurement of
N2O emissions) at $63,087 per

manufacturer. The test cell costs of N2O
emissions measurement has been
adjusted for the final rulemaking to
reflect comments which stated
approximately 75 percent of
manufacturers would be required to
update existing equipment while the
other 25 percent would require new
equipment. These costs apply
individually for LHD, MHD and HHD
engines. Given the 14 manufacturers
impacted by the final standards, 11 of
which are estimated to sell both MHD
and HHD engines and 3 of which are
estimated to sell LHD engines, we have
estimated a five year annual R&D cost of
$170.3 million dollars (2 × 11 × $6.8
million plus 3 × $7.75 million for each
year 2012–2016) and a one-time test cell
cost of $1.6 million dollars (2 × 11 ×
$63,087 plus 3 × $63,087 in 2013).
Estimating annual sales of HD diesel
engines at roughly 600,000 units results
in roughly $284 per engine per year for
five years beginning in 2012 and ending
in 2016. Again, these costs are not
reflected in Table VIII–1, but are
included in Table VIII–2 as ‘‘Other
Engineering Costs.’’
The certification and compliance
program costs, for all engine and truck
types, are estimated at $6.5 million in
the first year dropping to $2.3 million in
each year thereafter and continuing
indefinitely. These costs are detailed in
the ‘‘Draft Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request’’ which
is contained in the docket for this final
action.483 The costs are higher in the
first year due to capital expenses
required to comply with new reporting
burdens (facility upgrade costs are

included in engineering costs as
described above). Estimating annual
sales of heavy-duty trucks at roughly 1.5
million units would result in just over
$4 per engine/truck in the first year and
less than $2 per engine/truck per year
thereafter. These costs are not reflected
in Table VIII–1, but are included in
Table VIII–2 below as ‘‘Compliance
Program’’ costs.

483 ‘‘Draft Supporting Statement for Information
Collection Request,’’ Control of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed

Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, EPA
ICR Tracking Number 2394.01.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00217

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(2) Annual Costs of the HD National
Program
The costs presented here represent the
incremental costs for newly added
technology to comply with the program.
Together with the projected increases in
truck sales, the increases in per-truck
average costs shown in Table VIII–1,
above result in the total annual costs
presented in Table VIII–2 below. Note
that the costs presented in Table VIII–
2 do not include the savings that will
occur as a result of the improvements to
fuel consumption. Those impacts are
presented in Section 0. Note also that
the costs presented here represent costs
estimated to occur presuming that the
final standards will continue in
perpetuity. Any changes to the final
standards would be considered as part
of a future rulemaking. In other words,
the final standards do not apply only to
2014–2018 model year trucks—they do,
in fact, apply to all 2014 and later model
year trucks. We present more detail
regarding the 2014–2018 model year
trucks in Sections VIII.L, where we
summarize all monetized costs and
benefits.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57322

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VIII–2—ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGRAM
[$Millions, 2009$]
HD Pickup
and vans

Year
2012 a .......................................................
2013 .........................................................
2014 .........................................................
2015 .........................................................
2016 .........................................................
2017 .........................................................
2018 .........................................................
2020 .........................................................
2030 .........................................................
2040 .........................................................
2050 .........................................................
NPV, 3% ..................................................
NPV, 7% ..................................................

Vocational vehicles

$0
0
130
157
300
447
751
754
918
1,024
1,156
17,070
8,467

Combination
tractors

$0
0
185
170
202
198
201
202
216
281
354
4,950
2,588

Other engineering costs

$0
0
1,078
922
820
951
1,000
1,001
1,076
1,372
1,777
24,487
12,855

$170
172
170
170
170
0
0
0
0
0
0
793
724

Compliance
program costs
$0
0
6.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
52
30

Annual costs
$170
172
1,569
1,422
1,495
1,598
1,955
1,959
2,212
2,679
3,290
47,352
24,665

Note:
a As explained in the text, ‘‘Other Engineering Costs’’ are estimated for years 2012 through 2016. These costs represent facility related costs
and engineering development costs, much of which will have to begin prior to implementation of the new standards.

C. Indirect Cost Multipliers

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(1) Markup Factors To Estimate Indirect
Costs
For all segments in this analysis,
indirect costs are estimated by applying
indirect cost multipliers (ICM) to direct
cost estimates. ICMs were calculated by
EPA as a basis for estimating the impact
on indirect costs of individual vehicle
technology changes that would result
from regulatory actions. Separate ICMs
were derived for low, medium, and high
complexity technologies, thus enabling
estimates of indirect costs that reflect
the variation in research, overhead, and
other indirect costs that can occur
among different technologies. ICMs
were also applied in the light-duty rule.
Prior to developing the ICM
methodology, EPA and NHTSA both
applied a retail price equivalent (RPE)
factor to estimate indirect costs. RPEs
are estimated by dividing the total
revenue of a manufacturer by the direct
manufacturing costs. As such, it
includes all forms of indirect costs for
a manufacturer and assumes that the
ratio applies equally for all
technologies. ICMs are based on RPE
estimates that are then modified to
reflect only those elements of indirect
costs that would be expected to change
in response to a regulatory-induced
technology change. For example,
warranty costs would be reflected in
both RPE and ICM estimates, while
marketing costs might only be reflected
in an RPE estimate but not an ICM
estimate for a particular technology, if
the new regulatory-induced technology
change is not one expected to be
marketed to consumers. Because ICMs
calculated by EPA are for individual
technologies, many of which are small
in scale, they often reflect a subset of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

RPE costs; as a result, the RPE is
typically higher than an ICM. This is not
always the case, as ICM estimates for
complex technologies may reflect higher
than average indirect costs, with the
resulting ICM larger than the averaged
RPE for the industry.
There is some level of uncertainty
surrounding both the ICM and RPE
markup factors. The ICM estimates used
in this final action group all
technologies into three broad categories
and treat them as if individual
technologies within each of the three
categories (low, medium, and high
complexity) will have the same ratio of
indirect costs to direct costs. This
simplification means it is likely that the
direct cost for some technologies within
a category will be higher and some
lower than the estimate for the category
in general. More importantly, the ICM
estimates have not been validated
through a direct accounting of actual
indirect costs for individual
technologies. Rather, the ICM estimates
were developed using adjustment
factors developed in two separate
occasions: the first, a consensus process,
was reported in the RTI report; the
second, a modified Delphi method, was
conducted separately and reported in an
EPA memo.484 Both these panels were
composed of EPA staff members with
previous background in the automobile
industry; the memberships of the two
panels overlapped but were not the
same.485 The panels evaluated each

element of the industry’s RPE estimates
and estimated the degree to which those
elements would be expected to change
in proportion to changes in direct
manufacturing costs. The method and
estimates in the RTI report were peer
reviewed by three industry experts and
subsequently by reviewers for the
International Journal of Production
Economics.486 RPEs themselves are
inherently difficult to estimate because
the accounting statements of
manufacturers do not neatly categorize
all cost elements as either direct or
indirect costs. Hence, each researcher
developing an RPE estimate must apply
a certain amount of judgment to the
allocation of the costs. Moreover, RPEs
for heavy- and medium-duty trucks and
for engine manufacturers are not as well
studied as they are for the light-duty
automobile industry. Since empirical
estimates of ICMs are ultimately derived
from the same data used to measure
RPEs, this affects both measures.
However, the value of RPE has not been
measured for specific technologies, or
for groups of specific technologies. Thus
applying a single average RPE to any
given technology by definition
overstates costs for very simple
technologies, or understates them for
advanced technologies.
In the proposal, we requested
comment on our ICM factors and
whether it was most appropriate to use
ICMs or RPEs. We received no comment
on the issue specifically, other than

484 Helfand, Gloria, and Sherwood, Todd.
‘‘Documentation of the Development of Indirect
Cost Multipliers for Three Automotive
Technologies.’’ Memorandum, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
August 2009.
485 NHTSA staff participated in the development
of the process for the second, modified Delphi

panel, and reviewed the results as they were
developed, but did not serve on the panel.
486 The results of the RTI report were published
in Alex Rogozhin, Michael Gallaher, Gloria
Helfand, and Walter McManus, ‘‘Using Indirect
Cost Multipliers to Estimate the Total Cost of
Adding New Technology in the Automobile
Industry.’’ International Journal of Production
Economics 124 (2010): 360–368.

PO 00000

Frm 00218

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
basic comments that perhaps our ICM
factors were low. In response, for this
final action, we have adjusted our ICM
factors such that they are slightly higher
and, importantly, we have changed the
way in which the factors are applied.
The first change—increased ICM
factors—has been done as a result of
further thought among the EPA and
NHTSA team that the ICM factors
presented in the original RTI report 487
for low and medium complexity
technologies should no longer be used
and that we should rely solely on the
modified-Delphi values for these
complexity levels.488 For that reason,
we have eliminated the averaging of
original RTI values with modifiedDelphi values and instead are relying
solely on the modified-Delphi values for
low and medium complexity
technologies. The second change—the
way the factors are applied—results in
the warranty portion of the indirect
costs being applied as a multiplicative
factor (thereby decreasing going forward
as direct manufacturing costs decrease
due to learning), and the remainder of
the indirect costs being applied as an
additive factor (thereby remaining
constant year-over-year and not being
reduced due to learning). This second
change has a comparatively large impact
on the resultant technology costs and,

we believe, more appropriately
estimates costs over time. In addition to
these changes, a secondary-level change
was also made as part of this ICM
recalculation to the light-duty ICMs and,
therefore, to the ICMs used in this
analysis for heavy-duty pickups and
vans. That change was to revise upward
the RPE level reported in the original
RTI report from an original value of 1.46
to 1.5 to reflect the long term average
RPE. The original RTI study was based
on 2008 data. However, an analysis of
historical RPE data indicates that,
although there is year to year variation,
the average RPE has remained constant
at roughly 1.5. ICMs will be applied to
future year’s data and therefore NHTSA
and EPA staff believe that it would be
appropriate to base ICMs on the
historical average rather than a single
year’s result. Therefore, ICMs were
adjusted to reflect this average level
since the original value excluded net
income. As a result, even the High 1 and
High 2 ICMs used for heavy-duty
pickups and vans have also changed.
These changes to our ICMs and the
methodology are described in greater
detail in Chapter 2 of the final RIA.
D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reductions
The agencies have calculated the cost
per ton of GHG reductions associated

57323

with this program on a CO2eq basis
using the above costs and the emissions
reductions described in Sections VI and
VII. These values are presented in Table
VIII–3 through Table VIII–5 for HD
pickups & vans, vocational vehicles and
combination trucks/tractors,
respectively. The cost per metric ton of
GHG emissions reductions has been
calculated in the years 2020, 2030, 2040,
and 2050 using the annual vehicle
compliance costs and emission
reductions for each of those years. The
value in 2050 represents the long-term
cost per ton of the emissions reduced.
The agencies have also calculated the
cost per metric ton of GHG emission
reductions including the savings
associated with reduced fuel
consumption (presented below in
Section 0). This latter calculation does
not include the other benefits associated
with this program such as those
associated with energy security benefits
as discussed later in Section VIII.I. By
including the fuel savings, the cost per
ton is generally less than $0 since the
estimated value of fuel savings
outweighs the program costs. The
results for CO2eq costs per ton under the
HD National Program across all
regulated categories are shown in Table
VIII–6.

TABLE VIII–3—ANNUAL COST PER METRIC TON OF CO2EQ REDUCED—HD PICKUP TRUCKS & VANS
[2009 dollars]

Year
2020
2030
2040
2050

Program cost

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................

Fuel savings
(pre-tax)

$800
900
1,000
1,200

Cost per ton
(without fuel
Savings)

CO2eq
Reduced

$900
3,000
4,300
5,500

3
10
14
16

$240
90
70
80

Cost per ton
(with fuel
savings)
¥$30
¥200
¥240
¥270

TABLE VIII–4—ANNUAL COST PER METRIC TON OF CO2EQ REDUCED—VOCATIONAL VEHICLES a
[2009 dollars]

Year
2020
2030
2040
2050

Program cost

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................

Fuel savings
(pre-tax)

$200
200
300
400

Cost per ton
(without fuel
savings)

CO2eq
reduced

$1,100
2,400
3,500
4,700

4
9
12
14

$50
20
30
30

Cost per ton
(with fuel
savings)
¥$210
¥250
¥270
¥310

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Note:
a The program costs, fuel savings, and CO eq reductions of the engines installed in vocational vehicles are embedded in the vehicle standards
2
and analysis.

487 Rogozhin, Alex, Michael Gallaher, and Walter
McManus. ‘‘Automobile Industry Retail Price
Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers.’’ Report
prepared for EPA by RTI International. EPA Report
EPA–420–R–09–003, February 2009.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

488 Helfand, Gloria, and Sherwood, Todd.
‘‘Documentation of the Development of Indirect
Cost Multipliers for Three Automotive
Technologies.’’ Memorandum, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and

PO 00000

Frm 00219

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
August 2009.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57324

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VIII–5—ANNUAL COST PER METRIC TON OF CO2EQ REDUCED—COMBINATION TRACTORS a
[2009 dollars]
Year

2020
2030
2040
2050

Program cost

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................

Fuel savings
(pre-tax)

$1,000
1,100
1,400
1,800

Cost per ton
(without fuel
savings)

CO2eq
reduced

$7,700
15,300
20,200
26,400

32
57
68
78

$30
20
20
20

Cost per ton
(with fuel
savings)
¥$210
¥250
¥280
¥320

Note:
a The program costs, fuel savings, and CO eq reductions of the engines installed in tractors are embedded in the tractor standards and
2
analysis.

TABLE VIII–6—ANNUAL COST PER METRIC TON OF CO2EQ REDUCED—FINAL
[2009 dollars]
Year
2020
2030
2040
2050

Program cost

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................

E. Impacts of Reduction in Fuel
Consumption

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

The new CO2 standards will result in
significant improvements in the fuel
efficiency of affected trucks. Drivers of
those trucks will see corresponding
savings associated with reduced fuel
expenditures. The agencies have
estimated the impacts on fuel
consumption for the tailpipe CO2
standards. To do this, fuel consumption
is calculated using both current CO2
emission levels and the new CO2
standards. The difference between these
estimates represents the net savings
from the CO2 standards. Note that the
total number of miles that vehicles are
driven each year is different under the
control case scenario than in the
reference case due to the ‘‘rebound
effect,’’ which is discussed in Section 0.
EPA also notes that drivers who drive
more than our average estimates for
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will
experience more fuel savings; drivers
who drive less than our average VMT
estimates will experience less fuel
savings.
The expected impacts on fuel
consumption are shown in Table VIII–
7. The gallons shown in the tables
reflect impacts from the new fuel
consumption and CO2 standards and
include increased consumption
resulting from the rebound effect.

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

$2,000
2,200
2,700
3,300

CO2eq
reduced

$9,600
20,600
28,000
36,500

Cost per ton
(without fuel
savings)

39
76
94
108

$50
30
30
30

Cost per ton
(with fuel
savings)
¥$190
¥240
¥270
¥310

corresponding estimated average fuel
price in that year, using the reference
case taken from the AEO 2011. These
[Million gallons]
estimates do not account for the
significant uncertainty in future fuel
Year
Gasoline
Diesel
prices; the monetized fuel savings will
2014 ..........................
1
473 be understated if actual fuel prices are
2015 ..........................
3
846 higher (or overstated if fuel prices are
2016 ..........................
14
1,171 lower) than estimated. AEO is a
2017 ..........................
31
1,643 standard reference used by NHTSA and
2018 ..........................
58
2,123 EPA and many other government
2020 ..........................
114
2,986
agencies to estimate the projected price
2030 ..........................
348
5,670
2040 ..........................
453
7,046 of fuel. This has been done using both
2050 ..........................
522
8,158 the pre-tax and post-tax fuel prices.
Since the post-tax fuel prices are the
(2) Potential Impacts on Global Fuel Use prices paid at fuel pumps, the fuel
savings calculated using these prices
and Emissions
represent the savings consumers would
EPA’s quantified reductions in fuel
see. The pre-tax fuel savings are those
consumption focus on the gains from
savings that society would see.
reducing fuel used by heavy-duty
Assuming no change in fuel tax rates,
vehicles within the United States.
the difference between these two
However, as discussed in Section VIII.I, columns represents the reduction in fuel
EPA also recognizes that this regulation tax revenues that will be received by
will lower the world price of oil (the
state and federal governments—about
‘‘monopsony’’ effect). Lowering oil
$200 million in 2014 and $3 billion by
prices could lead to an uptick in oil
2050. These results are shown in Table
consumption globally, leading to a
VIII–8. Note that in Section VIII.L, the
corresponding increase in GHG
overall benefits and costs of the rules
emissions in other countries. This global are presented and, for that reason, only
increase in emissions could slightly
the pre-tax fuel savings are presented
offset some of the emission reductions
there.
achieved domestically as a result of the
regulation.
TABLE VIII–8—ESTIMATED MONETIZED

TABLE VIII–7—FUEL CONSUMPTION
REDUCTIONS OF THE PROGRAM

(1) What are the projected changes in
fuel consumption?

VerDate Mar<15>2010

Fuel savings
(pre-tax)

(3) What are the monetized fuel savings?
Using the fuel consumption estimates
presented in Table VIII–7, the agencies
can calculate the monetized fuel savings
associated with the final standards. To
do this, reduced fuel consumption is
multiplied in each year by the

PO 00000

Frm 00220

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

FUEL SAVINGS
[Millions, 2009$]
Year
2014 ..................

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Fuel
savings
(pre-tax)
$1,200

Fuel
savings
(post-tax)
$1,400

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
minimizing to survive in a competitive
marketplace and to make decisions that
are therefore in the best interest of the
[Millions, 2009$]
company and its owners and/or
shareholders.
Fuel
Fuel
Year
savings
savings
A number of behavioral and market
(pre-tax)
(post-tax)
phenomena may lead to a disconnect
between how businesses account for
2015 ..................
2,200
2,600
2016 ..................
3,300
3,800 fuel savings in their decisions and the
2017 ..................
4,800
5,500 way in which we account for the full
2018 ..................
6,400
7,400 stream of fuel savings for these rules,
2020 ..................
9,600
10,900 including imperfect information in the
2030 ..................
20,600
23,000 original and resale markets, split
2040 ..................
28,000
30,600 incentives, uncertainty in future fuel
2050 ..................
36,500
39,500
prices, and adjustment or transactions
NPV, 3% ...........
375,300
415,300
NPV, 7% ...........
166,500
185,400 costs (see Section VIII.A for a more
detailed discussion). As discussed
below in the context of rebound in
As shown in Table VIII–8, the
Section VIII.E.5, the nature of the
agencies are projecting that truck
consumers would realize very large fuel explanation for this gap may influence
savings as a result of the final standards. the actual magnitude of the fuel savings.
As discussed further in the introductory (4) Payback Period and Lifetime Savings
paragraphs of Section VIII, it is a
on New Truck Purchases
conundrum from an economic
Another factor of interest is the
perspective that these large fuel savings
payback period on the purchase of a
have not been provided by
new truck that complies with the new
manufacturers and purchased by
standards. In other words, how long
consumers of these products. Unlike in
would it take for the expected fuel
the light-duty vehicle market, the vast
majority of vehicles in the medium- and savings to outweigh the increased cost
of a new vehicle? For example, a new
heavy-duty truck market are purchased
2018 MY HD pickup truck and van is
and operated by businesses; for them,
estimated to cost $1,048 more, a
fuel costs may represent substantial
operating expenses. Even in the
vocational vehicle $378 more, and a
presence of uncertainty and imperfect
combination tractor $6,215 more (all
information—conditions that hold to
values are on average, and relative to the
some degree in every market—we
reference case vehicle) due to the
generally expect firms to be costaddition of new GHG reducing

TABLE VIII–8—ESTIMATED MONETIZED
FUEL SAVINGS—Continued

57325

technology. This new technology will
result in lower fuel consumption and,
therefore, savings in fuel expenditures.
But how many months or years would
pass before the fuel savings exceed the
upfront costs? Table VIII–9 shows the
payback period analysis for HD pickup
trucks and vans. The table shows fuel
consumed under the reference case and
fuel consumed by a 2018 model year
truck under the program, inclusive of
fuel consumed due to rebound miles.
The decrease in fuel consumed under
the program is then monetized by
multiplying by the fuel price reported
by AEO (reference case) for 2018 and
later. This value represents the fuel
savings expected under the program for
a HD pickup or van. These savings are
then discounted each year since future
savings are considered to be of less
value than current savings. Shown next
are estimated increased costs (costs do
not necessarily reflect increased prices
which may be higher or lower than
costs) for the new truck (refer to Table
VIII–1). The next columns of Table VIII–
9 show the period required for the fuel
savings to exceed the new truck costs.
As seen in the table, in the second year
of ownership, the discounted fuel
savings (at both 3 and 7 percent
discount rates) have begun to outweigh
the increased cost of the truck. As
shown in the table, the full life savings
using 3 percent discounting would be
$6,138 and at 7 percent discounting
would be $4,459.

TABLE VIII–9—PAYBACK PERIOD FOR A 2018 MODEL YEAR HD PICKUP OR VAN
[2009$]
Reduced fuel use
(gallons) b

Year of ownership

Gasoline
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
3 ...............................................................
4 ...............................................................
5 ...............................................................
6 ...............................................................
7 ...............................................................
Full Life ....................................................

Diesel

67
67
66
64
62
59
56
894

122
122
120
117
113
108
102
1,617

Fuel savings a

Cumulative savings

3% discount

7% discount

$627
617
600
570
544
507
474
7,187

$616
583
546
499
458
411
370
5,507

Increased
cost
¥$1,048
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥1,048

3% discount

7% discount

¥$421
196
796
1,366
1,910
2,417
2,890
6,138

¥$433
151
696
1,196
1,654
2,065
2,435
4,459

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Notes:
a Fuel savings calculated using the AEO 2011 reference case fuel prices through 2035. Fuel prices beyond 2035 were extrapolated from an
average growth rate for the years 2017 to 2035. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have been weighted by gasoline and diesel fuel reductions estimated for all 2018 MY heavy-duty trucks during their lifetimes. These estimates assume no changes in fuel tax rates. If fuel taxes are increased
to offset lost revenues, the post-tax savings will increase.
b Gallons under the control case include gallons consumed during rebound driving.

The story is somewhat different for
vocational vehicles and combination
tractors. These cases are shown in Table
VIII–10 and Table VIII–11, respectively.
Since these trucks travel more miles in
a given year, their payback periods are

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

shorter and are expected to occur within
the second year of ownership under
both the 3 and 7 percent discounting
cases. As can be seen in Table VIII–10
and Table VIII–11, the lifetime fuel
savings are estimated to be considerable

PO 00000

Frm 00221

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

with savings of $5,494 (3%) and $4,268
(7%) for the vocational vehicles and
$72,875 (3%) and $58,162 (7%) for the
combination tractors.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57326

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VIII–10—PAYBACK PERIOD FOR A 2018 MODEL YEAR VOCATIONAL VEHICLE
[2009$]
Fuel savings a

Reduced fuel use
(gallons) b

Year of ownership

Gasoline
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
3 ...............................................................
4 ...............................................................
5 ...............................................................
6 ...............................................................
7 ...............................................................
Full Life ....................................................

Diesel

51
47
44
41
38
34
31
550

Cumulative savings

3% discount

7% discount

$702
637
576
516
463
404
359
5,872

$690
602
524
452
390
328
280
4,646

161
146
134
122
110
98
87
1,458

Increased
cost

3% discount

7% discount

$325
962
1,538
2,054
2,516
2,921
3,279
5,494

$312
914
1,438
1,889
2,279
2,607
2,887
4,268

¥$378
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥378

Notes:
a Fuel savings calculated using the AEO 2011 reference case fuel prices through 2035. Fuel prices beyond 2035 were extrapolated from an
average growth rate for the years 2017 to 2035. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have been weighted by gasoline and diesel fuel reductions estimated for all 2018 MY heavy-duty trucks during their lifetimes. These estimates assume no changes in fuel tax rates. If fuel taxes are increased
to offset lost revenues, the post-tax savings will increase.
b Gallons under the control case include gallons consumed during rebound driving.

TABLE VIII–11—PAYBACK PERIOD FOR A 2018 MODEL YEAR COMBINATION TRACTOR
[2009$]
Reduced fuel use
(gallons) b

Year of ownership

Gasoline
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
3 ...............................................................
4 ...............................................................
5 ...............................................................
6 ...............................................................
7 ...............................................................
Full Life ....................................................

Diesel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3,223
2,897
2,619
2,359
2,096
1,842
1,617
26,148

Fuel savings a

Cumulative savings

3% discount

7% discount

$10,736
9,619
8,564
7,532
6,626
5,684
4,951
79,089

$10,539
9,089
7,790
6,595
5,585
4,611
3,867
64,376

Increased
cost
¥$6,215
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
¥6,215

3% discount

7% discount

$4,522
14,141
22,705
30,237
36,863
42,546
47,497
72,875

$4,324
13,413
21,203
27,797
33,382
37,993
41,860
58,162

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Notes:
a Fuel savings calculated using the AEO 2011 reference case fuel prices through 2035. Fuel prices beyond 2035 were extrapolated from an
average growth rate for the years 2017 to 2035. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices have been weighted by gasoline and diesel fuel reductions estimated for all 2018 MY heavy-duty trucks during their lifetimes. These estimates assume no changes in fuel tax rates. If fuel taxes are increased
to offset lost revenues, the post-tax savings will increase.
b Gallons under the control case include gallons consumed during rebound driving.

All of these payback analyses include
fuel consumed during rebound VMT in
the control case but not in the reference
case, consistent with other parts of the
analysis. Further, this analysis does not
include other societal impacts such as
reduced time spent refueling or noise,
congestion and accidents since the focus
is meant to be on those factors buyers
think about most while considering a
new truck purchase. Note also that
operators that drive more miles per year
than the average would realize greater
fuel savings than estimated here, and
those that drive fewer miles per year
would realize lesser savings. The same
holds true for operators that keep their
vehicles longer (i.e., more years) than
average in that they would realize
greater lifetime fuel savings than
operators that keep their vehicles for
fewer years than average. Likewise,
should fuel prices be higher than the
AEO 2011 reference case, operators will
realize greater fuel savings than

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

estimated here while they would realize
lesser fuel savings were fuel prices to be
lower than the AEO 2011 reference case.
(5) Rebound Effect
The VMT rebound effect refers to the
fraction of fuel savings expected to
result from an increase in fuel efficiency
that is offset by additional vehicle use.
If truck shipping costs decrease as a
result of lower fuel costs, an increase in
truck VMT may occur. Unlike the lightduty rebound effect, the heavy-duty
(HD) rebound effect has not been
extensively studied. Because the factors
influencing the HD rebound effect are
generally different from those affecting
the light-duty rebound effect, much of
the research on the light-duty rebound
effect is not likely to apply to the HD
sectors. One of the major differences
between the HD rebound effect and the
light-duty rebound effect is that HD
vehicles are used primarily for business
purposes. Since these businesses are

PO 00000

Frm 00222

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

profit driven, decision makers are
highly likely to be aware of the costs
and benefits of different shipping
decisions, both in the near term and
long term. Therefore, shippers are much
more likely to take into account changes
in the overall operating costs per mile
when making shipping decisions that
affect VMT.
Another difference from the light-duty
case is that, as discussed in the recent
NAS Report,489 when calculating the
percentage change in trucking costs to
determine the rebound effect, all
changes in the operating costs should be
considered. The cost of labor and fuel
generally constitute the top two shares
of truck operating costs, depending on
the price of petroleum,490 distance
traveled, type of truck, and
489 See

NAS Report, Note 197.
Transportation Research Institute,
An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking,
December 2008 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-20100162-0007).
490 American

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
commodity.491 Finally, the equipment
costs associated with the purchase or
lease of the truck is also a significant
component of total operating costs. Even
though vehicle costs are lump-sum
purchases, they can be considered
operating costs for trucking firms, and
these costs are, in many cases, expected
to be passed onto the final consumers of
shipping services on a variable basis.
This shipping cost increase could help
temper the rebound effect relative to the
case of light-duty vehicles, in which
vehicle costs are not considered an
operating cost by vehicle owners.
When calculating the net change in
operating costs, both the increase in
new vehicle costs and the decrease in
fuel costs per mile should be taken into
consideration. The higher the net cost
savings, the higher the expected
rebound effect. Conversely, if the
upfront vehicle costs outweighed future
cost savings and total costs increased,
shipping costs would rise, which would
likely result in a decrease in truck VMT.
In theory, other changes such as
maintenance costs and insurance rates
would also be taken into account,
although information on these potential
cost changes is extremely limited. In the
proposal, we invited comments on the
most appropriate methodology for
factoring new vehicle purchase or
leasing costs into the per-mile operating
costs. We also invited comment or data
on how these regulations could affect
maintenance, insurance, or other
operating costs. We did not receive any
comments on these assumptions.
The following sections describe the
factors affecting the rebound effect,
different methodologies for estimating
the rebound effect, and examples of
different estimates of the rebound effect
to date. According to the NAS study, it
is ‘‘not possible to provide a confident
measure of the rebound effect,’’ yet NAS
concluded that a rebound effect likely
exists and that ‘‘estimates of fuel savings
from regulatory standards will be
somewhat misestimated if the rebound
effect is not considered.’’ While we
believe the HD rebound effect needs to
be studied in more detail, we have
attempted to capture the potential
impact of the rebound effect in our
analysis. In the proposal, we solicited
data on the rebound effect and input on
the most appropriate estimates to use for
the rebound effect. However, we did not
receive any new data or substantive
comments. Therefore, for this final
action, we continue to use a rebound
491 Transport Canada, Operating Cost of Trucks,
2005. See http://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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

effect for vocational vehicles of 15
percent, a rebound effect for HD pickup
trucks and vans of 10 percent, and a
rebound effect for combination tractors
of 5 percent. These VMT impacts are
reflected in the estimates of total GHG
and other air pollution reductions
presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
(a) Factors Affecting the Magnitude of
the Rebound Effect
The HD vehicle rebound effect is
driven by the interaction of several
different factors. In the short-run,
decreasing the fuel cost per mile of
driving could lead to a decrease in end
product prices. Lower prices could
stimulate additional demand for those
products, which would then result in an
increase in VMT. In the long run,
shippers could reorganize their logistics
and distribution networks to take
advantage of lower truck shipping costs.
For example, shippers may shift away
from other modes of shipping such as
rail, barge, or air. In addition, shippers
may also choose to reduce the number
of warehouses, reduce load rates, and
make smaller, more frequent shipments,
all of which could also lead to an
increase in HD VMT. Finally, the
benefits of the fuel savings could ripple
through the economy, which could in
turn increase overall demand for goods
and services shipped by trucks, and
therefore increase HD VMT.
Conversely, if a fuel efficiency
regulation leads to net increases in the
cost of trucking because fuel savings do
not fully offset the increase in upfront
vehicle costs, then the price of trucking
services could rise, spurring a decrease
in HD VMT and a shift to alternative
shipping modes. These effects would
also ripple through the economy.
(b) Options for Quantifying the Rebound
Effect
As described in the previous section,
the fuel efficiency rebound effect for HD
vehicles has not been studied as
extensively as the rebound effect for
light-duty vehicles, and virtually no
research has been conducted on the HD
pickup truck and van rebound effect. In
the proposal, we discussed four options
for quantifying the rebound effect and
requested comments. We did not receive
any substantive comments on the
described methodologies.
(i) Aggregate Estimates
The aggregate approximation
approach quantifies the overall change
in truck VMT as a result of a percentage
change in freight rates. It is important to
note that most of the aggregate estimates
measure the change in freight demanded
(tons or ton-miles), rather than a change

PO 00000

Frm 00223

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57327

in fuel consumption or VMT. The
change in tons or ton-miles is more
accurately characterized as a freight
elasticity. Therefore, it may not be
entirely appropriate to interpret these
freight elasticities as measures of the
rebound effect, although these terms are
sometimes used interchangeably in the
literature.492 Given these caveats, freight
elasticity estimates rely on estimates of
aggregate price elasticity of demand for
trucking services, given a percentage
change in trucking prices, which is
generally referred to as an ‘‘own-price
elasticity.’’ Estimates of trucking ownprice elasticities vary widely from
positive 1.72 to negative 7.92), and there
is no general consensus on the most
appropriate values to use, though a 2004
literature survey found aggregate
elasticity estimates generally fall in the
range of ¥0.5 to ¥1.5.493 In other
words, given an own-price elasticity of
¥1.5, a 10 percent decrease in trucking
prices leads to a 15 percent increase in
truck shipping demand.
Another challenge of estimating the
rebound effect using freight elasticities
is that these values appear to vary
substantially based on the demand
elasticity measure (e.g., ton or ton-mile),
the model specification (e.g., linear
functional form or log linear), the length
of the trip, and the type of cargo. In
general, elasticity estimates of longer
trips tend to be larger than elasticity
estimates for shorter trips. In addition,
elasticities tend to be larger for lowervalue commodities compared to highervalue commodities. Although these
factors explain some of the differences
in estimates, much of the observed
variation cannot be explained
quantitatively. For example, a recent
study that controlled for these variables
only accounted for about half of the
observed variation.494
Another important variable
influencing freight elasticity estimates is
whether potential mode shifting is taken
into account. Although the total demand
for freight transport is generally
determined by economic activity, there
is often the choice of shipping freight on
modes other than truck. This is because
the United States has extensive rail,
waterway and air transport networks in
addition to an extensive highway
network; these networks closely parallel
492 Memo from Energy and Environmental
Research Associates, LLC Regarding HDV Rebound
Effect, dated June 8, 2011.
493 Graham and Glaister, ‘‘Road Traffic Demand
Elasticity Estimates: A Review,’’ Transport Reviews
Volume 24, 3, pp. 261–274, 2004 (Docket ID: EPA–
HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0005).
494 Li, Z., D.A. Hensher, and J.M. Rose, Identifying
sources of systematic variation in direct price
elasticities from revealed preference studies of
inter-city freight demand. Transport Policy, 2011.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57328

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

each other and are often both viable
choices for freight transport for longdistance routes within the continent. If
rates go down for one mode, there will
be an increase in demand for that mode
and some demand will be shifted from
other modes. This ‘‘cross-price
elasticity’’ is a measure of the
percentage change in demand for
shipping by another mode (e.g., rail)
given a percentage change in the price
of trucking. Aggregate estimates of
cross-price elasticities also vary widely,
and there is no general consensus on the
most appropriate value to use for
analytical purposes. The NAS report
cites values ranging from 0.35 to 0.59.495
Other reports provide significantly
different cross-price elasticities, ranging
from 0.1 496 to 2.0.497
When considering intermodal shift,
the most relevant kinds of shipments are
those that are competitive between rail
and truck modes. These trips generally
include long-haul shipments greater
than 500 miles, which weigh between
50,000 and 80,000 pounds (the legal
road limit in many states). Special kinds
of cargo like coal and short-haul
deliveries are of less interest because
they are generally not economically
transferable between truck and rail
modes, and they would not be expected
to shift modes except under an extreme
price change. However, the total amount
of freight that could potentially be
subject to mode shifting has also not
been studied extensively.
(ii) Sector-Specific Estimates
Given the limited data available
regarding the HD rebound effect, the
aggregate approach greatly simplifies
many of the assumptions associated
with calculations of the rebound effect.
In reality, however, responses to
changes in fuel efficiency and new
vehicle costs will vary significantly
based on the commodities affected. A
detailed, sector-specific approach would
be expected to more accurately reflect
changes in the trucking market in
response to the standards in this
program. For example, input-output

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

495 See

2010 NAS Report, Note 197. See also 2009
Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Draft Final Paper
commissioned by the NAS in support of the
medium-duty and heavy-duty report. Assessment of
Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium and
Heavy-duty Vehicles: Commissioned Paper on
Indirect Costs and Alternative Approaches Docket
ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0009).
496 Friedlaender, A. and Spady, R. (1980) A
derived demand function for freight transportation,
Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, pp. 432–
441 (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0004).
497 Christidis and Leduc, ‘‘Longer and Heavier
Vehicles for freight transport,’’ European
Commission Joint Research Center’s Institute for
Prospective Technology Studies, 2009 (Docket ID:
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0010).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

tables could be used to determine the
trucking cost share of the total delivered
price of a commodity. Using the change
in trucking prices described in the
aggregate approach, the product-specific
demand elasticities could be used to
calculate the change in sales and
shipments for each product. The change
in shipment increases could then be
weighted by the share of the trucking
industry total, and then summed to get
the total increase in trucking output. A
simplifying assumption could then be
made that the increase in output results
in an increase in VMT. To the best of
our knowledge, this type of data has not
yet been collected. We did not receive
any new information in response to our
request for comments in the proposal,
therefore we were unable to use this
methodology for estimating the rebound
effect for this final action.
(iii) Econometric Estimates
Similar to the methodology used to
estimate the light-duty rebound effect,
the HD rebound effect could be modeled
econometrically by estimating truck
demand as a function of economic
activity (e.g., GDP) and different input
prices (e.g., vehicle prices, driver wages,
and fuel costs per mile). This type of
econometric model could be estimated
for either truck VMT or ton-miles as a
measure of demand. The resulting
elasticity estimates could then be used
to determine the change in trucking
demand, given the change in fuel cost
and truck prices per mile from these
standards. One of the challenges
associated with an econometric analysis
is the potential for omitted variable bias,
which could either overstate or
understate the potential rebound effect
if the omitted variable is correlated with
the controlled variables.
(iv) Other Modeling Approaches
Regulation of the heavy-duty industry
has been studied in more detail in
Europe, as the European Commission
(EC) has considered allowing longer and
heavier trucks for freight transport. Part
of the analysis considered by the EC
relies on country-specific modeling of
changes in the freight sector that would
result from changes in regulations.498
This approach attempts to explicitly
calculate modal shift decisions and
impacts on GHG emissions. Although
similar types of analysis have not been
conducted extensively in the United
States, research is currently underway
that explores the potential for
498 Christidis and Leduc, ‘‘Longer and Heavier
Vehicles for freight transport,’’ European
Commission Joint Research Center’s Institute for
Prospective Technology Studies, 2009.

PO 00000

Frm 00224

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

intermodal shifting in the United States.
For example, Winebrake and Corbett
have developed the Geospatial
Intermodal Freight Transportation
model, which evaluates the potential for
GHG emissions reductions based on
mode shifting, given existing limitations
of infrastructure and other route
characteristics in the United States.499
This model connects multiple road, rail,
and waterway transportation networks
and embeds activity-based calculations
in the model. Within this intermodal
network, the model assigns various
economic, time-of-delivery, energy, and
environmental attributes to real-world
goods movement routes. The model can
then calculate different network
optimization scenarios, based on
changes in prices and policies.500
However, more work is needed in this
area to determine whether this type of
methodology is appropriate for the
purposes of capturing the rebound
effect. Therefore, we have not been able
to use this methodology for estimating
the rebound effect for this final action.
(c) Estimates of the Rebound Effect
The aggregate methodology was used
by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (CSI) to
show several examples of the magnitude
of the rebound effect.501 In their paper
commissioned by the NAS in support of
the recent HD report, CSI calculated an
effective rebound effect for two different
technology cost and fuel savings
scenarios associated with an example
Class 8 truck. Scenario 1 increased
average fuel economy from 5.59 mpg to
6.8 mpg, with an additional cost of
$22,930. Scenario 2 increased the
average fuel economy to 9.1 mpg, at an
incremental cost of $71,630 per vehicle.
The CSI examples provided estimates
using a range of own-price elasticities
(¥0.5 to ¥1.5) and cross-price
elasticities (0.35 to 0.59) from the
literature. Based on these two scenarios
and a number of simplifying
assumptions to aid the calculations, CSI
found a rebound effect of 11–31 percent
for Scenario 1 and 5–16 percent for
499 Winebrake, James and Corbett, James J. (2010).
‘‘Improving the Energy Efficiency and
Environmental Performance of Goods Movement,’’
in Sperling, Daniel and James S. Cannon (2010)
Climate and Transportation Solutions: Findings
from the 2009 Asilomar Conference on
Transportation and Energy Policy. See http://
www.its.ucdavis.edu/events/2009book/
Chapter13.pdf (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162–0011)
500 Winebrake, J. J.; Corbett, J. J.; Falzarano, A.;
Hawker, J. S.; Korfmacher, K.; Ketha, S.; Zilora, S.,
Assessing Energy, Environmental, and Economic
Tradeoffs in Intermodal Freight Transportation,
Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 58(8), 2008 (Docket ID: EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0162–0008).
501 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2009.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57329

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Scenario 2 when the fuel savings from
reduced rail usage were not taken into
account (‘‘First rebound effect’’). When
the fuel savings from reduced rail usage
were included in the calculations, the
overall rebound effect was between 9–
13 percent for Scenario 1 and 3–15
percent for Scenario 2 (‘‘Second
Rebound Effect’’). See Table VIII–12.
CSI included a number of caveats
associated with these calculations.

Namely, the elasticity estimates derived
from the literature are ‘‘heavily reliant
on factors including the type of demand
measures analyzed (vehicle-miles of
travel, ton-miles, or tons), analysis
geography, trip lengths, markets served,
and commodities transported.’’
Furthermore, the CSI example only
focused on Class 8 combination tractors
and did not attempt to quantify the
potential rebound effect for any other

truck classes. Finally, these scenarios
were characterized as ‘‘sketches’’ and
were not included in the final NAS
report. In fact, the NAS report asserted
that it is ‘‘not possible to provide a
confident measure of the rebound
effect,’’ yet concluded that a rebound
effect likely exists and that ‘‘estimates of
fuel savings from regulatory standards
will be somewhat misestimated if the
rebound effect is not considered.’’

TABLE VIII–12—RANGE OF REBOUND EFFECT ESTIMATES FROM CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS AGGREGATE ASSESSMENT
Scenario 1
(6.8 mpg,
$22,930)
‘‘First Rebound Effect’’ (increase in truck VMT resulting from decrease in operating costs) .................................
‘‘Second Rebound Effect’’ (net fuel savings when decreases from rail are taken into account) ...........................

As an alternative, using the
econometric approach, NHTSA has
estimated the rebound effect in the short
run and long run for single unit (Class
4–7) and (Class 8) combination tractors.
As shown in Table VIII–13, the
estimates for the long-run rebound effect
are larger than the estimates in the short
run, which is consistent with the theory
that shippers have more flexibility to
change their behavior (e.g., restructure

contracts or logistics) when they are
given more time. In addition, the
estimates derived from the national data
also showed larger rebound effects
compared to the state data.502 One
possible explanation for the difference
in the estimates is that the national
rebound estimates are capturing some of
the impacts of changes in economic
activity. Historically, large increases in
fuel prices are highly correlated with

Scenario 2
(9.1 mpg,
$71,630)

11–31%
9–13%

5–16%
3–15%

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.

TABLE VIII–13—RANGE OF REBOUND EFFECT ESTIMATES FROM NHTSA ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS
National data

State data

Truck type
Short run

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Single Unit
Combination

Long run

13–22%
N/A

28–45%
12–14%

Short run
3–8%
N/A

Long run
12–21%
4–5%

As discussed throughout this section,
there are multiple methodologies for
quantifying the rebound effect, and
these different methodologies produce a
large range of potential values of the
rebound effect. However, for the
purposes of quantifying the rebound
effect for this program, we have used a
rebound effect with respect to changes
in fuel costs per mile on the lower range
of the long-run estimates. Given the fact
that the long-run state estimates are
generally more consistent with the
aggregate estimates, for this program we
have chosen a rebound effect for
vocational vehicles (single unit trucks)
of 15 percent that is within the range of
estimates from both methodologies.

Similarly, we have chosen a rebound
effect for combination tractors of 5
percent.
To date, no estimates of the HD
pickup truck and van rebound effect
have been cited in the literature. Since
these vehicles are used for very different
purposes than heavy-duty vehicles, it
does not necessarily seem appropriate to
apply one of the heavy-duty estimates to
the HD pickup trucks and vans. These
vehicles are more similar in use to large
light-duty vehicles, so for the purposes
of our analysis, we have chosen to apply
the light-duty rebound effect of 10
percent to this class of vehicles.
For the purposes of this program, we
have not taken into account any

potential fuel savings or GHG emission
reductions from the rail sector due to
mode shifting. We requested comments
on this assumption in the proposal, but
we did not receive any new data or
input.
Furthermore, we have made a number
of simplifying assumptions in our
calculations, which are discussed in
more detail in the RIA. Specifically, we
have not attempted to capture how
current market failures might impact the
rebound effect. The direction and
magnitude of the rebound effect in the
HD market are expected to vary
depending on the existence and types of
market failures affecting the fuel
efficiency of the trucking fleet. If firms

502 NHTSA’s estimates of the rebound effect are
derived from econometric analysis of national and
state VMT data reported in Federal Highway
Administration, Highway Statistics, various
editions, Tables VM–1 and VM–4. Specifically, the
estimates of the rebound effect reported in Table
VIII–10 are ranges of the estimated short-run and
long-run elasticities of annual VMT by single-unit

and combination trucks with respect to fuel cost per
mile driven. (Fuel cost per mile driven during each
year is equal to average fuel price per gallon during
that year divided by average fuel economy of the
truck fleet during that same year.) These estimates
are derived from time-series regression of annual
national aggregate VMT for the period 1970–2008
on measures of nationwide economic activity,

including aggregate GDP, the value of durable and
nondurable goods production, and the volume of
U.S. exports and imports of goods, and variables
affecting the price of trucking services (driver wage
rates, truck purchase prices, and fuel costs), and
from regression of VMT for each individual state
over the period 1994–2008 on similar variables
measured at the state level.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00225

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57330

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

are already accurately accounting for the
costs and benefits of these technologies
and fuel savings, then these regulations
would increase their net costs, because
trucks would already include all the
cost-effective technologies. As a result,
the rebound effect would actually be
negative and truck VMT would decrease
as a result of these final regulations.
However, if firms are not optimizing
their behavior today due to factors such
as lack of reliable information (see
Section VIII.A. for further discussion), it
is more likely that truck VMT would
increase. If firms recognize their lower
net costs as a result of these regulations
and pass those costs along to their
customers, then the rebound effect
would increase truck VMT. This
response assumes that trucking rates
include both truck purchase costs and
fuel costs, and that the truck purchase
costs included in the rates spread those
costs over the full expected lifetime of
the trucks. If those costs are spread over
a shorter period, as the expected short
payback period implies, then those
purchase costs will inhibit reduction of
freight rates, and the rebound effect will
be smaller.
As discussed in more detail in Section
VIII.A, if there are market failures such
as split incentives, estimating the
rebound effect may depend on the
nature of the failures. For example, if
the original purchaser cannot fully
recoup the higher upfront costs through
fuel savings before selling the vehicle
nor pass those costs onto the resale
buyer, the firm would be expected to
raise shipping rates. A firm purchasing
the truck second-hand might lower
shipping rates if the firm recognizes the
cost savings after operating the vehicle,
leading to an increase in VMT.
Similarly, if there are split incentives
and the vehicle buyer isn’t the same
entity that purchases the fuel, than there
would theoretically be a positive
rebound effect. In this scenario, fuel
savings would lower the net costs to the
fuel purchaser, which would result in a
larger increase in truck VMT.
If all of these scenarios occur in the
marketplace, the net effect will depend
on the extent and magnitude of their
relative effects, which are also likely to
vary across truck classes (for instance,
split incentives may be a much larger
problem for Class 7 and 8 tractors than
they are for HD pickup trucks).
Additional details on the rebound effect
are included in the RIA.
F. Class Shifting and Fleet Turnover
Impacts
The agencies considered two
additional potential indirect costs,
benefits, effects, and externalities which

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

may lead to unintended consequences
of the program to improve the fuel
efficiency and reduce GHG emissions
from HD trucks. The next sections cover
the agencies’ qualitative discussions on
potential class shifting and fleet
turnover effects.
(1) Class Shifting
Heavy-duty vehicles are typically
configured and purchased to perform a
function. For example, a concrete mixer
truck is purchased to transport concrete,
a combination tractor is purchased to
move freight with the use of a trailer,
and a Class 3 pickup truck could be
purchased by a landscape company to
pull a trailer carrying lawnmowers. The
purchaser makes decisions based on
many attributes of the vehicle, including
the gross vehicle weight rating of the
vehicle which in part determines the
amount of freight or equipment that can
be carried. If the final HD National
Program impacts either the performance
of the vehicle or the marginal cost of the
vehicle relative to the other vehicle
classes, then consumers may choose to
purchase a different vehicle, resulting in
the unintended consequence of
increased fuel consumption and GHG
emissions in-use.
The agencies, along with the NAS
panel, found that there is little or no
literature which evaluates class shifting
between trucks.503 NHTSA and EPA
qualitatively evaluated the final rules in
light of potential class shifting. The
agencies looked at four potential cases
of shifting:—from light-duty pickup
trucks to heavy-duty pickup trucks;
from sleeper cabs to day cabs; from
combination tractors to vocational
vehicles; and within vocational
vehicles.
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 lightduty 2012–2016 MY vehicle rule has led
some to speculate that vehicle
consumers may choose to purchase
heavy-duty pickup trucks that are
currently unregulated if the cost of the
light-duty regulation is high relative to
the cost to buy the larger heavy-duty
pickup trucks. Since fuel consumption
and GHG emissions rise significantly
with vehicle mass, a shift from 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
503 See

PO 00000

2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 152.

Frm 00226

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

thousand dollars more than a light-duty
pickup), we believe that such a class
shift would be unlikely even absent this
program. With these final regulations,
any incentive for such a class shift is
significantly diminished. The final
regulations for the HD pickup trucks,
and similarly for vans, are based on
similar technologies and therefore
reflect a similar expected increase in
cost when compared to the light-duty
GHG regulation. Hence, the combination
of the two regulations provides little
incentive for a shift from light-duty
trucks to HD trucks. To the extent that
our final regulation of heavy-duty
pickups and vans could conceivably
encourage a class shift towards lighter
pickups, this unintended consequence
would in fact be expected to lead to
lower fuel consumption and GHG
emissions as the smaller light-duty
pickups are significantly more efficient
than heavy-duty pickup trucks.
The projected cost increases for this
final action differ significantly between
Class 8 day cabs and Class 8 sleeper
cabs, reflecting our expectation that
compliance with the final standards will
lead truck consumers to specify sleeper
cabs equipped with APUs while day cab
consumers will not. Since Class 8 day
cab and sleeper cab trucks perform
essentially the same function when
hauling a trailer, this raises the
possibility that the higher cost for an
APU equipped sleeper cab could lead to
a shift from sleeper cab to day cab
trucks. We do not believe that such an
intended consequence will occur for the
following reasons. The addition of a
sleeper berth to a tractor cab is not a
consumer-selectable attribute in quite
the same way as other vehicle features.
The sleeper cab provides a utility that
long-distance trucking fleets need to
conduct their operations—an on-board
sleeping berth that lets a driver comply
with federally-mandated rest periods, as
required by the Department of
Transportation Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration’s hours-of-service
regulations. The cost of sleeper trucks is
already higher than the cost of day cabs,
yet the fleets that need this utility
purchase them.504 A day cab simply
cannot provide this utility. The need for
this utility would not be changed even
if the marginal costs to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from sleeper
cabs exceed the marginal costs to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from day
504 A baseline tractor price of a new day cab is
$89,500 versus $113,000 for a new sleeper cab
based on information gathered by ICF in the
‘‘Investigation of Costs for Strategies to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Heavy-Duty On-Road
Vehicles’’, July 2010. Page 3. Docket Identification
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–0044.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
cabs.505 A trucking fleet could decide to
put its drivers in hotels in lieu of using
sleeper berths, and switch to day cabs.
However, this is unlikely to occur in
any great number, since the added cost
for the hotel stays would far overwhelm
differences in the marginal cost between
day and sleeper cabs. Even if some fleets
do opt to buy hotel rooms and switch
to day cabs, they would be highly
unlikely to purchase a day cab that was
aerodynamically worse than the sleeper
cab they replaced, since the need for
features optimized for long-distance
hauling would not have changed. So in
practice, there would likely be little
difference to the environment for any
switching that might occur. Further,
while our projected costs assume the
purchase of an APU for compliance, in
fact our regulatory structure would
allow compliance using a near zero cost
software utility that eliminates tractor
idling after five minutes. Using this
compliance approach, the cost
difference between a Class 8 sleeper cab
and day cab due to our final regulations
is small. We are providing this
alternative compliance approach
reflecting that some sleeper cabs are
used in team driving situations where
one driver sleeps while the other drives.
In that situation, an APU is unnecessary
since the tractor is continually being
driven when occupied. When it is
parked, it will automatically eliminate
any additional idling through the
shutdown software. If trucking
companies choose this option, then
costs based on purchase of APUs may
overestimate the costs of this program to
this sector.
Class shifting from combination
tractors to vocational vehicles may
occur if a customer deems the
additional marginal cost of tractors due
to the regulation to be greater than the
utility provided by the tractor. The
agencies initially considered this issue
when deciding whether to include Class
7 tractors with the Class 8 tractors or
regulate them as vocational vehicles.
The agencies’ evaluation of the
combined vehicle weight rating of the
Class 7 shows that if these vehicles were
treated significantly differently from the
Class 8 tractors, then they could be
easily substituted for Class 8 tractors.
Therefore, the agencies are finalizing to
include both classes in the tractor
category. The agencies believe that a
shift from tractors to vocational vehicles
would be limited because of the ability
of tractors to pick up and drop off
505 The

average marginal cost difference between
sleeper cabs and day cabs in the proposal is nearly
$6,000.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

trailers at locations which cannot be
done by vocational vehicles.
The agencies do not envision that the
final regulatory program will cause class
shifting within the vocational class. The
marginal cost difference due to the
regulation of vocational vehicles is
minimal. The cost of LRR tires on a per
tire basis is the same for all vocational
vehicles so the only difference in
marginal cost of the vehicles is due to
the number of axles. The agencies
believe that the utility gained from the
additional load carrying capability of
the additional axle will outweigh the
additional cost for heavier vehicles.506
In conclusion, NHTSA and EPA
believe that the final regulatory
structure for HD trucks does not
significantly change the current
competitive and market factors that
determine purchaser preferences among
truck types. Furthermore, even if a small
amount of shifting does occur, any
resulting GHG impacts are likely to be
negligible because any vehicle class that
sees an uptick in sales is also being
regulated for fuel efficiency. Therefore,
the agencies did not include an impact
of class shifting on the vehicle
populations used to assess the benefits
of the program.
(2) Fleet Turnover Effect
A regulation that increases the cost to
purchase and/or operate trucks could
impact whether a consumer decides to
purchase a new truck and the timing of
that purchase. The term pre-buy refers
to the idea that truck purchases may
occur earlier than otherwise planned to
avoid the additional costs associated
with a new regulatory requirement.
Slower fleet turnover, or low-buys, may
occur when owners opt to keep their
existing truck rather than purchase a
new truck due to the incremental cost
of the regulation.
The NAS panel discusses the topics
associated with HD truck fleet turnover.
NAS noted that there is some empirical
evidence of pre-buy behavior in
response to the 2004 and 2007 heavyduty engine emission standards, with
larger impacts occurring in response to
higher costs.507 However, those
regulations increased upfront costs to
firms without any offsetting future cost
savings from reduced fuel purchases. In
summary, NAS stated that
* * * 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
506 The final rule projects the difference in costs
between the HHD and MHD vocational vehicle
technologies is approximately $30.
507 See NAS Report, Note 197, pp. 150–151

PO 00000

Frm 00227

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57331

with better access to capital and financing.
Under these same conditions, smaller
operators may simply elect to keep their
current equipment on the road longer, all the
more likely given continued improvements
in diesel engine durability over time. On the
other hand, to the extent that fuel economy
improvements can offset incremental
purchase costs, these impacts will be
lessened. Nevertheless, when it comes to
efficiency investments, most heavy-duty fleet
operators require relatively quick payback
periods, on the order of two to three years.508

The final regulations are projected to
return fuel savings to the truck owners
that offset the cost of the regulation
within a few years for vocational
vehicles and Class 7 and 8 tractors, the
categories where the potential for
prebuy and delayed fleet turnover are
concerns. In the case of vocational
vehicles, the added cost is small enough
that it is unlikely to have a substantial
effect on purchasing behavior. In the
case of Class 7 and 8 trucks, the effects
of the regulation on purchasing behavior
will depend on the nature of the market
failures and the extent to which firms
consider the projected future fuel
savings in their purchasing decisions.
If trucking firms account for the rapid
payback, they are unlikely to
strategically accelerate or delay their
purchase plans at additional cost in
capital to avoid a regulation that will
lower their overall operating costs. As
discussed in Section VIII.A, this
scenario may occur if this final program
reduces uncertainty about fuel-saving
technologies. More reliable information
about ways to reduce fuel consumption
allows truck purchasers to evaluate
better the benefits and costs of
additional fuel savings, primarily in the
original vehicle market, but possibly in
the resale market as well.
Other market failures may leave open
the possibility of some pre-buy or
delayed purchasing behavior. Firms
may not consider the full value of the
future fuel savings for several reasons.
For instance, truck purchasers may not
want to invest in fuel efficiency because
of uncertainty about fuel prices.
Another explanation is that the resale
market may not fully recognize the
value of fuel savings, due to lack of trust
of new technologies or changes in the
uses of the vehicles. Lack of
coordination (also called split
incentives—see Section VIII.A) between
truck purchasers (who emphasize the
up-front costs of the trucks) and truck
operators, who would like the fuel
savings, can also lead to pre-buy or
delayed purchasing behavior. If these
market failures prevent firms from fully
internalizing fuel savings when
508 See

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

NAS Report, Note 197, page 151.

15SER2

57332

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(1) Social Cost of Carbon
EPA has assigned a dollar value to
reductions in CO2 emissions using
recent estimates of the social cost of
carbon (SCC). The SCC is an estimate of
the monetized damages associated with
an incremental increase in carbon
emissions in a given year. It is intended
to include (but is not limited to) changes
in net agricultural productivity, human
health, property damages from
increased flood risk, and the value of
ecosystem services due to climate
change. The SCC estimates used in this
analysis were developed through an
interagency process that included EPA,
DOT/NHTSA, and other executive
branch entities, and concluded in
February 2010. We first used these SCC
estimates in the benefits analysis for the
light-duty 2012–2016 MY vehicle rule;
see that rule’s preamble for a discussion
of application of the SCC.509 The SCC
Technical Support Document (SCC
TSD) provides a complete discussion of
the methods used to develop these SCC
estimates.510
The interagency group selected four
SCC values for use in regulatory
analyses, which we have applied in this
analysis: $5, $22, $36, and $67 per
metric ton of CO2 emissions in 2010, in
2009 dollars.511 512 The first three values
are based on the average SCC from three
integrated assessment models, at
discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5 percent,
respectively. SCCs at several discount
rates are included because the literature
shows that the SCC is quite sensitive to
assumptions about the discount rate,
and because no consensus exists on the

appropriate rate to use in an
intergenerational context. The fourth
value is the 95th percentile of the SCC
from all three models at a 3 percent
discount rate. It is included to represent
higher-than-expected impacts from
temperature change further out in the
tails of the SCC distribution. Low
probability, high impact events are
incorporated into all of the SCC values
through explicit consideration of their
effects in two of the three models as
well as the use of a probability density
function for equilibrium climate
sensitivity. Treating climate sensitivity
probabilistically results in more high
temperature outcomes, which in turn
lead to higher projections of damages.
The SCC increases over time because
future emissions are expected to
produce larger incremental damages as
physical and economic systems become
more stressed in response to greater
climatic change. Note that the
interagency group estimated the growth
rate of the SCC directly using the three
integrated assessment models rather
than assuming a constant annual growth
rate. This helps to ensure that the
estimates are internally consistent with
other modeling assumptions. Table
VIII–14 presents the SCC estimates used
in this analysis.
When attempting to assess the
incremental economic impacts of carbon
dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a
number of serious challenges. A recent
report from the National Academies of
Science points out that any assessment
will suffer from uncertainty,
speculation, and lack of information
about (1) future emissions of greenhouse
gases, (2) the effects of past and future
emissions on the climate system, (3) the
impact of changes in climate on the
physical and biological environment,
and (4) the translation of these
environmental impacts into economic
damages.513 As a result, any effort to
quantify and monetize the harms
associated with climate change will
raise serious questions of science,
economics, and ethics and should be
viewed as provisional.
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
more difficult. The interagency group
hopes that over time researchers and
modelers will work to fill these gaps
and that the SCC estimates used for
regulatory analysis by the Federal
government will continue to evolve
with improvements in modeling.
Additional details on these limitations
are discussed in the SCC TSD.
We received several comments
regarding the SCC estimates used to
analyze the proposed standards. In
particular, these commenters discussed
the incomplete treatment of impacts as
well as discount rate selection. EPA has
reviewed these comments in detail and
responded to them in the EPA Response
to Comments Document for the Joint
Rulemaking. As noted in that document,
the U.S. government intends to revise
these estimates, taking into account new
research findings that were not included
in the first round, and has set a
preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC
values in the next few years or at such
time as substantially updated models
become available, and to continue to
support research in this area. The EPA
Response to Comments Document for
the Joint Rulemaking discusses ongoing
research in greater detail.
Applying the global SCC estimates,
shown in Table VIII–14, to the estimated
domestic reductions in CO2 emissions
under this final program, we estimate
the dollar value of the climate related
benefits for each analysis year. For
internal consistency, the annual benefits
are discounted back to net present value
terms using the same discount rate as
each SCC estimate (i.e., 5%, 3%, and
2.5%) rather than 3% and 7%.514 These
estimates are provided in Table VIII–15.

509 See 2010 Light-Duty Final Rule, Note 5, docket
ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11424.
510 Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–114577,
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under
Executive Order 12866, Interagency Working Group
on Social Cost of Carbon, with participation by
Council of Economic Advisers, Council on
Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Commerce, Department of Energy,
Department of Transportation, Environmental
Protection Agency, National Economic Council,
Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Science and

Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury
(February 2010). Also available at http://epa.gov/
otaq/climate/regulations.htm.
511 The interagency group decided that these
estimates apply only to CO2 emissions. Given that
warming profiles and impacts other than
temperature change (e.g., ocean acidification) vary
across GHGs, the group concluded ‘‘transforming
gases into CO2-equivalents using GWP, and then
multiplying the carbon-equivalents by the SCC,
would not result in accurate estimates of the social
costs of non-CO2 gases’’ (SCC TSD, pg 13).
512 The SCC estimates were converted from 2007
dollars to 2008 dollars using a GDP price deflator

(1.021) and again to 2009 dollars using a GDP price
deflator (1.009) obtained from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, National Income and Product
Accounts Table 1.1.4, Prices Indexes for Gross
Domestic Product.
513 National Research Council (2009). Hidden
Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use. National Academies Press. See
docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11486.
514 It is possible that other benefits or costs of
final regulations unrelated to CO2 emissions will be
discounted at rates that differ from those used to
develop the SCC estimates.

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
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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

G. Benefits of Reducing CO2 Emissions

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00228

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57333

TABLE VIII–14—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 2012—2050 a
[in 2009 dollars per metric ton]
Discount rate and statistic
Year

2012
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050

5%
Average

.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................

3%
Average

$5.28
5.93
7.01
8.53
10.05
11.57
13.09
14.63
16.18

2.5%
Average

$23.06
24.58
27.10
30.43
33.75
37.08
40.40
43.34
46.27

$37.53
39.57
42.98
47.28
51.58
55.88
60.19
63.59
66.99

3%
95th
percentile
$70.14
75.03
83.17
93.11
103.06
113.00
122.95
131.66
140.37

Note:
a The SCC values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific.

TABLE VIII–15—MONETIZED CO2 BENEFITS OF VEHICLE PROGRAM, CO2 EMISSIONS a
[Millions, 2009$]
Benefits
CO2 Emissions reduction (MMT)

Year

2020
2030
2040
2050

Avg SCC at
5%
($5¥$16) a

Avg SCC at
3%
($23¥$46) a

Avg SCC at
2.5%
($38¥$67) a

95th percentile SCC
at 3%
($70¥$140) a

.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................

37.7
73.1
90.3
103.9

$264
734
1,182
1,682

$1,021
2,467
3,650
4,810

$1,619
3,770
5,437
6,963

$3,133
7,532
11,108
14,590

Net Present Valueb .........................................................................

....................

9,045

46,070

78,037

140,432

Notes:
a Except for the last row (net present value), the SCC values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific.
b Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently from other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the
SCC TSD for more detail.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

H. Non-GHG Health and Environmental
Impacts
This section presents EPA’s analysis
of the non-GHG health and
environmental impacts that can be
expected to occur as a result of the HD
National Program. GHG emissions are
predominantly the byproduct of fossil
fuel combustion processes that also
produce criteria and hazardous air
pollutants. The vehicles that are subject
to the standards are also significant
sources of mobile source air pollution
such as direct PM, NOX, VOCs and air
toxics. The standards will affect exhaust
emissions of these pollutants from
vehicles. They will also affect emissions
from upstream sources related to
changes in fuel consumption. Changes
in ambient ozone, PM2.5, and air toxics
that will result from the standards are
expected to affect human health in the
form of premature deaths and other
serious human health effects, as well as
other important public health and
welfare effects.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

As many commenters noted, it is
important to quantify the health and
environmental impacts associated with
the final rules because a failure to
adequately consider these ancillary copollutant impacts could lead to an
incorrect assessment of their net costs
and benefits. Moreover, co-pollutant
impacts tend to accrue in the near term,
while any effects from reduced climate
change mostly accrue over a time frame
of several decades or longer.
This section is organized as follows:
the first presents the PM- and ozonerelated health and environmental
impacts associated with the final
program in calendar year (CY) 2030; the
second discusses the related co-benefits
associated with the model year (MY)
analysis of the program.515
515 EPA typically analyzes rule impacts
(emissions, air quality, costs and benefits) in the
year in which they occur; for this analysis, we
selected 2030 as a representative future year. We
refer to this analysis as the ‘‘Calendar Year’’ (CY)
analysis. EPA also conducted a separate analysis of
the impacts over the model year lifetimes of the
2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. We refer
to this analysis as the ‘‘Model Year’’ (MY) analysis.

PO 00000

Frm 00229

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(1) Quantified and Monetized Non-GHG
Human Health Benefits of the 2030
Calendar Year Analysis
This analysis reflects the impact of
the HD National Program in 2030
compared to a future-year reference
scenario without the program in
place.516 Overall, we estimate that the
final rules will lead to a net decrease in
PM2.5-related health impacts. See
Section VII.D of this preamble for more
In contrast to the CY analysis, the MY lifetime
analysis shows the lifetime impacts of the program
on each of these MY fleets over the course of its
lifetime.
516 The future-year reference scenario to which
the program impacts are compared in this section
assumes no future gains in mpg (a ‘‘flat’’ scenario).
For the final rulemaking, the agencies have also
conducted a sensitivity analysis relative to the
baseline assumptions. The alternative baseline
assumes annual mpg projections, in the absence of
the program, which were developed by the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). A description of the
alternative baseline can be found in RIA Chapter 6.
Due to time and resource constraints, EPA was
unable to conduct full-scale photochemical air
quality modeling to reflect the final rule impacts
relative to this alternative baseline.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57334

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

information about the air quality
modeling results. While the PM-related
air quality impacts are relatively small,
the decrease in population-weighted
national average PM2.5 exposure results
in a net decrease in adverse PM-related
human health impacts (the decrease in
national population-weighted annual
average PM2.5 is 0.005 μg/m3).
The air quality modeling also projects
decreases in ozone concentrations in
many areas. While the ozone-related
impacts are relatively small, the
decrease in population-weighted
national average ozone exposure results
in a net decrease in ozone-related health
impacts (population-weighted
maximum 8-hour average ozone
decreases by 0.164 ppb).
We base our analysis of the program’s
impact on human health in 2030 on
peer-reviewed studies of air quality and
human health effects.517 518 These
methods are described in more detail in

the RIA that accompanies this action.
Our benefits methods are also consistent
with recent rulemaking analyses such as
the final Transport Rule,519 the lightduty 2012–2016 MY vehicle rule,520 and
the final Portland Cement National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) RIA.521 To model
the ozone and PM air quality impacts of
this final action, we used the
Community Multiscale Air Quality
(CMAQ) model (see Chapter 8.2.2 of the
RIA that accompanies this preamble).
The modeled ambient air quality data
serves as an input to the Environmental
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
version 4.0 (BenMAP).522 BenMAP is a
computer program developed by the
U.S. EPA that integrates a number of the
modeling elements used in previous
analyses (e.g., interpolation functions,
population projections, health impact
functions, valuation functions, analysis
and pooling methods) to translate

modeled air concentration estimates
into health effects incidence estimates
and monetized benefits estimates.
The range of total monetized ozoneand PM-related health impacts is
presented in Table VIII–16. We present
total benefits based on the PM- and
ozone-related premature mortality
function used. The benefits ranges
therefore reflect the addition of each
estimate of ozone-related premature
mortality (each with its own row in
Table VIII–16) to estimates of PMrelated premature mortality. These
estimates represent EPA’s preferred
approach to characterizing a best
estimate of benefits. As is the nature of
Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs), the
assumptions and methods used to
estimate air quality benefits evolve to
reflect the agency’s most current
interpretation of the scientific and
economic literature.

TABLE VIII–16—ESTIMATED 2030 MONETIZED PM- AND OZONE-RELATED HEALTH BENEFITS a
2030 Total ozone and PM benefits—PM mortality derived from American Cancer Society analysis and Six-Cities Analysis a
Premature ozone mortality
function

Reference

Total benefits (billions, 2009$, 3%
discount rate) b,c

Multi-city analyses ...........

Bell et al., 2004 .................................

Total: $1.3–$2.4 ................................
PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................
Ozone: $0.55. ....................................
Total: $1.6–$2.7 ................................
PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................
Ozone: $0.91. ....................................
Total: $1.6–$2.6 ................................
PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................
Ozone: $0.83. ....................................
Total: $2.4–$3.5 ................................
PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................
Ozone: $1.7. ......................................
Total: $3.1–$4.2 ................................
PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................
Ozone: $2.4. ......................................
Total: $3.1–$4.2 ................................
PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................
Ozone: $2.4. ......................................

Huang et al., 2005 .............................
Schwartz, 2005 ..................................
Meta-analyses ..................

Bell et al., 2005 .................................
Ito et al., 2005 ...................................
Levy et al., 2005 ................................

Total Benefits (billions, 2009$, 7%
discount rate) b,c
Total: $1.2–$2.2.
PM: $0.67–$1.6.
Ozone: $0.55.
Total: $1.6–$2.5.
PM: $0.67–$1.6
Ozone: $0.91.
Total: $1.5–$2.5.
PM: $0.67–$1.6.
Ozone: $0.83.
Total: $2.4–$3.3.
PM: $0.67–$1.6.
Ozone: $1.7.
Total: $3.0–$4.0.
PM: $0.67–$1.6.
Ozone: $2.4.
Total: $3.1–$4.0.
PM: $0.67–$1.6.
Ozone: $2.4.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Notes:
a Total includes premature mortality-related and morbidity-related ozone and PM
2.5 benefits. Range was developed by adding the estimate from
the ozone premature mortality function to the estimate of PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from either the ACS study (Pope et al., 2002)
or the Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006).
b Note that total benefits presented here do not include a number of unquantified benefits categories. A detailed listing of unquantified health
and welfare effects is provided in Table VIII–17.
c Results reflect the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, as recommended by EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses and
OMB Circular A–4. Results are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation.

517 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006).
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the
Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air
and Radiation. Retrieved March 26, 2009 at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html
518 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008).
Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved
March 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/
ria.html.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

519 Final Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone. Signed July 6, 2011. Available at http://
epa.gov/airtransport/.
520 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010).
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking to
Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards, EPA–420–R–10–009, April
2010. Available on the Internet: http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/
420r10009.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00230

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

521 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). 2010. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. Augues. Available on
the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/
RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2009–0472–0241.
522 Information on BenMAP, including
downloads of the software, can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The benefits in Table VIII–16 include
all of the human health impacts we are
able to quantify and monetize at this
time. However, the full complement of
human health and welfare effects
associated with PM and ozone remain
unquantified because of current
limitations in methods or available data.
We have not quantified a number of

known or suspected health effects
linked with ozone and PM for which
appropriate health impact functions are
not available or which do not provide
easily interpretable outcomes (e.g.,
changes in heart rate variability).
Additionally, we are unable to quantify
a number of known welfare effects,
including reduced acid and particulate

57335

deposition damage to cultural
monuments and other materials, and
environmental benefits due to
reductions of impacts of eutrophication
in coastal areas. These are listed in
Table VIII–17. As a result, the health
benefits quantified in this section are
likely underestimates of the total
benefits attributable to this final action.

TABLE VIII–17—UNQUANTIFIED AND NON-MONETIZED POTENTIAL EFFECTS
Pollutant/effects
Ozone

Health a

Effects not included in analysis—Changes in:

...................................................

Ozone Welfare ...................................................

PM Health c .........................................................

PM Welfare .........................................................

Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare ...........

CO Health ...........................................................
HC/Toxics Health f ..............................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

HC/Toxics Welfare ..............................................

Chronic respiratory damage b.
Premature aging of the lungs b.
Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
Yields for:
—commercial forests.
—some fruits and vegetables.
—non-commercial crops.
Damage to urban ornamental plants.
Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics.
Ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
Premature mortality—short term exposures.d
Low birth weight.
Pulmonary function.
Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis.
Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
Residential and recreational visibility in non-Class I areas.
Soiling and materials damage.
Damage to ecosystem functions.
Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
Commercial forests due to acidic sulfate and nitrate deposition.
Commercial freshwater fishing due to acidic deposition.
Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems due to acidic deposition.
Existence values for currently healthy ecosystems.
Commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests due to nitrogen deposition.
Recreation in estuarine ecosystems due to nitrogen deposition.
Ecosystem functions.
Passive fertilization.
Behavioral effects.
Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde).
Anemia (benzene).
Disruption of production of blood components (benzene).
Reduction in the number of blood platelets (benzene).
Excessive bone marrow formation (benzene).
Depression of lymphocyte counts (benzene).
Reproductive and developmental effects (1,3-butadiene).
Irritation of eyes and mucus membranes (formaldehyde).
Respiratory irritation (formaldehyde).
Asthma attacks in asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Asthma-like symptoms in non-asthmatics (formaldehyde).
Irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract (acetaldehyde).
Upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion (acrolein).
Direct toxic effects to animals.
Bioaccumulation in the food chain.
Damage to ecosystem function.
Odor.

Notes:
a The public health impact of biological responses such as increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection are likely partially represented by our quantified
endpoints.
b The public health impact of effects such as chronic respiratory damage and premature aging of the lungs may be partially represented by
quantified endpoints such as hospital admissions or premature mortality, but a number of other related health impacts, such as doctor visits and
decreased athletic performance, remain unquantified.
c In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly represented by our quantified endpoints.
d While some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to shortterm exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in this analysis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the expert
elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of short term exposures.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00231

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57336
e May

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

result in benefits or disbenefits.
of the key hydrocarbons related to this action are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the CAA.

f Many

While there will be impacts
associated with air toxic pollutant
emission changes that result from this
final action, we do not attempt to
monetize those impacts. This is
primarily because currently available
tools and methods to assess air toxics
risk from mobile sources at the national
scale are not adequate for extrapolation
to incidence estimations or benefits
assessment. The best suite of tools and
methods currently available for
assessment at the national scale are
those used in the National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment (NATA). The EPA
Science Advisory Board specifically
commented in their review of the 1996
NATA that these tools were not yet
ready for use in a national-scale benefits
analysis, because they did not consider
the full distribution of exposure and
risk, or address sub-chronic health
effects.523 While EPA has since
improved these tools, there remain
critical limitations for estimating
incidence and assessing benefits of
reducing mobile source air toxics.
As part of the second prospective
analysis of the benefits and costs of the
Clean Air Act,524 EPA conducted a case
study analysis of the health effects
associated with reducing exposure to
benzene in Houston from
implementation of the Clean Air Act.
While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s
Advisory Council on Clean Air
Compliance Analysis concluded that
‘‘the challenges for assessing progress in
health improvement as a result of
reductions in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to
a lack of exposure-response functions,
uncertainties in emissions inventories
and background levels, the difficulty of
extrapolating risk estimates to low doses
and the challenges of tracking health
progress for diseases, such as cancer,
that have long latency periods.’’ 525 EPA
continues to work to address these
limitations; however, we did not have

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

523 Science

Advisory Board. 2001. NATA—
Evaluating the National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment for 1996—an SAB Advisory. http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html.
524 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA). 2011. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air
Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation,
Washington, DC. March. Available on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/
fullreport.pdf.
525 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—
Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA–SAB). 2008.
Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in
Houston, 1990–2020. EPA–COUNCIL–08–001. July.
Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/
D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A83/$File/
EPA–COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

the methods and tools available for
national-scale application in time for
the analysis of the final action.526
EPA is also unaware of specific
information identifying any effects on
listed endangered species from the
small fluctuations in pollutant
concentrations associated with this
program (see Section VII.D).
Furthermore, our current modeling tools
are not designed to trace fluctuations in
ambient concentration levels to
potential impacts on particular
endangered species.
(a) Quantified Human Health Impacts
Table VIII–18 and Table VIII–19
present the annual PM2.5 and ozone
health impacts, respectively, in the 48
contiguous U.S. states associated with
the HD National Program for 2030. For
each endpoint presented in Table VIII–
18 and Table VIII–19, we provide both
the mean estimate and the 90 percent
confidence interval.
Using EPA’s preferred estimates,
based on the American Cancer Society
(ACS) and Six-Cities studies and no
threshold assumption in the model of
mortality, we estimate that the final
rules will result in between 78 and 200
cases of avoided PM2.5-related
premature mortalities annually in 2030.
As a sensitivity analysis, when the range
of expert opinion is used, we estimate
between 26 and 260 fewer premature
mortalities in 2030 (see Table 8–14 in
the RIA that accompanies this action).
For ozone-related premature mortality
in 2030, we estimate a range of between
54 to 240 fewer premature mortalities.

TABLE VIII–18—ESTIMATED PM2.5RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a
2030 Annual
reduction in
incidence
(5th–95th
percentile)

Health effect

Premature Mortality—Derived from epidemiology literature b
526 In April 2009, EPA hosted a workshop on
estimating the benefits or reducing hazardous air
pollutants. This workshop built upon the work
accomplished in the June 2000 Science Advisory
Board/EPA Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions
in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, which
generated thoughtful discussion on approaches to
estimating human health benefits from reductions
in air toxics exposure, but no consensus was
reached on methods that could be implemented in
the near term for a broad selection of air toxics.
Please visit http://epa.gov/air/toxicair/
2009workshop.html for more information about the
workshop and its associated materials.

PO 00000

Frm 00232

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

TABLE VIII–18—ESTIMATED PM2.5-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a—Continued

Health effect

Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study (Pope et
al., 2002) ....................
Adult, age 25+, Six-Cities Study (Laden et
al., 2006) ....................
Infant, age <1 year
(Woodruff et al., 1997)
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age
26 and over) ......................
Non-fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and
over) ..................................
Hospital admissions–respiratory (all ages) c ............
Hospital admissions–cardiovascular (adults, age
>18) d .................................
Emergency room visits for
asthma (age 18 years and
younger) ............................
Acute bronchitis, (children,
age 8–12) ..........................
Lower respiratory symptoms
(children, age 7–14) ..........
Upper respiratory symptoms
(asthmatic children, age 9–
18) .....................................
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18)
Work loss days .....................
Minor restricted activity days
(adults age 18–65) ............

2030 Annual
reduction in
incidence
(5th–95th
percentile)

78 (30–130)
200 (110–290)
0 (0–1)
53 (10–97)
150 (54–240)
20 (10–30)
45 (32–52)
81 (48–120)
130 (0–270)
1,600 (750–
2,400)
1,200 (370–
2,000)
1,400 (160–
4,000)
9,700 (8,500–
11,000)
57,000
(48,000–
66,000)

Notes:
a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the
48 contiguous United States.
b PM-related adult mortality based upon the
American Cancer Society (ACS) Cohort Study
(Pope et al., 2002) and the Six-Cities Study
(Laden et al., 2006). Note that these are two
alternative estimates of adult mortality and
should not be summed. PM-related infant mortality based upon a study by Woodruff, Grillo,
and Schoendorf, (1997).527
c Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and
asthma.
d Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM
include total cardiovascular and subcategories
for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and
heart failure.

527 Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf.
1997. ‘‘The Relationship Between Selected Causes

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VIII–19—ESTIMATED OZONERELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a

Health effect

Premature Mortality, All
ages b Multi-City Analyses:
Bell et al. (2004)—Nonaccidental ...................
Huang et al. (2005)—
Cardiopulmonary ........
Schwartz (2005)—Nonaccidental ...................
Meta-analyses:
Bell et al. (2005)—All
cause .........................
Ito et al. (2005)—Nonaccidental ...................
Levy et al. (2005)—All
cause .........................
Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (adult, 65
and older) c ........................

TABLE VIII–19—ESTIMATED OZONERELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a—Continued

2030 Annual
reduction in
incidence
(5th–95th
percentile)

2030 Annual
reduction in
incidence
(5th–95th
percentile)

Health effect

82 (34–130)

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (children,
under 2) .............................
Emergency room visit for
asthma (all ages) ..............
Minor restricted activity days
(adults, age 18–65) ...........

170 (96–250)

School absence days ...........

54 (23–84)
90 (43–140)

510 (69–870)

b Estimates of ozone-related premature mortality are based upon incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et
al. (2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz
(2005); Bell et al. (2005); Ito et al. (2005);
Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone-related premature mortality should therefore not
be summed.
c Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone
include admissions for all respiratory causes
and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia.

(b) Monetized Benefits
320 (160–470)

240 (160–320)
240 (180–310)

57337

230 (0–630)
300,000
(150,000–
450,000)
120,000
(52,000–
170,000

Notes:
a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the
48 contiguous U.S.

Table VIII–20 presents the estimated
monetary value of changes in the
incidence of ozone and PM2.5-related
health effects. All monetized estimates
are stated in 2009$. These estimates
account for growth in real gross
domestic product (GDP) per capita
between the present and 2030. Our
estimate of total monetized benefits in
2030 for the program, using the ACS
and Six-Cities PM mortality studies and
the range of ozone mortality
assumptions, is between $1.3 and $4.2
billion, assuming a 3 percent discount
rate, or between $1.2 and $4.0 billion,
assuming a 7 percent discount rate.

TABLE VIII–20—ESTIMATED MONETARY VALUE OF CHANGES IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS IN 2030
[Millions, 2009$] a b
PM2.5-Related health effect

(5th and 95th Percentile)

Premature Mortality—Derived from Epidemiology Studies:c d
Adult, age 30+—ACS study (Pope et al., 2002):
3% discount rate ..............................................................................................................................................
7% discount rate ..............................................................................................................................................
Adult, age 25+—Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006):
3% discount rate ..............................................................................................................................................
7% discount rate ..............................................................................................................................................
Infant Mortality, <1 year–(Woodruff et al. 1997) .....................................................................................................
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) ........................................................................................................................
Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions:
3% discount rate ......................................................................................................................................................
7% discount rate ......................................................................................................................................................
Hospital admissions for respiratory causes ....................................................................................................................
Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes .............................................................................................................
Emergency room visits for asthma .................................................................................................................................
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) .............................................................................................................................
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, 7–14) ................................................................................................................
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, 9–11) .................................................................................................................
Asthma exacerbations ....................................................................................................................................................
Work loss days ...............................................................................................................................................................
Minor restricted-activity days (MRADs) ..........................................................................................................................

$680 ($87–$1,800)
$620 ($79–$1,600)
$1,800 ($250–$4,300)
$1,600 ($220–$3,900)
$2.5 ($0–$9.4)
$29 ($2.4–$96)
$16 ($3.7–$38)
$16 ($3.4–$38)
$0.31 ($0.15–$0.45)
$1.3 ($0.83–$1.8)
$0.03 ($0.02–$0.05)
$0.01 ($0–$0.03)
$0.03 ($0.01–$0.06)
$0.04 ($0.01–$0.08)
$0.08 ($0.009–$0.23)
$1.6 ($1.4–$1.8)
$3.6 ($2.1–$5.2)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Ozone-related Health Effect
Premature Mortality, All ages—Derived from Multi-city analyses:
Bell et al., 2004 .......................................................................................................................................................
Huang et al., 2005 ...................................................................................................................................................
Schwartz, 2005 ........................................................................................................................................................
Premature Mortality, All ages—Derived from Meta-analyses:
Bell et al., 2005 .......................................................................................................................................................
Ito et al., 2005 .........................................................................................................................................................
Levy et al., 2005 ......................................................................................................................................................
Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) .....................................................................................
Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (children, under 2) ........................................................................................
Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) ..................................................................................................................
Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18–65) .........................................................................................................

of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Pollution in the United States.’’ Environmental
Health Perspectives 105(6):608–612.

PO 00000

Frm 00233

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

$520 ($69–$1,300)
$880 ($120–$2,200)
$800 ($100–$2,000)
$1,700 ($240–$4,100)
$2,300 ($350–$5,500)
$2,400 ($350–$5,500)
$13 ($1.7–$22)
$3.4 ($1.8–$5.0)
$0.09 ($0–$0.23)
$19 ($8.6–$32)

57338

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VIII–20—ESTIMATED MONETARY VALUE OF CHANGES IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS IN 2030—
Continued
[Millions, 2009$] a b
PM2.5-Related health effect

(5th and 95th Percentile)

School absence days .....................................................................................................................................................

$11 ($5.0–$16)

Notes:
a Monetary benefits are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. PM and ozone benefits are nationwide.
b Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2030).
c Valuation assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year segmented lag structure. Results reflect the use of 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(c) What are the limitations of the
benefits analysis?
Every benefit-cost analysis examining
the potential effects of a change in
environmental protection requirements
is limited to some extent by data gaps,
limitations in model capabilities (such
as geographic coverage), and
uncertainties in the underlying
scientific and economic studies used to
configure the benefit and cost models.
Limitations of the scientific literature
often result in the inability to estimate
quantitative changes in health and
environmental effects, such as potential
decreases in premature mortality
associated with decreased exposure to
carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the
economics literature often result in the
inability to assign economic values even
to those health and environmental
outcomes which can be quantified.
These general uncertainties in the
underlying scientific and economics
literature, which can lead to valuations
that are higher or lower, are discussed
in detail in the RIA and its supporting
references. Key uncertainties that have a
bearing on the results of the benefit-cost
analysis of the final rules include the
following:
• The exclusion of potentially
significant and unquantified benefit
categories (such as health, odor, and
ecological benefits of reduction in air
toxics, ozone, and PM);
• Errors in measurement and
projection for variables such as
population growth;
• Uncertainties in the estimation of
future year emissions inventories and
air quality;
• Uncertainty in the estimated
relationships of health and welfare
effects to changes in pollutant
concentrations including the shape of
the C–R function, the size of the effect
estimates, and the relative toxicity of the
many components of the PM mixture;
• Uncertainties in exposure
estimation; and
• Uncertainties associated with the
effect of potential future actions to limit
emissions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

As Table VIII–20 indicates, total
benefits are driven primarily by the
reduction in premature mortalities each
year. Some key assumptions underlying
the premature mortality estimates
include the following, which may also
contribute to uncertainty:
• Inhalation of fine particles is
causally associated with premature
death at concentrations near those
experienced by most Americans on a
daily basis. Although biological
mechanisms for this effect have not yet
been completely established, the weight
of the available epidemiological,
toxicological, and experimental
evidence supports an assumption of
causality. The impacts of including a
probabilistic representation of causality
were explored in the expert elicitationbased results of the PM NAAQS RIA.
• All fine particles, regardless of their
chemical composition, are equally
potent in causing premature mortality.
This is an important assumption,
because PM produced via transported
precursors emitted from heavy-duty
engines may differ significantly from
PM precursors released from electric
generating units and other industrial
sources. However, no clear scientific
grounds exist for supporting differential
effects estimates by particle type.
• The C–R function for fine particles
is approximately linear within the range
of ambient concentrations under
consideration. Thus, the estimates
include health benefits from reducing
fine particles in areas with varied
concentrations of PM, including both
regions that may be in attainment with
PM2.5 standards and those that are at
risk of not meeting the standards.
• There is uncertainty in the
magnitude of the association between
ozone and premature mortality. The
range of ozone benefits associated with
the coordinated strategy is estimated
based on the risk of several sources of
ozone-related mortality effect estimates.
In a report on the estimation of ozonerelated premature mortality published
by the National Research Council, a
panel of experts and reviewers
concluded that short-term exposure to

PO 00000

Frm 00234

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

ambient ozone is likely to contribute to
premature deaths and that ozone-related
mortality should be included in
estimates of the health benefits of
reducing ozone exposure.528 EPA has
requested advice from the National
Academy of Sciences on how best to
quantify uncertainty in the relationship
between ozone exposure and premature
mortality in the context of quantifying
benefits.
Despite the uncertainties described
above, we believe this analysis provides
a conservative estimate of the estimated
non-GHG health and environmental
benefits of the standards in future years
because of the exclusion of potentially
significant benefit categories that are not
quantifiable at this time.
Acknowledging benefits omissions and
uncertainties, we present a best estimate
of the total benefits based on our
interpretation of the best available
scientific literature and methods
supported by EPA’s technical peer
review panel, the Science Advisory
Board’s Health Effects Subcommittee
(SAB–HES). The National Academies of
Science (NRC, 2002) has also reviewed
EPA’s methodology for analyzing the
health benefits of measures taken to
reduce air pollution. EPA addressed
many of these comments in the analysis
of the final PM NAAQS.529 530 This
analysis incorporates this work to the
extent possible.
(2) Non-GHG Human Health Benefits of
the Model Year (MY) Analysis
As described in Section VII, the final
standards will reduce emissions of
several criteria and toxic pollutants and
precursors. EPA typically analyzes rule
528 National Research Council (NRC), 2008.
Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic
Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The
National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
529 National Research Council (NRC). 2002.
Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed
Air Pollution Regulations. The National Academies
Press: Washington, DC.
530 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 2006. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared
by: Office of Air and Radiation. Available at http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
impacts (emissions, air quality, costs
and benefits) in the year in which they
occur; for the analysis of non-GHG
ambient air quality and health impacts,
we selected 2030 as a representative
future year since resource and time
constraints precluded EPA from
considering multiple calendar years. We
refer to this analysis as the ‘‘Calendar
Year’’ (CY) analysis because the benefits
of the program reflect impacts across all
regulated vehicles in a calendar year.
EPA also conducted a separate
analysis of the impacts over the model
year lifetimes of the 2014 through 2018
model year vehicles. We refer to this
analysis as the ‘‘Model Year’’ (MY)
analysis (See Chapter 6 of the RIA that
accompanies this preamble). In contrast
to the CY analysis, the MY analysis
estimates the impacts of the program on
each MY fleet over the course of its
lifetime. Due to analytical and resource
limitations, however, MY non-GHG
emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and
SO2) were not estimated for this
analysis. Because MY impacts are
measured in relation to only the lifetime
of a particular vehicle model year (2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018), and
assumes no additional controls to model
year vehicles beyond 2018, the impacts
are smaller than if the impacts of all
regulated vehicles were considered. We
therefore expect that the non-GHG
health-related benefits associated with
the MY analysis will be smaller than
those estimated for the CY analysis,
both in a given year (such as 2030) and
in present value terms across a given
time period (such as 2014–2050).

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

I. Energy Security Impacts
The HD National Program is designed
to reduce fuel consumption and GHG
emissions in medium and heavy-duty
(HD) vehicles, which will result in
improved fuel efficiency and, in turn,
help to reduce U.S. petroleum imports.
A reduction of U.S. petroleum imports
reduces both financial and strategic
risks caused by potential sudden
disruptions in the supply of imported
petroleum to the U.S. This reduction in
risk is a measure of improved U.S.
energy security. This section
summarizes the agencies’ estimates of
U.S. oil import reductions and energy
security benefits of the final HD
National Program. Additional
discussion of this issue can be found in
Chapter 9.7 of the RIA.
(1) Implications of Reduced Petroleum
Use on U.S. Imports
In 2008, U.S. petroleum import
expenditures represented 21 percent of
total U.S. imports of all goods and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

services.531 In 2008, the United States
imported 66 percent of the petroleum it
consumed, and the transportation sector
accounted for 70 percent of total U.S.
petroleum consumption. This compares
to approximately 37 percent of
petroleum from imports and 55 percent
of consumption from petroleum in the
transportation sector in 1975.532 It is
clear that petroleum imports have a
significant impact on the U.S. economy.
Requiring lower GHG vehicle
technology and fuel efficient technology
in HD vehicles in the U.S. is expected
to lower U.S. oil imports. EPA used the
MOVES model to estimate the fuel
savings due to this program. A detailed
explanation of the MOVES model can be
found in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
Based on a detailed analysis of
differences in fuel consumption,
petroleum imports, and imports of
refined petroleum products and crude
oil using the Reference Case presented
in the Energy Information
Administration’s Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO) 2011 Early Release, EPA
and NHTSA estimate that
approximately 50 percent of the
reduction in fuel consumption resulting
from adopting improved GHG emissions
standards and fuel efficiency standards
is likely to be reflected in reduced U.S.
imports of refined fuel, while the
remaining 50 percent is expected to be
reflected in reduced domestic fuel
refining. Of this latter figure, 90 percent
is anticipated to reduce U.S. imports of
crude petroleum for use as a refinery
feedstock, while the remaining 10
percent is expected to reduce U.S.
domestic production of crude
petroleum. Thus, on balance, each
gallon of fuel saved as a consequence of
the HD GHG and fuel efficiency
standards is anticipated to reduce total
U.S. imports of petroleum by 0.95
gallons.533 The agencies’ estimates of
the reduction in U.S. oil imports from
this program for selected years, in
millions of barrels per day, are
presented in Table VIII–21 below. These
estimates assume that the fuel efficiency
of HD vehicles remains constant in the
baseline.

531 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,
U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, as
shown on June 24, 2009.
532 Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Annual
Energy Review 2008, Report No. DOE/EIA–
0384(2008), Tables 5.1 and 5.13c, June 26, 2009.
533 This figure is calculated as 0.50 + 0.50*0.9 =
0.50 + 0.45 = 0.95.

PO 00000

Frm 00235

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57339

TABLE VIII–21—U.S. OIL IMPORT REDUCTIONS FROM THE HD NATIONAL
PROGRAM FOR SELECTED YEARS
[Millions of barrels per day, mmbd]
Year
2020
2030
2040
2050

..............................................
..............................................
..............................................
..............................................

mmbd
0.202
0.393
0.489
0.566

(2) Energy Security Implications
In order to understand the energy
security implications of reducing U.S.
petroleum imports, EPA worked with
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL),
which has developed approaches for
evaluating the economic costs and
energy security implications of oil use.
The energy security estimates provided
below are based upon a methodology
developed in a peer-reviewed study
entitled ‘‘The Energy Security Benefits
of Reduced Oil Use, 2006–2015, ’’
completed in March 2008. This study is
included as part of the docket for this
final action.534 535
When conducting this analysis, ORNL
considered the full economic cost of
importing petroleum into the United
States. The economic cost of importing
petroleum into the U.S. is defined to
include two components in addition to
the purchase price of petroleum itself.
These are: (1) The higher costs for oil
imports resulting from the effect of
increasing U.S. import demand on the
world oil price and on the market power
of the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (i.e., the ‘‘demand’’
or ‘‘monopsony’’ costs); and (2) the risk
of reductions in U.S. economic output
and disruption of the U.S. economy
caused by sudden disruptions in the
supply of imported petroleum to the
U.S. (i.e., macroeconomic disruption/
adjustment costs). Maintaining a U.S.
military presence to help secure stable
oil supply from potentially vulnerable
regions of the world was not included
in this analysis because its attribution to
particular missions or activities is hard
to quantify.
534 Leiby, Paul N., ‘‘Estimating the Energy
Security Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil Imports’’ Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM–2007/028,
Final Report, 2008. (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162).
535 The ORNL study ‘‘The Energy Security
Benefits of Reduced Oil Use, 2006–2015,’’
completed in March 2008, is an update version of
the approach used for estimating the energy
security benefits of U.S. oil import reductions
developed in an ORNL 1997 Report by Leiby, Paul
N., Donald W. Jones, T. Randall Curlee, and Russell
Lee, entitled ‘‘Oil Imports: An Assessment of
Benefits and Costs.’’ (Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57340

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

For this action, ORNL estimated
energy security premiums by
incorporating the most recent available
AEO 2011 Early Release oil price
forecasts and market trends. Energy

security premiums for the years 2020,
2030, 2040, and 2050 are presented in
Table VIII–22, as well as a breakdown
of the components of the energy security
premiums for each of these years.536

The components of the energy security
premiums and their values are
discussed in detail in Chapter 9.7 of the
RIA.

TABLE VIII–22—ENERGY SECURITY PREMIUMS IN SELECTED YEARS
[2009$/Barrel]
Year (range)

Monopsony

Macroeconomic
disruption/
adjustment costs

Total mid-point

2020 .............................................................................................

$11.29
($3.86–$21.32)
$11.17
($3.92–$20.58)
$10.56
($3.69–$19.62)

$7.11
($3.50–$11.40)
$8.32
($4.04–$13.33)
$8.71
($3.86–$14.35)

$18.41
($9.70–$28.94)
$19.49
($10.49–$29.63)
$19.27
($10.32–$29.13)

2030 .............................................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2035 .............................................................................................

The literature on the energy security
for the last two decades has routinely
combined the monopsony and the
macroeconomic disruption components
when calculating the total value of the
energy security premium. However, in
the context of using a global SCC value,
the question arises: how should the
energy security premium be determined
when a global perspective is taken?
Monopsony benefits represent avoided
payments by the United States to oil
producers in foreign countries that
result from a decrease in the world oil
price as the U.S. decreases its
consumption of imported oil.
Several commenters commented on
the agencies’ energy security analysis of
this program. The Conservative Law
Foundation, Interfaith Care for Creation,
Environmental Defense Fund and
American Lung Association (EDF/ALA)
and R. Desjardin noted that the
standards in this program will increase
our national security by decreasing U.S.
dependence on foreign oil imports. The
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
felt that there is no relationship between
reduced U.S. oil imports and U.S.
energy security; the commenter sees no
relationship between reduced oil
imports and, for example, the number of
hijackings, bombings, and other
terrorist-related activities that have
occurred through time. CBD commented
that the benefit of the reduction of
military costs associated with
maintaining a secure oil supply should
be fully accounted for, and EDF
recommended a more extensive analysis

of the external security costs of oil
dependence.
The agencies recognize that potential
national and energy security risks exist
due to the possibility of tension over oil
supplies. Much of the world’s oil and
gas supplies are located in countries
facing social, economic, and
demographic challenges, thus making
them even more vulnerable to potential
local instability. For example, in 2010
just over 40 percent of world oil supply
came from OPEC nations, and this share
is not expected to decline in the AEO
2011 projections through 2030.
Approximately 28 percent of global
supply is from Persian Gulf countries
alone. As another measure of
concentration, of the 137 countries/
principalities that export either crude
oil or refined petroleum product, the top
12 have recently accounted for over 55
percent of exports.537 Eight of these
countries are members of OPEC, and a
9th is Russia.538 In a market where even
a 1–2 percent supply loss raises prices
noticeably, and where a 10 percent
supply loss could lead to a significant
price shock, this regional concentration
is of concern. Historically, the countries
of the Middle East have been the source
of eight of the ten major world oil
disruptions 539 with the 9th originating
in Venezuela, an OPEC member.
Because of U.S. dependence on oil,
the military could be called on to
protect energy resources through such
measures as securing shipping lanes
from foreign oil fields. To maintain such
military effectiveness and flexibility, the
Department of Defense identified in the

Quadrennial Defense Review that it is
‘‘increasing its use of renewable energy
supplies and reducing energy demand
to improve operational effectiveness,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
support of U.S. climate change
initiatives, and protect the Department
from energy price fluctuations.’’ 540 The
Department of the Navy has also stated
that the Navy and Marine Corps rely far
too much on petroleum, which
‘‘degrades the strategic position of our
country and the tactical performance of
our forces. The global supply of oil is
finite, it is becoming increasingly
difficult to find and exploit, and over
time cost continues to rise.’’ 541
In remarks given to the White House
Energy Security Summit on April 26,
2011, Deputy Security of Defense
William J. Lynn, III noted the direct
impact of energy security on military
readiness and flexibility. According to
Deputy Security Lynn, ‘‘Today, energy
technology remains a critical element of
our military superiority. Addressing
energy needs must be a fundamental
part of our military planning.’’ 542
Thus, to the degree to which the final
rules reduce reliance upon imported
energy supplies or promotes the
development of technologies that can be
deployed by either consumers or the
nation’s defense forces, the United
States could expect benefits related to
national security, reduced energy costs,
and increased energy supply. These
benefits are why President Obama has
identified this program as a key
component for improving energy
efficiency and putting America on a

536 AEO 2011 forecasts energy market trends and
values only to 2035. The energy security premium
estimates post-2035 were assumed to be the 2035
estimate.
537 Based on data from the CIA, combining
various recent years, https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/
2176rank.html.

538 The other three are Norway, Canada, and the
EU, an exporter of product.
539 IEA 2011 ‘‘IEA Response System for Oil
Supply Emergencies’’.
540 U.S. Department of Defense. 2010.
Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Secretary of
Defense: Washington, DC 128 pages.

541 The Department of the Navy’s Energy Goals
(http://www.navy.mil/features/Navy_Energy
Security.pdf) (Last accessed May 31, 2011).
542 U.S. Department of Defense, Speech: Remarks
at the White House Energy Security Summit.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011. (http://www.defense.gov/
speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1556) (Last
accessed May 31, 2011).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00236

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
path to reducing oil imports in the
Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.543
Although the agencies recognize that
there clearly is a benefit to the United
States from reducing dependence on
foreign oil, the agencies have been
unable to calculate the monetary benefit
that the United States will receive from
the improvements in national security
expected to result from this program. In
contrast, the other portion of the energy
security premium, the U.S.
macroeconomic disruption and
adjustment cost that arises from U.S.
petroleum imports, is included in the
energy security benefits estimated for
this program. To summarize, the
agencies have included only the
macroeconomic disruption portion of
the energy security benefits to estimate
the monetary value of the total energy
security benefits of this program. The
agencies have calculated energy security
in very specific terms, as the reduction
of both financial and strategic risks
caused by potential sudden disruptions
in the supply of imported petroleum to
the U.S. Reducing the amount of oil
imported reduces those risks, and thus
increases the nation’s energy security.
Another commenter, citing
Administration guidelines (OMB
Circular A–4) for conducting economic
analyses, felt that the agency should
include the monopsony benefit as part
of its overall costs and benefits analysis.
After reviewing the guidelines cited by
the commenter, the agencies have
concluded that excluding the
monopsony benefit from its overall costs
and benefits analysis continues to be
appropriate when a global perspective is
taken. However, the agencies recognize
that the monopsony benefit has
distributional impacts for the U.S., and
continue to describe and discuss the
monopsony benefit in this section of the
Preamble.
The total annual energy security
benefits for the final HD National
Program are reported in Table VIII–23
for the years 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050.

TABLE VIII–23—TOTAL ANNUAL ENERGY SECURITY BENEFITS FROM
THE HD NATIONAL PROGRAM IN
2020, 2030, 2040 AND 2050
[Millions, 2009$]
Year
2020
2030
2040
2050

Benefits

..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................

$499
1,132
1,477
1,710

J. Other Impacts
(i) Noise, Congestion and Accidents
Increased vehicle use associated with
a positive rebound effect also
contributes to increased traffic
congestion, motor vehicle accidents,
and highway noise. Depending on how
the additional travel is distributed
throughout the day and on where it
takes place, additional vehicle use can
contribute to traffic congestion and
delays by increasing traffic volumes on
facilities that are already heavily
traveled during peak periods. These
added delays impose higher costs on
drivers and other vehicle occupants in
the form of increased travel time and
operating expenses, increased costs
associated with traffic accidents, and
increased traffic noise. Because drivers
do not take these added costs into
account in deciding when and where to
travel, they must be accounted for
separately as a cost of the added driving
associated with the rebound effect.
EPA and NHTSA rely on estimates of
congestion, accident, and noise costs
caused by pickup trucks and vans,
single unit trucks, buses, and
combination tractors developed by the
Federal Highway Administration to
estimate the increased external costs
caused by added driving due to the
rebound effect.544 The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) estimates are
intended to measure the increases in
costs from added congestion, property
damages and injuries in traffic
accidents, and noise levels caused by
various types of trucks that are borne by
persons other than their drivers (or
‘‘marginal’’ external costs). EPA and

57341

NHTSA employed estimates from this
source previously in the analysis
accompanying the light-Duty 2012–16
MY vehicle rule. The agencies continue
to find them appropriate for this
analysis after reviewing the procedures
used by FHWA to develop them and
considering other available estimates of
these values.
FHWA’s congestion cost estimates for
trucks, which are weighted averages
based on the estimated fractions of peak
and off-peak freeway travel for each
class of trucks, already account for the
fact that trucks make up a smaller
fraction of peak period traffic on
congested roads because they try to
avoid peak periods when possible.
FHWA’s congestion cost estimates focus
on freeways because non-freeway effects
are less serious due to lower traffic
volumes and opportunities to re-route
around the congestion. The agencies,
however, applied the congestion cost to
the overall VMT increase, though the
fraction of VMT on each road type used
in MOVES range from 27 to 29 percent
of the vehicle miles on freeways for
vocational vehicles and 53 percent for
combination tractors. The results of this
analysis potentially overestimate the
costs and provide a conservative
estimate.
The agencies are using FHWA’s
‘‘Middle’’ estimates for marginal
congestion, accident, and noise costs
caused by increased travel from trucks.
This approach is consistent with the
current methodology used in the LightDuty GHG rulemaking analysis. These
costs are multiplied by the annual
increases in vehicle miles travelled from
the positive rebound effect to yield the
estimated cost increases resulting from
increased congestion, accidents, and
noise during each future year. The
values the agencies used to calculate
these increased costs are included in
Table VIII–24.

TABLE VIII–24—NOISE, ACCIDENT, AND CONGESTION COSTS PER MILE

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

[2009$]
Pickup trucks
and vans
($/VMT)

External costs
Congestion .......................................................................................................................
543 The White House, Blueprint for a Secure
Energy Future (March 30, 2011) (http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

_secure_energy_future.pdf) (Last accessed May 27,
2011).

PO 00000

Frm 00237

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Vocational
vehicles
($/VMT)

$0.049

$0.111

Combination
tractors
($/VMT)
$0.108

544 These estimates were developed by FHWA for
use in its 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation
Study; See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/
final/index.htm (last accessed July 21, 2010).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57342

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE VIII–24—NOISE, ACCIDENT, AND CONGESTION COSTS PER MILE—Continued
[2009$]
Pickup trucks
and vans
($/VMT)

External costs
Accidents .........................................................................................................................
Noise ................................................................................................................................

In aggregate, the increased costs due
to noise, accidents, and congestion from

Vocational
vehicles
($/VMT)

0.027
0.001

Combination
tractors
($/VMT)

0.019
0.009

0.022
0.020

the additional truck driving are
presented in Table VIII–25.

TABLE VIII–25: ACCIDENT, NOISE, AND CONGESTION COSTS
[Millions, 2009$]
Pickup trucks
and vans

Year

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2020
2030
2040
2050
NPV,
NPV,

.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
3% ..........................................................................................
7% ..........................................................................................

Vocational
vehicles

$0
0
8
15
22
29
36
51
105
130
148
1,818
832

Combination
tractors

$0
0
21
38
55
71
85
112
195
256
298
3,620
1,680

Total costs

$0
0
18
31
43
54
64
83
138
166
191
2,492
1,184

$0
0
46
84
120
153
186
246
437
551
638
7,929
3,695

(2) Savings Due to Reduced Refueling
Time
Reducing the fuel consumption of
heavy-duty trucks may either increase
their driving range before they require
refueling, or motivate truck purchasers
to buy, and manufacturers to offer,
smaller fuel tanks. Keeping the fuel tank
the same size allows truck operators to
reduce the frequency with which
drivers typically refuel their vehicles; it
thus extends the upper limit of the
range they can travel before requiring
refueling. Alternatively, if purchasers
and manufacturers respond to improved
fuel efficiency by reducing the size of
fuel tanks to maintain a constant driving
range, the smaller tank will require less
time in actual refueling.
Because refueling time represents a
time cost of truck operation, these time
savings should be incorporated into
truck purchasers’ decisions over how
much fuel-saving technology they want
in their vehicles. The savings calculated
here thus raise the same questions
discussed in Preamble VIII.A and RIA
Section 9.1 does the apparent existence

of these savings reflect failures in the
market for fuel efficiency, or does it
reflect costs not addressed in this
analysis? The response to these
questions could vary across truck
segment. See those sections for further
analysis of this question.
This analysis estimates the reduction
in the annual time spent filling the fuel
tank; this reduced time could come
either from fewer refueling events, if the
fuel tank stays the same size, or less
time spent during each refueling event,
if the fuel tank is made proportionately
smaller. The refueling savings are
calculated as the savings in the amount
of time that would have been necessary
to pump the fuel. The calculation does
not include time spent searching for a
fuel station or other time spent at the
station; it is assumed that the time
savings occur only during refueling. The
value of the time saved is estimated at
the hourly rate recommended for truck
operators ($22.36 in 2009 dollars) in
DOT guidance for valuing time
savings.545

The refueling savings include the
increased fuel consumption resulting
from additional mileage associated with
the rebound effect. However, the
estimate of the rebound effect does not
account for any reduction in net
operating costs from lower refueling
time. As discussed earlier, the rebound
effect should be a measure of the change
in VMT with respect to the net change
in overall operating costs. Ideally,
changes in refueling time would factor
into this calculation, although the effect
is expected to be minor because
refueling time savings are small relative
to the value of reduced fuel
expenditures.
The details of this calculation are
discussed in the RIA Chapter 9.3.2. The
savings associated with reduced
refueling time for a truck of each type
throughout its lifetime are shown in
Table VIII–26. The aggregate savings
associated with reduced refueling time
are shown in Table VIII–27 for vehicles
sold in 2014 through 2050.

545 U.S. Department of Transportation, ‘‘Revised
Departmental Guidance for Valuation of Travel
Time in Economic Analysis,’’ February 11, 2003,

Table 4 (which shows a value of $18.10 in 2000
dollars); available at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/

policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2–11–03.pdf (last
accessed September 9, 2010).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00238

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57343

TABLE VIII–26—LIFETIME REFUELING SAVINGS FOR A 2018 MY TRUCK OF EACH TYPE
[2009$]
Pickup trucks
and vans
3% Discount Rate ............................................................................................................
7% Discount Rate ............................................................................................................

Vocational
vehicles

$31
19

Combination
tractor

$34
22

$341
223

TABLE VIII–27—ANNUAL REFUELING SAVINGS
[Millions, 2009$]
Pickup trucks
and vans

Year

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2020
2030
2040
2050
NPV,
NPV,

.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................
3% ..........................................................................................
7% ..........................................................................................

K. The Effect of Safety Standards and
Voluntary Safety Improvements on
Vehicle Weight
Safety standards developed by
NHTSA in previous rulemakings may
make compliance with the fuel
efficiency and CO2 emissions standards
more difficult or may reduce the
projected benefits of the program. The
primary way that safety regulations can
impact fuel efficiency and CO2
emissions is through increased vehicle
weight, which reduces the fuel
efficiency (and thus increases the CO2
emissions) of the vehicle. Using MY
2010 as a baseline, this section
discusses the effects of other
government regulations on MYs 2014–
2016 medium and heavy-duty vehicle
fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions. At
this time, no known safety standards
will affect new models in MY 2017 or
2018. NHTSA’s estimates are based on
cost and weight tear-down studies of a
few vehicles and cannot possibly cover
all the variations in the manufacturers’
fleets. NHTSA also requested, and
various manufacturers provided,
confidential estimates of increases in
weight resulting from safety
improvements. Those increases are
shown in subsequent tables.
We have broken down our analysis of
the impact of safety standards that
might affect the MYs 2014–2016 fleets
into three parts: (1) Those NHTSA final
rules with known effective dates, (2)
proposed rules or soon-to-be proposed
rules by NHTSA with or without final

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Vocational
vehicles

$0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.3
2.7
5.2
10.5
32.6
43.4
50.1
541
231

effective dates, and (3) currently
voluntary safety improvements planned
by the manufacturers.
(1) Weight Impacts of Required Safety
Standards
NHTSA has undertaken several
rulemakings in which several standards
would become effective for mediumand heavy-duty (MD/HD) vehicles
between MY 2014 and MY 2016. We
will examine the potential impact on
MD/HD vehicle weights for MYs 2014–
2016 using MY 2010 as a baseline.
• FMVSS 119, Heavy Truck Tires
Endurance and High Speed Tests.
• FMVSS 121, Air Brake Systems
Stopping Distance.
• FMVSS 214, Motor Coach Lap/
Shoulder Belts.
• MD/HD Vehicle Electronic Stability
Control Systems.
(a) FMVSS 119, Heavy Truck Tires
Endurance and High Speed Tests
NHTSA tentatively determined that
the FMVSS No. 119 performance tests
developed in 1973 should be updated to
reflect the increased operational speeds
and duration of truck tires in
commercial service. A Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was
issued December 7, 2010 (75 FR 60036).
It proposed to increase significantly the
stringency of the endurance test and to
add a new high speed test. The data in
the large truck crash causation study
(LTCCS) that preceded that NPRM
found that J and L load range tires were
having proportionately more problems

PO 00000

Frm 00239

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Combination
tractor

$0.0
0.0
1.4
2.6
3.8
6.2
8.5
12.7
25.8
35.1
41.3
468
210

$0.0
0.0
8.0
14.3
19.6
26.7
33.8
46.2
82.9
100.5
116.1
1,467
685

Total
$0.0
0.0
9.6
17.3
24.6
35.6
47.5
69.3
141
179
207
2,476
1,126

than the other sizes and the agency’s
test results indicate that H, J, and L load
range tires are more likely to fail the
proposed requirements among the
targeted F, G, H, J and L load range
tires.546 To address these problems, the
H and J load range tires could
potentially use improved rubber
compounds, which would add no
weight to the tires, to reduce heat
retention and improve the durability of
the tires. The L load range tires, in
contrast, appear to need to use high
tensile strength steel chords in the tire
bead, carcass and belt areas, which
would enable a weight reduction with
no strength penalties. Thus, if the
update to FMVSS No. 119 was finalized,
we anticipate no change in weight for H
and J load range tires and a small
reduction in weight for L load range
tires. This proposal could become a
final rule with an effective date of MY
2016.
(b) FMVSS No. 121, Airbrake Systems
Stopping Distance
FMVSS No. 121 contains performance
and equipment requirements for braking
systems on vehicles with air brake
systems. The most recent major final
rule affecting FMVSS No. 121 was
published on July 27, 2009, and became
effective on November 24, 2009 (MY
2009). The final rule requires the vast
546 ‘‘Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis,
FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536 kg
(10,000 pounds), June 2010.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57344

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

majority of new heavy truck tractors
(approximately 99 percent of the fleet)
to achieve a 30 percent reduction in
stopping distance compared to currently
required levels. Three-axle tractors with
a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
59,600 pounds or less must meet the
reduced stopping distance requirements
by August 1, 2011 (MY 2011), while
two-axle tractors and tractors with a
GVWR above 59,600 pounds must meet
the reduced stopping distance
requirements by the later date of August
1, 2013 (MY 2013). NHTSA determined
that there are several brake systems that
can meet the requirements established
in the final rule, including installation
of larger S-cam drum brakes or disc
brake systems at all positions, or hybrid
disc and larger rear S-cam drum brake
systems.
According to data provided by a
manufacturer (Bendix) in response to
the NPRM, the heaviest drum brakes
weigh more than the lightest disc
brakes, while the heaviest disc brakes
weigh more than the lightest drum
brakes. For a three-axle tractor equipped
with all disc brakes, then, the total
weight could increase by 212 pounds or
could decrease by 134 pounds
compared to an all-drum-braked tractor,
depending on which disc or drum
brakes are used for comparison. The
improved brakes may add a small
amount of weight to the affected
vehicles for MYs 2014–2016, resulting
in a slight increase in fuel consumption.
(c) FMVSS No. 208, Motorcoach Lap/
Shoulder Belts
NHTSA is proposing lap/shoulder
belts for all motorcoach seats. About

2,000 motorcoaches are sold per year in
the United States. Based on preliminary
results from the agency’s cost/weight
teardown studies of motor coach
seats,547 NHTSA estimates that the
weight added by 3-point lap/shoulder
belts ranges from 5.96 to 9.95 pounds
per 2-person seat. This is the weight
only of the seat belt assembly itself, and
does not include changing the design of
the seat, reinforcing the floor, walls or
other areas of the motor coach. Few
current production motor coaches have
been installed with lap/shoulder belts
on their seats, and the number of
vehicles with these belts already
installed could be negligible. Assuming
a 54 passenger motor coach, the added
weight for the 3-point lap/shoulder belt
assembly would be in the range of 161
to 269 pounds (27 * (5.96 to 9.95)) per
vehicle. This proposal could become a
final rule with an effective date of MY
2016.
(d) Electronic Stability Control Systems
(ESC) for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
(MD/HD) Vehicles
The purpose of an ESC system for
MD/HD vehicles is to reduce crashes
caused by rollover or by directional
loss-of-control. ESC monitors a vehicle’s
rollover threshold and lateral stability
using vehicle speed, wheel speed,
steering wheel angle, lateral
acceleration, side slip and yaw rate data
and upon sensing an impending rollover
or loss of directional control situation
automatically reduces engine throttle
and applies braking forces to individual
wheels or sets of wheel to slow the
vehicle down and regain directional

control. ESC is not currently required in
MD/HD vehicles, but could be proposed
to be required in these vehicles by
NHTSA. FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and
electric brake systems, requires
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks
and buses with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) to be equipped
with an antilock brake system (ABS).
All MD/HD vehicles having a GVWR of
more than 10,000 pounds, are required
to have ABS installed by that standard.
In addition to the existing ABS
functionality, ESC requires sensors
including a yaw rate sensor, lateral
acceleration sensor, steering angle
sensor and brake pressure sensor along
with a brake solenoid valve. According
to data provided by Meritor WABCO,
the weight of an ESC system for the
model 4S4M tractor is estimated to be
around 55.5 pounds, and the weight of
the ABS only is estimated to be 45.5
pounds. Thus, we estimate the added
weight for the ESC for the vehicle to be
10 (55.5–45.5) pounds.
(2) Summary—Overview of Anticipated
Weight Increases
Table VIII–28 summarizes estimates
made by NHTSA regarding the weight
added by the above discussed standards
or likely rulemakings. NHTSA estimates
that weight additions required by final
rules and likely NHTSA regulations
effective in MY 2016 compared to the
MY 2010 fleet will increase motor coach
vehicle weight by 171 to 279 pounds
and will increase other heavy-duty truck
weights by 10 pounds.

TABLE VIII–28—WEIGHT ADDITIONS DUE TO FINAL RULES OR LIKELY NHTSA REGULATIONS: COMPARING MY 2016 TO
THE MY 2010 BASELINE FLEET
Added weight in
pounds MD/HD
vehicle

Standard No.
119 ...................................................................................................................................................................
121 ...................................................................................................................................................................
208 Motor coaches only ..................................................................................................................................
MD/HD Vehicle Electronic Stability Control Systems ......................................................................................
Total Motor coaches ........................................................................................................................................
Total All other MD/HD vehicles .......................................................................................................................

Added weight in
kilograms MD/
HD vehicle

0

0

a0

a0

161–269
10
171–279
10

73–122
4.5
77.5–126.5
4.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Note:
a NHTSA’s final rule on Air Brakes, docket NHTSA–2009–0083, dated July 27, 2009, concluded that a small amount of weight would be added
to the brake systems but a weight value was not provided.

547 Cost and Weight Analysis of Two Motorcoach
Seating Systems: One With and One Without Three-

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Point Lap/Shoulder Belt Restraints, Ludtke and
Associates, July 2010.

PO 00000

Frm 00240

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Effects of Vehicle Mass Reduction on
Safety
NHTSA and EPA have been
considering the effect of vehicle weight
on vehicle safety for the past several
years in the context of our joint
rulemaking for light-duty vehicle CAFE
and GHG standards, consistent with
NHTSA’s long-standing consideration of
safety effects in setting CAFE standards.
Combining all modes of impact, the
latest analysis by NHTSA for the lightduty 2012–2016 MY vehicle rule 548
found that reducing the weight of the
heavier light trucks (LT > 3,870) had a
positive overall effect on safety,
reducing societal fatalities.
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 program. We
intend to continue monitoring this issue
going forward, and may take steps in a
future rulemaking if it appears that the
MD/HD fuel efficiency and GHG
standards have unforeseen safety
consequences. The American Chemistry
Council stated in comments to the
agencies that plastics and plastic
composite materials provide a new way
to lighten vehicles while maintaining
passenger safety. They added that
properties of plastics including strength
to weight ratio, energy absorption, and
flexible design make these materials
well suited for the manufacture of
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. They
submitted supporting analyses with
their comments. The National School
Transportation Association stated that
added structural integrity requirements
increase weight of school buses, and
thus decrease fuel economy. They asked
that if there are safety and fuel economy
trade-offs, manufacturers should be able
to receive a waiver from the regulation’s

57345

requirements. Since no weight
reduction is required for school buses—
or any other vocational vehicle—the
agencies do not believe this is an issue
with the current regulation.
L. Summary of Costs and Benefits
In this section, the agencies present a
summary of costs, benefits, and net
benefits of the HD National program.
Table VIII–29 shows the estimated
annual monetized costs of the final
program for the indicated calendar
years. The table also shows the net
present values of those costs for the
calendar years 2012–2050 using both 3
percent and 7 percent discount rates.549
Table VIII–30 shows the estimated
annual monetized fuel savings of the
final program. The table also shows the
net present values of those fuel savings
for the same calendar years using both
3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.
In this table, the aggregate value of fuel
savings is calculated using pre-tax fuel
prices since savings in fuel taxes do not
represent a reduction in the value of
economic resources utilized in
producing and consuming fuel. Note
that fuel savings shown here result from
reductions in fleet-wide fuel use. Thus,
they grow over time as an increasing
fraction of the fleet meets the 2018
standards.

TABLE VIII–29—ESTIMATED MONETIZED COSTS OF THE FINAL PROGRAM
[Millions, 2009$] a

Technology Costs ............................................................

2020

2030

2040

2050

NPV, Years
2012–2050, 3%
discount rate

NPV, Years
2012–2050, 7%
discount rate

$2,000

$2,200

$2,700

$3,300

$47,400

$24,700

Note:
a Technology costs for separate truck segments can be found in Section VIII.B.1.

TABLE VIII–30—ESTIMATED FUEL SAVINGS OF THE FINAL PROGRAM
[Millions, 2009$] a

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .....................................................

2020

2030

2040

2050

NPV, Years
2012–2050, 3%
discount rate

NPV, Years
2012–2050, 7%
discount rate

$9,600

$20,600

$28,000

$36,500

$375,300

$166,500

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Note:
a Fuel savings for separate truck segments can be found in Section VIII.B.1.

Table VIII–31 presents estimated
annual monetized benefits for the
indicated calendar years. The table also
shows the net present values of those
benefits for the calendar years 2012–
2050 using both 3 percent and 7 percent

discount rates. The table shows the
benefits of reduced CO2 emissions—and
consequently the annual quantified
benefits (i.e., total benefits)—for each of
four SCC values estimated by the
interagency working group. As

548 ‘‘Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Corporate
Average Fuel Economy for MY 2012—MY 2016
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks’’, NHTSA, March
2010, (Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0059–0344.1).

549 For the estimation of the stream of costs and
benefits, we assume that after implementation of
the final MY 2014–2017 standards, the 2017
standards apply to each year out to 2050.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00241

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

discussed in the RIA Section 9.4, there
are some limitations to the SCC
analysis, including the incomplete way
in which the integrated assessment
models capture catastrophic and noncatastrophic impacts, their incomplete

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57346

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

treatment of adaptation and
technological change, uncertainty in the
extrapolation of damages to high
temperatures, and assumptions
regarding risk aversion.

In addition, these monetized GHG
benefits exclude the value of net
reductions in non-CO2 GHG emissions
(CH4, N2O, HFC) expected under this
action. Although EPA has not
monetized the benefits of reductions in

non-CO2 GHGs, the value of these
reductions should not be interpreted as
zero. Rather, the net reductions in nonCO2 GHGs will contribute to this
program’s climate benefits, as explained
in Section VI.D.

TABLE VIII–31—MONETIZED BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL PROGRAM
[Millions, 2009$]
2020

2030

2040

NPV, Years
2012–2050, 3%
discount rate a

2050

NPV, Years
2012–2050, 7%
discount rate a

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value b
5% (avg SCC) ..................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ..................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...............................................................
3% (95th percentile) .........................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ............................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise f ........................................
Refueling Savings ............................................................
Non-GHG Impacts c d ........................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts e .................................................

$300
1,000
1,600
3,100
500
¥200
100
B
n/a

$700
2,500
3,800
7,500
1,100
¥400
100
2,800
n/a

$1,200
3,600
5,400
11,100
1,500
¥600
200
2,800
n/a

$1,700
4,800
7,000
14,600
1,700
¥600
200
2,800
n/a

$9,000
46,100
78,000
140,400
19,800
¥7,900
2,500
25,300
n/a

$9,000
46,100
78,000
140,400
8,800
¥3,700
1,100
9,100
n/a

48,700
85,800
117,700
180,100

24,300
61,400
93,300
155,700

Total Annual Benefits at each assumed SCC value b
5% (avg SCC) ..................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ..................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...............................................................
3% (95th percentile) .........................................................

700
1,400
2,000
3,500

4,300
6,100
7,400
11,100

5,100
7,500
9,300
15,000

5,800
8,900
11,100
18,700

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the
SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. See
Section VIII.F.
c Note that ‘‘B’’ indicates unquantified criteria pollutant benefits in the year 2020. For the analysis of the final program, we only modeled the
rule’s PM2.5- and ozone-related impacts in the calendar year 2030. For the purposes of estimating a stream of future-year criteria pollutant benefits, we assume that the benefits out to 2050 are equal to, and no less than, those modeled in 2030 as reflected by the stream of estimated future emission reductions. The NPV of criteria pollutant-related benefits should therefore be considered a conservative estimate of the potential
benefits associated with the final program.
d Non-GHG-related health and welfare impacts (related to PM
2.5 and ozone exposure) range between $1,300 and $4,200 million in 2030, 2040,
and 2050. $2,800 was chosen as the mid-point of this range for the purposes of estimating total benefits across all monetized categories.
e The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO GHG emissions expected under this pro2
gram (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be
interpreted as zero.
f Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

Table VIII–32 presents estimated
annual net benefits for the indicated
calendar years. The table also shows the
net present values of those net benefits

for the calendar years 2012–2050 using
both 3 percent and 7 percent discount
rates. The table includes the benefits of
reduced CO2 emissions (and

consequently the annual net benefits)
for each of four SCC values considered
by EPA.

TABLE VIII–32—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL PROGRAM
[Millions, 2009$]
2020
Technology Costs ....................................
Fuel Savings ............................................

2030

$2,000
9,600

2040

$2,200
20,600

NPV, 3% a

2050

$2,700
28,000

NPV, 7% a

$3,300
36,500

$47,400
375,300

$24,700
166,500

5,800
8,900
11,100
18,700

48,700
85,800
117,700
180,100

24,300
61,400
93,300
155,700

39,000
42,100

376,600
413,700

166,100
203,200

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Total Annual Benefits at each assumed SCC value b
5% (avg SCC) ..........................................
3% (avg SCC) ..........................................
2.5% (avg SCC) .......................................
3% (95th percentile) .................................

700
1,400
2,000
3,500

4,300
6,100
7,400
11,100

5,100
7,500
9,300
15,000

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value c
5% (avg SCC) ..........................................
3% (avg SCC) ..........................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

8,300
9,000

PO 00000

Frm 00242

22,700
24,500

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

30,400
32,800

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57347

TABLE VIII–32—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL PROGRAM—Continued
[Millions, 2009$]
2020
2.5% (avg SCC) .......................................
3% (95th percentile) .................................

2030

9,600
11,100

2040

25,800
29,500

NPV, 3% a

2050

34,600
40,300

44,300
51,900

445,600
508,000

NPV, 7% a
235,100
297,500

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the
SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c Net Benefits equal Fuel Savings minus Technology Costs plus Benefits.

EPA also conducted a separate
analysis of the total benefits over the
model year lifetimes of the 2014 through
2018 model year trucks. In contrast to
the calendar year analysis presented
above in Table VIII–29 through Table

VIII–32, the model year lifetime analysis
below shows the impacts of the final
program on vehicles produced during
each of the model years 2014 through
2018 over the course of their expected
lifetimes. The net societal benefits over

the full lifetimes of vehicles produced
during each of the five model years from
2014 through 2018 are shown in Table
VIII–33 and Table VIII–34 at both 3
percent and 7 percent discount rates,
respectively.

TABLE VIII–33—MONETIZED TECHNOLOGY COSTS, FUEL SAVINGS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
LIFETIMES OF 2014–2018 MODEL YEAR TRUCKS
[Millions, 2009$; 3% Discount Rate]
2014 MY
Technology Costs ....................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .............................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ....
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ................
Refueling Savings ....................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG
Impactsc d ..............................................

2015 MY

2016 MY

2017 MY

2018 MY

Sum

$1,600
9,300
500
¥300
60

$1,400
8,300
400
¥300
60

$1,500
8,100
400
¥300
60

$1,600
11,500
600
¥300
80

$2,000
12,900
700
¥300
100

$8,100
50,100
2,700
¥1,500
400

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

300
1,300
2,100
4,000

300
1,500
2,400
4,500

1,200
5,700
9,400
17,000

10,600
11,600
12,400
14,300

11,700
12,900
13,800
15,900

44,800
49,300
53,000
60,600

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b
5% (avg SCC) ..........................................
3% (avg SCC) ..........................................
2.5% (avg SCC) .......................................
3% (95th percentile) .................................

200
1,100
1,800
3,300

200
900
1,600
2,900

200
900
1,500
2,800

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a,b
5% (avg SCC) ..........................................
3% (avg SCC) ..........................................
2.5% (avg SCC) .......................................
3% (95th percentile) .................................

8,200
9,100
9,800
11,300

7,300
8,000
8,700
10,000

7,000
7,700
8,300
9,600

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the
SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO GHG emissions expected under this action
2
(See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
d Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis.
2
2
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

TABLE VIII–34—MONETIZED TECHNOLOGY COSTS, FUEL SAVINGS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
LIFETIMES OF 2014–2018 MODEL YEAR TRUCKS
[Millions, 2009$; 7% Discount Rate]
2014 MY
Technology Costs ....................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .............................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ....
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

$1,600
6,900
400
¥200

PO 00000

Frm 00243

2015 MY

2016 MY

$1,400
5,900
300
¥200

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

$1,500
5,600
300
¥200

2017 MY
$1,600
7,600
400
¥200

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

2018 MY
$2,000
8,300
400
¥200

Sum
$8,100
34,400
1,800
¥1,000

57348

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VIII–34—MONETIZED TECHNOLOGY COSTS, FUEL SAVINGS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
LIFETIMES OF 2014–2018 MODEL YEAR TRUCKS—Continued
[Millions, 2009$; 7% Discount Rate]
2014 MY
Refueling Savings ....................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG
Impacts c d .............................................

2015 MY

2016 MY

2017 MY

2018 MY

Sum

50

40

40

60

60

200

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

300
1,300
2,100
4,000

300
1,500
2,400
4,500

1,200
5,700
9,400
17,000

6,600
7,600
8,400
10,300

6,900
8,100
9,000
11,100

28,500
33,000
36,700
44,300

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b
5% (avg SCC) ..........................................
3% (avg SCC) ..........................................
2.5% (avg SCC) .......................................
3% (95th percentile) .................................

200
1,100
1,800
3,300

200
900
1,600
2,900

200
900
1,500
2,800

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC valuea b
5% (avg SCC) ..........................................
3% (avg SCC) ..........................................
2.5% (avg SCC) .......................................
3% (95th percentile) .................................

5,800
6,700
7,400
8,900

4,800
5,500
6,200
7,500

4,400
5,100
5,700
7,000

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the
SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO GHG emissions expected under this action
2
(See RIA chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
d Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis.
2
2
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

Table VIII–35 and Table VIII–36 show
similar model year estimates to those
provided above in Table VIII–33 and
Table VIII–34, but reflect specific
differences in the NHTSA HD program
over the 3 mandatory model years of

that program. These include no HD
diesel engine impacts prior to MY 2017,
assumption of the NHTSA phase-in
schedule for HD pickup trucks and vans
which achieves 3 year phase-in stability
(67%-67%-67%-100% in MY 2016–

2019 respectively), the inclusion of
combination tractors from MY 2016
forward, and the exclusion of RVs,
which are not regulated by NHTSA.

TABLE VIII–35—MONETIZED TECHNOLOGY COSTS, FUEL SAVINGS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
LIFETIMES OF 2016–2018 MODEL YEAR TRUCKS
[Millions, 2009$; 3% Discount Rate]
2016 MY
Technology Costs ............................................................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .....................................................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ............................................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ........................................................................
Refueling Savings ............................................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c d .........................................

2017 MY

$1,500
5,500
300
¥300
40
n/a

2018 MY

Sum

$1,600
10,900
600
¥300
80
n/a

$1,700
11,500
600
¥300
80
n/a

$5,200
27,900
1,500
¥900
200
n/a

300
1,200
2,000
3,800

300
1,300
2,200
4,000

700
3,100
5,200
9,700

10,000
10,900
11,700
13,500

10,500
11,500
12,400
14,200

24,200
26,600
28,700
33,200

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b
5% (avg SCC) ..................................................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ..................................................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...............................................................................................
3% (95th percentile) ........................................................................................

100
600
1,000
1,900

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a b
5% (avg SCC) ..................................................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ..................................................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...............................................................................................
3% (95th percentile) ........................................................................................

4,100
4,600
5,000
5,900

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the
SCC TSD for more detail.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00244

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57349

b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO GHG emissions expected under this pro2
gram (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be
interpreted as zero.
d Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis.
2
2
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

TABLE VIII–36—MONETIZED TECHNOLOGY COSTS, FUEL SAVINGS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
LIFETIMES OF 2016–2018 MODEL YEAR TRUCKS
[Millions, 2009$; 7% Discount Rate]
2016 MY
Technology Costs ............................................................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .....................................................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ............................................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ........................................................................
Refueling Savings ............................................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c d .........................................

2017 MY

$1,500
3,800
200
¥200
30
n/a

2018 MY

Sum

$1,600
7,200
400
¥200
50
n/a

$1,700
7,300
400
¥200
50
n/a

$5,200
18,300
1,000
¥600
130
n/a

300
1,200
2,000
3,800

300
1,300
2,200
4,000

700
3,100
5,200
9,700

6,200
7,100
7,900
9,700

6,200
7,200
8,100
9,900

14,300
16,700
18,800
23,300

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b
5% (avg SCC) ..................................................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ..................................................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...............................................................................................
3% (95th percentile) ........................................................................................

100
600
1,000
1,900

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a b
5% (avg SCC) ..................................................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ..................................................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...............................................................................................
3% (95th percentile) ........................................................................................

2,400
2,900
3,300
4,200

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the
SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO GHG emissions expected under this pro2
gram (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be
interpreted as zero.
d Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis.
2
2
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

M. Employment Impacts

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(1) Introduction
Although analysis of employment
impacts is not part of a cost-benefit
analysis (except to the extent that labor
costs contribute to costs), employment
impacts of federal rules are of particular
concern in the current economic climate
of sizeable unemployment. The recently
issued Executive Order 13563,
‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review’’ (January 18, 2011), states, ‘‘Our
regulatory system must protect public
health, welfare, safety, and our
environment while promoting economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness,
and job creation’’ (emphasis added).
Although EPA and NHTSA did not
undertake an employment analysis of
the proposed rules, several commenters
suggested that we undertake an
employment analysis for the final
rulemaking. Consistent with Executive
order 13563, we have provided a

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

discussion of the potential employment
impacts of the Heavy-Duty National
Program.
In recent rulemakings, EPA has
generally focused its employment
analysis on the regulated sector and the
suppliers of pollution abatement
equipment. However, in this action, the
agencies are offering qualitative
assessment for related industries of
interest. For the regulated sector, the
agencies rely on Morgenstern et al. for
guidance.550 Our general conclusion is
that employment impacts in the
regulated sector (truck and engine
manufacturing) and the parts sectors
depend on a combination of factors,
some of which are positive, and some of
which can be positive or negative. In the
related industries, the analysis
550 Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer,
and Jhih-Shyang Shih. ‘‘Jobs Versus the
Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective.’’
Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 43 (2002): 412–436.

PO 00000

Frm 00245

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

concludes that effects on employment in
the transport and shipping sectors are
ambiguous; the fuel supplying sectors
may face reduced employment; and
there may be increased general
employment due to reduction in costs
that may be passed along to the
transport industry and thus to the
public. Because measuring employment
effects depends on a variety of inputs
and assumptions, some of which are
known with more certainty than others,
and because we did not include an
employment analysis in the NPRM and
provide opportunity for public comment
on the methods, we here present a
qualitative discussion. Because the
discussion is qualitative, we do not sum
the net effects on employment. We also
note that the employment effects may be
different in the immediate
implementation phase than in the
ongoing compliance phase; this analysis

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57350

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

focuses on the longer-term effects rather
than the immediate effects.
When the economy is at full
employment, an environmental
regulation is unlikely to have much
impact on net overall U.S. employment;
instead, labor would primarily be
shifted from one sector to another.
These shifts in employment impose an
opportunity cost on society,
approximated by the wages of the
employees, as regulation diverts
workers from other activities in the
economy.551 In this situation, any
effects on net employment are likely to
be transitory as workers change jobs.
(For example, some workers may need
to be retrained or require time to search
for new jobs, while shortages in some
sectors or regions could bid up wages to
attract workers).552
It is also true that, if a regulation
comes into effect during a period of high
unemployment, a change in labor
demand due to regulation may affect net
overall U.S. employment because the
labor market is not in equilibrium.
Either negative or positive effects are
possible. Schmalansee and Stavins 553
point out that net positive employment
effects are possible in the near term
when the economy is at less than full
employment due to the potential hiring
of idle labor resources by the regulated
sector to meet new requirements (e.g., to
install new equipment) and new
economic activity in sectors related to
the regulated sector. In the longer run,
the net effect on employment is more
difficult to predict and will depend on
the way in which the related industries
respond to the regulatory requirements.
As Schmalansee and Stavins note, it is
possible that the magnitude of the effect
on employment could vary over time,
region, and sector, and positive effects
on employment in some regions or
sectors could be offset by negative
effects in other regions or sectors. For
this reason, they urge caution in
reporting partial employment effects
since it can ‘‘paint an inaccurate picture
of net employment impacts if not placed
in the broader economic context.’’
This rulemaking is expected to have
a relatively small effect on net
employment in the United States
through the regulated sector—the truck

and engine manufacturer industry—and
several related sectors, specifically,
industries that supply the truck and
engine manufacturing industry (e.g.,
truck parts), the trucking industry itself,
other industries involved in
transporting goods (e.g., rail and
shipping), the petroleum refining sector,
and the retail sector. According to the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about
1.25 million people were employed in
the truck transportation industry and
about 675,000 people were employed in
the motor vehicle parts industry
between 2010 and 2011.554 Although
heavy-duty vehicles (HD) account for
approximately 4 percent of the vehicles
on the road, these vehicles consume
more than 20 percent of on-road
gasoline and diesel fuel use. As
discussed in Chapter 5 of the RIA, this
rulemaking is predicted to reduce the
amount of fuel these vehicles use, and
thus affect the petroleum refinery
industry. The petroleum refinery
industry employed about 65,000 people
in the U.S. in 2009, the most recent year
that employment estimates are available
for this sector.555 Finally, since the net
reduction in cost associated with these
rules is expected to lead to lower
transportation and shipping costs, in a
competitive market a substantial portion
of those cost savings will be passed
along to consumers, who then will have
additional discretionary income (how
much of the cost is passed along to
consumers depends on market structure
and the relative price elasticities).
Several commenters suggested that
the HD vehicle rules would lead to an
increase in employment in affected
sectors by offering the potential for new
employment opportunities in the design
and production of new vehicle
technologies. Also, these commenters
suggested that since the U.S.
manufacturers and suppliers are leaders
in certain advanced truck technologies,
this program has the potential to help
them consolidate their leadership and
thrive in a global market. In this context,
several commenters referred to an
assessment by the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) and CalStart of the
economic and employment benefits of
the improved efficiency in HD
vehicles.556 The study predicts an

551 Schmalensee, Richard, and Robert N. Stavins.
‘‘A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis of EPA’s
Transport Rule.’’ White paper commissioned by
Excelon Corporation, March 2011.
552 Although the employment level would not
change substantially, there would be costs to the
workers associated with shifting from one activity
to another. Jacobson, Louis S., Robert J. LaLonde,
and Daniel G. Sullivan, ‘‘Earnings Losses of
Displaced Workers.’’ American Economic Review
83(4) (1993): 685–709.
553 Ibid.

554 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonallyadjusted Current Employment Statistics Survey for
the Truck Transportation Industry (NAICS 484) and
the Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing Industry
(NAICS 3363).
555 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 Annual Survey of
Manufactures, Published December 3, 2010.
556 Union of Concerned Scientists and CalStart,
Delivering Jobs: The Economic Costs and Benefits
of Improving Fuel Economy of Heavy Duty
Vehicles, July, 2010. http://www.ucsusa.org/
deliveringjobs.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00246

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

increase in tens of thousands of jobs
between 2020 and 2030, as result of
higher fuel efficiency for HD vehicles.
While the commenters find
unambiguous employment increases as
a result of this program, we find
employment impacts to involve some
complexity, as the discussion that
follows shows. In addition, these
quantitative estimates were derived
using a standard input-output model,
though the estimates themselves have
not yet been peer reviewed. Inputoutput (I/O) models do not account for
opportunity costs of labor—that is, all
employment needs due to the regulatory
change will be met by unemployed
workers. In addition, I/O models assume
no changes in the average use of labor
per dollar of output in the affected
sectors. For these and other reasons,
these may at best be considered an
imprecise upper bound on actual
employment impacts.557
Other commenters suggested that the
rulemaking could have a negative
impact on jobs if the rule was not
appropriate, cost effective, and
technologically feasible. These
comments focused on the commenter’s
concern that the desirability, and
therefore sales, of certain vehicles could
be diminished by a poorly designed
rule, or that customers of RVs in
particular would not value fuel savings
technologies. The preceding discussion
of the conceptual framework suggests
some potential reasons why consumers
may not value fuel savings technologies.
If vehicle sales decrease as the
comments suggest such an impact could
lead to job losses. Such comments were
submitted by the National RV Dealers
Association (RVDA) and the National
Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA).
Determining the direction of
employment effects even in the
regulated industry may be difficult due
to the presence of competing effects that
lead to an ambiguous adjustment in
employment as a result of
environmental regulation. Morgenstern,
Pizer and Shih identify three separate
ways that employment levels may
change in the regulated industry in
response to a new (or more stringent)
regulation.558
• Demand effect: Higher production
costs due to the regulation will lead to
higher market prices; higher prices in
turn reduce demand for the good,
reducing the demand for labor to make
557 Berck, Peter, and Sandra Hoffman. ‘‘Assessing
the Employment Impacts of Environmental and
Natural Resource Policy.’’ Environmental and
Resource Economics 22 (2002): 133–156.
558 See Morgenstern et al (2002), Note 550, above.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

that good. In the authors’ words, the
‘‘extent of this effect depends on the
cost increase passed on to consumers as
well as the demand elasticity of
industry output’’.
• Cost effect: As costs go up, plants
add more capital and labor (holding
other factors constant), with potentially
positive effects on employment; in the
authors’ words, as ‘‘production costs
rise, more inputs, including labor, are
used to produce the same amount of
output’’.
• Factor-shift effect: Post-regulation
production technologies may be more or
less labor-intensive (i.e., more/less labor
is required per dollar of output) (‘‘factorshift effect’’). In the authors’ words,
‘‘environmental activities may be more
labor intensive than conventional
production,’’ meaning that ‘‘the amount
of labor per dollar of output will rise,’’
though it is also possible that ‘‘cleaner
operations could involve automation
and less employment, for example’’.
The ‘‘demand effect’’ is expected to
have a negative effect on employment,
the ‘‘cost effect’’ to have a positive effect
on employment, and the ‘‘factor-shift
effect’’ has an ambiguous effect on
employment. Without more information
with respect to the magnitudes of these
competing effects, it is not possible to
predict the total effect environmental
regulation will have on employment
levels in a regulated sector.
Morgenstern et al. estimated the
effects on employment of spending on
pollution abatement for four highly
polluting/regulated industries (pulp and
paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum
refining). They conclude that increased
abatement expenditures generally have
not caused a significant change in
employment in those sectors. More
specifically, their results show that, on
average across the industries studied,
each additional $1 million spent on
pollution abatement results in a
(statistically insignificant) net increase
of 1.5 jobs. While the specific sectors
Morgenstern et al. examined are
different than the sectors considered
here, the methodology that Morgenstern
et al. developed is still useful in this
context.
(2) Overview of Affected Sectors
The above discussion focuses on
employment changes in the regulated
sector, but the regulated sector is not the
only source of changes in employment.
In these rules, the regulated sectors are
truck and engine manufacturers; they
are responsible for meeting the
standards set in these rules. The effects
of these rules are also likely to have
impacts beyond the directly regulated
sector. Some of the related sectors

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

which these rules are also likely to
impact include: motor vehicle parts
producers, to the extent that the truck
and engine industries purchase
components rather than manufacture
them in-house; shipping and transport,
because many companies in this sector
purchase trucks and their operating
costs will be affected by both higher
truck prices and fuel savings; oil
refineries due to reduced demand for
petroleum-based fuels; and the final
retail market, which is where any net
cost reductions due to fuel savings are
ultimately expected to be experienced.
We acknowledge that there may be
impacts in other sectors that are not
discussed here, but we have sought to
include the sectors where we think the
impacts are most direct. The following
discussion describes the direction of
impacts on employment in these
industries. The effects of the HD
National Program on net U.S.
employment depend, not only on their
relative magnitudes, but also on
employment levels in the overall
economy. As previously discussed, in a
full-employment economy these sectorspecific impacts will be mostly offset by
employment changes elsewhere in the
economy and would not be expected to
result in a net change in jobs. However,
in an economy with significant
unemployment these changes may affect
net employment in the U.S.
(a) Truck and Engine Manufacturers
The regulated sector consists of truck
and engine manufacturers. Employment
associated with manufacturing trucks
and engines may be affected by the
demand, cost, and factor-shift effects.
Demand Effect
The demand effect depends on the
effects of this rulemaking on HD vehicle
sales. If vehicle sales increase, then
more people will be required to
assemble trucks and their components.
If vehicle sales decrease, employment
associated with these activities will
unambiguously decrease. The effects of
this rulemaking on HD vehicle sales
depend on the perceived desirability of
the new vehicles. Unlike in Morgenstern
et al.’s study, where the demand effect
decreased employment, there are
countervailing possibilities in the HD
market due to the fuel savings resulting
from this program. On one hand, this
rulemaking will increase vehicle costs;
by itself, this effect would reduce
vehicle sales. In addition, while
decreases in vehicle performance would
also decrease sales, this program is not
expected to have any negative effect on
vehicle performance. On the other hand,
this rulemaking will reduce the fuel

PO 00000

Frm 00247

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57351

costs of operating the vehicle; by itself,
this effect would increase vehicle sales,
especially if potential buyers have an
expectation of higher fuel prices. The
agencies have not made an estimate of
the potential change in vehicle sales.
However as discussed in Preamble
Section VIII.E.5 the agencies have
estimated an increase in vehicle miles
traveled (i.e., VMT rebound) due to the
reduced operating costs of trucks
meeting these new standards. Since
increased VMT is most likely to be met
with more drivers and more trucks, our
projection of VMT rebound is suggestive
of an increase in vehicle sales and truck
driver employment (recognizing that
these increases may be partially offset
by a decrease in manufacturing and
sales for equipment of other modes of
transportation such as rail cars or
barges).
As discussed above in Section VIII.A,
the agencies find that the reduction in
fuel costs associated with this
rulemaking outweigh the increase in
vehicle cost. This finding is puzzling:
market forces should lead truck
manufacturers and buyers to install all
cost-effective fuel-saving technology,
but the agencies find that they have not.
Section VIII.A discusses various
hypotheses that have been suggested to
explain this phenomenon. Some of the
explanations suggest that vehicle
manufacturers and buyers will benefit
from the rulemaking, and vehicle sales
will increase; others suggest that the
opposite might occur. The agencies do
not have strong evidence supporting one
specific explanation over another.
However, some in the heavy-duty
industry indicate the potential for an
increase in jobs. As stated by Tom
Linebarger (President and Chief
Operating Officer of Cummins) and Fred
Krupp (President of the Environmental
Defense Fund), ‘‘Finally, strong
environmental standards play a crucial
role in getting innovations to market
that will create economic opportunity
for American companies and jobs for
American workers. * * * It helps that
Cummins and other forward-thinking
businesses view this as an opportunity
to innovate and increase international
market share.’’ 559
One commenter raised the issue of
whether there could be a loss of
recreation vehicle (RV) industry jobs
due to a reduction in the sales of motor
homes and towable RVs. As mentioned
559 Tom Linebarger (President and Chief
Operating Officer of Cummins) and Fred Krupp
(President of the Environmental Defense Fund),
‘‘Clear rules can create better engines, clean air,’’
Indianapolis Star, October 28, 2010, p. 19; included
as part of Cummins’ comments on the rule, Docket
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162–1765.1[1].

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57352

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

above, the effects of this rulemaking on
HD vehicle sales depend on the
desirability of the new vehicles.
Cost Effect
The truck and engine manufacturing
sector has great flexibility in how to
respond to the requirement for reduced
greenhouse gases and increasing fuel
efficiency, with a broad suite of
technologies being available to achieve
the standards. These technologies are
described in detail in Chapter 2 of the
RIA. Among these technologies, a
distinction can be made between
technologies that can be ‘‘added on’’ to
conventional trucks versus those that
replace features of a conventional truck.
‘‘Added on’’ features, such as auxiliary
power units, require additional labor to
install the technologies on trucks, thus
clearly increasing labor demand (the
‘‘cost effect’’). The pure cost effect
always increases employment, though
the net effect on the regulated industry
depends on its effects in combination
with the demand and factor-shift effects.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Factor-Shift Effect
For ‘‘replacement’’ technologies, the
predicted impact on labor demand from
regulation depends on the change in the
amount of labor used to build and
install one type of technology compared
to another. In some cases, the new
technologies are predicted to be more
complex than the existing technologies
and may therefore require additional
labor installation inputs. In other cases,
the opposite may be true: labor intensity
may be lower for some replacement
technologies.
Most of the technologies that are
expected to be used to meet these
standards are replacement technologies.
For example, almost all of the engine
improvements involve replacement
technologies that are not expected to
significantly change the labor
requirements. Similarly, regulations of
the chassis on vocational vehicles will
only require the installation of a
different type of tire, which is also not
expected to have large labor intensity
impacts. Therefore, the potential
magnitude of the factor shift effect is
expected to be relatively small, though
slightly positive due to the additional
labor needed to install more complex
technologies.
Summary for the Truck and Engine
Manufacturing Sector
For the truck and engine
manufacturing sector, the demand effect
may result in either increased or
decreased employment; the cost effect is
expected to increase employment; and
the factor-shift effect is expected to have

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

a small, possibly slightly positive effect
on employment in this sector. The net
effect on employment in this sector
depends on the sum of these factors.
(b) Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Sector
Some vehicle parts are made in-house
and would be included directly in the
regulated sector. Others are made by
independent suppliers and are not
directly regulated, but they will be
affected by the rules as well. The parts
manufacturing sector will be involved
primarily in providing ‘‘add-on’’ parts,
or components for replacement parts
built internally. If demand for these
parts increases due to the increased use
of these parts, employment effects in
this sector are expected to be positive.
If the demand effect in the regulated
sectors is significantly negative enough,
it is possible that demand for other parts
may decrease. As noted, the agencies do
not predict a direction for the demand
effect.
(c) Transport and Shipping Sectors
Although not directly regulated by
these rules, employment effects in the
transport and shipping sector are likely
to result from these regulations. If the
overall cost of shipping a ton of freight
decreases because of increased fuel
efficiency (taking into account the
increase in upfront purchasing costs), in
a perfectly competitive industry these
costs savings will be passed along to
customers. With lower prices, demand
for shipping would lead to an increase
in demand for truck shipping services
(consistent with the VMT rebound effect
analysis) and therefore an increase in
employment in the truck shipping
sector. In addition, if the relative cost of
shipping freight via trucks becomes
cheaper than shipping by other modes
(e.g., rail or barge), then employment in
the truck transport industry is likely to
increase. If the trucking industry is more
labor intensive than other modes, we
would expect this effect to lead to an
overall increase in employment in the
transport and shipping sectors.560 561
Such a shift would, however, be at the
expense of employment in the sectors
that are losing business to trucking. The
first effect—a gain due to lower
shipping costs—is likely to lead to a net
increase in employment. The second
560 American Transportation Research Institute,
‘‘An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking:
2011 Update.’’ See http://www.atri-online.org/
research/results/
Op_Costs_2011_Update_one_page_summary.pdf.
561 Association of American Railroads, ‘‘All
Inclusive Index and Rail Adjustment Factor.’’ June
3, 2011. See http://www.aar.org/∼/media/aar/
RailCostIndexes/AAR-RCAF-2011-Q3.ashx.

PO 00000

Frm 00248

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

effect, due to mode-shifting, may
increase employment in trucking, but
decreases in other shipping sectors.
(d) Fuel Suppliers
In addition to the effects on the
trucking industry and related truck parts
sector, these rules will result in
reductions in fuel use that lower GHG
emissions. Fuel saving, principally
reductions in liquid fuels such as diesel
and gasoline, will affect employment in
the fuel suppliers industry sectors,
principally the Petroleum Refinery
sector.562
Expected fuel consumption
reductions by fuel type, and by heavyduty vehicle type, can be found in Table
VIII–7. These reductions reflect impacts
from the new fuel efficiency and GHG
standards and include increased
consumption from the rebound effect.
These fuel savings are monetized in
Table VIII–8 by multiplying the reduced
fuel consumption in each year by the
corresponding estimated average fuel
price in that year, using the Reference
Case from the AEO 2011. In 2014, the
pre-tax fuel savings is $1.2 billion
(2009$). While these figures represent a
level of fuel savings for purchasers of
fuel, it also represents a loss in value of
output for the petroleum refinery
industry. Since 50 percent of the fuel
would have been refined in the U.S., the
loss in output to the U.S. Petroleum
Refinery sector is $600 million (2009$),
which will result in reduced sectoral
employment.563 Because this sector is
very capital-intensive, the employment
effect is not expected to be large.
(e) Fuel Savings
As a result of this rulemaking, it is
anticipated that trucking firms will
experience fuel savings. Fuel savings
lower the costs of transportation goods
and services. In a competitive market,
the fuel savings that initially accrue to
trucking firms are likely to be passed
along as lower transportation costs that,
in turn, could result in lower prices for
562 North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) Code 32411.
563 EPA and NHTSA estimate that approximately
50 percent of the reduction in fuel consumption
resulting from adopting improved fuel GHG
standards and fuel efficiency standards is likely to
be reflected in reduced U.S. imports of refined fuel,
while the remaining 50 percent is expected to be
reflected in reduced domestic fuel refining. Of this
latter figure, 90 percent is anticipated to reduce U.S.
imports of crude petroleum for use as a refinery
feedstock, while the remaining 10 percent is
expected to reduce U.S. domestic production of
crude petroleum. Because we do not expect to see
a significant reduction in crude oil production in
the U.S., we do not expect this rule to have a
significant impact on the Oil and Gas Extraction
industry sector in the U.S. (NAICS 211000). For
more information, refer to Section VIII–I on the
energy security impacts from the program.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
final goods and services. Alternatively,
the savings could be kept internally in
firms for investments or for returns to
firm owners. In either case, the savings
will accrue to some segment of
consumers: either owners of trucking
firms or the general public. In both
cases, the effect will be increased
spending by consumers in other sectors
of the economy, creating jobs in a
diverse set of sectors, including retail
and service industries.
As mentioned above, the value of fuel
savings from this rulemaking is
projected to be $1.2 billion (2009$) in
2014, according to Table VIII–8. If all
those savings are spent, the fuel savings
will stimulate increased employment in
the economy through those
expenditures. If the fuel savings accrue
primarily to firm owners, they may
either reinvest the money or take it as
profit. Reinvesting the money in firm
operations would increase employment
directly. If they take the money as profit,
to the extent that these owners are
wealthier than the general public, they
may spend less of the savings, and the
resulting employment impacts would be
smaller than if the savings went to the
public. Thus, while fuel savings are
expected to decrease employment in the
refinery sector, they are expected to
increase employment through increased
consumer expenditures.

with those activities. Lower prices for
shipping are expected to lead to an
increase in demand for truck shipping
services and, therefore, an increase in
employment in that sector, though this
effect may be offset somewhat by
changes in employment in other
shipping sectors. Reduced fuel
production implies less employment in
the fuel provision sectors. Finally, any
net cost savings would be expected to be
passed along to some segment of
consumers: either the general public or
the owners of trucking firms, who are
expected then to increase employment
through their expenditures. Given the
job creation as a result of the $1.2B
(2009$) in fuel savings in 2014 and the
possible employment increases in the
manufacturing and parts sectors, we
find it highly unlikely that there would
be significant net job losses related to
this policy. Given the current level of
unemployment, net positive
employment effects are possible,
especially in the near term, due to the
potential hiring of idle labor resources
by the regulated sector to plan for and
meet new requirements. In the future,
when full employment is expected to
return, any changes in employment
levels in the regulated sector due to this
program are mostly expected to be offset
by changes in employment in other
sectors.

(3) Summary of Employment Impacts
The net employment effects of this
rulemaking are expected to be found
throughout several key sectors: truck
and engine manufacturers, the trucking
industry, truck parts manufacturing,
fuel production, and consumers. For the
regulated sector, the demand effect may
result in either increased or decreased
employment, depending on the net
effect on HD vehicle sales; the cost
effect is expected to increase
employment in the regulated sector; and
the factor-shift effect is expected to have
a small, possibly slightly positive effect
on employment, though we cannot
definitively say this is the case without
quantification. The net effect depends
on the combination of these effects.
Increased expenditures by truck and
engine parts manufacturers are expected
to require increased labor to build parts,
though this effect also depends on any
changes in overall demand and on the
labor intensity of production of new
parts; increased complexity of
technologies may imply increased labor
inputs for some parts, though others
might be less labor-intensive. It is
possible, if access to capital markets is
limited, that this rule might displace
other HD sector investment, which
would reduce employment associated

IX. Analysis of the Alternatives
The heavy-duty truck segment is very
complex. The sector consists of a
diverse group of impacted parties,
including engine manufacturers, chassis
manufacturers, truck manufacturers,
trailer manufacturers, truck fleet owners
and the public. The final standards that
the agencies have adopted today
maximize the environmental and fuel
savings benefits of the program while
taking into consideration the unique
and varied nature of the regulated
industries. In developing this final
rulemaking, we considered a number of
alternatives that could have resulted in
potentially fewer or greater GHG and
fuel consumption reductions than the
program we are finalizing. This section
summarizes the alternatives we
considered and presents assessments of
technology costs, CO2 reductions, and
fuel savings associated with each
alternative. The agencies reduced the
number of alternatives analyzed in this
final rulemaking compared to the
proposal because we did not receive any
comments supporting standard setting
for a smaller subset than HD pickup
trucks, combination tractors, and
vocational vehicles (as well as engines
installed in vocational vehicles and
combination tractors). As discussed

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00249

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57353

below, the agencies have also refined
some of the alternatives analyzed in
response to the comments received.
A. What are the alternatives that the
agencies considered?
In developing alternatives, NHTSA
must consider EISA’s requirement for
the MD/HD fuel efficiency program
noted above. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and
(3) contain the following three
requirements specific to the MD/HD
vehicle fuel efficiency improvement
program: (1) The program must be
‘‘designed to achieve the maximum
feasible improvement’’; (2) the various
required aspects of the program must be
appropriate, cost-effective, and
technologically feasible for MD/HD
vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted
under the program must provide not
less than four model years of lead time
and three model years of regulatory
stability. In considering these various
requirements, NHTSA will also account
for relevant environmental and safety
considerations.
The alternatives below represent a
broad range of approaches for a HD
vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG
emissions program. Details regarding
the modeling of each alternative are
included in RIA Chapter 6. The
alternatives in order of increasing fuel
efficiency and GHG emissions
reductions are:
(1) Alternative 1: No Action
A ‘‘no action’’ alternative assumes
that the agencies would not issue rules
regarding a MD/HD fuel efficiency
improvement program. This alternative
is presented in order for NHTSA to
comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
to provide an analytical baseline against
which to compare environmental
impacts of the other regulatory
alternatives.564 The agencies refer to this
as the ‘‘No Action Alternative’’ or as a
‘‘no increase’’ or ‘‘baseline’’ alternative.
As described in RIA Chapter 5, this no564 NEPA requires agencies to consider a ‘‘no
action’’ alternative in their NEPA analyses and to
compare the effects of not taking action with the
effects of the reasonable action alternatives to
demonstrate the different environmental effects of
the action alternatives. See 40 CFR 1502.2(e),
1502.14(d).CEQ has explained that ‘‘[T]he
regulations require the analysis of the no action
alternative even if the agency is under a court order
or legislative command to act. This analysis
provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to
compare the magnitude of environmental effects of
the action alternatives. [See 40 CFR 1502.14(c).]
* * * Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is
necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the
President as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR
1500.1(a).]’’ Forty Most Asked Questions
Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy
Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (emphasis
added).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57354

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

action alternative is considered the
reference case.
The no action alternative first
presented in this final action is based on
the assumption that the new vehicle
fleet continues to perform at the same
level as new 2010 vehicles. In this way,
it provides a comparison between
today’s new trucks and the increased
cost and reduced fuel consumption of
future compliant vehicles.
The agencies recognize that there is
substantial uncertainty in determining
an appropriate baseline against which to
compare the effects of the proposed
action. The lack of prior regulation of
HD fuel efficiency means that there is a
lack of historic data regarding trends in
this sector. Therefore, in this final
action, the agencies have also included
an analysis using a baseline derived
from annual projections developed by
the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) for the Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO). For this
alternative baseline, the agencies
analyzed the new truck fuel economy
projections for the Light Commercial
Trucks, along with the Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Freight Vehicles developed
in AEO 2011.565 The agencies converted
the fuel economy improvements into
CO2 emissions reductions relative to a
2010 model year (See RIA Chapter 6).
The baseline derived from the AEO
forecast provides a comparison between
the impacts of the proposed standards
and EIA’s projection of future new truck
performance absent regulation. This
alternative baseline is informative in
showing one possible projection of
future vehicle performance based on
other factors beyond the regulation the
agencies are finalizing today. The AEO
forecast makes a number of assumptions
that should be noted. AEO 2011
assumes improved fuel efficiency for
8,500–10,000 lb. GVWR heavy-duty
pickups due to the light-duty 2012–2016
MY regulations. We project a similar
capability for fuel economy
improvement as AEO does for this class
of vehicles; however, the agencies
recognize that absent regulation
manufacturers may decline to add the
necessary technologies to reach the level
of our proposed standards. For mediumand heavy-duty vocational vehicles,
AEO 2011 projects a small reduction in
fuel efficiency over time (an increase in
fuel consumption), similar to that
achieved under the MY 2010 baseline.
For Class 8 combination tractors, the
AEO 2011 baseline projects an annual
565 U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Early Release. Last
viewed on March 29, 2011 at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/. See Supplemental
Tables 7, 63, and 68.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

improvement of approximately 0.3
percent.
We are not able to make an estimate
of the cost of the AEO 2011 alternative
baseline because we are not able to
accurately determine the technology
mix used in the AEO 2011 analysis to
achieve the projected improvements in
fuel efficiency. We do know they differ
significantly from our own analysis as
the EIA projections do not include the
full range of technologies considered by
the agencies (e.g., EIA’s analysis does
not consider the use of idle reduction
technologies and diesel auxiliary power
units to reduce fuel consumption
associated with vehicle hoteling). If one
were to assume that the cost of the
AEO2011 baseline was proportional to
projected improvement relative to our
preferred alternative, the total AEO2011
baseline cost estimate would be
approximately equal to the total cost of
the preferred case, but would vary by
category.

technology, which decreases the average
truck reduction of fuel consumption and
GHG emissions by approximately 1.6
percent.
The vocational vehicle standard
would be based on removal of low
rolling resistance tires—in essence
meaning that there would be no
expected improvement in performance
from vocational vehicles, only from
engines used to power them. This
alternative would also reduce the
amount of technologies applied to diesel
engines used in vocational vehicles
such that the engines achieve a 3
percent reduction in 2014 model year
and a 5 percent reduction in 2017 model
year, both compared to a 2010 model
year baseline,
The agencies have decided not to
finalize Alternative 2, because as shown
below, Alternative 3 is more stringent,
is technically feasible, highly cost
effective, and results in a greater net
benefit to society.

(2) Alternative 2: 12 Percent Less
Stringent Than the Preferred Alternative
Alternative 2 represents an alternative
stringency level to the agencies’
preferred approach. Alternative 2
represents a stringency level which is
approximately 12 percent less stringent
than the preferred approach. The
agencies calculated the Alternative 2
stringency level in order to meet two
goals. First, we sought to create an
alternative that regulated the same
engine and vehicle categories as the
preferred alternative, but at lower
stringency (10–20 percent lower) than
the preferred alternative. Second we
wanted an alternative that reflected
removal of the least cost effective
technology that we believed
manufacturers would add last in order
to meet the preferred alternative. In
other words, we wanted an alternative
that as closely as possible reflected the
last increment in stringency prior to
reaching our preferred alternative.
Please see Table 2–39 in RIA Chapter 2
for a list of all of the technologies, as
well as their cost and relative
effectiveness. The resulting Alternative
2 is based on the same technologies
used in Alternative 3 except as follows
for each of the three categories.
The combination tractor standard
would be based on the removal of the
Advanced SmartWay aerodynamic
package and weight reduction
technologies, which decreases the
average combination tractor GHG
emissions and fuel consumption
reduction by approximately 1 percent.
The HD pickup truck and van
standard would be based on removal of
the 5 percent mass reduction

(3) Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative
and Final Standards
Alternative 3 represents the agencies’
preferred approach. This alternative
consists of the finalized fuel efficiency
and GHG standards for HD engines, HD
pickup trucks and vans, Class 2b
through Class 8 vocational vehicles, and
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors.
Details regarding modeling of this
alternative are included in RIA Chapter
5 as the control case.
The agencies selected Alternative 3
over Alternatives 4 and 5 described
below because the agencies concluded
that alternatives 4 and 5 were not
technically feasible to achieve given the
leadtime provided in these final rules.
Hence, we have concluded that
Alternative 3 represents the maximum
feasible improvement. Section II of this
preamble provides an explanation of the
consideration that agencies gave to
setting more stringent standards based
on the application of additional
technologies and our reasons for
concluding that the identified
technologies for each of the vehicle and
engine standards that constitute
Alternative 3 represented the maximum
feasible improvement based on
technological feasibility. In general, for
advanced technologies, we reached this
conclusion for one of two reasons. For
some technologies such as Rankine
Waste Heat Recovery engine
technologies, the agencies have
concluded that the technology is still in
the research phase and will not be
developed fully for new engine
production in the time frame of this first
regulatory action. In other cases, the
agencies concluded that the

PO 00000

Frm 00250

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

manufacturing capacity for technologies
such as advanced battery systems for
heavy-duty hybrid drivetrains could not
be expanded quickly enough to allow
for significant vehicle production
volume in the time frame of this
program. Section III also details the
agencies’ reasons for not basing
standard stringencies on other
technologies.
(4) Alternative 4: 20 Percent More
Stringent Than the Preferred Alternative
Alternative 4 represents a modeled
alternative which is 20 percent more
stringent than the preferred approach.
The agencies derived the stringency
level based on similar goals as for
Alternative 2. Specifically, we wanted
an alternative that would reflect an
incremental improvement over the
preferred alternative based on adding
the next most cost effective technology
in each of the categories. We believed
these were the technologies most likely
to be attempted by manufacturers if a
more stringent standard were
established. As discussed above and in
the feasibility discussion in Section III,
we are not finalizing Alternative 4
because we do not believe that the
technologies used in this alternative can
be developed and introduced in the
time frame of this rulemaking. We note
that the estimated costs for this
alternative are denoted as ‘+c.’ The +c
is intended to make clear that the cost
estimates we are showing do not
include additional costs related to
pulling ahead the development and
expanding manufacturing base for the
additional technologies (for example,
building new factories in the next few
years). The resulting Alternative 4 is
based on the same technologies used in
Alternative 3 except as follows for each
of the three categories.
The combination tractor standard
would be based on the addition of
Rankine waste heat recovery systems
and 100 percent application of
advanced aerodynamic technologies,
such as underbody airflow treatment,
advanced gap reduction, rearview
cameras to replace mirrors, and wheel
system streamlining, to high roof sleeper
cab combination tractors. The agencies
do not believe that either advanced
aerodynamic technologies or Rankine
waste heat recovery systems should be
used to set the standard for HD engines
in 2017 MY because this technology is
still in the research phase. The agencies
assumed 59 percent of all combination
tractors are sleeper cabs and of those, 80
percent are high roof sleeper cabs. The
agencies assumed a 12 kWh waste heat
recovery system would reduce CO2
emissions by 6 percent at a cost of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

$8,400 per truck.566 The estimated
reduction in CO2 emissions from the
engine for this alternative is included in
RIA Chapter 6. The impact of 100
percent application of the advanced
aerodynamic technology package would
lead to a total 20.7 percent reduction in
Cd values for high roof sleeper cabs over
a 2010 MY baseline tractor. The
incremental cost of this technology over
the preferred case is $1,027 per vehicle.
The HD pickup truck and van
standard would be based on the
addition of the turbocharged, downsized
technology to gasoline engines which
would bring the total reduction for
gasoline HD pickup trucks and vans to
15 percent and match the level of
reduction for the diesel pickup trucks.
The agencies do not consider this to be
a technology from which the 2017MY
gasoline HD pickup truck standards
should be premised on because we are
not yet convinced that turbocharged
downsized gasoline engines can be
applied to heavy-duty truck
applications in a durable manner. We
are aware that manufacturers are testing
such engines and that in pickup trucks
with a duty cycle representing a mix of
passenger vehicle and work applications
the engines can be durable. However,
we are unable to conclude today that
such engines will be durable and hence
technically feasible when applied in
heavy-duty truck applications with an
expected higher average load factor. The
estimated incremental cost increase to
HD pickup trucks and vans to replace a
stoichiometric gasoline direct injected
V8 engine with coupled cam phasing
used in Alternative 3 with a V6
stoichiometric gasoline direct injection
DOHC with dual cam phasing, discrete
valve lift, and twin turbochargers is
estimated to be $1,743.567
The vocational vehicle standard
would be based on the addition hybrid
powertrains to 6 percent of the vehicles.
The agencies assumed a 32 percent per
vehicle reduction in GHG emissions and
fuel consumption due to the hybrid
with a cost of $26,667 per vehicle based
on the average effectiveness and costs
developed in the NAS report for box
trucks, bucket trucks, and refuse
haulers.568
566 TIAX.

2009. Note 198, Page 4–20.
RIA chapter 2, Table 2.35.
568 Committee to Assess Fuel Economy
Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles; National Research Council;
Transportation Research Board (2010).
‘‘Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the
Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles,’’ (‘‘NAS Report’’). Washington, DC The
National Academies Press. Available electronically
from the National Academies Press Web site at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845.
Page 146.
567 See

PO 00000

Frm 00251

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57355

(5) Alternative 5: Trailers Plus
Accelerated Hybrid
Alternative 5 builds on Alternative 4
through additional hybrid powertrain
application rates in the HD sector and
by adding a performance standard for
fuel efficiency and GHG emissions to
commercial trailers. This alternative
includes all elements of Alternative 4
(some of which we already regard as
infeasible in the model years covered by
the final rules), plus the application of
additional hybrid powertrains to the
pickup trucks, vans, vocational vehicles,
and tractors. In addition, the agencies
applied aerodynamic technologies to
commercial box trailers, along with tire
technologies for all commercial trailers.
The agencies set the hybrid
penetration for each category such that
it represents 50 percent of the HD
pickup truck and van segment, 50
percent of vocational vehicles, and 5
percent of tractors in 2017 model year.
The agencies have concluded that it is
not feasible to achieve hybrid
technology penetration rates at or even
near these levels in the time frame of
this rulemaking. As with Alternative 4,
we include a +c in our cost estimates for
this alternative to reflect additional
costs not estimated by the agencies. The
agencies assumed that a hybrid
powertrain would provide a 32 percent
reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption of a vocational vehicle at
a projected cost of $26,667 per vehicle,
based on the average of the NAS report
findings for box trucks, bucket trucks,
and refuse vehicles.569 The agencies are
projecting a cost of $9,000 per vehicle
for the HD pickup trucks and vans with
an effectiveness of 18 percent, again
based on the NAS report.570 Lastly, the
effectiveness of hybrid powertrains
installed in tractors was assumed to be
10 percent at a cost of $25,000 based on
the NAS report.571
The combination tractor technology
package for Alternative 5 includes the
preferred alternative technologies, waste
heat recovery and Advanced SmartWay
aerodynamic package used in
Alternative 4, and application of hybrid
powertrains discussed above, in
addition to a regulation for commercial
trailers pulled by combination tractors.
The agencies assumed a box trailer
program would mirror the SmartWay
program and include tire and
aerodynamic requirements. The
agencies added low rolling resistance
tires to all commercial trailers, which
are assumed to have 15 percent lower
rolling resistance than the baseline
569 NAS

Report. Page 146.
Report. Page 146.
571 NAS Report. Page 146.
570 NAS

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57356

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

trailer tire which is equivalent to the
target value required by SmartWay. The
aerodynamics of the box trailers were
assumed to improve the coefficient of
drag for the combination tractor-trailer
by 10 percent through the application of
technologies such as trailer skirts and
gap reducers.572 These technologies
would result in further reductions in
drag coefficient and rolling resistance
coefficient from the MY 2010 baseline.
As stated above for hybrids, the agencies
do not believe that it is possible to
achieve technology penetration rates at
or even near these levels in the time
frame of this rulemaking.
The combination tractor costs for this
alternative are equal to the costs in
Alternative 4, plus $25,000 for hybrid
powertrains in ten percent of tractors,
plus the costs of trailers. The costs for
the trailer program of Alternative 5 were

derived based on the assumption that
trailer aerodynamic improvements
would cost $2,150 per trailer. This cost
assumes side fairings and gap reducers
and is based on the ICF cost estimate.573
The agencies applied the aerodynamic
improvement to only box trailers, which
represent approximately 60 percent of
the trailer sales. The agencies used $528
per trailer (2014 MY cost) for low rolling
resistance based on the agencies’
estimate of $66 per tire in the tractor
program. Lastly, the agencies assumed
the trailer volume is equal to three times
the tractor volume based on the 3:1 ratio
of trailers to tractors in the market
today.
B. How Do These Alternatives Compare
in Overall GHG Emissions Reductions
and Fuel Efficiency and Cost?
The agencies analyzed all five
alternatives through the MOVES model

to evaluate the impact of each
alternative, as shown in Table IX–1. The
table contains the annual CO2 and fuel
savings in 2030 and 2050 for each
alternative (relative to the reference
scenario of Alternative 1), presenting
both the total savings across all
regulatory categories, and for each
regulatory category.
Table IX–2 presents the annual
technology costs associated with each
alternative (relative to the reference
scenario of Alternative 1) in 2030 and
2050 for each regulatory category. In
addition, the total annual downstream
impacts of NOX, CO, PM, and VOC
emissions in 2030 for each of the
alternatives are included in Table IX–3.
Lastly, the agencies project the
monetized net benefits associated with
each alternative in 2030 and 2050 as
shown in Table IX–4 and Table IX–5.

TABLE IX–1—ANNUAL CO2 AND OIL REDUCTIONS RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 IN 2030 AND 2050
Downstream CO2 Reductions
(MMT)
2030
Alt. 1 Baseline ..................................................................................................
Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline—Total ..................................................................
Tractors ............................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .........................................................................................
Alt. 2 Less Stringent—Total .............................................................................
Tractors ............................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .........................................................................................
Alt. 3 Preferred—Total .....................................................................................
Tractors ............................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .........................................................................................
Alt. 4 More Stringent—Total ............................................................................
Tractors ............................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .........................................................................................
Alt. 5 Max Technology—Total .........................................................................
Tractors ............................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .........................................................................................

2050
0
39
29
9
1
54
42
7
5
61
45
8
7
74
53
10
11
99
61
15
23

Oil reductions
(billion gallons)
2030

0
90
73
16
2
78
59
11
7
88
63
13
11
107
74
15
18
146
85
24
37

2050
0
3.9
2.9
0.9
0.1
5.4
4.2
0.8
0.4
6.0
4.4
0.9
0.7
7.4
5.2
1.0
1.1
9.8
6.0
1.6
2.2

0
9.0
7.1
1.7
0.2
7.7
5.8
1.2
0.7
8.7
6.2
1.3
1.1
10.7
7.3
1.6
1.8
14.5
8.3
2.5
3.6

TABLE IX–2—TECHNOLOGY COST PROJECTIONS RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
Technology costs a
(Millions, 2009$)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2030
Alt. 1 Baseline ..........................................................................................................................................................
Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline—Total b ........................................................................................................................
Tractors ....................................................................................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ....................................................................................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................
Alt. 2 Less Stringent—Total .....................................................................................................................................
Tractors ....................................................................................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ....................................................................................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................
Alt. 3 Preferred—Total .............................................................................................................................................
572 The Cd improvement of 10 percent for trailer
improvements was derived from the TIAX report,
Table 4–26 on page 4–50.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

573 Assumed retail prices of $1,300 for side skirts
and $850 for gap reducers based on the ICF Cost
Report, page 90.

PO 00000

Frm 00252

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

$0
—
—
—
—
$1,676
743
817
117
2,210

2050
$0
—
—
—
—
$2,440
1,227
1,029
185
3,287

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57357

TABLE IX–2—TECHNOLOGY COST PROJECTIONS RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE—Continued
Technology costs a
(Millions, 2009$)
2030
Tractors ....................................................................................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ....................................................................................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................
Alt. 4 More Stringent—Total ....................................................................................................................................
Tractors ....................................................................................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ....................................................................................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................
Alt. 5 Max Technology—Total .................................................................................................................................
Tractors ....................................................................................................................................................................
HD Pickup Trucks ....................................................................................................................................................
Vocational Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................

1,076
918
216
5,211+c
1,953+c
1,442+c
1,816+c
17,909+c
2,747+c
5,669+c
9,493+c
5,211+c

2050
1,777
1,156
354
6,996+c
3,225+c
1,816+c
1,954+c
27,306+c
4,292+c
7,142+c
15,873+c
6,996+c

Notes:
a The +c is intended to make clear that the cost estimates we are showing do not include additional costs related to pulling ahead the development and expanding manufacturing base for these technologies.
b The agencies did not conduct a cost analysis for the AEO2011 baseline.

TABLE IX–3—DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 OF KEY NON-GHGS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE IN 2030
[In percent]
NOX
Alt.
Alt.
Alt.
Alt.
Alt.
Alt.

1 Baseline ..................................................................................................
1a AEO 2011 Baseline ..............................................................................
2 Less Stringent ........................................................................................
3 Preferred ................................................................................................
4 More Stringent ........................................................................................
5 Max Technology .....................................................................................

CO

0
8.8
¥21.9
¥22.0
¥22.5
¥22.9

PM2.5
0
1.0
¥2.0
¥2.0
¥2.0
¥2.1

0
¥3.8
8.4
8.5
8.7
8.4

VOC
0
7.2
¥19.0
¥19.1
¥19.5
¥20.0

TABLE IX–4—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
Alt. 1
baseline
Truck Program Costs d .........................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .........................................................

Alt. 2 less
stringent
$0
0

Alt. 3
preferred

$5,900
45,000

Alt. 4 more
stringent

Alt. 5 max
technology

$8,100
50,100

$20,700+c
63,900

$37,200+c
79,100

1,200
5,700
9,400
17,000
2,700
¥1,500
400
N/A

1,600
7,200
12,000
22,000
3,400
¥1,600
500
N/A

1,900
9,000
15,000
27,000
4,200
¥1,600
600
N/A

44,800
49,300
53,000
60,600

47,100+c
52,700+c
57,500+c
67,500+c

47,000+c
54,100+c
60,100+c
72,100+c

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................
Refueling Savings ................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ...............

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A

1,100
5,100
8,400
16,000
2,400
¥1,300
300
N/A

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

41,600
45,600
48,900
56,500

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
the SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: 5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO GHG emissions expected under this rule2
making (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not
be interpreted as zero.
d ‘‘+c’’ indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00253

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57358

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE IX–5—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
[7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
Alt. 1
baseline
Truck Program Costs d .........................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .........................................................

Alt. 2 less
stringent
$0
0

Alt. 3
preferred

$5,900
30,900

Alt. 4 more
stringent

Alt. 5 max
technology

$8,100
34,400

$20,700+c
43,800

$37,200+c
53,900

1,200
5,700
9,400
17,000
1,800
¥1,000
200
N/A

1,600
7,200
12,000
22,000
2,300
¥1,100
300
N/A

1,900
9,000
15,000
27,000
2,900
¥1,100
400
N/A

28,500
33,000
36,700
44,300

26,200+c
31,800+c
36,600+c
46,600+c

20,800+c
27,900+c
33,900+c
45,900+c

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................
Refueling Savings ................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ...............

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A

1,100
5,100
8,400
16,000
1,600
¥900
200
N/A

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

27,000
31,000
34,300
41,900

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
the SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO GHG emissions expected under this rule2
making (See RIA chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not
be interpreted as zero.
d ‘‘+c’’ indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

The agencies also project the
monetized net benefits associated with
each alternative by vehicle class for the
2014 through 2018 MY vehicles over
their lifetimes as shown in Table IX–6

through Table IX–8 at a three percent
discount rate for HD pickup trucks &
vans, vocational vehicles and
combination tractors, respectively, and
in Table IX–9 through Table IX–11 at a

seven percent discount rate for HD
pickup trucks and vans, vocational
vehicles and combination tractors,
respectively.

TABLE IX–6—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR HD PICKUP TRUCKS & VANS
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
Alt. 1 baseline
Truck Program Costs d .........................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .........................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................
Refueling Savings ................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ...............

Alt. 2 less
stringent

$0
0
0
0
0
N/A

Alt. 3 preferred

$1,780
3,480
190
¥330
40
N/A

Alt. 4 more
stringent

Alt. 5 max
technology

$1,970
4,060
220
¥350
50
N/A

$3,220+c
4,910
270
¥370
60
N/A

$9,890+c
7,700
420
¥350
90
N/A

100
500
900
1,600

100
600
1,100
1,900

200
900
1,500
2,800

2,110
2,510
2,910

1,750+c
2,250+c
2,750+c

¥1,830+c
¥1,130+c
¥530+c

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

100
500
800
1,400

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00254

0
0
0

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1,700
2,100
2,400

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57359

TABLE IX–6—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR HD PICKUP TRUCKS & VANS—Continued
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
Alt. 1 baseline
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

Alt. 2 less
stringent

0

Alt. 3 preferred

3,000

3,610

Alt. 4 more
stringent
3,550+c

Alt. 5 max
technology
770+c

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
the SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis. Al2
2
though EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
d ‘‘+c’’ indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

TABLE IX–7 MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR LIFETIME
OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR VOCATIONAL VEHICLES
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
Alt. 1 baseline
Truck Program Costs d .........................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .........................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................
Refueling Savings ................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ...............

Alt. 2 less
stringent

$0
0
0
0
0
N/A

Alt. 3 preferred

$670
3,420
180
¥540
40
N/A

Alt. 4 more
stringent

Alt. 5 max
technology

$1,140
5,420
290
¥650
60
N/A

$9,140+c
8,930
480
¥670
110
N/A

$15,840+c
14,270
760
¥500
170
N/A

100
600
1,100
1,900

200
1,000
1,700
3,100

300
1,500
2,600
4,700

4,080
4,580
5,080
5,880

¥90+c
710+c
1,410+c
2,810+c

¥840+c
360+c
1,460+c
3,560+c

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

100
400
700
1,300

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

2,530
2,830
3,130
3,730

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
the SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis. Al2
2
though EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
d ‘‘+c’’ indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

TABLE IX–8—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR COMBINATION TRACTORS
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Alt. 1 baseline
Truck Program Costs d .........................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .........................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................
Refueling Savings ................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ...............

VerDate Mar<15>2010

21:34 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00255

Alt. 2 less
stringent

$0
0
0
0
0
N/A

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

$3,300
38,140
2,030
¥450
230
N/A

Alt. 3 preferred
$4,950
40,650
2,160
¥480
250
N/A

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Alt. 4 more
stringent
$8,430+c
50,030
2,660
¥590
300
N/A

Alt. 5 max
technology
$11,540+c
57,190
3,040
¥770
350
N/A

57360

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE IX–8—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR COMBINATION TRACTORS—Continued
[3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
Alt. 1 baseline

Alt. 2 less
stringent

Alt. 3 preferred

Alt. 4 more
stringent

Alt. 5 max
technology

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

900
4,200
7,000
13,000

1,000
4,500
7,500
14,000

1,200
5,600
9,300
17,000

1,400
6,500
11,000
20,000

38,630
42,130
45,130
51,630

45,170+c
49,570+c
53,270+c
60,970+c

49,670+c
54,770+c
59,270+c
68,270+c

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

37,550
40,850
43,650
49,650

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
the SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis. Al2
2
though EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
d ‘‘+c’’ indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

TABLE IX–9: MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR HD PICKUP TRUCKS & VANS
[7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
]

Alt. 1 baseline

Truck Program Costs d .........................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .........................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................
Refueling Savings ................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ...............

Alt. 2 less
stringent

$0
0
0
0
0
N/A

Alt. 3 preferred

$1,780
2,180
120
¥220
30
N/A

Alt. 4 more
stringent

Alt. 5 max
technology

$1,970
2,550
140
¥230
30
N/A

$3,220+c
3,090
170
¥250
40
N/A

$9,890+c
4,830
260
¥230
60
N/A

100
500
900
1,600

100
600
1,100
1,900

200
900
1,500
2,800

620
1,020
1,420
2,120

¥70+c
430+c
930+c
1,730+c

¥4,770+c
¥4,070+c
¥3,470+c
¥2,170+c

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

100
500
800
1,400

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

430
830
1,130
1,730

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
the SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis. Al2
2
though EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
d ‘‘+c’’ indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00256

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57361

TABLE 1X–10—MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR VOCATIONAL VEHICLES
[7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
Alt. 1 baseline
Truck Program Costs d .........................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .........................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................
Refueling Savings ................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ...............

Alt. 2 less
stringent

$0
0
0
0
0
N/A

Alt. 3 preferred

$670
2,280
120
¥380
30
N/A

Alt. 4 more
stringent

Alt. 5 max
technology

$1,140
3,630
190
¥450
40
N/A

$9,140+c
5,970
320
¥460
70
N/A

$15,840+c
9,410
500
¥350
110
N/A

100
600
1,100
1,900

200
1,000
1,700
3,100

300
1,500
2,600
4,700

2,370
2,870
3,370
4,170

¥3,040+c
¥2,240+c
¥1,540+c
¥140+c

¥5,870+c
¥4,670+c
¥3,570+c
¥1,470+c

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

100
400
700
1,300

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

1,480
1,780
2,080
2,680

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
the SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis. Al2
2
though EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
d ‘‘+c’’ indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

TABLE 1X–11 MONETIZED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR
LIFETIME OF 2014 THROUGH 2018 MODEL YEAR COMBINATION TRACTORS
[7% Discount rate, millions, 2009]
Alt. 1 baseline
Truck Program Costs d .........................................................
Fuel Savings (pre-tax) .........................................................
Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................
Refueling Savings ................................................................
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ...............

Alt. 2 less
stringent

0
0
0
0
0
N/A

Alt. 3 preferred

3,300
26,420
1,410
¥320
160
N/A

Alt. 4 more
stringent

Alt. 5 max
technology

4,950
28,170
1,500
¥340
170
N/A

8,430+c
34,710
1,850
¥420
210
N/A

11,540+c
39,680
2,110
¥550
240
N/A

1,000
4,500
7,500
14,000

1,200
5,600
9,300
17,000

1,400
6,500
11,000
20,000

25,550
29,050
32,050
38,550

29,120+c
33,520+c
37,220+c
44,920+c

31,340+c
36,440+c
40,940+c
49,940+c

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

900
4,200
7,000
13,000

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

5% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
3% (avg SCC) ......................................................................
2.5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................
3% (95th percentile) .............................................................

0
0
0
0

25,270
28,570
31,370
37,370

Notes:
a Net present value of reduced CO emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value
2
of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to
the SCC TSD for more detail.
b Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC estimates range as follows: for Average
SCC at 5%: $5–$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22–$46; for Average SCC at 2.5%: $36–$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66–$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
c Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO and SO ) were not estimated for this analysis. Al2
2
though EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
d ‘‘+c’’ indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00257

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57362

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

e Negative

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

C. What is the agencies’ decision
regarding trailer standards?
A central theme throughout our HD
Program is the recognition of the
diversity and complexity of the heavyduty vehicle segment. Trailers are an
important part of this segment and are
no less diverse in the range of functions
and applications they serve. They are
the primary vehicle for moving freight
in the United States. The type of freight
varies from retail products to be sold in
stores, to bulk goods such as stones, to
industrial liquids such as chemicals, to
equipment such as bulldozers. Semitrailers come in a large variety of
styles—box, refrigerated box, flatbed,
tankers, bulk, dump, grain, and many
others. The most common type of trailer
is the box trailer, but even box trailers
come in many different lengths ranging
from 28 feet to 53 feet or greater, and in
different widths, heights, depths,
materials (wood, composites, and/or
aluminum), construction (curtain side
or hard side), axle configuration (sliding
tandem or fixed tandem), and multiple
other distinct features. NHTSA and EPA
believe trailers impact the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from
combination tractors and the agencies
see opportunities for reductions. Unlike
our experience with trucks and engines,
the agencies have very limited
experience related to regulating trailers
for fuel efficiency or emissions.
Likewise, the trailer manufacturing
industry has only the most limited
experience complying with regulations
related to emissions and none with
regard to EPA or NHTSA certification
and compliance procedures.
The agencies broadly solicited
comments on controlling fuel efficiency
and GHG emissions through eventual
trailer regulations as we described in the
notice of proposed rulemaking which
could set the foundation of a future
rulemaking for trailers. 75 FR at 74345–
351 (although this was a solicitation for
comment regarding future action
outside the present rulemaking).
The general theme of the comments
received was that technologies exist
today that can improve trailer
efficiency. We received several
comments from stakeholders which
encouraged the agencies to set fuel
efficiency and GHG emissions standards
for trailers in this rulemaking. The
agencies also received comments
supporting a delay in trailer regulations.
Specifically, IPI commented that the
agencies should regulate trailers at least
to some degree, arguing that the
agencies’ reasoning for not doing so was

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

insufficient and requesting a plan and
schedule in the final rule for the future
regulation of trailers. One commenter
recognized that there are well over 100
trailer manufacturers in the U.S., with
almost all being small businesses. They
stressed the need for the agencies to
reach out to the trailer industry and
associations prior to developing a
regulatory program for this industry. In
addition, they stated that time is needed
to develop sufficient research into the
area. None of the commenters that
supported trailer regulation in this
action addressed the complexities of the
trailer industry, nor a method to
measure trailer aerodynamic
improvements.
In the NPRM, the agencies discussed
relatively conceptual approaches to how
a future trailer regulation could be
developed; however, we did not provide
a proposed test procedure or proposed
standard. The agencies proposed to
delay the regulation of trailers, as the
inclusion would not be feasible at this
time due to the lack of a test procedure
and the myriad of technical and policy
issues not teed up in the NPRM or
addressed in comments. Additionally,
since a number of trailer manufacturing
entities are small businesses, EPA and
NHTSA need to allow sufficient time to
convene a SBREFA panel to conduct the
proper outreach to the potentially
impacted stakeholders. As noted earlier,
the agencies do not believe it warranted
to delay the combination tractor and
vocational vehicle standards for the
years it will take to resolve these issues.
NHTSA and EPA agree that the
regulation of trailers, when appropriate,
is likely to provide fuel efficiency
benefits. We continue to believe that
both agencies must perform a more
comprehensive assessment of the trailer
industry, and therefore that their
inclusion at this time is not feasible.
Until that time, the SmartWay Transport
Partnership Program will continue to
encourage the development and use of
technologies to reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from
trailers.
X. Public Participation
The agencies proposed their
respective rules on November 30, 2010
(75 FR 74152). Two public hearings
were held to provide interested parties
the opportunity to present data, views,
or arguments concerning the proposal;
the first hearing was held in Chicago, IL
on November 15, 2010, and the second
in Cambridge, MA on November 18,
2010. The public was invited to submit

PO 00000

Frm 00258

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

written comments on the proposal
during the formal comment period,
which ended on January 31, 2011. The
agencies received over 41,000
comments—over 3,000 of them
unique—from industry, environmental
organizations, states, and individuals.
The vast majority of commenters
supported the central tenets of the
proposed HD National Program. That is,
there was broad support for a national
program which would reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions from
the three heavy-duty regulatory
categories—heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans, vocational vehicles, and
combination tractors. The agencies
received specific comments on many
aspects of the proposal.
Throughout this notice, the agencies
discuss many of the key issues arising
from the public comments and the
agencies’ responses. In addition, the
agencies have addressed all of the
public comments in the Response to
Comments document associated with
this final action and located in the
docket (Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162, or NHTSA–2010–0079).
XI. NHTSA’s Record of Decision
On May 21, 2010, President Obama
issued a memorandum entitled
‘‘Improving Energy Security, American
Competitiveness and Job Creation, and
Environmental Protection through a
Transformation of our Nation’s Fleet of
Cars and Trucks’’ to the Secretary of
Transportation, the Administrator of
NHTSA, the Administrator of EPA, and
the Secretary of Energy.574 The
memorandum requested that the
Administrators of EPA and NHTSA
begin work on a Joint Rulemaking under
EISA and the Clean Air Act and
establish fuel efficiency and GHG
emission standards for commercial
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
beginning with MY 2014. The President
requested that NHTSA implement fuel
efficiency standards and EPA
implement GHG emission standards that
take into account the market structure of
the trucking industry and the unique
demands of heavy-duty vehicle
applications; seek harmonization with
applicable State standards; consider the
findings and recommendations
published in the National Academy of
574 The White House, Office of the Press
Secretary, Presidential Memorandum Regarding
Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21, 2010); The
White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
President Obama Directs Administration to Create
First-Ever National Efficiency and Emissions
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks
(May 21, 2010).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Sciences (NAS) report on medium- and
heavy-duty truck regulation; strengthen
the industry and enhance job creation in
the United States; and seek input from
all stakeholders, while recognizing the
continued leadership role of California
and other States.
In accordance with this policy, this
Final Rule promulgates fuel efficiency
standards for HD vehicles built in MYs
2014–2018. This Final Rule constitutes
the Record of Decision (ROD) for
NHTSA’s HD vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Council on
Environmental Quality’s (CEQ)
implementing regulations.575 See 40
CFR1505.2.
As required by CEQ regulations, this
Final Rule and ROD sets forth the
following: (1) the agency’s decision; (2)
alternatives considered by NHTSA in
reaching its decision, including the
environmentally preferable alternative;
(3) the factors balanced by NHTSA in
making its decision, including
considerations of national policy; (4)
how these factors and considerations
entered into its decision; and (5) the
agency’s preferences among alternatives
based on relevant factors, including
economic and technical considerations
and agency statutory missions. This
Final Rule also briefly addresses
mitigation.
A. The Agency’s Decision
In the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
the agency identified a Preferred
Alternative which would set overall fuel
consumption standards for HD vehicles
and engines. The Preferred Alternative,
identified as Alternative 3 in the FEIS,
would include standards for engines
used in Classes 2b–8 vocational vehicles
(except engines in HD pickups and
vans, which are regulated as complete
vehicles), fuel consumption standards
for HD pickups and vans by work factor,
overall vehicle fuel consumption
standards for Classes 2b–8 vocational
vehicles (in gal/1,000 ton-miles), and
overall fuel consumption standards for
Classes 7 and 8 tractors.
The Preferred Alternative identified
in the NPRM, DEIS, and FEIS assumed
that the vocational vehicle standards
would lead to a 10 percent reduction in
the tire rolling resistance levels of the
tires installed in vocational vehicles.
After carefully reviewing and analyzing
all of the information in the public
575 NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321–47. CEQ
NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500–08.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

record including technical support
documents, the FEIS, and public and
agency comments submitted on the
DEIS, the FEIS, and the NPRM, NHTSA
has decided to finalize a standard that
includes slightly more stringent
requirements for vocational vehicles
than those included in the Preferred
Alternative analyzed in the FEIS.
Subsequent to issuing the proposed
rule, NHTSA and EPA conducted a tire
testing program to evaluate the tire
rolling resistance of 156 different tires
across a wide range of truck
applications. The results of the study
indicate that the baseline tire rolling
resistance of this segment of vehicles
was better than the level assumed
during the proposal. In the final action,
therefore, the agencies made the
vocational truck standards slightly more
stringent than those included as part of
the Preferred Alternative for the FEIS,
reflecting the better overall performance
of tires in this segment. In addition, the
agencies have reduced the projected
improvement in average tire
performance from 10 percent to 5
percent, reflecting the better than
expected baseline performance.
NHTSA’s analysis indicates that the
Agency’s Decision will result in slightly
less fuel savings and CO2 emissions
reductions than those noted in the
EIS.576 For environmental impacts
associated with the final rule, see
Sections VI.C and VII of this Final
Rule.577
B. Alternatives Considered by NHTSA in
Reaching Its Decision, Including the
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
When preparing an EIS, NEPA
requires an agency to compare the
potential environmental impacts of its
proposed action and a reasonable range
of alternatives. In the FEIS, NHTSA
identified alternatives that represent the
spectrum of potential actions the agency
could take. The environmental impacts
of these alternatives, in turn, represent
the spectrum of potential environmental
impacts that could result from NHTSA’s
chosen action in setting fuel efficiency
standards for HD vehicles.
576 The agencies’ analysis indicates that the
change results in a decrease in total 2014–2050 fuel
savings of about 1.05% percent compared to the
Preferred Alternative modeled in the EIS and a
corresponding increase in CO2 emissions.
577 The environmental impacts of this decision
fall within the spectrum of impacts analyzed in the
DEIS and the FEIS. There are no ‘‘substantial
changes to the proposed action’’ and there are no
‘‘significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on
the proposed action or its impacts.’’ Therefore,
consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9(c), no supplement to
the EIS is required.

PO 00000

Frm 00259

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57363

The FEIS analyzed the impacts of four
‘‘action’’ alternatives, each of which
would separately regulate segments of
the HD vehicle fleet.578 Three of the
action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and
4) would regulate the same vehicle
categories, but at increasing levels of
stringency, with Alternative 2 being the
least stringent alternative and
Alternative 4 being the most stringent.
Alternatives 2 and 4 were constructed
by starting with the Preferred
Alternative (Alternative 3) and either
removing the least cost effective
technology in each of the vehicle
categories or adding the next most cost
effective technology in each of the
vehicle categories.579
Alternative 5 built on the Preferred
Alternative by adding a performance
standard for the commercial trailers
pulled by tractors and by specifying
more stringent standards based on
accelerated adoption of hybrid
powertrains for HD vehicles. The DEIS
and FEIS also analyzed the impacts that
would be expected if NHTSA adopted
no HD vehicle standards (the No Action
Alternative). For a discussion of the
environmental impacts associated with
each of the alternatives, see Chapters 3
and 4 of the FEIS.
Along with the FEIS, the agency
conducted a national-scale
photochemical air quality modeling and
health risk assessment for a subset of the
DEIS alternatives to support and
confirm the health effects and healthrelated economic estimates of the EIS.
The photochemical air quality study is
included as Appendix F to the FEIS.
The study used air quality modeling and
health benefits analysis tools to quantify
the air quality and health-related
benefits associated with the alternative
HD standards.
NHTSA’s environmental analysis
indicates that Alternative 5 (Trailers and
Accelerated Hybrid) is the overall
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
because it would result in the largest
reductions in fuel use and GHG
emissions among the alternatives
578 In the DEIS, NHTSA analyzed several
alternatives that applied only to specific
components and/or segments of the HD vehicle
fleet. Many commenters urged the agency to
consider alternatives that applied to the entire HD
vehicle fleet, reasoning that such an approach
would be more consistent with EISA requirements.
After careful consideration, NHTSA decided that
those alternatives that would set standards for the
whole fleet—that is, the engine as well as the entire
vehicle for pickup trucks and vans, vocational
vehicles, and tractors—best met the purpose and
need for this action. It also allows for the
achievement of the ‘‘maximum feasible
improvement’’ in HD fuel efficiency. Therefore, the
FEIS examined impacts associated with four of the
action alternatives analyzed in the DEIS.
579 See Section 2.3.2 of the FEIS.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57364

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

considered. Under each action
alternative the agency considered, the
reduction in fuel consumption resulting
from higher fuel efficiency causes
emissions that occur during fuel
refining and distribution to decline. For
most pollutants, this decline is more
than sufficient to offset the increase in
tailpipe emissions that results from
increased driving due to the fuel
efficiency rebound effect, leading to a
net reduction in total emissions from
fuel production, distribution, and use.
Because it leads to the largest reductions
in fuel refining, distribution, and
consumption among the alternatives
considered, Alternative 5 would also
lead to the lowest total emissions of CO2
and other GHGs, as well as most criteria
air pollutants and mobile source air
toxics (MSATs).580
NHTSA’s environmental analysis
indicates that emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO), acrolein, acetaldehyde,
and formaldehyde are slightly (less than
one percent) higher under Alternative 5
than under some other action
alternatives and analysis years. This
occurs when increased tailpipe
emissions are forecast to exceed the
reductions in emissions due to reduced
fuel refining and distribution. Thus,
while Alternative 5 is the
environmentally preferable alternative
on the basis of CO2 and other GHGs, and
on the basis of most criteria air
pollutants and MSATs, other
alternatives are environmentally
preferable from the standpoint of some
criteria air pollutants and MSATs in
some years. Overall, NHTSA considers
Alternative 5 to be the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative.
For additional discussion regarding
the alternatives considered by the
agency in reaching its decision,
including the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative, see Section IX of
this Final Rule. For a discussion of the
environmental impacts associated with
each alternative, see Chapters 3 and 4 of
the FEIS.

E. The Agency’s Preferences among
Alternatives Based on Relevant Factors,
Including Economic and Technical
Considerations and Agency Statutory
Missions
For discussion of the agency’s
preferences among alternatives based on
relevant factors, including economic
and technical considerations, see
Section VIII and IX of this Final Rule.

For discussion of the factors balanced
by NHTSA in making its decision, see
Sections III, VIII and IX of this Final
Rule.

F. Mitigation
The CEQ regulations specify that a
ROD must ‘‘state whether all practicable
means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the
alternative selected have been adopted,
and if not, why they were not.’’ 49 CFR
1505.2(c). The majority of the
environmental effects of NHTSA’s
action are positive, i.e., beneficial
environmental impacts, and would not
raise issues of mitigation. Emissions of
criteria and toxic air pollutants are
generally projected to decrease under
the final standards under all analysis
years as compared to their levels under
the No Action Alternative. Analysis of
the environmental trends reported in
the FEIS indicates that the only
exceptions to this decline are emissions
of PM2.5, DPM, and 1,3-butadiene in
some analysis years. See Chapter 5 of
the FEIS. The agency forecasts these
emissions increases because, under all
the alternatives analyzed in the EIS,
increase in vehicle use due to improved
fuel efficiency is projected to result in
growth in total miles traveled by HD
vehicles. The growth in travel outpaces
emissions reductions for some
pollutants, resulting in projected
increases for these pollutants. In
addition, NHTSA’s NEPA analysis
predicted increases in emissions of air
toxic and criteria pollutants to occur
under certain alternatives based on
assumptions about the use of Auxiliary
Power Units (APUs). For example,
NHTSA’s NEPA analysis assumes that
some manufacturers will install antiidling technologies (including APUs) on
some vehicle classes to meet the

580 Emissions of fine particulate matter (PM )
2.5
and diesel particulate matter (DPM) for Alternative
5 are forecast to be lower than under other action
alternatives under all analysis years, but slightly

higher than under the No Action Alternative in
analysis years 2030 and 2050. See FEIS Tables
3.5.2–1 and 3.5.2–5. This anomaly results from the
agencies’ assumptions regarding the percent of all

C. Factors Balanced by NHTSA in
Making Its Decision

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

D. How the Factors and Considerations
Balanced by NHTSA Entered Into Its
Decision
For discussion of how the factors and
considerations balanced by the agency
entered into NHTSA’s Decision, see
Sections III, VIII and IX of this Final
Rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00260

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

requirements of the rule and that
drivers’ subsequent use of those APUs
will result in an increase in emissions
of some criteria and toxic air pollutants.
NHTSA’s authority to promulgate
new fuel efficiency standards for HD
vehicles is limited and does not allow
regulation of vehicle emissions or of
factors affecting vehicle emissions,
including driving habits and APU usage.
Consequently, under the HD Fuel
Efficiency Improvement Program,
NHTSA must set standards but is unable
to take steps to mitigate the impacts of
these standards. Chapter 5 of the FEIS
outlines a number of other initiatives
across government that could ameliorate
the environmental impacts of motor
vehicle use, including the use of HD
vehicles.
XII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
(1) Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), this action is an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ because it
is likely to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, the agencies submitted
this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866 and any changes
made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
The agencies are also subject to
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011) and NHTSA is subject
to the Department of Transportation’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
These final rules are also significant
within the meaning of the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Executive Order 12866 additionally
requires NHTSA to submit this action to
OMB for review and document any
changes made in response to OMB
recommendations.
In addition, the agencies prepared an
analysis of the potential costs, fuel
savings, and benefits associated with
this action. This analysis is contained in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis, which
is available in the docket for these rules
and at the docket Internet address listed
under ADDRESSES above and is briefly
summarized in Table XII–1.

long-haul tractors that use an APU rather than the
truck’s engine as a power source during extended
idling (discussed further in FEIS Section 3.2.4.1).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57365

TABLE XII–1—ESTIMATED LIFETIME DISCOUNTED COSTS, BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR 2014–2018 MODEL YEAR
HD VEHICLES a, b
[Billion 2009$]
Lifetime Present Value c—3% Discount Rate
Program Costs ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Fuel Savings ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Benefits ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
Net Benefits d .................................................................................................................................................................................

$8.1
50
7.3
49

Annualized Value e—3% Discount Rate
Annualized Costs ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Fuel Savings ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Annualized Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................................
Net Benefits d .................................................................................................................................................................................

0.4
2.2
0.4
2.2

Lifetime Present Value c—7% Discount Rate
Program Costs ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Fuel Savings ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Benefits ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
Net Benefits d .................................................................................................................................................................................

8.1
34
6.7
$33

Annualized Value e—7% Discount Rate
Annualized Costs ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Fuel Savings ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Annualized Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................................
Net Benefits d .................................................................................................................................................................................

0.6
2.6
0.5
2.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Notes:
a The agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different values of a one ton CO reduction (model average at 2.5% discount rate,
2
3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at 3%), which each increase over time. For the purposes of this overview presentation of estimated costs and benefits, however, we are showing the benefits associated with the marginal value deemed to be central by the interagency working group on this
topic: the model average at 3% discount rate, in 2009 dollars. Section VIII.F provides a complete list of values for the 4 estimates.
b Note that net present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount
the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for more detail.
c Present value is the total, aggregated amount that a series of monetized costs or benefits that occur over time is worth now (in year 2009
dollar terms), discounting future values to the present.
d Net benefits reflect the fuel savings plus benefits minus costs.
e The annualized value is the constant annual value through a given time period (2012 through 2050 in this analysis) whose summed present
value equals the present value from which it was derived.

(2) National Environmental Policy Act
Under NEPA, a Federal agency must
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on proposed actions
that could significantly impact the
quality of the human environment. The
requirement is designed to serve three
major functions: (1) To provide the
decisionmaker(s) with a detailed
description of the potential
environmental impacts of a proposed
action prior to its adoption, (2) to
rigorously explore and evaluate all
reasonable alternatives, and (3) to
inform the public of, and allow
comment on, such efforts.
In addition, the CEQ regulations
emphasize agency cooperation early in
the NEPA process and allow a lead
agency (in this case, NHTSA) to request
the assistance of other agencies that
either have jurisdiction by law or have
special expertise regarding issues
considered in an EIS.581 At NHTSA’s
request, both EPA and the Federal
581 40

CFR 1501.6.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) agreed to act as cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EIS.
EPA has special expertise in climate
change and air quality, and FMCSA has
special expertise regarding HD vehicles.
NHTSA, in cooperation with EPA and
FMCSA, prepared a DEIS, solicited
public comments in writing and in
public hearings, and prepared an FEIS
responding to those comments.
Specifically, in June 2010, NHTSA
published a Notice of Intent to prepare
an EIS for proposed HD fuel efficiency
standards.582 See 40 CFR 1501.7. On
October 29, 2010, EPA issued its Notice
of Availability of the DEIS,583 triggering
a public comment period. See 40 CFR
1506.10. The public was invited to
582 See Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for New Mediumand Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement
Program, 75 FR 33565 (June 14, 2010).
583 Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of
Availability, 75 FR 66756 (Oct. 29, 2010); NHTSA
also published a separate Notice of Availability
describing the program in greater detail, 75 FR
68312 (Nov. 5, 2010).

PO 00000

Frm 00261

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

submit written comments on the DEIS
until January 3, 2011. NHTSA mailed
(both electronically and through regular
U.S. mail) copies of the DEIS to
interested parties, including federal,
state, and local officials and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American
tribes; and other interested individuals.
NHTSA and EPA held two hearings on
the proposed rules and the EIS, the first
on November 15, 2010 in Chicago,
Illinois, and the second on November
18, 2010 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
NHTSA received 3,048 written
comments to the DEIS and the NPRM.
The transcript from the public hearing
and written comments submitted to
NHTSA are part of the administrative
record and are available on the Federal
Docket, which can be found online at
http://www.regulations.gov, Reference
Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0079. NHTSA
reviewed and analyzed all comments
received during the public comment
period and revised the FEIS in response

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57366

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

to comments on the EIS where
appropriate.584
On June 20, 2011, NHTSA submitted
the FEIS to EPA. NHTSA also mailed
(both electronically and through regular
U.S. mail) the FEIS to interested parties
and posted the FEIS on its Web site,
http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy. On
June 24, 2011, EPA published a Notice
of Availability of the FEIS in the
Federal Register.585
The FEIS analyzes and discloses the
potential environmental impacts of the
proposed HD fuel efficiency standards
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the CEQ regulations
implementing NEPA, DOT Order
5610.1C, and NHTSA regulations.586
The FEIS compares the potential
environmental impacts of alternative
standards considered by NHTSA for the
final rule. It also analyzes direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts and
analyzes impacts in proportion to their
significance. See the FEIS and the FEIS
Summary for a discussion of the
environmental impacts analyzed.
Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0079.
The standards adopted in this Final
Rule have been informed by analyses
contained in the Medium- and HeavyDuty Fuel Efficiency Improvement
Program, Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Docket No. NHTSA–2010–
0079 (FEIS). For purposes of this
rulemaking, the agency referred to an
extensive compilation of technical and
policy documents available in NHTSA’s
EIS/Rulemaking docket and EPA’s
docket. NHTSA’s EIS and rulemaking
docket and EPA’s rulemaking docket
can be found online at http://
www.regulations.gov, Reference Docket
Nos.: NHTSA–2010–0079 (EIS and
Rulemaking) and EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0162 (EPA Rulemaking).
Based on the foregoing, the agency
concludes that the environmental
analysis and public involvement
process complies with NEPA
implementing regulations issued by
CEQ, DOT Order 5610.1C, and NHTSA
regulations.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(a) Clean Air Act (CAA)
The CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7401) is the
primary Federal legislation that
addresses air quality. Under the
authority of the CAA and subsequent
amendments, the EPA has established
584 The agency also changed the FEIS as a result
of updated information that became available after
issuance of the DEIS.
585 76 FR 37111 (June 24, 2011).
586 NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347. CEQ
NEPA implementing regulations are codified at 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500–1508.
NHTSA NEPA implementing regulations are
codified at 49 CFR part 520.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants,
which are relatively commonplace
pollutants that can accumulate in the
atmosphere as a result of normal levels
of human activity. The EPA is required
to review each NAAQS every five years
and to change the standards if
warranted by new scientific
information.
The air quality of a geographic region
is usually assessed by comparing the
levels of criteria air pollutants found in
the atmosphere to the applicable
NAAQS. Concentrations of criteria
pollutants within the air mass of a
region are measured in parts of a
pollutant per million parts of air (ppm)
or in micrograms of a pollutant per
cubic meter (μg/m3) of air present in
repeated air samples taken at designated
monitoring locations. These ambient
concentrations of each criteria pollutant
are compared to the permissible levels
specified by the NAAQS in order to
assess whether the region’s air quality
attains the standard.
When the measured concentrations of
a criteria pollutant within a geographic
region are below those permitted by the
NAAQS, the region is designated by the
EPA as an attainment area for that
pollutant, while regions where
concentrations of criteria pollutants
exceed the NAAQS are called
nonattainment areas (NAAs). Former
NAAs that have attained the NAAQS are
designated as maintenance areas. Each
NAA is required to develop and
implement a State Implementation Plan
(SIP), which documents how the region
will reach attainment levels within time
periods specified in the CAA. In
maintenance areas, the SIP documents
how the State intends to maintain
compliance with the NAAQS. When
EPA changes a NAAQS, States must
revise their SIPs to address how they
will attain the new standard.
Section 176(c) of the CAA prohibits
Federal agencies from taking actions in
nonattainment or maintenance areas
that do not ‘‘conform’’ to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose
of this conformity requirement is to
ensure that Federal activities do not
interfere with meeting the emissions
targets in the SIPs, do not cause or
contribute to new violations of the
NAAQS, and do not impede the ability
to attain or maintain the NAAQS. The
EPA has issued two sets of regulations
to implement CAA Section 176(c):
• The Transportation Conformity
Rules (40 CFR part 93, subpart A),
which apply to transportation plans,
programs, and projects funded or
approved under U.S.C. Title 23 or the
Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. chapter

PO 00000

Frm 00262

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

53). Projects funded by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) or the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
usually are subject to transportation
conformity. See 40 CFR 93.102.
• The General Conformity Rules (40
CFR part 93, subpart B) apply to all
other federal actions not covered under
transportation conformity. The General
Conformity Rule established emissions
thresholds, or de minimis levels, for use
in evaluating the conformity of a
project. If the net emissions increases
attributable to the project are less than
these thresholds, then the project is
presumed to conform and no further
conformity evaluation is required. If the
emissions increases exceed any of these
thresholds, then a conformity
determination is required. The
conformity determination can entail air
quality modeling studies, consultation
with EPA and state air quality agencies,
and commitments to revise the SIP or to
implement measures to mitigate air
quality impacts.
The final fuel consumption standards
and associated program activities are
not funded or approved under U.S.C.
Title 23 or the Federal Transit Act.
Further, NHTSA’s HD Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program is not a highway
or transit project funded or approved by
FHWA or FTA. Accordingly, the
standards and associated rulemakings
are not subject to transportation
conformity.
Under the General Conformity Rule, a
conformity determination is required
where a Federal action would result in
total direct and indirect emissions of a
criteria pollutant or precursor equaling
or exceeding the rates specified in 40
CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (2) for
nonattainment and maintenance areas.
As explained below, NHTSA’s action
results in neither direct nor indirect
emissions as defined in 40 CFR 93.152.
The General Conformity Rule defines
direct emissions as those of ‘‘a criteria
pollutant or its precursors that are
caused or initiated by the Federal action
and originate in a nonattainment or
maintenance area and occur at the same
time and place as the action and are
reasonably foreseeable.’’ 40 CFR 93.152.
Because NHTSA’s action only sets fuel
consumption standards for HD vehicles,
it causes no direct emissions within the
meaning of the General Conformity
Rule.
Indirect emissions under the General
Conformity Rule include emissions or
precursors: (1) That are caused or
initiated by the Federal action and
originate in the same nonattainment or
maintenance area but occur at a
different time or place than the action;
(2) that are reasonably foreseeable; (3)

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
that the agency can practically control;
and (4) for which the agency has
continuing program responsibility. 40
CFR 93.152. Each element of the
definition must be met to qualify as an
indirect emission. NHTSA has
determined that, for the purposes of
general conformity, emissions that occur
as a result of the fuel consumption
standards are not caused by NHTSA’s
action, but rather occur due to
subsequent activities that the agency
cannot practically control. ‘‘[E]ven if a
Federal licensing, rulemaking, or other
approving action is a required initial
step for a subsequent activity that
causes emissions, such initial steps do
not mean that a Federal agency can
practically control any resulting
emissions’’ (75 FR 17254, 17260; 40 CFR
93.152). NHTSA cannot control vehicle
manufacturers’ production of HD
vehicles and consumer purchasing and
driving behavior. For the purposes of
analyzing the environmental impacts of
this action under NEPA, NHTSA has
made assumptions regarding the
technologies manufacturers will install
and how companies will react to
increased fuel efficiency standards.
Specifically, NHTSA’s NEPA analysis
predicted increases in air toxic and
criteria pollutants to occur in some
nonattainment areas under certain
alternatives based on assumptions about
the use of APUs and the rebound effect.
For example, NHTSA’s NEPA analysis
assumes that some manufacturers will
install anti-idling technologies
(including APUs) on some vehicle
classes to meet the requirements of the
program and that drivers’ subsequent
use of those APUs will result in an
increase in some criteria pollutants.
However, neither NHTSA’s nor EPA’s
rules mandate this specific
manufacturer decision or driver
behavior—the program does not require
that manufacturers install APUs to meet
the requirements of the rule, and it does
not require drivers to use anti-idling
technologies instead of, for example,
shutting off all power when parked.
Similarly, NHTSA’s NEPA analysis
assumes a rebound effect, wherein the
standards could create an incentive for
additional vehicle use by reducing the
cost of fuel consumed per mile driven.
This rebound effect is an estimate of
how NHTSA assumes some drivers will
react to the rule and is useful for
estimating the costs and benefits of the
rule, but the agency does not have the
statutory authority, or the program
responsibility, to control, among other
items discussed above, the actual
vehicle miles traveled by drivers.
Accordingly, changes in any emissions

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

that result from NHTSA’s HD vehicle
Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program
are not changes that the agency can
practically control; therefore, this action
causes no indirect emissions and a
general conformity determination is not
required.
(b) National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
The NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470) sets forth
government policy and procedures
regarding ‘‘historic properties’’—that is,
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects included in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). See also 36 CFR part 800.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires
federal agencies to ‘‘take into account’’
the effects of their actions on historic
properties. The agency concludes that
the NHPA is not applicable to NHTSA’s
Decision because it does not directly
involve historic properties. The agency
has, however, conducted a qualitative
review of the related direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts, positive or
negative, of the alternatives on
potentially affected resources, including
historic and cultural resources. See
Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(c) Executive Order 12898
(Environmental Justice)
Under Executive Order 12898, Federal
agencies are required to identify and
address any disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and
low-income populations. NHTSA
complied with this order by identifying
and addressing the potential effects of
the alternatives on minority and lowincome populations in Sections 3.6 and
4.6 of the FEIS, where the agency set
forth a qualitative analysis of the
cumulative effects of the alternatives on
these populations.
(d) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
(FWCA)
The FWCA (16 U.S.C. § 2900)
provides financial and technical
assistance to States for the development,
revision, and implementation of
conservation plans and programs for
nongame fish and wildlife. In addition,
the Act encourages all Federal agencies
and departments to utilize their
authority to conserve and to promote
conservation of nongame fish and
wildlife and their habitats. The agency
concludes that the FWCA is not
applicable to NHTSA’s Decision
because it does not directly involve fish
and wildlife.

PO 00000

Frm 00263

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57367

(e) Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)
The Coastal Zone Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1450) provides for the
preservation, protection, development,
and (where possible) restoration and
enhancement of the nation’s coastal
zone resources. Under the statute, States
are provided with funds and technical
assistance in developing coastal zone
management programs. Each
participating State must submit its
program to the Secretary of Commerce
for approval. Once the program has been
approved, any activity of a Federal
agency, either within or outside of the
coastal zone, that affects any land or
water use or natural resource of the
coastal zone must be carried out in a
manner that is consistent, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the
enforceable policies of the State’s
program.
The agency concludes that the CZMA
is not applicable to NHTSA’s Decision
because it does not involve an activity
within, or outside of, the nation’s
coastal zones. The agency has, however,
conducted a qualitative review of the
related direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts, positive or negative, of the
alternatives on potentially affected
resources, including coastal zones. See
Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(f) Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Under Section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) federal
agencies must ensure that actions they
authorize, fund, or carry out are ‘‘not
likely to jeopardize’’ federally listed
threatened or endangered species or
result in the destruction or adverse
modification of the designated critical
habitat of these species. 16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2). If a federal agency
determines that an agency action may
affect a listed species or designated
critical habitat, it must initiate
consultation with the appropriate
Service—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) of the Department of the
Interior and/or National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s National
Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries Service) of the Department of
Commerce, depending on the species
involved—in order to ensure that the
action is not likely to jeopardize the
species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. See 50 CFR
402.14. Under this standard, the federal
agency taking action evaluates the
possible effects of its action and
determines whether to initiate
consultation. See 51 FR 19926, 19949
(Jun. 3, 1986).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57368

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

NHTSA received one comment to the
Scoping notice for the HD program
indicating that the agency should
engage in consultation under Section 7
of the ESA when analyzing the overall
impact of GHG emissions and other air
pollutants. NHTSA has reviewed
applicable ESA regulations, case law,
guidance, and rulings in assessing the
potential for impacts to threatened and
endangered species from the HD fuel
efficiency standards. Consistent with
NHTSA’s determination under the
agency’s most recent light-duty fuel
economy rule, NHTSA believes that the
agency’s action, which will result in
nationwide fuel savings and,
consequently, emissions reductions
from what would otherwise occur in the
absence of the agency’s action, does not
require consultation with NOAA
Fisheries Service or the FWS under
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. For
discussion of the agency’s rationale in
the context of the CAFE program, see
Appendix G of the FEIS for MYs 2012–
2016, available at: http://
www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.
Accordingly, NHTSA has concluded its
review of this action under Section 7 of
the ESA.
(g) Floodplain Management (Executive
Order 11988 & DOT Order 5650.2)
These Orders require Federal agencies
to avoid the long- and short-term
adverse impacts associated with the
occupancy and modification of
floodplains, and to restore and preserve
the natural and beneficial values served
by floodplains. Executive Order 11988
also directs agencies to minimize the
impact of floods on human safety,
health and welfare, and to restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial
values served by floodplains through
evaluating the potential effects of any
actions the agency may take in a
floodplain and ensuring that its program
planning and budget requests reflect
consideration of flood hazards and
floodplain management. DOT Order
5650.2 sets forth DOT policies and
procedures for implementing Executive
Order 11988. The DOT Order requires
that the agency determine if a proposed
action is within the limits of a base
floodplain, meaning it is encroaching on
the floodplain, and whether this
encroachment is significant. If
significant, the agency is required to
conduct further analysis of the proposed
action and any practicable alternatives.
If a practicable alternative avoids
floodplain encroachment, then the
agency is required to implement it.
In this rulemaking, the agency is not
occupying, modifying and/or
encroaching on floodplains. The agency,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

therefore, concludes that the Orders are
not applicable to NHTSA’s Decision.
The agency has, however, conducted a
review of the alternatives on potentially
affected resources, including
floodplains. See Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(h) Preservation of the Nation’s
Wetlands (Executive Order 11990 &
DOT Order 5660.1a)
These Orders require Federal agencies
to avoid, to the extent possible,
undertaking or providing assistance for
new construction located in wetlands
unless the agency head finds that there
is no practicable alternative to such
construction and that the proposed
action includes all practicable measures
to minimize harms to wetlands that may
result from such use. Executive Order
11990 also directs agencies to take
action to minimize the destruction, loss
or degradation of wetlands in
‘‘conducting Federal activities and
programs affecting land use, including
but not limited to water and related land
resources planning, regulating, and
licensing activities.’’ DOT Order 5660.1a
sets forth DOT policy for interpreting
Executive Order 11990 and requires that
transportation projects ‘‘located in or
having an impact on wetlands’’ should
be conducted to assure protection of the
Nation’s wetlands. If a project does have
a significant impact on wetlands, an EIS
must be prepared.
The agency is not undertaking or
providing assistance for new
construction located in wetlands. The
agency, therefore, concludes that these
Orders do not apply to NHTSA’s
Decision. The agency has, however,
conducted a review of the alternatives
on potentially affected resources,
including wetlands. See Section 4.5 of
the FEIS.
(i) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA),
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGEPA), Executive Order 13186
The MBTA provides for the protection
of migratory birds that are native to the
United States by making it illegal for
anyone to pursue, hunt, take, attempt to
take, kill, capture, collect, possess, buy,
sell, trade, ship, import, or export any
migratory bird covered under the
statute. The statute prohibits both
intentional and unintentional acts.
Therefore, the statute is violated if an
agency acts in a manner that harms a
migratory bird, whether it was intended
or not. See, e.g., United States v. FMC
Corp., 572 F.2d 902 (2nd Cir. 1978).
The BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668) prohibits
any form of possession or taking of both
bald and golden eagles. Under the
BGEPA, violators are subject to criminal
and civil sanctions as well as an

PO 00000

Frm 00264

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

enhanced penalty provision for
subsequent offenses.
Executive Order 13186,
‘‘Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to
Protect Migratory Birds,’’ helps to
further the purposes of the MBTA by
requiring a Federal agency to develop a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the Fish and Wildlife Service when
it is taking an action that has (or is likely
to have) a measurable negative impact
on migratory bird populations.
The agency concludes that the MBTA,
BGEPA, and Executive Order 13186 do
not apply to NHTSA’s Decision because
there is no disturbance and/or take
involved in NHTSA’s Decision.
(j) Department of Transportation Act
(Section 4(f))
Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C.
303), as amended by Public Law 109–
59, is designed to preserve publicly
owned parklands, waterfowl and
wildlife refuges, and significant historic
sites. Specifically, Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act
provides that DOT agencies cannot
approve a transportation program or
project that requires the use of any
publicly owned land from a significant
public park, recreation area, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge, or any land from
a significant historic site, unless a
determination is made that:
• There is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of land, and
• The program or project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to
the property resulting from use, or
• A transportation use of Section 4(f)
property results in a de minimis impact.
The agency concludes that the Section
4(f) is not applicable to NHTSA’s
Decision because this rulemaking does
not require the use of any publicly
owned land. For a more detailed
discussion, please see Section 3.1 of the
FEIS.
(3) Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in these rules have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
The agencies propose to collect
information to ensure compliance with
the provisions in these rules. This
includes a variety of testing, reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for
vehicle manufacturers. Section 208(a) of
the CAA requires that vehicle
manufacturers provide information the
Administrator may reasonably require to
determine compliance with the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
regulations; submission of the
information is therefore mandatory. We
will consider confidential all
information meeting the requirements of
section 208(c) of the CAA.
It is estimated that this collection
affects approximately 34 engine and
vehicle manufacturers. The information
that is subject to this collection is

collected whenever a manufacturer
applies for a certificate of conformity.
Under section 206 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.
7521), a manufacturer must have a
certificate of conformity before a vehicle
or engine can be introduced into
commerce.
The burden to the manufacturers
affected by these rules has a range based

57369

on the number of engines and vehicles
a manufacturer produces. The total
estimated burden associated with these
rules is 58,064 hours annually (See
Table XII–2). This estimated burden for
engine and vehicle manufacturers is a
total estimate for new reporting
requirements. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).

TABLE XII–2—BURDEN FOR REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Number of Affected Manufacturers .................................................................................................................................................
Annual Labor Hours for Each Manufacturer to Prepare and Submit Required Information ...........................................................
Total Annual Information Collection Burden ....................................................................................................................................

An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the agency will
publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to
display the OMB control number for the
approved information collection
requirements contained in this final
action.
(4) Regulatory Flexibility Act
(a) Overview

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

The Regulatory Flexibility Act
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of these rules on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by SBA regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
(b) Summary of Potentially Affected
Small Entities
The agencies have not conducted a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this
action because the agencies are
certifying that these rules would not
have a significant economic impact on

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

a substantial number of small entities.
As proposed, the agencies are deferring
standards for manufacturers meeting
SBA’s definition of small business as
described in 13 CFR 121.201 due to the
extremely small fuel savings and
emissions contribution of these entities,
and the short lead time to develop these
rules, especially with our expectation
that the program would need to be
structured differently for them (which
would require more time). The agencies
are instead envisioning fuel
consumption and GHG emissions
standards for these entities as part of a
future regulatory action. This includes
small entities in several distinct
categories of businesses for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles: chassis
manufacturers, combination tractor
manufacturers, and alternative fuel
engine converters.
Based on a preliminary assessment,
the agencies have identified a total of
about 17 engine manufacturers, 3
complete pickup truck and van
manufacturers, 11 combination tractor
manufacturers and 43 heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers. Notably, several
of these manufacturers produce vehicles
in more than just one regulatory
category (HD pickup trucks/vans,
combination tractors, or vocational
vehicles (i.e. heavy-duty chassis
manufacturers)). Based on the types of
vehicles they manufacture, these
companies, however, would be subject
to slightly different testing and reporting
requirements. Taking this feature of the
heavy-duty trucking sector into account,
the agencies estimate that although
there are fewer than 30 manufacturers
covered by the program, there are close
to 60 divisions within these companies
that will be subject to the final
regulations. Of these, about 15 entities
fit the SBA criteria of a small business.
There are approximately three engine
converters, two tractor manufacturers,
and ten heavy-duty chassis
manufacturers in the heavy-duty engine

PO 00000

Frm 00265

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34
Varies
58,064 Hours

and vehicle market that are small
businesses. (No major heavy-duty
engine manufacturers, heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers, or tractor
manufacturers meet the small-entity
criteria as defined by SBA). The
agencies estimate that these small
entities comprise less than 0.35 percent
of the total heavy-duty vehicle sales in
the United States, and therefore the
deferment will have a negligible impact
on the fuel consumption and GHG
emissions reductions from the final
standards.
To ensure that the agencies are aware
of which companies are being deferred,
the agencies are requiring that such
entities submit a declaration to the
agencies containing a detailed written
description of how that manufacturer
qualifies as a small entity under the
provisions of 13 CFR 121.201. Some
small entities, such as heavy-duty
tractor and chassis manufacturers, are
not currently covered under criteria
pollutant motor vehicle emissions
regulations. Small engine entities are
currently covered by a number of EPA
motor vehicle emission regulations, and
they routinely submit information and
data on an annual basis as part of their
compliance responsibilities. Because
such entities are not automatically
exempted from other EPA regulations
for heavy-duty engines and vehicles,
absent such a declaration, EPA would
assume that the entity was subject to the
greenhouse gas control requirements in
this program. The declaration to the
agencies will need to be submitted at
the time of either engine or vehicle
emissions certification under the HD
highway engine program for criteria
pollutants. The agencies expect that the
additional paperwork burden associated
with completing and submitting a small
entity declaration to gain deferral from
the final GHG and fuel consumption
standards will be negligible and easily
done in the context of other routine
submittals to the agencies. However, the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57370

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

agencies have accounted for this cost
with a nominal estimate included in the
Information Collection Request
completed under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Additional information
can be found in the Paperwork
Reduction Act discussion in Section
0Paperwork Reduction Act. Based on
this, the agencies are certifying that the
rules will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
(5) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
the agencies generally must prepare a
written statement, including a 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 costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows the agencies to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator (of
either agency) publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
Before the agencies establish any
regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, they must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA and NHTSA
regulations with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
These rules contain no Federal
mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for
State, local, or tribal governments. The
rules impose no enforceable duty on any

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

State, local or tribal governments. The
agencies have determined that these
rules contain no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
agencies have determined that these
rules contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $134
million or more for the private sector in
any one year. The agencies believe that
the program represents the least costly,
most cost-effective approach to achieve
the statutory requirements of the rules.
Section VIII.L, above, explains why the
agencies believe that the fuel savings
that will result from these rules will
lead to lower prices economy-wide,
improving U.S. international
competitiveness. The costs and benefits
associated with the program are
discussed in more detail above in
Section VIII and in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis, as required by the
UMRA.
Table XII–1, above, presents the rulerelated benefits, fuel savings, costs and
net benefits in both present value terms
and in annualized terms. In both cases,
the discounted values are based on an
underlying time varying stream of cost
and benefit values that extend into the
future (2012 through 2050). The
distribution of each monetized
economic impact over time can be
viewed in the RIA that accompanies
these rules.
Present values represent the total
amount that a stream of monetized
costs/benefits/net benefits that occur
over time are worth now (in year 2009
dollar terms for this analysis),
accounting for the time value of money
by discounting future values using
either a 3 or 7 percent discount rate, per
OMB Circular A–4 guidance. An
annualized value takes the present value
and converts it into a constant stream of
annual values through a given time
period (2012 through 2050 in this
analysis) and thus averages (in present
value terms) the annual values. The
present value of the constant stream of
annualized values equals the present
value of the underlying time varying
stream of values. The ratio of benefits to
costs is identical whether it is measured
with present values or annualized
values.
It is important to note that annualized
values cannot simply be summed over
time to reflect total costs/benefits/net
benefits; they must be discounted and
summed. Additionally, the annualized
value can vary substantially from the
time varying stream of cost/benefit/net
benefit values that occur in any given
year.

PO 00000

Frm 00266

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(6) Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. These rules will
apply to manufacturers of motor
vehicles and not to state or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.
Although section 6 of Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action, the
agencies did consult with
representatives of state governments in
developing this action.
NHTSA notes that EPCA contains a
provision (49 U.S.C. 32919(a)) that
expressly preempts any State or local
government from adopting or enforcing
a law or regulation related to fuel
economy standards or average fuel
economy standards for automobiles
covered by an average fuel economy
standard under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329.
However, commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and
work trucks are not ‘‘automobiles,’’ as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3).
Accordingly, NHTSA has tentatively
concluded that EPCA’s express
preemption provision would not reach
the fuel efficiency standards to be
established in this rulemaking.
NHTSA also considered the issue of
implied or conflict preemption. The
possibility of such preemption is
dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between a standard established
by NHTSA in this rulemaking and a
State or local law or regulation. See
Spriestma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S.
51, 64–65 (2002). At present, NHTSA
has no knowledge of any State or local
law or regulation that would actually
conflict with one of the fuel efficiency
standards being established in this
rulemaking.
(7) Executive Order 13175 (Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments)
These final rules do not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). These rules will be implemented
at the Federal level and impose
compliance costs only on vehicle
manufacturers. Tribal governments
would be affected only to the extent
they purchase and use regulated
vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to these rules.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(8) Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection
of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’
This action is subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is an economically
significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866, and the
agencies believe that the environmental
health or safety risk addressed by this
action may have a disproportionate
effect on children. A synthesis of the
science and research regarding how
climate change may affect children and
other vulnerable subpopulations is
contained in the Technical Support
Document for Endangerment or Cause or
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse
Gases under section 202(a) of the Clean
Air Act, which can be found in the
public docket for these rules.587 A
summary of the analysis is presented
below.
With respect to GHG emissions, the
effects of climate change observed to
date and projected to occur in the future
include the increased likelihood of more
frequent and intense heat waves.
Specifically, EPA’s analysis of the
scientific assessment literature has
determined that severe heat waves are
projected to intensify in magnitude,
frequency, and duration over the
portions of the United States where
these events already occur, with
potential increases in mortality and
morbidity, especially among the young,
elderly, and frail. EPA has estimated
reductions in projected global mean
surface temperatures as a result of
reductions in GHG emissions associated
with the final standards in this action
(Section II). Children may receive
benefits from reductions in GHG
emissions because they are included in
the segment of the population that is
most vulnerable to extreme
temperatures.
For non-GHG pollutants, EPA has
determined that climate change is
expected to increase regional ozone
pollution, with associated risks in
respiratory infection, aggravation of
asthma, and premature death. The
directional effect of climate change on
ambient PM levels remains uncertain.
However, disturbances such as wildfires
are increasing in the United States and
are likely to intensify in a warmer future
with drier soils and longer growing
seasons. PM emissions from forest fires
can contribute to acute and chronic
illnesses of the respiratory system,
particularly in children, including
pneumonia, upper respiratory diseases,
587 See

Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

asthma and chronic obstructive
pulmonary diseases.
(9) Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Effects)
This rulemaking is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. In fact, these rules have a
positive effect on energy supply and
use. Because the final GHG emission
and fuel consumption standards will
result in significant fuel savings, these
rules encourage more efficient use of
fuels. Therefore, we have concluded
that these rules are not likely to have
any adverse energy effects. Our energy
effects analysis is described above in
Section VIII.I.
(10) National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials, specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs the
agencies to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the agencies
decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
For CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions and
fuel consumption from heavy-duty
engines, the agencies will collect data
over the same tests that are used for the
heavy-duty highway engine program for
criteria pollutants. This will minimize
the amount of testing done by
manufacturers, since manufacturers are
already required to run these tests.
For CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions and
fuel consumption from complete pickup
trucks and vans, the agencies will
collect data over the same tests that are
used for EPA’s heavy-duty highway
engine program for criteria pollutants
and for the California Air Resources
Board. This will minimize the amount
of testing done by manufacturers, since
manufacturers are already required to
run these tests.
For CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption from heavy-duty

PO 00000

Frm 00267

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57371

combination tractors and vocational
vehicles, the agencies will collect data
through the use of a simulation model
instead of a full-vehicle chassis
dynamometer testing. This will
minimize the amount of testing done by
manufacturers. EPA’s compliance
assessment tool is based upon wellestablished engineering and physics
principals that are the basis of general
academic understanding in this area,
and the foundation of any dynamic
vehicle simulation model, including the
models cited by ICCT in its study.588
Therefore, the EPA’s compliance
assessment tool satisfies the description
of a consensus. For the evaluation of tire
rolling resistance input to the model,
EPA is finalizing to use the ISO 28580
test, a voluntary consensus
methodology. EPA is adopting several
alternatives for the evaluation of
aerodynamics which allows the
industry to continue to use their own
evaluation tools because EPA does not
know of a single consensus standard
available for heavy-duty truck
aerodynamic evaluation.
For air conditioning standards, EPA is
finalizing a consensus methodology
developed by the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE).
(11) Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
With respect to GHG emissions, EPA
has determined that these final rules
will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because they
increase the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any
population, including any minority or
low-income population. The reductions
in CO2 and other GHGs associated with
the standards will affect climate change
588 ICCT. ICCT Evaluation of Vehicle Simulation
Tools. 2009.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57372

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

projections, and EPA has estimated
reductions in projected global mean
surface temperatures (Section VI).
Within communities experiencing
climate change, certain parts of the
population may be especially
vulnerable; these include the poor, the
elderly, those already in poor health, the
disabled, those living alone, and/or
indigenous populations dependent on
one or a few resources.589 In addition,
the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program stated as one of its conclusions:
‘‘The United States is certainly capable
of adapting to the collective impacts of
climate change. However, there will still
be certain individuals and locations
where the adaptive capacity is less and
these individuals and their communities
will be disproportionally impacted by
climate change.’’ 590 Therefore, these
specific sub-populations may receive
benefits from reductions in GHGs.
For non-GHG co-pollutants such as
ozone, PM2.5, and toxics, EPA has
concluded that it is not practicable to
determine whether there would be
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority and/or low income
populations from these rules.
(12) Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The agencies will
submit a report containing these rules
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rules in the Federal
Register. A Major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
These rules will be effective November
14, 2011, sixty days after date of
publication in the Federal Register.
(13) Privacy Act

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
589 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.
590 CCSP

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an organization,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
statement in the Federal Register (65 FR
19477–78, April 11, 2000) or you may
visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
A. EPA
Statutory authority for the vehicle
controls in these rules is found in CAA
section 202(a) (which requires EPA to
establish standards for emissions of
pollutants from new motor vehicles and
engines which emissions cause or
contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare), sections
202(d), 203–209, 216, and 301 of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521 (a), 7521 (d), 7522,
7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543,
7550, and 7601.
B. NHTSA
Statutory authority for the fuel
consumption standards in these rules is
found in EISA section 103 (which
authorizes a fuel efficiency
improvement program, designed to
achieve the maximum feasible
improvement to be created for
commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles and work trucks, to
include appropriate test methods,
measurement metrics, standards, and
compliance and enforcement protocols
that are appropriate, cost-effective and
technologically feasible) of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007,
49 U.S.C. 32902(k).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 85
Confidential business information,
Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1033
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control.
40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information,
Environmental protection, Incorporation
by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle
pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1039
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential
business information, Imports, Labeling,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
40 CFR Part 1068
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535
Fuel economy.
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Chapter I
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency is amending 40 CFR chapter I of
the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 85—CONTROL OF AIR
POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 85
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

40 CFR Part 86
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Incorporation by reference,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 600
Administrative practice and
procedure, Electric power, Fuel
economy, Incorporation by reference,
Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

PO 00000

Frm 00268

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Subpart F—[Amended]
2. Section 85.525 is revised to read as
follows:

■

§ 85.525

Applicable standards.

To qualify for an exemption from the
tampering prohibition, vehicles/engines
that have been converted to operate on
a different fuel must meet emission
standards and related requirements as
follows:
(a) The modified vehicle/engine must
meet the requirements that applied for

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the OEM vehicle/engine, or the most
stringent OEM vehicle/engine standards
in any allowable grouping. Fleet average
standards do not apply unless clean
alternative fuel conversions are
specifically listed as subject to the
standards.
(1) If the vehicle/engine was certified
with a Family Emission Limit for NOX,
NOX+HC, or particulate matter, as noted
on the vehicle/engine emission control
information label, the modified vehicle/
engine may not exceed this Family
Emission Limit.
(2) Compliance with greenhouse gas
emission standards is demonstrated as
follows:
(i) Subject to the following exceptions
and special provisions, compliance with
light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
emission standards is demonstrated by
complying with the N2O and CH4
standards and provisions set forth in 40
CFR 86.1818–12(f)(1) and the in-use CO2
exhaust emission standard set forth in
40 CFR 86.1818–12(d) as determined by
the OEM for the subconfiguration that is
identical to the fuel conversion
emission data vehicle (EDV).
(A) If the OEM complied with the
light-duty greenhouse gas standards
using the fleet averaging option for N2O
and CH4, as allowed under 40 CFR
86.1818–12(f)(2), the calculations of the
carbon-related exhaust emissions
require the input of grams/mile values
for N2O and CH4, and you are not
required to demonstrate compliance
with the standalone CH4 and N2O
standards.
(B) If the OEM complied with
alternate standards for N2O and/or CH4,
as allowed under 40 CFR 86.1818–
12(f)(3), you may demonstrate
compliance with the same alternate
standards.
(C) If the OEM complied with the
nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4)
standards and provisions set forth in 40
CFR 86.1818–12(f)(1) or 86.1818–
12(f)(3), and the fuel conversion CO2
measured value is lower than the in-use
CO2 exhaust emission standard, you
also have the option to convert the
difference between the in-use CO2
exhaust emission standard and the fuel
conversion CO2 measured value into
GHG equivalents of CH4 and/or N2O,
using 298 g CO2 to represent 1 g N2O
and 25 g CO2 to represent 1 g CH4. You
may then subtract the applicable
converted values from the fuel
conversion measured values of CH4 and/
or N2O to demonstrate compliance with
the CH4 and/or N2O standards.
(ii) Compliance with heavy-duty
engine greenhouse gas emission
standards is demonstrated by complying
with the CO2, N2O, and CH4 standards

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(or FELs, as applicable) and provisions
set forth in 40 CFR 1036.108 for the
engine family that is represented by the
fuel conversion emission data engine
(EDE). If the fuel conversion CO2
measured value is lower than the CO2
standard (or FEL, as applicable), you
have the option to convert the difference
between the CO2 standard (or FEL, as
applicable) and the fuel conversion CO2
measured value into GHG equivalents of
CH4 and/or N2O, using 298 g/hp-hr CO2
to represent 1 g/hp-hr N2O and 25 g/hphr CO2 to represent 1 g/hp-hr CH4. You
may then subtract the applicable
converted values from the fuel
conversion measured values of CH4 and/
or N2O to demonstrate compliance with
the CH4 and/or N2O standards (or FEL,
as applicable).
(3) Conversion systems for engines
that would have qualified for chassis
certification at the time of OEM
certification may use those procedures,
even if the OEM did not. Conversion
manufacturers choosing this option
must designate test groups using the
appropriate criteria as described in this
subpart and meet all vehicle chassis
certification requirements set forth in 40
CFR part 86, subpart S.
(b) [Reserved]
Subpart P—[Amended]
3. Section 85.1511 is revised to read
as follows:

■

§ 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 apply:
(1) Exemption for repairs or
alterations. Vehicles and engines may
qualify for a temporary exemption
under the provisions of 40 CFR

PO 00000

Frm 00269

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57373

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
§ 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 apply:
(1) National security exemption.
Vehicles may be imported under the
national security exemption found at 40
CFR 1068.315(a). Only persons who are
manufacturers may import a vehicle
under a national security exemption.
(2) Hardship exemption. The
Administrator may exempt on a case-bycase basis certain motor vehicles from
Federal emission requirements to
accommodate unforeseen cases of
extreme hardship or extraordinary

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57374

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

circumstances. Some examples are as
follows:
(i) Handicapped individuals who
need a special vehicle unavailable in a
certified configuration;
(ii) Individuals who purchase a
vehicle in a foreign country where
resale is prohibited upon the departure
of such an individual;
(iii) Individuals emigrating from a
foreign country to the U.S. in
circumstances of severe hardship.
(d) Foreign diplomatic and military
personnel may import nonconforming
vehicles without bond. At the time of
admission, the importer shall submit to
the Administrator the written report
required in § 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(b) and (c) of this section shall be mailed
to the Designated Compliance Officer
(see 40 CFR 1068.30).
(h) Vehicles conditionally or finally
admitted under this section must still
comply with all applicable
requirements, if any, of the Energy Tax
Act of 1978, the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act and any other Federal
or state requirements.
Subpart R—[Amended]
4. Section 85.1701 is revised to read
as follows:

■

§ 85.1701

Subpart T—[Amended]
5. Section 85.1901 is revised to read
as follows:

■

Applicability.

Except as specified in this section, the
requirements of this subpart shall be
applicable to all 1972 and later model
year vehicles and engines. The
requirement to report emission-related
defects affecting a given class or

PO 00000

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW AND IN–USE HIGHWAY
VEHICLES AND ENGINES
6. The authority citation for part 86
continues to read as follows:

■

General applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart
regarding exemptions are applicable to
new and in-use motor vehicles and
motor vehicle engines, except as
follows:
(1) Beginning January 1, 2014, the
exemption provisions of 40 CFR part
1068, subpart C, apply for heavy-duty
motor vehicles and engines, except that
the competition exemption of 40 CFR
1068.235 and the hardship exemption
provisions of 40 CFR 1068.245,
1068.250, and 1068.255 do not apply for
motor vehicle engines.
(2) Prior to January 1, 2014, the
provisions of §§ 85.1706 through
85.1709 apply for heavy-duty motor
vehicle engines.
(b) The provisions of this subpart
regarding exclusion are applicable after
the effective date of these regulations.
(c) References in this subpart to
engine families and emission control
systems shall be deemed to apply to
durability groups and test groups as
applicable for manufacturers certifying
new light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, and Otto-cycle complete heavyduty vehicles under the provisions of 40
CFR part 86, subpart S.
(d) In a given model year,
manufacturers of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle engines may ask us to
approve the use of administrative or
compliance procedures specified in 40
CFR part 1068 instead of the comparable
procedures that apply for vehicles or
engines certified under this part or 40
CFR part 86.

§ 85.1901

category of vehicles or engines shall
remain applicable for five years from the
end of the model year in which such
vehicles or engines were manufactured.
Manufacturers of heavy-duty motor
vehicle engines may comply with the
defect reporting requirements of 40 CFR
1068.501 instead of the requirements of
this subpart.

Frm 00270

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

7. Section 86.1 is amended by adding
paragraphs (b)(2)(xli) and (b)(2)(xlii) and
removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(4)(i)(A) to read as follows:

■

§ 86.1

Reference materials.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(xli) SAE J1711, Recommended
Practice for Measuring the Exhaust
Emissions and Fuel Economy of HybridElectric Vehicles, Including Plug-In
Hybrid Vehicles, June 2010, IBR
approved for § 86.1811–04(n).
(xlii) SAE J1634, Electric Vehicle
Energy Consumption and Range Test
Procedure, Cancelled October 2002, IBR
approved for § 86.1811–04(n).
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart A—[Amended]
8. Section 86.010–18 is amended by
adding paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(E) and (q) to
read as follows:

■

§ 86.010–18 On-board Diagnostics for
engines used in applications greater than
14,000 pounds GVWR.

*

*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) For hybrid engine families with
projected U.S.-directed production
volume of less than 5,000 engines, the
manufacturers are only required to test
one engine-hybrid combination per
family.
*
*
*
*
*
(q) Optional phase-in for hybrid
vehicles. This paragraph (q) applies for
model year 2013 through 2015 engines
when used with hybrid powertrain
systems. It also applies for model year
2016 engines used with hybrid
powertrain systems that were offered for

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
sale prior to January 1, 2013, as
specified in paragraph (q)(4) of this
section. Manufacturers choosing to use
the provisions of this paragraph (q) must
submit an annual pre-compliance report
to EPA for model years 2013 and later,
as specified in paragraph (q)(5) of this
section. Note that all hybrid powertrain
systems must be fully compliant with
the OBD requirements of this section no
later than model year 2017.
(1) If an engine-hybrid system has
been certified by the California Air
Resources Board with respect to its OBD
requirements and it effectively meets
the full OBD requirements of this
section, all equivalent systems must
meet those same requirements and may
not be certified under this paragraph (q).
For purposes of this paragraph (q)(1), an
engine-hybrid system is considered to
be equivalent to the certified system if
it uses the same basic design (e.g.
displacement) for the engine and
primary hybrid components (see
paragraph (q)(4) of this section).
Equivalent systems may have minor
hardware or calibration differences.
(2) As of 2013, if an engine-hybrid
system has not been certified to meet
the full OBD requirements of this
section, it must comply with the
following requirements:
(i) The engine in its installed
configuration must meet the EMD and
EMD+ requirements in 13 CCR
§ 1971.1(d)(7.1.4) of the California Code
of Regulations. For purposes of this
paragraph (q), a given EMD requirement
is deemed to be met if the engine’s OBD
system addresses the same function.
This allowance does not apply for OBD
monitors or diagnostics that have been
modified under paragraph (q)(2)(ii) of
this section.
(ii) The engine-hybrid system must
maintain existing OBD capability for
engines where the same or equivalent
engine has been OBD certified. An
equivalent engine is one produced by
the same engine manufacturer with the
same fundamental design, but that may
have hardware or calibration differences
that do not impact OBD functionality,
such as slightly different displacement,
rated power, or fuel system. (Note that
engines with the same fundamental
design will be presumed to be
equivalent unless the manufacturer
demonstrates that the differences
effectively preclude applying equivalent
OBD systems.) Though the OBD
capability must be maintained, it does
not have to meet detection thresholds
(as described in Tables 1 and 2 of this
section) and in-use performance
frequency requirements (as described in
paragraph (d) of this section). A
manufacturer may modify detection

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

thresholds to prevent false detection,
and must indicate all deviations from
the originally certified package with
engineering justification in the
certification documentation.
(iii) This paragraph (q)(2)(iii) applies
for derivatives of hybrid powertrain
system designs that were offered for sale
prior to January 1, 2013. Until these
systems achieve full OBD certification,
they must at a minimum maintain all
fault-detection and diagnostic capability
included on similar systems offered for
sale prior to 2013. Manufacturers
choosing to use the provisions of this
paragraph (q)(2) must keep copies of the
service manuals (and similar
documents) for these previous model
years to show the technical description
of the system’s fault detection and
diagnostic capabilities.
(iv) You must submit an annual precompliance report to EPA for model
years 2013 and later, as specified in
paragraph (q)(5) of this section.
(3) Engine-hybrid systems may be
certified to the requirements of
paragraph (q)(2) of this section by the
engine manufacturer, the hybrid system
manufacturer, or the vehicle
manufacturer. If engine manufacturers
certify the engine hybrid system, they
must provide detailed installation
instructions. Where the engine
manufacturer does not specifically
certify its engines for use in hybrid
vehicles under this paragraph (q), the
hybrid system manufacturer and vehicle
manufacturer must install the engine to
conform to the requirements of this
section (i.e., full OBD) or recertify under
paragraph (q)(2) of this section.
(4) The provisions of this paragraph
(q) apply for model year 2016 engines
where you demonstrate that the hybrid
powertrain system used is a derivative
of a design that was offered for sale
prior to January 1, 2013. In this case,
you may ask us to consider the original
system and the later system to be the
same model for purposes of this
paragraph (q), unless the systems are
fundamentally different. In determining
whether such systems are derivative or
fundamentally different, we will
consider factors such as the similarity of
the following:
(i) Transmissions.
(ii) Hybrid machines (where ‘‘hybrid
machine’’ means any system that is the
part of a hybrid vehicle system that
captures energy from and returns energy
to the powertrain).
(iii) Hybrid architecture (such as
parallel or series).
(iv) Motor/generator size, controller/
CPU (memory or inputs/outputs),
control algorithm, and batteries. This

PO 00000

Frm 00271

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57375

paragraph (q)(4)(iv) applies only if all of
these are modified simultaneously.
(5) Manufacturers choosing to use the
provisions of this paragraph (q) must
submit an annual pre-compliance report
to EPA for model years 2013 and later.
Engine manufacturers must submit this
report with their engine certification
information. Hybrid manufacturers that
are not certifying the engine-hybrid
system must submit their report by June
1 of the model year, or at the time of
certification if they choose to certify.
Include the following in the report:
(i) A description of the manufacturer’s
product plans and of the engine-hybrid
systems being certified.
(ii) A description of activities
undertaken and progress made by the
manufacturer towards achieving full
OBD certification, including monitoring,
diagnostics, and standardization.
(iii) For model year 2016 engines, a
description of your basis for applying
the provision of this paragraph (q) to the
engines.
9. A new § 86.012–2 is added to
subpart A to read as follows:

■

§ 86.012–2

Definitions.

The definitions of § 86.010–2
continue to apply to model year 2010
and later model year vehicles. The
definitions listed in this section apply
beginning with model year 2012. Urban
bus means a passenger-carrying vehicle
with a load capacity of fifteen or more
passengers and intended primarily for
intracity operation, i.e., within the
confines of a city or greater metropolitan
area. Urban bus operation is
characterized by short rides and
frequent stops. To facilitate this type of
operation, more than one set of quickoperating entrance and exit doors would
normally be installed. Since fares are
usually paid in cash or tokens, rather
than purchased in advance in the form
of tickets, urban buses would normally
have equipment installed for collection
of fares. Urban buses are also typically
characterized by the absence of
equipment and facilities for long
distance travel, e.g., rest rooms, large
luggage compartments, and facilities for
stowing carry-on luggage.
10. A new § 86.016–1 is added to
subpart A to read as follows:

■

§ 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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57376

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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
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:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(1) The standards and requirements of
this part apply as specified for vehicles
fueled with methanol, natural gas, and
LPG.
(2) The standards and requirements of
subpart S of this part apply as specified
for light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks.
(3) The standards and requirements of
this part applicable to methanol-fueled
heavy-duty vehicles and engines
(including flexible fuel vehicles and
engines) apply to heavy-duty vehicles
and engines fueled with any oxygenated
fuel (including flexible fuel vehicles and
engines). Most significantly, this means
that the hydrocarbon standards apply as
NMHCE and the vehicles and engines
must be tested using the applicable
oxygenated fuel according to the test
procedures in 40 CFR part 1065
applicable for oxygenated fuels. For
purposes of this paragraph (d),
oxygenated fuel means any fuel
containing at least 50 volume percent
oxygenated compounds. For example, a
fuel mixture of 85 gallons of ethanol and
15 gallons of gasoline is an oxygenated
fuel, while a fuel mixture of 15 gallons
of ethanol and 85 gallons of gasoline is
not an oxygenated fuel.
(4) The standards and requirements of
subpart S of this part applicable to
heavy-duty vehicles under 14,000
pounds GVWR apply to all heavy-duty
vehicles powered solely by electricity,
including plug-in electric vehicles and
solar-powered vehicles. Use good
engineering judgment to apply these
requirements to these vehicles,
including applying these provisions to
vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR.
Electric heavy-duty vehicles may not
generate NOX or PM emission credits.
Heavy-duty vehicles powered solely by
electricity are deemed to have zero
emissions of regulated pollutants.
(5) The standards and requirements of
this part applicable to diesel-fueled
heavy-duty vehicles and engines apply
to all other heavy-duty vehicles and
engines not otherwise addressed in this
paragraph (d).
(6) See 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037
for requirements related to greenhouse
gas emissions.
(7) Manufacturers may voluntarily
certify to the standards of paragraphs
(d)(3) through (5) of this section before
model year 2016. Note that other
provisions in this part require
compliance with the standards
described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of
this section for model years before 2016.
(e) Small volume manufacturers.
Special certification procedures are
available for any manufacturer whose
projected combined U.S. sales of lightduty vehicles, light-duty trucks, heavy-

PO 00000

Frm 00272

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

duty vehicles, and heavy-duty engines
in its product line (including all
vehicles and engines imported under
the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 and
85.1509) are fewer than 10,000 units for
the model year in which the
manufacturer seeks certification. To
certify its product line under these
optional procedures, the small-volume
manufacturer must first obtain the
Administrator’s approval. The
manufacturer must meet the eligibility
criteria specified in § 86.098–14(b)
before the Administrator’s approval will
be granted. The small-volume
manufacturer’s certification procedures
are described in § 86.098–14.
(f) Optional procedures for
determining exhaust opacity. (1) The
provisions of subpart I of this part apply
to tests which are performed by the
Administrator, and optionally, by the
manufacturer.
(2) Measurement procedures, other
than those described in subpart I of this
part, may be used by the manufacturer
provided the manufacturer satisfies the
requirements of § 86.007–23(f).
(3) When a manufacturer chooses to
use an alternative measurement
procedure, it has the responsibility to
determine whether the results obtained
by the procedure will correlate with the
results which would be obtained from
the measurement procedure in subpart I
of this part. Consequently, the
Administrator will not routinely
approve or disapprove any alternative
opacity measurement procedure or any
associated correlation data which the
manufacturer elects to use to satisfy the
data requirements for subpart I of this
part.
(4) If a confirmatory test is performed
and the results indicate there is a
systematic problem suggesting that the
data generated under an optional
alternative measurement procedure do
not adequately correlate with data
obtained in accordance with the
procedures described in subpart I of this
part, EPA may require that all
certificates of conformity not already
issued be based on data obtained from
procedures described in subpart I of this
part.
11. Section 86.090–2 is amended by
revising the definition of ‘‘primary
intended service class’’ to read as
follows:

■

§ 86.090–2

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Primary intended service class has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1036.140.
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart B—[Amended]

§ 86.1305–2010
subpart.

12. Section 86.144–94 is amended by
adding paragraphs (b)(11) and (c)(10) to
read as follows:

*

■

§ 86.144–94
emissions.

Calculations; exhaust

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(11) Nitrous Oxide Mass: Vmix ×
DensityN2O × (N2Oconc/1,000,000)
(c) * * *
(10)(i) N2Omass = Nitrous oxide
emissions, in grams per test phase.
(ii) DensityN2O = Density of nitrous
oxide is 51.81 g/ft3 (1.83 kg/m3), at 68
°F (20 °C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3kPa)
pressure.
(iii)(A) N2Oconc = Nitrous oxide
concentration of the dilute exhaust
sample corrected for background, in
ppm.
(B) N2Oconc = N2Oe ¥ N2Od(1 ¥ (1/
DF)).

*

*

*

§ 86.1806–01—[Amended]

15. Section 86.1806–01 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(8)(ii).

■

§ 86.1806–05—[Amended]

16. Section 86.1806–05 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(8)(ii).
■ 17. Section 86.1811–04 is amended by
revising paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
■

*

Subpart F—[Amended]
13. Section 86.544–90 is amended by
adding paragraphs (b)(8) and (c)(8) to
read as follows:

■

§ 86.544–90
emissions.

Calculations; exhaust

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(8) Nitrous Oxide Mass: Vmix ×
DensityN2O × (N2Oconc/1,000,000)
(c) * * *
(8)(i) N2Omass = Nitrous oxide
emissions, in grams per test phase.
(ii) Density N2O = Density of nitrous
oxide is 51.81 g/ft3 (1.83 kg/m3), at 68
°F (20 °C) and 760 mm Hg (101.3kPa)
pressure.
(iii)(A) N2Oconc = Nitrous oxide
concentration of the dilute exhaust
sample corrected for background, in
ppm.
(B) N2Oconc = N2Oe-N2Od(1¥(1/DF)).

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

Where:
N2Oe = Nitrous oxide concentration of the
dilute exhaust sample as measured, in
ppm.
N2Od = Nitrous oxide concentration of the
dilution air as measured, in ppm.

*

*

*

*

*

Subpart N—[Amended]
14. Section 86.1305–2010 is amended
by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

■

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

*
*
*
*
(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.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart S—[Amended]

Where:
N2Oe = Nitrous oxide concentration of the
dilute exhaust sample as measured, in
ppm.
N2Od = Nitrous oxide concentration of the
dilution air as measured, in ppm.

*

Introduction; structure of

§ 86.1811–04 Emission standards for lightduty vehicles, light-duty trucks and
medium-duty passenger vehicles.

*

*
*
*
*
(n) Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) and
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV)
requirements. For FTP and SFTP
exhaust emissions, manufacturers must
measure emissions from all HEVs and
ZEVs according to the procedures
specified in SAE J1711 and SAE J1634,
respectively (incorporated by reference
in § 86.1).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 18. Section 86.1818–12 is amended by
revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 86.1818–12 Greenhouse gas emission
standards for light-duty vehicles, light-duty
trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) Nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane
(CH4) exhaust emission standards for
passenger automobiles and light trucks.
Each manufacturer’s fleet of combined
passenger automobile and light trucks
must comply with N2O and CH4
standards using either the provisions of
paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this
section. Except with prior EPA
approval, a manufacturer may not use
the provisions of both paragraphs (f)(1)
and (2) of this section in a model year.
For example, a manufacturer may not

PO 00000

Frm 00273

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57377

use the provisions of paragraph (f)(1) of
this section for their passenger
automobile fleet and the provisions of
paragraph (f)(2) of this section for their
light truck fleet in the same model year.
The manufacturer may use the
provisions of both paragraphs (f)(1) and
(3) of this section in a model year. For
example, a manufacturer may meet the
N2O standard in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of
this section and an alternative CH4
standard determined under paragraph
(f)(3) of this section in the same model
year. Use of the provisions in paragraph
(f)(3) of this section is limited to the
2012 through 2016 model years.
(1) Standards applicable to each test
group. (i) Exhaust emissions of nitrous
oxide (N2O) shall not exceed 0.010
grams per mile at full useful life, as
measured according to the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) described in subpart B
of this part. Manufacturers may
optionally determine an alternative N2O
standard under paragraph (f)(3) of this
section. (ii) Exhaust emissions of
methane (CH4) shall not exceed 0.030
grams per mile at full useful life, as
measured according to the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) described in subpart B
of this part. Manufacturers may
optionally determine an alternative CH4
standard under paragraph (f)(3) of this
section.
(2) Include N 2O and CH4 in fleet
averaging program. Manufacturers may
elect to not meet the emission standards
in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
Manufacturers making this election
shall include N2O and CH4 emissions in
the determination of their fleet average
carbon-related exhaust emissions, as
calculated in 40 CFR part 600, subpart
F. Manufacturers using this option must
include both N2O and CH4 full useful
life values in the fleet average
calculations for passenger automobiles
and light trucks. Use of this option will
account for N2O and CH4 emissions
within the carbon-related exhaust
emission value determined for each
model type according to the provisions
of 40 CFR part 600. This option requires
the determination of full useful life
emission values for both the Federal
Test Procedure and the Highway Fuel
Economy Test. Manufacturers selecting
this option are not required to
demonstrate compliance with the
standards in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section.
(3) Optional use of alternative N2O
and/or CH4 standards. Manufacturers
may select an alternative standard
applicable to a test group, for either
N2O, CH4, or both. For example, a
manufacturer may choose to meet the
N2O standard in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of
this section and an alternative CH4

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57378

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

standard in lieu of the standard in
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section. The
alternative standard for each pollutant
must be greater than the applicable
exhaust emission standard specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
Alternative N2O and CH4 standards
apply to emissions measured according
to the Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
described in Subpart B of this part for
the full useful life, and become the
applicable certification and in-use
emission standard(s) for the test group.
Manufacturers using an alternative
standard for N2O and/or CH4 must
calculate emission debits according to
the provisions of paragraph (f)(4) of this
section for each test group/alternative
standard combination. Debits must be
included in the calculation of total
credits or debits generated in a model
year as required under § 86.1865–
12(k)(5). For flexible fuel vehicles (or
other vehicles certified for multiple
fuels) you must meet these alternative
standards when tested on any
applicable test fuel type.
(4) CO2-equivalent debits. CO2equivalent debits for test groups using
an alternative N2Oand/or CH4 standard
as determined under paragraph (f)(3) of
this section shall be calculated
according to the following equation and
rounded to the nearest megagram:
Debits = [GWP × (Production) ×
(AltStd—Std) × VLM]/1,000,000
Where:
Debits = N2O or CH4 CO2-equivalent debits
for a test group using an alternative N2O
or CH4 standard;
GWP = 25 if calculating CH4 debits and 298
if calculating N2O debits;
Production = The number of vehicles of that
test group domestically produced plus
those imported as defined in § 600.511 of
this chapter;
AltStd = The alternative standard (N2O or
CH4) selected by the manufacturer under
paragraph (f)(3) of this section;
Std = The exhaust emission standard for N2O
or CH4 specified in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section; and
VLM = 195,264 for passenger automobiles
and 225,865 for light trucks.

19. Section 86.1823–08 is amended by
revising paragraph (m) to read as
follows:

■

§ 86.1823–08 Durability demonstration
procedures for exhaust emissions.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

*
*
*
*
(m) Durability demonstration
procedures for vehicles subject to the
greenhouse gas exhaust emission
standards specified in § 86.1818. (1)
CO2. (i) Unless otherwise specified
under paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this
section, manufacturers may use a
multiplicative CO2 deterioration factor
of one or an additive deterioration factor

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

of zero to determine full useful life
emissions for the FTP and HFET tests.
(ii) Based on an analysis of industrywide data, EPA may periodically
establish and/or update the
deterioration factor for CO2 emissions,
including air conditioning and other
credit-related emissions. Deterioration
factors established and/or updated
under this paragraph (m)(1)(ii) will
provide adequate lead time for
manufacturers to plan for the change.
(iii) Alternatively, manufacturers may
use the whole-vehicle mileage
accumulation procedures in § 86.1823–
08 (c) or (d)(1) to determine CO2
deterioration factors. In this case, each
FTP test performed on the durability
data vehicle selected under § 86.1822
must also be accompanied by an HFET
test, and combined FTP/HFET CO2
results determined by averaging the city
(FTP) and highway (HFET) CO2 values,
weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively.
The deterioration factor will be
determined for this combined CO2
value. Calculated multiplicative
deterioration factors that are less than
one shall be set to equal one, and
calculated additive deterioration factors
that are less than zero shall be set to
zero.
(iv) If, in the good engineering
judgment of the manufacturer, the
deterioration factors determined
according to paragraphs (m)(1)(i),
(m)(1)(ii), or (m)(1)(iii) of this section do
not adequately account for the expected
CO2 emission deterioration over the
vehicle’s useful life, the manufacturer
may petition EPA to request a more
appropriate deterioration factor.
(2) N2O and CH4. (i) For
manufacturers complying with the FTP
emission standards for N2O and CH4
specified in § 86.1818–12(f)(1) or
determined under § 86.1818–12(f)(3),
FTP-based deterioration factors for N2O
and CH4 shall be determined according
to the provisions of paragraphs (a)
through (l) of this section.
(ii) For manufacturers complying with
the fleet averaging option for N2O and
CH4 as allowed under § 86.1818–
12(f)(2), deterioration factors based on
FTP testing shall be determined and
may be used to determine full useful life
emissions for the FTP and HFET tests.
The manufacturer may at its option
determine separate deterioration factors
for the FTP and HFET test cycles, in
which case each FTP test performed on
the durability data vehicle selected
under § 86.1822 of this part must also be
accompanied by an HFET test.
(iii) For the 2012 through 2014 model
years only, manufacturers may use
alternative deterioration factors. For
N2O, the alternative deterioration factor

PO 00000

Frm 00274

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to be used to adjust FTP and HFET
emissions is the deterioration factor
determined for NOX emissions
according to the provisions of this
section. For CH4, the alternative
deterioration factor to be used to adjust
FTP and HFET emissions is the
deterioration factor determined for
NMOG or NMHC emissions according to
the provisions of this section.
(3) Other carbon-related exhaust
emissions. FTP-based deterioration
factors shall be determined for carbonrelated exhaust emissions (CREE),
hydrocarbons, and CO according to the
provisions of paragraphs (a) through (l)
of this section. The FTP-based
deterioration factor shall be used to
determine full useful life emissions for
both the FTP (city) and HFET (highway)
test cycles. The manufacturer may at its
option determine separate deterioration
factors for the FTP and HFET test
cycles, in which case each FTP test
performed on the durability data vehicle
selected under § 86.1822 must also be
accompanied by an HFET test. In lieu of
determining emission-specific
deterioration factors for the specific
hydrocarbons of CH3OH (methanol),
HCHO (formaldehyde), C2H5OH
(ethanol), and C2H4O (acetaldehyde) as
may be required for some alternative
fuel vehicles, manufacturers may use
the additive or multiplicative
deterioration factor determined for (or
derived from, using good engineering
judgment) NMOG or NMHC emissions
according to the provisions of this
section.
(4) Air Conditioning leakage and
efficiency or other emission credit
requirements to comply with exhaust
CO2 standards. Manufactures will attest
to the durability of components and
systems used to meet the CO2 standards.
Manufacturers may submit engineering
data to provide durability
demonstration. Deterioration factors do
not apply to emission-related
components and systems used to
generate air conditioning leakage and/or
efficiency credits.
■ 20. Section 86.1844–01 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(15) to read as
follows:
§ 86.1844–01 Information requirements:
Application for certification and submittal of
information upon request.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(15)(i) For HEVs and EVs, describe the
recharging procedures and methods for
determining battery performance, such
as state of charge and charging capacity.
(ii) For vehicles with fuel-fired
heaters, include the information
specified in this paragraph (d)(15)(ii).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Describe the control system logic of the
fuel-fired heater, including an
evaluation of the conditions under
which it can be operated and an
evaluation of the possible operational
modes and conditions under which
evaporative emissions can exist. Use
good engineering judgment to establish
an estimated exhaust emission rate from
the fuel-fired heater in grams per mile.
Describe the testing used to establish the
exhaust emission rate.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 21. Section 86.1863–07 is revised to
read as follows:
§ 86.1863–07 Chassis certification for
diesel vehicles.

§ 86.1865–12 How to comply with the fleet
average CO2 standards.

*

*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) N2O and/or CH4 CO2-equivalent
debits accumulated according to the
provisions of § 86.1818–12(f)(4).
*
*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(F) Carbon-related exhaust emission
standard, N2O emission standard, and
CH4 emission standard to which the
passenger car or light truck is certified.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) Each manufacturer must submit an
annual report. The annual report must
contain for each applicable CO2
standard, the calculated fleet average
CO2 value, all values required to
calculate the CO2 emissions value, the
number of credits generated or debits
incurred, all the values required to
calculate the credits or debits, and the
resulting balance of credits or debits.
For each applicable alternative N2O
and/or CH4 standard selected under the
provisions of § 86.1818–12(f)(3), the
report must contain the N2O and/or CH4
CO2-equivalent debits calculated
according to § 86.1818–12(f)(4) for each
test group and all values required to
calculate the number of debits incurred.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 600—FUEL ECONOMY AND
GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST
EMISSIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
23. The authority citation for part 600
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901—23919q, Pub.
L. 109–58.

Subpart A—[Amended]
24. Section 600.011 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:

■

§ 600.011

Incorporation by reference.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice
for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions
and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric
Vehicles, Including Plug-In Hybrid
Vehicles, June 2010, IBR approved for
§§ 600.114–12(c) and (f), 600.116–12(b),
and 600.311–12(d), (j), and (k).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—[Amended]
25. Section 600.114–12 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (c), paragraph (e)(2)(ii), and
the introductory text of paragraph (f), to
read as follows:

■

§ 600.114–12 Vehicle-specific 5-cycle fuel
economy and carbon-related exhaust
emission calculations.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) Fuel economy calculations for
hybrid electric vehicles. Test hybrid
electric vehicles as described in SAE
J1711 (incorporated by reference in
§ 600.011). For FTP testing, this
generally involves emission sampling
over four phases (bags) of the UDDS
(cold-start, transient, warm-start,
transient); however, these four phases
may be combined into two phases
(phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4).
Calculations for these sampling methods
follow:
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Determine the 5-cycle highway
carbon-related exhaust emissions
according to the following formula:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

ER15SE11.065

Where:

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00275

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.064

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(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
of this subpart S that are applicable to
Otto-cycle vehicles, except for
evaporative, refueling, and OBD
requirements where the diesel-specific
OBD requirements would apply.
(b) For OBD, diesel vehicles
optionally certified under this section
are subject to the OBD requirements of
§ 86.1806.
(c) Diesel vehicles certified under this
section may be tested using the test
fuels, sampling systems, or analytical
systems specified for diesel engines in
subpart N of this part or in 40 CFR part
1065.
(d) Diesel vehicles optionally certified
under this section to the standards of
this subpart may not be included in any
averaging, banking, or trading program
for criteria emissions under this part.
(e) The provisions of § 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.
(i) Non-petroleum fueled complete
vehicles subject to the standards and
requirements of this part under
§ 86.016–01(d)(5) are subject to the
provisions of this section applicable to
diesel-fueled heavy-duty vehicles.
■ 22. Section 86.1865–12 is amended by
adding paragraph (k)(5)(iv) and by
revising paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(F) and
(l)(2)(i) to read as follows:

57379

57380

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

*

*
*
*
*
(f) CO2 and carbon-related exhaust
emissions calculations for hybrid
electric vehicles. Test hybrid electric
vehicles as described in SAE J1711
(incorporated by reference in § 600.011).
For FTP testing, this generally involves
emission sampling over four phases
(bags) of the UDDS (cold-start, transient,
warm-start, transient); however, these
four phases may be combined into two
phases (phases 1 + 2 and phases 3 + 4).
Calculations for these sampling methods
follow:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 26. Section 600.115–11 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:

*

*

*

*

*

Subpart C—[Amended]
28. Section 600.210–12 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(3)(ii) to read as
follows:

■

§ 600.210–12 Calculation of fuel economy
and CO2 emission values for labeling.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Multiply 2-cycle fuel economy
values by 0.7 and divide 2-cycle CO2
emission values by 0.7.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—[Amended]
29. Section 600.302–12 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as
follows:

■

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 600.302–12
provisions.

Fuel economy label—general

(e) * * *
(4) Insert a slider bar in the right
portion of the field to characterize the
vehicle’s level of emission control for
ozone-related air pollutants relative to
that of all vehicles. Position a box with
a downward-pointing wedge above the
slider bar positioned to show where that
vehicle’s emission rating falls relative to
the total range. Include the vehicle’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 600.115–11 Criteria for determining the
fuel economy label calculation method.

This section provides the criteria to
determine if the derived 5-cycle method
for determining fuel economy label
values, as specified in § 600.210–
08(a)(2) or (b)(2) or § 600.210–12(a)(2) or
(b)(2), as applicable, may be used to
determine label values. Separate criteria
apply to city and highway fuel economy
for each test group. The provisions of
this section are optional. If this option
is not chosen, or if the criteria provided
in this section are not met, fuel
economy label values must be
determined according to the vehiclespecific 5-cycle method specified in
§ 600.210–08(a)(1) or (b)(1) or
§ 600.210–12(a)(1) or (b)(1), as
applicable. However, dedicated
alternative-fuel vehicles, dual fuel
vehicles when operating on the
alternative fuel, plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles while operating in chargedepleting mode, MDPVs, and vehicles
imported by Independent Commercial

emission rating (as described in
§ 600.311) inside the box. Include the
number 1 in the border at the left end
of the slider bar; include the number 10
in the border at the right end of the
slider bar and add the term ‘‘Best’’
below the slider bar, directly under the
number. EPA will periodically calculate
and publish updated range values as
described in § 600.311. Add color to the
slider bar such that it is blue at the left
end of the range, white at the right end
of the range, and shaded continuously
across the range.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 30. Section 600.311–12 is amended by
revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 600.311–12 Determination of values for
fuel economy labels.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) Fuel savings. Calculate an
estimated five-year cost increment
relative to an average vehicle by
multiplying the annual fuel cost from
paragraph (e) of this section by 5 and
subtracting this value from the average
five-year fuel cost. We will calculate the
average five-year fuel cost from the
annual fuel cost equation in paragraph
(e) of this section based on a gasolinefueled vehicle with a mean fuel
economy value, consistent with the
value dividing the 5 and 6 ratings under
paragraph (d) of this section. The

PO 00000

Frm 00276

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Importers may use the derived 5-cycle
method for determining fuel economy
label values whether or not the criteria
provided in this section are met.
Manufacturers may alternatively
account for this effect by multiplying 2cycle fuel economy values by 0.7 and
dividing 2-cycle CO2 emission values by
0.7.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 27. Section 600.116–12 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(6) and revising the
equation for UFi in paragraph (b)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 600.116–12 Special procedures related to
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles.

(a) * * *
(6) All label values related to fuel
economy, energy consumption, and
range must be based on 5-cycle testing
or on values adjusted to be equivalent
to 5-cycle results.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *

average five-year fuel cost for model
year 2012 is $12,600 for a 22-mpg
vehicle that drives 15,000 miles per year
with gasoline priced at $3.70 per gallon.
We may periodically update this five
year reference fuel cost for later model
years to better characterize the fuel
economy for an average vehicle. Round
the calculated five-year cost increment
to the nearest $50. Negative values
represent a cost increase compared to
the average vehicle.
PART 1033—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM LOCOMOTIVES
31. The authority citation for part
1033 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart G—[Amended]
32. Section 1033.625 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

■

§ 1033.625 Special certification provisions
for non-locomotive-specific engines.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) The engines were certified to PM,
NOX, and hydrocarbon standards that
are numerically lower than the
applicable locomotive standards of this
part.
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.066

Start CREE75 = 3.6 × (Bag 1CREE75 ¥ Bag
3CREE75)
Running CREE = 1.007 × [(0.79 × US06
Highway CREE) + (0.21 × HFET CREE)]
+ [0.377 × 0.133 × ((0.00540 × A) +
(0.1357 × US06 CREE))]

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
33. A new part 1036 is added to
subchapter U to read as follows:

■

PART 1036—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY
HIGHWAY ENGINES
Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
Sec.
1036.1 Does this part apply for my
engines?
1036.2 Who is responsible for compliance?
1036.5 Which engines are excluded from
this part’s requirements?
1036.10 How is this part organized?
1036.15 Do any other regulation parts apply
to me?
1036.30 Submission of information.
Subpart B—Emission Standards and
Related Requirements

Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
1036.701 General provisions.
1036.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.
1036.710 Averaging.
1036.715 Banking.
1036.720 Trading.
1036.725 What must I include in my
application for certification?
1036.730 ABT reports.
1036.735 Recordkeeping.
1036.740 Restrictions for using emission
credits.
1036.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
1036.750 What can happen if I do not
comply with the provisions of this
subpart?
1036.755 Information provided to the
Department of Transportation.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other Reference
Information
1036.801 Definitions.
1036.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
1036.810 Incorporation by reference.
1036.815 Confidential information.
1036.820 Requesting a hearing.
1036.825 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families
1036.205 What must I include in my
application?
1036.210 Preliminary approval before
certification.
1036.225 Amending my application for
certification.
1036.230 Selecting engine families.
1036.235 Testing requirements for
certification.
1036.241 Demonstrating compliance with
greenhouse gas pollutant standards.
1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping for
certification.
1036.255 What decisions may EPA make
regarding my certificate of conformity?
Subpart D—[Reserved]
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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Subpart G—Special Compliance Provisions
1036.601 What compliance provisions
apply to these engines?
1036.610 Innovative technology credits
and adjustments for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
1036.615 Engines with Rankine cycle
waste heat recovery and hybrid
powertrains.
1036.620 Alternate CO2 standards based on
model year 2011 compression-ignition
engines.
1036.625 In-use compliance with family
emission limits (FELs).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 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
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.

Subpart E—In-use Testing
1036.401

Subpart A—Overview and Applicability

§ 1036.5 Which engines are excluded from
this part’s requirements?

(a) The provisions of this part do not
apply to engines used in medium-duty
passenger vehicles that are subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S, except as specified in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart S, and § 1036.108(a)(4).
For example, this exclusion applies for
engines used in vehicles certified to the
standards of 40 CFR 1037.104.
(b) Engines installed in heavy-duty
vehicles that do not provide motive

PO 00000

Frm 00277

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57381

power are nonroad engines. The
provisions of this part therefore do not
apply to these engines. See 40 CFR parts
1039, 1048, or 1054 for other
requirements that apply for these
auxiliary engines. See 40 CFR part 1037
for requirements that may apply for
vehicles using these engines, such as the
evaporative emission requirements of 40
CFR 1037.103.
(c) The provisions of this part do not
apply to aircraft or aircraft engines.
Standards apply separately to certain
aircraft engines, as described in 40 CFR
part 87.
(d) The provisions of this part do not
apply to engines that are not internal
combustion engines. For example, the
provisions of this part do not apply to
fuel cells.
(e) The provisions of this part do not
apply to engines used in heavy-duty
vehicles that are subject to light-duty
greenhouse gas standards under 40 CFR
part 86, subpart S, except as specified in
40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and
§ 1036.108(a)(4).
§ 1036.10

How is this part organized?

This part 1036 is divided into the
following subparts:
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the
applicability of this part 1036 and gives
an overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the
emission standards and other
requirements that must be met to certify
engines under this part. Note that
§ 1036.150 describes certain interim
requirements and compliance
provisions that apply only for a limited
time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes
how to apply for a certificate of
conformity.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Subpart E of this part describes
provisions for testing in-use engines.
(f) Subpart F of this part describes
how to test your engines (including
references to other parts of the Code of
Federal Regulations).
(g) Subpart G of this part describes
requirements, prohibitions, and other
provisions that apply to engine
manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers,
owners, operators, rebuilders, and all
others.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes
how you may generate and use emission
credits to certify your engines.
(i) Subpart I of this part contains
definitions and other reference
information.
§ 1036.15 Do any other regulation parts
apply to me?

(a) Part 86 of this chapter describes
additional requirements that apply to

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57382

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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 that apply broadly,
but do not necessarily apply for all
engines or all persons. The issues
addressed by these provisions include
these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for
engine manufacturers, vehicle
manufacturers, and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket
changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for
certain engines.
(4) Importing engines.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of
your production.

(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(e) Other parts of this chapter apply
if referenced in this part.
§ 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 contains standards and
other regulations applicable to the
emission of the air pollutant defined as
the aggregate group of six greenhouse
gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
methane, hydrofluorocarbons,
perflurocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride. This section describes the
applicable CO2, N2O, and CH4 standards
for engines. Except as specified in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, these
standards do not apply for engines used
in vehicles subject to (or voluntarily
certified to) the CO2, N2O, and CH4
standards for vehicles specified in 40
CFR 1037.104.
(a) Emission standards. Emission
standards apply for engines measured
Light heavyduty

Model years

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2014–2016 ...............................................................................................
2017 and later ..........................................................................................

(2) The CH4 emission standard is 0.10
g/hp-hr when measured over the
transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR
part 86, subpart N. This standard begins
in model year 2014 for compression
ignition engines and in model year 2016
for spark-ignition engines. Note that this
standard applies for all fuel types just as
the other standards of this section do.
(3) The N2O emission standard for all
model year 2014 and later engines is
0.10 g/hp-hr when measured over the
transient duty cycle specified in 40 CFR

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Medium
heavyduty—
vocational

600
576

part 86, subpart N. This standard begins
in model year 2014 for compression
ignition engines and in model year 2016
for spark-ignition engines.
(4) This paragraph (a)(4) describes
alternate emission standards for engines
certified under 40 CFR 1037.150(m).
The standards of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section do not apply
for these engines. The standards in this
paragraph (a)(4) apply for emissions
measured with the engine installed in a
complete vehicle consistent with the

PO 00000

Frm 00278

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

using the test procedures specified in
subpart F of this part as follows:
(1) CO2 emission standards apply as
specified in this paragraph (a)(1). The
applicable test cycle for measuring CO2
emissions differs depending on the
engine family’s primary intended
service class and the extent to which the
engines will be (or were designed to be)
used in tractors. For medium and heavy
heavy-duty engines certified as tractor
engines, measure CO2 emissions using
the steady-state duty cycle specified in
40 CFR 86.1362 (referred to as the SET
cycle). This is intended for engines
designed to be used primarily in tractors
and other line-haul applications. Note
that the use of some SET-certified
tractor engines in vocational
applications does not affect your
certification obligation under this
paragraph (a)(1); see other provisions of
this part and 40 CFR part 1037 for limits
on using engines certified to only one
cycle. For medium and heavy heavyduty engines certified as both tractor
and vocational engines, measure CO2
emissions using the steady-state duty
cycle and the transient duty cycle
(sometimes referred to as the FTP
engine cycle), both of which are
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N.
This is intended for engines that are
designed for use in both tractor and
vocational applications. For all other
engines (including all spark-ignition
engines), measure CO2 emissions using
the transient duty cycle specified in 40
CFR part 86, subpart N.
(i) The CO2 standard for model year
2016 and later spark-ignition engines is
627 g/hp-hr.
(ii) The following CO2 standards
apply for compression-ignition engines
and all other engines (in g/hp-hr):

600
576

Heavy
heavyduty—
vocational
567
555

Medium
heavyduty—
tractor
502
487

Heavy
heavyduty—
tractor
475
460

provisions of 40 CFR 1037.150(m)(6).
The CO2 standard for the engines equals
the test result specified in 40 CFR
1037.150(m)(6) multiplied by 1.10 and
rounded to the nearest 0.1 g/mile. The
N2O and CH4 standards are both 0.05 g/
mile (or any alternate standards that
apply to the corresponding vehicle test
group). The only requirements of this
part that apply to these engines are
those in this paragraph (a)(4) and those
in §§ 1036.115 through 1036.135.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Family certification levels. You
must specify a CO2 Family Certification
Level (FCL) for each engine family. The
FCL may not be less than the certified
emission level for the engine family.
The CO2 Family Emission Limit (FEL)
for the engine family is equal to the FCL
multiplied by 1.03.
(c) Averaging, banking, and trading.
You may generate or use emission
credits under the averaging, banking,
and trading (ABT) program described in
subpart H of this part for demonstrating
compliance with CO2 emission
standards. Credits (positive and
negative) are calculated from the
difference between the FCL and the
applicable emission standard. As
described in § 1036.705, you may use
CO2 credits to certify your engine
families to FELs for N2O and/or CH4,
instead of the N2O/CH4 standards of this
section that otherwise apply. Except as
specified in §§ 1036.150 and 1036.705,
you may not generate or use credits for
N2O or CH4 emissions.
(d) Useful life. Your engines must
meet the exhaust emission standards of
this section throughout their full useful
life, expressed in service miles or
calendar years, whichever comes first.
The useful life values applicable to the
criteria pollutant standards of 40 CFR
part 86 apply for the standards of this
section.
(e) Applicability for testing. The
emission standards in this subpart apply
as specified in this paragraph (e) to all
duty-cycle testing (according to the
applicable test cycles) of testable
configurations, including certification,
selective enforcement audits, and in-use
testing. The CO2 FCLs serve as the CO2
emission standards for the engine family
with respect to certification and
confirmatory testing instead of the
standards specified in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section. The FELs serve as the
emission standards for the engine family
with respect to all other testing. See
§§ 1036.235 and 1036.241 to determine
which engine configurations within the
engine family are subject to testing.
(f) Multi-fuel engines. For dual-fuel,
multi-fuel, and flexible-fuel engines,
perform exhaust testing on each fuel
type (for example, gasoline and E85).
(1) This paragraph (f)(1) applies where
you demonstrate the relative amount of
each fuel type that your engines
consume in actual use. Based on your
demonstration, we will specify a
weighting factor and allow you to
submit the weighted average of your
emission results. For example, if you
certify an E85 flexible-fuel engine and
we determine the engine will produce
one-half of its work from E85 and onehalf of its work from gasoline, you may

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

average your E85 and gasoline emission
results.
(2) If you certify your engine family to
N2O and/or CH4 FELs the FELs apply for
testing on all fuel types for which your
engine is designed, to the same extent
as criteria emission standards apply.
§ 1036.115

Other requirements.

(a) The warranty and maintenance
requirements, adjustable parameter
provisions, and defeat device
prohibition of 40 CFR part 86 apply
with respect to the standards of this
part.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 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.’’
(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,

PO 00000

Frm 00279

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57383

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) [Reserved]
(b) Identify the emission control
system. Use terms and abbreviations as
described in 40 CFR 1068.45 or other
applicable conventions.
(c) Identify any limitations on your
certification. For example, if you certify
heavy heavy-duty engines to the CO2
standards using only transient cycle
testing, include the statement
‘‘VOCATIONAL VEHICLES ONLY’’.
(d) You may ask us to approve
modified labeling requirements in this
part 1036 if you show that it is
necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate
label is consistent with the requirements
of this part. We may also specify
modified labeling requirement to be
consistent with the intent of 40 CFR part
1037.
§ 1036.140

Primary intended service class.

You must identify a single primary
intended service class for each
compression-ignition engine family.
Select the class that best describes
vehicles for which you design and
market the engine. The three primary
intended service classes are light heavyduty, medium heavy-duty, and heavy
heavy-duty. Note that provisions that
apply based on primary intended
service class often treat spark-ignition
engines as if they were a separate
service class.
(a) Light heavy-duty engines usually
are not designed for rebuild and do not
have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types
in this group might include any heavyduty vehicle built for a light-duty truck
chassis, van trucks, multi-stop vans,
motor homes and other recreational
vehicles, and some straight trucks with
a single rear axle. Typical applications
would include personal transportation,
light-load commercial delivery,
passenger service, agriculture, and
construction. The GVWR of these
vehicles is normally below 19,500
pounds.
(b) Medium heavy-duty engines may
be designed for rebuild and may have
cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in
this group would typically include
school buses, straight trucks with dual

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57384

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

rear axles, city tractors, and a variety of
special purpose vehicles such as small
dump trucks, and refuse trucks. Typical
applications would include commercial
short haul and intra-city delivery and
pickup. Engines in this group are
normally used in vehicles whose GVWR
ranges from 19,500 to 33,000 pounds.
(c) Heavy heavy-duty engines are
designed for multiple rebuilds and have
cylinder liners. Vehicles in this group
are normally tractors, trucks, and buses
used in inter-city, long-haul
applications. These vehicles normally
exceed 33,000 pounds GVWR.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1036.150

Interim provisions.

The provisions in this section apply
instead of other provisions in this part.
(a) Early banking of greenhouse gas
emissions. You may generate CO2
emission credits for engines you certify
in model year 2013 (2015 for sparkignition engines) to the standards of
§ 1036.108.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, to generate early
credits, you must certify your entire
U.S.-directed production volume within
that averaging set to these standards.
This means that you may not generate
early credits while you produce engines
in the averaging set that are certified to
the criteria pollutant standards but not
to the greenhouse gas standards.
Calculate emission credits as described
in subpart H of this part relative to the
standard that would apply for model
year 2014 (2016 for spark-ignition
engines).
(2) You may generate early credits for
an individual compression-ignition
engine family where you demonstrate
that you have improved a model year
2013 engine model’s CO2 emissions
relative to its 2012 baseline level and
certify it to an FCL below the applicable
standard. Calculate emission credits as
described in subpart H of this part
relative to the lesser of the standard that
would apply for model year 2014
engines or the baseline engine’s CO2
emission rate. Use the smaller U.S.directed production volume of the 2013
engine family or the 2012 baseline
engine family. We will not allow you to
generate emission credits under this
paragraph (a)(2) unless we determine
that your 2013 engine is the same
engine as the 2012 baseline or that it
replaces it.
(3) You may bank credits equal to the
surplus credits you generate under this
paragraph (a) multiplied by 1.50. For
example, if you have 10 Mg of surplus
credits for model year 2013, you may
bank 15 Mg of credits. Credit deficits for
an averaging set prior to model year
2014 (2016 for spark-ignition engines)

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

do not carry over to model year 2014
(2016 for spark-ignition engines). We
recommend that you notify us of your
intent to use this provision before
submitting your applications.
(b) Model year 2014 N2O standards. In
model year 2014 and earlier,
manufacturers may show compliance
with the N2O standards using an
engineering analysis. This allowance
also applies for later families certified
using carryover CO2 data from model
2014 consistent with § 1036.235(d).
(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. Such engines are deemed to be
compression-ignition engines for
purposes of this part. Similarly, engines
meeting the definition of compressionignition, but regulated as Otto-cycle
under 40 CFR part 86 must be certified
to the requirements applicable to sparkignition engines under this part. Such
engines are deemed to be spark-ignition
engines for purposes of this part.
(d) Small manufacturers.
Manufacturers meeting the small
business criteria specified for ‘‘Gasoline
Engine and Engine Parts
Manufacturing’’ or ‘‘Other Engine
Equipment Manufacturers’’ in 13 CFR
121.201 are not subject to the
greenhouse gas emission standards in
§ 1036.108. Qualifying manufacturers
must notify the Designated Compliance
Officer before importing or introducing
into U.S. commerce excluded engines.
This notification must include a
description of the manufacturer’s
qualification as a small business under
13 CFR 121.201. You must label your
excluded vehicles with the statement:
‘‘THIS ENGINE IS EXCLUDED UNDER
40 CFR 1037.150(c).’’
(e) Alternate phase-in standards.
Where a manufacturer certifies all of its
model year 2013 compression-ignition
engines within a given primary
intended service class to the applicable
alternate standards of this paragraph (e),
its compression-ignition engines within
that primary intended service class are
subject to the standards of this
paragraph (e) for model years 2013
through 2016. This means that once a
manufacturer chooses to certify a
primary intended service class to the
standards of this paragraph (e), it is not
allowed to opt out of these standards.
Engines certified to these standards are
not eligible for early credits under
paragraph (a) of this section.

PO 00000

Frm 00280

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Tractors

LHD
Engines

MHD
Engines

HHD
Engines

Model Years
2013–2015.
Model Years
2016 and
later a.

NA .......

512 g/
hp-hr.
487 g/
hp-hr.

485 g/
hp-hr.
460 g/
hp-hr.

Vocational

LHD
Engines

MHD
Engines

HHD
Engines

Model Years
2013–2015.

618 g/
hp-hr.

618 g/
hp-hr.

577 g/
hp-hr.

Model Years
2016 and
later a.

576 g/
hp-hr.

576 g/
hp-hr.

555 g/
hp-hr.

NA .......

a Note: These alternate standards for 2016
and later are the same as the otherwise applicable standards for 2017 and later.

(f) Separate OBD families. This
paragraph (f) applies where you
separately certify engines for the
purpose of applying OBD requirements
(for engines used in vehicles under
14,000 pounds GVWR) from non-OBD
engines that could be certified as a
single engine family. You may treat the
two engine families as a single engine
family in certain respects for the
purpose of this part, as follows:
(1) This paragraph applies only where
the two families are identical in all
respects except for the engine ratings
offered and the inclusion of OBD.
(2) For purposes of this part and 40
CFR part 86, the two families remain
two separate families except for the
following:
(i) Specify the testable configurations
of the non-OBD engine family as the
testable configurations for the OBD
family.
(ii) Submit the same CO2, N2O, and
CH4 emission data for both engine
families.
(g) Assigned deterioration factors.
You may use assigned deterioration
factors (DFs) without performing your
own durability emission tests or
engineering analysis as follows:
(1) You may use an assigned additive
DF of 0.0 g/hp-hr for CO2 emissions
from engines that do not use advanced
or innovative technologies. If we
determine it to be consistent with good
engineering judgment, we may allow
you to use an assigned additive DF of
0.0 g/hp-hr for CO2 emissions from your
engines with advanced or innovative
technologies.
(2) You may use an assigned additive
DF of 0.02 g/hp-hr for N2O emissions
from any engine.
(3) You may use an assigned additive
DF of 0.02 g/hp-hr for CH4 emissions
from any engine.
(h) Advanced technology credits. If
you generate credits from engines

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
certified for advanced technology you
may multiply these credits by 1.5,
except that you may not apply this
multiplier and the early-credit
multiplier of paragraph (a) of this
section.
(i) CO2 credits for low N2O emissions.
If you certify your model year 2014,
2015, or 2016 engines to an N2O FEL
less than 0.04 g/hp-hr (provided you
measure N2O emissions from your
emission-data engines), you may
generate additional CO2 credits under
this paragraph (i). Calculate the
additional CO2 credits from the
following equation instead of the
equation in § 1036.705:
CO2 Credits (Mg) = (0.04 ¥ FELN2O) ·
(CF) · (Volume) · (UL) · (10¥6) ·
(298)
Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1036.205 What must I include in my
application?

Submit an application for certification
as described in 40 CFR 86.007–21, with
the following additional information:
(a) Describe the engine family’s
specifications and other basic
parameters of the engine’s design and
emission controls with respect to
compliance with the requirements of
this part. Describe in detail all system
components for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions, including all auxiliary
emission control devices (AECDs) and
all fuel-system components you will
install on any production or test engine.
Identify the part number of each
component you describe. For this
paragraph (a), treat as separate AECDs
any devices that modulate or activate
differently from each other.
(b) Describe any test equipment and
procedures that you used if you
performed any tests that did not also
involve measurement of criteria
pollutants. Describe any special or
alternate test procedures you used (see
40 CFR 1065.10(c)).
(c) Include the emission-related
installation instructions you will
provide if someone else installs your
engines in their vehicles (see
§ 1036.130).
(d) Describe the label information
specified in § 1036.135. We may require
you to include a copy of the label.
(e) Identify the FCLs with which you
are certifying engines in the engine
family. The actual U.S.-directed
production volume of configurations
that have emission rates at or below the
FCL must be at least one percent of your
total actual (not projected) U.S.-directed
production volume for the engine
family. Identify configurations within
the family that have emission rates at or

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

below the FCL and meet the one percent
requirement. For example, if your total
U.S.-directed production volume for the
engine family is 10,583, and the U.S.directed production volume for the
tested rating is 75 engines, then you can
comply with this provision by setting
your FCL so that one more rating with
a U.S.-directed production volume of at
least 31 engines meets the FCL. Where
applicable, also identify other testable
configurations required under
§ 1036.230(b)(2).
(f) Identify the engine family’s
deterioration factors and describe how
you developed them (see § 1036.241).
Present any test data you used for this.
(g) Present emission data to show that
you meet emission standards, as
follows:
(1) Present exhaust emission data for
CO2, CH4, and N2O on an emission-data
engine to show that your engines meet
the applicable emission standards we
specify in § 1036.108. Show emission
figures before and after applying
deterioration factors for each engine. In
addition to the composite results, show
individual measurements for cold-start
testing and hot-start testing over the
transient test cycle.
(2) Note that § 1036.235 allows you to
submit an application in certain cases
without new emission data.
(h) State whether your certification is
limited for certain engines. For example,
if you certify heavy heavy-duty engines
to the CO2 standards using only
transient testing, the engines may be
installed only in vocational vehicles.
(i) Unconditionally certify that all the
engines in the engine family comply
with the requirements of this part, other
referenced parts of the CFR, and the
Clean Air Act. Note that § 1036.235
specifies which engines to test to show
that engines in the entire family comply
with the requirements of this part.
(j) Include the information required
by other subparts of this part. For
example, include the information
required by § 1036.725 if you participate
in the ABT program.
(k) Include the warranty statement
and maintenance instructions if we
request them.
(l) Include other applicable
information, such as information
specified in this part or 40 CFR part
1068 related to requests for exemptions.
(m) For imported engines or
equipment, identify the following:
(1) Describe your normal practice for
importing engines. For example, this
may include identifying the names and
addresses of any agents you have
authorized to import your engines.
Engines imported by nonauthorized

PO 00000

Frm 00281

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57385

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 Preliminary approval before
certification.

If you send us information before you
finish the application, we may review it
and make any appropriate
determinations, especially for questions
related to engine family definitions,
auxiliary emission control devices,
adjustable parameters, deterioration
factors, testing for service accumulation,
and maintenance. Decisions made under
this section are considered to be
preliminary approval, subject to final
review and approval. We will generally
not reverse a decision where we have
given you preliminary approval, unless
we find new information supporting a
different decision. If you request
preliminary approval related to the
upcoming model year or the model year
after that, we will make best-efforts to
make the appropriate determinations as
soon as practicable. We will generally
not provide preliminary approval
related to a future model year more than
two years ahead of time.
§ 1036.225 Amending my application for
certification.

Before we issue you a certificate of
conformity, you may amend your
application to include new or modified
engine configurations, subject to the
provisions of this section. After we have
issued your certificate of conformity,
but before the end of the model year,
you may send us an amended
application requesting that we include
new or modified engine configurations
within the scope of the certificate,
subject to the provisions of this section.
You must amend your application if any
changes occur with respect to any
information that is included or should
be included in your application.
(a) You must amend your application
before you take any of the following
actions:
(1) Add an engine configuration to an
engine family. In this case, the engine
configuration added must be consistent
with other engine configurations in the
engine family with respect to the criteria
listed in § 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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57386

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

divided by 1.03. The changed FEL may
not apply to engines you have already
introduced into U.S. commerce, except
as described in this paragraph (f). If we
approve a changed FEL after the start of
production, you must include the new
FEL on the emission control information
label for all engines produced after the
change. You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in the following
cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for
your engine family at any time. In your
request, you must show that you will
still be able to meet the emission
standards as specified in subparts B and
H of this part. Use the appropriate FELs/
FCLs with corresponding production
volumes to calculate emission credits
for the model year, as described in
subpart H of this part.
(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for
your engine family only if you have test
data from production engines showing
that emissions are below the proposed
lower FEL (or below the proposed FCL
for CO2). The lower FEL/FCL applies
only to engines you produce after we
approve the new FEL/FCL. Use the
appropriate FELs/FCLs with
corresponding production volumes to
calculate emission credits for the model
year, as described in subpart H of this
part.
§ 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. The following
provisions also apply:
(a) Engines certified as hybrid engines
or power packs may not be included in
an engine family with engines with
conventional powertrains. Note that this
does not prevent you from including
engines in a conventional family if they
are used in hybrid vehicles, as long as
you certify them conventionally.
(b) If you certify engines in the family
for use as both vocational and tractor
engines, you must split your family into
two separate subfamilies. Indicate in the
application for certification that the
engine family is to be split.
(1) Calculate emission credits relative
to the vocational engine standard for the
number of engines sold into vocational
applications and relative to the tractor
engine standard for the number of
engines sold into non-vocational tractor
applications. You may assign the
numbers and configurations of engines
within the respective subfamilies at any

PO 00000

Frm 00282

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

time before submitting the end-of-year
report required by § 1036.730. If the
family participates in averaging,
banking, or trading, you must identify
the type of vehicle in which each engine
is installed; we may alternatively allow
you to use statistical methods to
determine this for a fraction of your
engines. Keep records to document this
determination.
(2) If you restrict use of the test
configuration for your split family to
only tractors, or only vocational
vehicles, you must identify a second
testable configuration for the other type
of vehicle (or an unrestricted
configuration). Identify this
configuration in your application for
certification. The FCL for the engine
family applies for this configuration as
well as the primary test configuration.
(c) If you certify in separate engine
families engines that could have been
certified in vocational and tractor
engine subfamilies in the same engine
family, count the two families as one
family for purposes of determining your
obligations with respect to the OBD
requirements and in-use testing
requirements of 40 CFR part 86. Indicate
in the applications for certification that
the two engine families are covered by
this paragraph (c).
(d) Engine configurations within an
engine family must use equivalent
greenhouse gas emission controls.
Unless we approve it, you may not
produce nontested configurations
without the same emission control
hardware included on the tested
configuration. We will only approve it
if you demonstrate that the exclusion of
the hardware does not increase
greenhouse gas emissions.
§ 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 and other
configurations identified in
§ 1036.205(e). Note that configurations
identified in § 1036.205(e) are
considered to be ‘‘tested configurations’’
whether or not you actually tested them
for certification. However, you must
apply the same (or equivalent) emission
controls to all other engine
configurations in the engine family.
(b) Test your emission-data engines
using the procedures and equipment
specified in subpart F of this part. In the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
case of dual-fuel and flexible-fuel
engines, measure emissions when
operating with each type of fuel for
which you intend to certify the engine.
Measure CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions
using the specified duty cycle(s),
including cold-start and hot-start testing
as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart
N. If you are certifying the engine for
use in tractors, you must measure CO2
emissions using the SET cycle and
measure CH4, and N2O emissions using
the transient cycle. If you are certifying
the engine for use in vocational
applications, you must measure CO2,
CH4, and N2O emissions using the
specified transient duty cycle, including
cold-start and hot-start testing as
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N.
Engines certified for use in tractors may
also be used in vocational vehicles;
however, you may not knowingly
circumvent the intent of this part (to
reduce in-use emissions of CO2) by
certifying engines designed for
vocational vehicles (and rarely used in
tractors) to the SET and not the transient
cycle. For example, we would generally
not allow you to certify all your engines
to the SET without certifying any to the
transient cycle. You may certify your
engine family for both tractor and
vocational use by submitting CO2
emission data from both SET and
transient cycle testing and specifying
FCLs for both.
(c) We may measure emissions from
any of your emission-data engines.
(1) We may decide to do the testing
at your plant or any other facility. If we
do this, you must deliver the engine to
a test facility we designate. The engine
you provide must include appropriate
manifolds, aftertreatment devices,
electronic control units, and other
emission-related components not
normally attached directly to the engine
block. If we do the testing at your plant,
you must schedule it as soon as possible
and make available the instruments,
personnel, and equipment we need.
(2) If we measure emissions on your
engine, the results of that testing
become the official emission results for
the engine. Unless we later invalidate
these data, we may decide not to
consider your data in determining if
your engine family meets applicable
requirements.
(3) Before we test one of your engines,
we may set its adjustable parameters to
any point within the physically
adjustable ranges.
(4) Before we test one of your engines,
we may calibrate it within normal
production tolerances for anything we
do not consider an adjustable parameter.
For example, this would apply for an
engine parameter that is subject to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 (a) of this section.
(f) If you use an alternate test
procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and
later testing shows that such testing
does not produce results that are
equivalent to the procedures specified
in subpart F of this part, we may reject
data you generated using the alternate
procedure.
§ 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
deteriorated emission level for any
pollutant that is above an applicable
emission standard (generally the FCL).
Note that you may increase your FCL if
any certification test results exceed your
initial FCL.
(c) Apply deterioration factors to the
measured emission levels for each
pollutant to show compliance with the
applicable emission standards. Your
deterioration factors must take into
account any available data from in-use

PO 00000

Frm 00283

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57387

testing with similar engines. Apply
deterioration factors as follows:
(1) Additive deterioration factor for
greenhouse gas emissions. Except as
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, use an additive deterioration
factor for exhaust emissions. An
additive deterioration factor is the
difference between exhaust emissions at
the end of the useful life and exhaust
emissions at the low-hour test point. In
these cases, adjust the official emission
results for each tested engine at the
selected test point by adding the factor
to the measured emissions. If the factor
is less than zero, use zero. Additive
deterioration factors must be specified
to one more decimal place than the
applicable standard.
(2) Multiplicative deterioration factor
for greenhouse gas emissions. Use a
multiplicative deterioration factor for a
pollutant if good engineering judgment
calls for the deterioration factor for that
pollutant to be the ratio of exhaust
emissions at the end of the useful life to
exhaust emissions at the low-hour test
point. Adjust the official emission
results for each tested engine at the
selected test point by multiplying the
measured emissions by the deterioration
factor. If the factor is less than one, use
one. A multiplicative deterioration
factor may not be appropriate in cases
where testing variability is significantly
greater than engine-to-engine variability.
Multiplicative deterioration factors must
be specified to one more significant
figure than the applicable standard.
(3) Sawtooth deterioration patterns.
The deterioration factors described in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section
assume that the highest useful life
emissions occur either at the end of
useful life or at the low-hour test point.
The provisions of this paragraph (c)(3)
apply where good engineering judgment
indicates that the highest useful life
emissions will occur between these two
points. For example, emissions may
increase with service accumulation
until a certain maintenance step is
performed, then return to the low-hour
emission levels and begin increasing
again. Such a pattern may occur with
battery-based electric hybrid engines.
Base deterioration factors for engines
with such emission patterns on the
difference between (or ratio of) the point
at which the highest emissions occur
and the low-hour test point. Note that
this applies for maintenance-related
deterioration only where we allow such
critical emission-related maintenance.
(d) Collect emission data using
measurements to one more decimal
place than the applicable standard.
Apply the deterioration factor to the
official emission result, as described in

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57388

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

paragraph (c) of this section, then round
the adjusted figure to the same number
of decimal places as the emission
standard. Compare the rounded
emission levels to the emission standard
for each emission-data engine.
(e) If you identify more than one
configuration in § 1036.205(e), we may
test (or require you to test) any of the
identified configurations. We may also
require you to provide an engineering
analysis that demonstrates that untested
configurations listed in § 1036.205(e)
comply with their FCL.
§ 1036.250 Reporting and recordkeeping
for certification.

(a) Within 90 days after the end of the
model year, send the Designated
Compliance Officer a report including
the total U.S.-directed production
volume of engines you produced in each
engine family during the model year
(based on information available at the
time of the report). Report the
production by serial number and engine
configuration. Small manufacturers may
omit this requirement. You may
combine this report with reports
required under subpart H of this part.
(b) Organize and maintain the
following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any
summary information you send us.
(2) Any of the information we specify
in § 1036.205 that you were not required
to include in your application.
(c) Keep routine data from emission
tests required by this part (such as test
cell temperatures and relative humidity
readings) for one year after we issue the
associated certificate of conformity.
Keep all other information specified in
this section for eight years after we issue
your certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format
and on any media, as long as you can
promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them.
You must keep these records readily
available. We may review them at any
time.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

all available information. If we deny
your application, we will explain why
in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your
application or suspend or revoke your
certificate if you do any of the
following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing
or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete
information (paragraph (e) of this
section applies if this is fraudulent).
This includes doing anything after
submission of your application to
render any of the submitted information
false or incomplete.
(3) Render inaccurate any test data.
(4) Deny us from completing
authorized activities despite our
presenting a warrant or court order (see
40 CFR 1068.20). This includes a failure
to provide reasonable assistance.
However, you may ask us to reconsider
our decision by showing that your
failure under this paragraph (c)(4) did
not involve engines related to the
certificate or application in question to
a degree that would justify our decision.
(5) Produce engines for importation
into the United States at a location
where local law prohibits us from
carrying out authorized activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested
information or amend your application
to include all engines being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise
circumvents the intent of the Act or this
part, with respect to your engine family.
(d) We may void the certificate of
conformity for an engine family if you
fail to keep records, send reports, or give
us information as required under this
part or the Act. Note that these are also
violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we
find that you intentionally submitted
false or incomplete information. This
includes rendering submitted
information false or incomplete after
submission.
(f) If we deny your application or
suspend, revoke, or void your
certificate, you may ask for a hearing
(see § 1036.820).
Subpart D—[Reserved]
Subpart E—In-use Testing
§ 1036.401

In-use testing.

We may perform in-use testing of any
engine family subject to the standards of
this part, consistent with the provisions
of § 1036.235. Note that this provisions
does not affect your obligation to test
your in-use engines as described in 40
CFR part 86, subpart T.

PO 00000

Frm 00284

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 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) [Reserved]
(g) If your engine requires special
components for proper testing, you must
provide any such components to us if
we ask for them.
§ 1036.525

Hybrid engines.

(a) If your engine system includes
features that recover and store energy
during engine motoring operation test
the engine as described in paragraph (d)
of this section. See § 1036.615(a)(2) for
engine systems intended to include
features that recover and store energy
from braking unrelated to engine
motoring operation. For purposes of this
section, features that recover energy
between the engine and transmission
are considered ‘‘related to engine
motoring’’.
(b) If you produce a hybrid engine
designed with power take-off capability
and sell the engine coupled with a
transmission, you may calculate a
reduction in CO2 emissions resulting
from the power take-off operation as
described in 40 CFR 1037.525. Use good
engineering judgment to use the vehiclebased procedures to quantify the CO2
reduction for your engines.
(c) The hardware that must be
included in these tests is the engine, the
hybrid electric motor, the rechargeable
energy storage system (RESS) and the
power electronics between the hybrid
electric motor and the RESS. You may
ask us to modify the provisions of this
section to allow testing non-electric
hybrid vehicles, consistent with good
engineering judgment.
(d) Measure emissions using the same
procedures that apply for testing nonhybrid engines under this part, except
as specified otherwise in this part and/

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) The following definitions of terms
apply for this paragraph (d)(4):
xb = the brake energy fraction.
Wneg = the negative work over the
cycle.
Wpos = the positive work over the
cycle.
xbl = the brake energy fraction limit.
Pmax = the maximum power of the
engine with the hybrid system engaged
(kW).
Wcycle = the work over the cycle when
xb is greater than xbl.
(iii) Note that these calculations are
specified with SI units (such as kW),
consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
Emission results are converted to g/hphr at the end of the calculations.
(5) Correct for the net energy change
of the energy storage device as described
in 40 CFR 1066.501.
§ 1036.530 Calculating greenhouse gas
emission rates.

This section describes how to
calculate official emission results for
CO2, CH4, and N2O.
(a) Calculate brake-specific emission
rates for each applicable duty cycle as
specified in 40 CFR 1065.650. Do not
apply infrequent regeneration
adjustment factors to your results.
(b) Adjust CO2 emission rates
calculated under paragraph (a) of this
section for measured test fuel properties
as specified in this paragraph (b) to
obtain the official emission results. You

are not required to apply this
adjustment for fuels containing at least
75 percent pure alcohol, such as E85.
The purpose of this adjustment is to
make official emission results
independent of differences in test fuels
within a fuel type. Use good engineering
judgment to develop and apply testing
protocols to minimize the impact of
variations in test fuels.
(1) For liquid fuels, determine the net
energy content (Btu per pound of fuel)
according to ASTM D4809 or ASTM
D240 (both incorporated by reference in
§ 1036.810) and carbon weight fraction
(dimensionless) of your test fuel
according to ASTM D5291 (incorporated
by reference in § 1036.810). (Note that
we recommend using ASTM D4809.)
For gaseous fuels, use good engineering
judgment to determine the fuel’s net
energy content and carbon weight
fraction. (Note: Net energy content is
also sometimes known as lower heating
value.) Calculate the test fuel’s carbonspecific net energy content (Btu/lbC) by
dividing the net energy content by the
carbon fraction, expressed to at least
five significant figures. You may
perform these calculations using SI
units with the following conversion
factors: one Btu equals 1055.06 Joules
and one Btu/lb equals 0.0023260 MJ/kg.
(2) If you control test fuel properties
so that variations in the actual carbonspecific energy content are the same as
or smaller than the repeatability of
measuring carbon-specific energy
content, you may use a constant value
equal to the average carbon-specific
energy content of your test fuel.
Otherwise, use the measured value for
the specific test fuel used for a given
test. If you use a constant value, you
must update or verify the value at least
once per year, or after changes in test
fuel suppliers or specifications.
(3) Calculate the adjustment factor for
carbon-specific net energy content by
dividing the carbon-specific net energy
content of your test fuel by the reference
level in the following table, expressed to
at least five decimal places. Note that as
used in this section, the unit lbC means
pound of carbon and kgC means
kilogram of carbon.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Fuel type

Diesel fuel ................................................................................................................................................................
Gasoline ...................................................................................................................................................................
Natural Gas ..............................................................................................................................................................
LPG ..........................................................................................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00285

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Reference
carbonspecific net
energy content
(Btu/lbC)

Reference
carbonspecific net
energy content
(MJ/kgC)

21,200
21,700
28,500
24,300

49.3112
50.4742
66.2910
56.5218
ER15SE11.007

or 40 CFR part 1065. If you test hybrid
engines using the SET, deactivate the
hybrid features unless we have specified
otherwise. The five differences that
apply under this section are related to
engine mapping, engine shutdown
during the test cycle, calculating work,
limits on braking energy, and state of
charge constraints.
(1) Map the engine as specified in 40
CFR 1065.510. This requires separate
torque maps for the engine with and
without the hybrid features active. For
transient testing, denormalize the test
cycle using the map generated with the
hybrid feature active. For steady-state
testing, denormalize the test cycle using
the map generated with the hybrid
feature inactive.
(2) If the engine will be configured in
actual use to shut down automatically
during idle operation, you may let the
engine shut down during the idle
portions of the test cycle.
(3) Follow 40 CFR 1065.650(d) to
calculate the work done over the cycle
except as specified in this paragraph
(d)(3). For the positive work over the
cycle set negative power from hybrid to
zero. For the negative work over the
cycle set the positive power to zero and
set the non-hybrid power to zero.
(4)(i) Calculate brake energy fraction,
xb, as the integrated negative work over
the cycle divided by the integrated
positive work over the cycle according
to Equation 1036.525–1. Calculate the
brake energy limit for the engine, xbl,
according to Equation 1036.525–2. If xb
is less than xbl, use the integrated
positive work for your emission
calculations. If the xb is greater than xbl
use Equation 1036.525–3 to calculate
the positive work done over the cycle.
Use Wcycle as the integrated positive
work when calculating brake-specific
emissions. To avoid the need to delete
extra brake work from positive work you
may set an instantaneous brake target
that will prevent xb from being larger
than xbl.

57389

57390

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Your official emission result
equals your calculated brake-specific
emission rate multiplied by the
adjustment factor specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. For example, if the
net energy content and carbon fraction
of your diesel test fuel are 18,400 Btu/
lb and 0.870, the carbon-specific net
energy content of the test fuel would be
21,149 Btu/lbC. The adjustment factor
in the example above would be 0.99759
(21,149/21,200). If your brake-specific
CO2 emission rate was 630.0 g/hp-hr,
your official emission result would be
628.5 g/hp-hr.
Subpart G—Special Compliance
Provisions
§ 1036.601 What compliance provisions
apply to these engines?

(a) Engine and equipment
manufacturers, as well as owners,
operators, and rebuilders of engines
subject to the requirements of this part,
and all other persons, must observe the
provisions of this part, the provisions of
the Clean Air Act, and the following
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068:
(1) The exemption and importation
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subparts
C and D, apply for engines subject to
this part 1036, except that the hardship
exemption provisions of 40 CFR
1068.245, 1068.250, and 1068.255 do
not apply for motor vehicle engines.
(2) Manufacturers may comply with
the defect reporting requirements of 40
CFR 1068.501 instead of the defect
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part
85.
(b) Engines exempted from the
applicable standards of 40 CFR part 86
are exempt from the standards of this
part without request.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1036.610 Innovative technology credits
and adjustments for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.

(a) You may ask us to apply the
provisions of this section for CO2
emission reductions resulting from
powertrain technologies that were not in
common use with heavy-duty vehicles
before model year 2010 that are not
reflected in the specified test procedure.
We will apply these provisions only for
technologies that will result in a
measurable, demonstrable, and
verifiable real-world CO2 reduction.
(b) The provisions of this section may
be applied as either an improvement
factor (used to adjust emission results)
or as a separate credit, consistent with
good engineering judgment. We
recommend that you base your credit/
adjustment on A to B testing of pairs of
engines/vehicles differing only with
respect to the technology in question.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(1) Calculate improvement factors as
the ratio of in-use emissions with the
technology divided by the in-use
emissions without the technology.
Adjust the emission results by
multiplying by the improvement factor.
Use the improvement-factor approach
where good engineering judgment
indicates that the actual benefit will be
proportional to emissions measured
over the test procedures specified in this
part. For example, the benefits from
technologies that reduce engine
operation would generally be
proportional to the engine’s emission
rate.
(2) Calculate separate credits based on
the difference between the in-use
emission rate (g/ton-mile) with the
technology and the in-use emission rate
without the technology. Multiply this
difference by the number of engines,
standard payload, and useful life. We
may also allow you to calculate the
credits based on g/hp-hr emission rates.
Use the separate-credit approach where
good engineering judgment indicates
that the actual benefit will not be
proportional to emissions measured
over the test procedures specified in this
part.
(3) We may require you to discount or
otherwise adjust your improvement
factor or credit to account for
uncertainty or other relevant factors.
(c) Send your request to the
Designated Compliance Officer. Include
a detailed description of the technology
and a recommended test plan. Also state
whether you recommend applying these
provisions using the improvementfactor method or the separate-credit
method. We recommend that you do not
begin collecting test data (for
submission to EPA) before contacting
us. For technologies for which the
vehicle manufacturer could also claim
credits (such as transmissions in certain
circumstances), we may require you to
include a letter from the vehicle
manufacturer stating that it will not seek
credits for the same technology.
(d) We may seek public comment on
your request, consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.1866–12(d)(3).
However, we will generally not seek
public comment on credits/adjustments
based on A to B engine dynamometer
testing, chassis testing, or in-use testing.
§ 1036.615 Engines with Rankine cycle
waste heat recovery and hybrid
powertrains.

This section specifies how to generate
advanced technology-specific emission
credits for hybrid powertrains that
include energy storage systems and
regenerative braking (including
regenerative engine braking) and for

PO 00000

Frm 00286

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

engines that include Rankine-cycle (or
other bottoming cycle) exhaust energy
recovery systems.
(a) Hybrid powertrains. The following
provisions apply for pre-transmission
and post-transmission hybrid
powertrains:
(1) Pre-transmission hybrid
powertrains are those engine systems
that include features that recover and
store energy during engine motoring
operation but not from the vehicle
wheels. These powertrains are tested
using the hybrid engine test procedures
of 40 CFR part 1065 or using the posttransmission test procedures in 40 CFR
1037.550.
(2) Post-transmission hybrid
powertrains are those powertrains that
include features that recover and store
energy from braking but that cannot
function as hybrids without the
transmission. These powertrains must
have a single output shaft to the final
drive and are tested by simulating the
chassis test procedure applicable for
hybrid vehicles under 40 CFR 1037.550.
You need our approval before you begin
testing.
(b) Rankine engines. Test engines that
include Rankine-cycle exhaust energy
recovery systems according to the test
procedures specified in subpart F of this
part unless we approve alternate
procedures.
(c) Calculating credits. Calculate
credits as specified in subpart H of this
part. Credits generated from engines and
powertrains certified under this section
may be used in other averaging sets as
described in § 1036.740(d). Credits may
not be generated under this section and
40 CFR 1037.615 for the same
technology on the same vehicle.
(d) Innovative technologies. You may
certify using both provisions of this
section and the innovative technology
provisions of § 1036.610, provided you
do not double count emission benefits.
§ 1036.620 Alternate CO2 standards based
on model year 2011 compression-ignition
engines.

For model years 2014 through 2016,
you may certify your compressionignition engines to the CO2 standards of
this section instead of the CO2 standards
in § 1036.108. However, you may not
certify engines to these alternate
standards if they are part of an averaging
set in which you carry a balance of
banked credits. You may submit
applications for certifications before
using up banked credits in the averaging
set, but such certificates will not
become effective until you have used up
(or retired) your banked credits in the
averaging set. For purposes of this
section, you are deemed to carry credits

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
in an averaging set if you carry credits
from advanced technology that are
allowed to be used in that averaging set.
(a) The standards of this section are
determined from the measured emission
rate of the test engine of the applicable
baseline 2011 engine family(ies) as
described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section. Calculate the CO2 emission
rate of the baseline test engine using the
same equations used for showing
compliance with the otherwise
applicable standard. The alternate CO2
standard for light and medium heavyduty vocational-certified engines
(certified for CO2 using the transient
cycle) is equal to the baseline emission
rate multiplied by 0.975. The alternate
CO2 standard for tractor-certified
engines (certified for CO2 using the SET
cycle) and all other heavy heavy-duty
engines is equal to the baseline emission
rate multiplied by 0.970. The in-use FEL
for these engines is equal to the
alternate standard multiplied by 1.03.
(b) This paragraph (b) applies if you
do not certify all your engine families in
the averaging set to the alternate
standards of this section. Identify
separate baseline engine families for
each engine family that you are
certifying to the alternate standards of
this section. For an engine family to be
considered the baseline engine family, it
must meet the following criteria:
(1) It must have been certified to all
applicable emission standards in model
year 2011. If the baseline engine was
certified to a NOX FEL above the
standard and incorporated the same
emission control technologies as the
new engine family, you may adjust the
baseline CO2 emission rate to be
equivalent to an engine meeting the 0.20
g/hp-hr NOX standard (or your higher
FEL as specified in this paragraph
(b)(1)), using certification results from
model years 2009 through 2011,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
(i) Use the following equation to relate
model year 2009–2011 NOX and CO2
emission rates (g/hp-hr): CO2 = a ×
log(NOX)+b.
(ii) For model year 2014–2016 engines
certified to NOX FELs above 0.20 g/hphr, correct the baseline CO2 emissions to
the actual NOX FELs of the 2014–2016
engines.
(iii) Calculate separate adjustments for
transient and SET emissions.
(2) The baseline configuration tested
for certification must have the same
engine displacement as the engines in
the engine family being certified to the
alternate standards, and its rated power
must be within five percent of the
highest rated power in the engine family

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

being certified to the alternate
standards.
(3) The model year 2011 U.S.-directed
production volume of the configuration
tested must be at least one percent of the
total 2011 U.S.-directed production
volume for the engine family.
(4) The tested configuration must
have cycle-weighted BSFC equivalent to
or better than all other configurations in
the engine family.
(c) This paragraph (c) applies if you
certify all your engine families in the
primary intended service class to the
alternate standards of this section. For
purposes of this section, you may
combine light heavy-duty and medium
heavy-duty engines into a single
averaging set. Determine your baseline
CO2 emission rate as the productionweighted emission rate of the certified
engine families you produced in the
2011 model year. If you produce engines
for both tractors and vocational
vehicles, treat them as separate
averaging sets. Adjust the CO2 emission
rates to be equivalent to an engine
meeting the average NOX FEL of new
engines (assuming engines certified to
the 0.20 g/hp-hr NOX standard have a
NOX FEL equal to 0.20 g/hp-hr), as
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
(d) Include the following statement on
the emission control information label:
‘‘THIS ENGINE WAS CERTIFIED TO
AN ALTERNATE CO2 STANDARD
UNDER § 1036.620.’’
(e) You may not bank CO2 emission
credits for any engine family in the
same averaging set and model year in
which you certify engines to the
standards of this section. You may not
bank any advanced technology credits
in any averaging set for the model year
you certify under this section (since
such credits would be available for use
in this averaging set). Note that the
provisions of § 1036.745 apply for
deficits generated with respect to the
standards of this section.
(f) You need our approval before you
may certify engines under this section,
especially with respect to the numerical
value of the alternate standards. We will
not approve your request if we
determine that you manipulated your
engine families or test engine
configurations to certify to less stringent
standards, or that you otherwise have
not acted in good faith. You must keep
and provide to us any information we
need to determine that your engine
families meet the requirements of this
section. Keep these records for at least
five years after you stop producing
engines certified under this section.

PO 00000

Frm 00287

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57391

§ 1036.625 In-use compliance with family
emission limits (FELs).

You may ask us to apply a higher inuse FEL for certain in-use engines,
subject to the provisions of this section.
Note that § 1036.225 contains provisions
related to changing FELs during a model
year.
(a) Purpose. This section is intended
to address circumstances in which it is
in the public interest to apply a higher
in-use FEL based on forfeiting an
appropriate number of emission credits.
(b) FELs. When applying higher in-use
FELs to your engines, we would intend
to accurately reflect the actual in-use
performance of your engines, consistent
with the specified testing provisions of
this part.
(c) Equivalent families. We may apply
the higher FELs to other families in
other model years if they used
equivalent emission controls.
(d) Credit forfeiture. Where we specify
higher in-use FELs under this section,
you must forfeit CO2 emission credits
based on the difference between the inuse FEL and the otherwise applicable
FEL. Calculate the amount of credits to
be forfeited using the applicable
equation in § 1036.705, by substituting
the otherwise applicable FEL for the
standard and the in-use FEL for the
otherwise applicable FEL.
(e) Requests. Submit your request to
the Designated Compliance Officer.
Include the following in your request:
(1) The engine family name and
model year of the engines affected.
(2) A list of other engine families/
model years that may be affected.
(3) The otherwise applicable FEL for
the engine families along with your
recommendations for higher in-use
FELs.
(4) Your source of credits for
forfeiture.
(f) Relation to recall. You may not
request higher in-use FELs for any
engine families for which we have made
a determination of nonconformance and
ordered a recall. You may, however,
make such requests for engine families
for which you are performing a
voluntary emission recall.
(g) Approval. We may approve your
request if we determine that you meet
the requirements of this section and
such approval is in the public interest.
We may include appropriate conditions
with our approval or we may approve
your request with modifications.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
§ 1036.701

General provisions.

(a) You may average, bank, and trade
(ABT) emission credits for purposes of

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57392

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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
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,
during a selective enforcement audit),
you may use emission credits to
recertify the engine family with a higher
FCL that applies only to future
production.
(f) Emission credits may be used in
the model year they are generated.
Surplus emission credits may be banked
for future model years. Surplus
emission credits may sometimes be used
for past model years, as described in
§ 1036.745.
(g) You may increase or decrease an
FCL during the model year by amending
your application for certification under

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 1036.225. The new FCL may apply
only to engines you have not already
introduced into commerce.
(h) You may trade emission credits
generated from any number of your
engines to the engine purchasers or
other parties to retire the credits.
Identify any such credits in the reports
described in § 1036.730. Engines must
comply with the applicable FELs even
if you donate or sell the corresponding
emission credits under this paragraph
(h). Those credits may no longer be used
by anyone to demonstrate compliance
with any EPA emission standards.
(i) See § 1036.740 for special credit
provisions that apply for credits
generated under § 1036.615 or 40 CFR
1037.104(d)(7) or 1037.615.
(j) Unless the regulations explicitly
allow it, you may not calculate credits
more than once for any emission
reduction. For example, if you generate
CO2 emission credits for a hybrid engine
under this part for a given vehicle, no
one may generate CO2 emission credits
for that same hybrid engine and vehicle
under 40 CFR part 1037. However,
credits could be generated for identical
vehicles using engines that did not
generate credits under this part.
§ 1036.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.

(a) The provisions of this section
apply separately for calculating
emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family,
calculate positive or negative emission
credits relative to the otherwise
applicable emission standard based on
the engine family’s FCL for greenhouse
gases. If your engine family is certified
to both the vocational and tractor engine
standards, calculate credits separately
for the vocational engines and the
tractor engines (as specified in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section).
Calculate positive emission credits for a
family that has an FCL below the
standard. Calculate negative emission
credits for a family that has an FCL
above the standard.
Sum your positive and negative
credits for the model year before
rounding. Round the sum of emission
credits to the nearest megagram (Mg),
using consistent units throughout the
following equations:
(1) For vocational engines:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std¥FCL) ·
(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

PO 00000

Frm 00288

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the transient duty cycle, rounded to the same
number of decimal places as the emission
standard.
CF = a transient cycle conversion factor
(hp-hr/mile), calculated by dividing the total
(integrated) horsepower-hour over the duty
cycle (average of vocational engine
configurations weighted by their production
volumes) by 6.3 miles for spark-ignition
engines and 6.5 miles for compressionignition engines. This represents the average
work performed by vocational engines in the
family over the mileage represented by
operation over the duty cycle.
Volume = the number of vocational
engines eligible to participate in the
averaging, banking, and trading program
within the given engine family during the
model year, as described in paragraph (c) of
this section.
UL = the useful life for the given engine
family, in miles.

(2) For tractor engines:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std¥FCL) ·
(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 = a transient cycle conversion factor
(hp-hr/mile), calculated by dividing the total
(integrated) horsepower-hour over the duty
cycle (average of tractor-engine
configurations weighted by their production
volumes) by 6.3 miles for spark-ignition
engines and 6.5 miles for compressionignition engines. This represents the average
work performed by tractor engines in the
family over the mileage represented by
operation over the duty cycle. Note that this
calculation requires you to use the transient
cycle conversion factor even for engines
certified to SET-based standards. Volume =
the number of tractor engines eligible to
participate in the averaging, banking, and
trading program within the given engine
family during the model year, as described in
paragraph (c) of this section.
UL = the useful life for the given engine
family, in miles.

(3) For engine families certified to
both the vocational and tractor engine
standards, we may allow you to use
statistical methods to estimate the total
production volumes where a small
fraction of the engines cannot be tracked
precisely.
(4) You may not generate emission
credits for tractor engines (i.e., engines
not certified to the transient cycle for
CO2) installed in vocational vehicles
(including vocational tractors certified
pursuant to 40 CFR 1037.630 or
exempted pursuant to 40 CFR
1037.631). We will waive this
requirement where you demonstrate

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
that less than five percent of the engines
in your tractor family were installed in
vocational vehicles. For example, if you
know that 96 percent of your tractor
engines were installed in non-vocational
tractors, but cannot determine the
vehicle type for the remaining four
percent, you may generate credits for all
the engines in the family.
(c) As described in § 1036.730,
compliance with the requirements of
this subpart is determined at the end of
the model year based on actual U.S.directed production volumes. Keep
appropriate records to document these
production volumes. Do not include any
of the following engines to calculate
emission credits:
(1) Engines that you do not certify to
the CO2 standards of this part because
they are permanently exempted under
subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR
part 1068.
(2) Exported engines.
(3) Engines not subject to the
requirements of this part, such as those
excluded under § 1036.5. For example,
do not include engines used in vehicles
certified to the greenhouse gas standards
of 40 CFR 1037.104.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Any other engines if we indicate
elsewhere in this part 1036 that they are
not to be included in the calculations of
this subpart.
(d) You may use CO2 emission credits
to show compliance with CH4 and/or
N2O FELs instead of the otherwise
applicable emission standards. To do
this, calculate the CH4 and/or N2O
emission credits needed (negative
credits) using the equation in paragraph
(b) of this section, using the FEL(s) you
specify for your engines during
certification instead of the FCL. You
must use 25 Mg of positive CO2 credits
to offset 1 Mg of negative CH4 credits.
You must use 298 Mg of positive CO2
credits to offset 1 Mg of negative N2O
credits.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1036.710

Averaging.

(a) Averaging is the exchange of
emission credits among your engine
families. You may average emission
credits only within the same averaging
set.
(b) You may certify one or more
engine families to an FCL above the
applicable standard, subject to any
applicable FEL caps and other the
provisions in subpart B of this part, if
you show in your application for
certification that your projected balance
of all emission-credit transactions in
that model year is greater than or equal
to zero, or that a negative balance is
allowed under § 1036.745.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(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
(or from later model years as specified
in § 1036.745), from emission credits
you have banked, or from emission
credits you obtain through trading.
§ 1036.715

Banking.

(a) Banking is the retention of surplus
emission credits by the manufacturer
generating the emission credits for use
in future model years for averaging or
trading.
(b) You may designate any emission
credits you plan to bank in the reports
you submit under § 1036.730 as
reserved credits. During the model year
and before the due date for the final
report, you may designate your reserved
emission credits for averaging or
trading.
(c) Reserved credits become actual
emission credits when you submit your
final report. However, we may revoke
these emission credits if we are unable
to verify them after reviewing your
reports or auditing your records.
(d) Banked credits retain the
designation of the averaging set in
which they were generated.
§ 1036.720

Trading.

(a) Trading is the exchange of
emission credits between
manufacturers, or the transfer of credits
to another party to retire them. You may
use traded emission credits for
averaging, banking, or further trading
transactions. Traded emission credits
remain subject to the averaging-set
restrictions based on the averaging set in
which they were generated.
(b) You may trade actual emission
credits as described in this subpart. You
may also trade reserved emission
credits, but we may revoke these
emission credits based on our review of
your records or reports or those of the
company with which you traded
emission credits. You may trade banked
credits within an averaging set to any
certifying manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit
balance results from a transaction, both
the buyer and seller are liable, except in
cases we deem to involve fraud. See
§ 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

PO 00000

Frm 00289

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57393

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, to the best of
your belief, you will not have a negative
balance of emission credits for any
averaging set when all emission credits
are calculated at the end of the year; or
a statement that you will have a
negative balance of emission credits for
one or more averaging sets, but that it
is allowed under § 1036.745.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected
emission credits (positive or negative)
based on projected U.S.-directed
production volumes. We may require
you to include similar calculations from
your other engine families to project
your net credit balances for the model
year. If you project negative emission
credits for a family, state the source of
positive emission credits you expect to
use to offset the negative emission
credits.
§ 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
within 270 days after the end of the
model year.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following information
for each engine family participating in
the ABT program:
(1) Engine-family designation and
averaging set.
(2) The emission standards that would
otherwise apply to the engine family.
(3) The FCL for each pollutant. If you
change the FCL after the start of
production, identify the date that you
started using the new FCL and/or give
the engine identification number for the
first engine covered by the new FCL. In
this case, identify each applicable FCL
and calculate the positive or negative
emission credits as specified in
§ 1036.225.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57394

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(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:
(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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
§ 1036.735

Recordkeeping.

(a) You must organize and maintain
your records as described in this
section. We may review your records at
any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this
section for at least eight years after the
due date for the end-of-year report. You
may not use emission credits for any
engines if you do not keep all the
records required under this section. You
must therefore keep these records to
continue to bank valid credits. Store
these records in any format and on any
media, as long as you can promptly
send us organized, written records in
English if we ask for them. You must
keep these records readily available. We
may review them at any time.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we
require in §§ 1036.725 and 1036.730.
(d) Keep records of the engine
identification number (usually the serial
number) for each engine you produce
that generates or uses emission credits
under the ABT program. You may
identify these numbers as a range. If you
change the FEL after the start of
production, identify the date you started
using each FCL and the range of engine
identification numbers associated with
each FCL. You must also identify the
purchaser and destination for each
engine you produce to the extent this
information is available.
(e) We may require you to keep
additional records or to send us relevant
information not required by this section
in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
§ 1036.740
credits.

Restrictions for using emission

The following restrictions apply for
using emission credits:
(a) Averaging sets. Except as specified
in paragraph (c) of this section, emission
credits may be exchanged only within
an following averaging sets There are
four principal averaging sets for engines
subject to this subpart:
(1) Spark-ignition engines.
(2) Compression-ignition light heavyduty engines.
(3) Compression-ignition medium
heavy-duty engines.
(4) Compression-ignition heavy
heavy-duty engines.

PO 00000

Frm 00290

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(b) Applying credits to prior year
deficits. Where your credit balance for
the previous year is negative, you may
apply credits to that credit deficit only
after meeting your credit obligations for
the current year.
(c) Credits from hybrid engines and
other advanced technologies. The
averaging set restrictions of paragraph
(a) of this section do not apply for
credits generated under § 1036.615 or 40
CFR 1037.104(d)(7) or 1037.615 from
hybrid power systems with regenerative
braking, or from other advanced
technologies. Such credits may also be
used under 40 CFR part 1037.
(1) The maximum amount of credits
you may bring into the following service
class groups is 60,000 Mg per model
year:
(i) Spark-ignition engines, light heavyduty compression-ignition engines, and
light heavy-duty vehicles. This group
comprises the averaging sets listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section
and the averaging set listed in 40 CFR
1037.740(a)(1).
(ii) Medium heavy-duty compressionignition engines and medium heavyduty vehicles. This group comprises the
averaging sets listed in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section and 40 CFR
1037.740(a)(2).
(iii) Heavy heavy-duty compressionignition engines and heavy heavy-duty
vehicles. This group comprises the
averaging sets listed in paragraph (a)(4)
of this section and 40 CFR
1037.740(a)(3).
(2) The limit specified in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section does not limit the
amount of advanced technology credits
that can be used within a service class
group if they were generated in that
same service class group.
(d) Credit life. Credits expire after five
years.
(e) Other restrictions. Other sections
of this part specify additional
restrictions for using emission credits
under certain special provisions.
§ 1036.745

End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.

Except as allowed by this section, we
may void the certificate of any engine
family certified to an FCL above the
applicable standard for which you do
not have sufficient credits by the
deadline for submitting the final report.
(a) Your certificate for an engine
family for which you do not have
sufficient CO2 credits will not be void
if you remedy the deficit with surplus
credits within three model years. For
example, if you have a credit deficit of
500 Mg for an engine family at the end
of model year 2015, you must generate
(or otherwise obtain) a surplus of at

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
least 500 Mg in that same averaging set
by the end of model year 2018.
(b) You may not bank or trade away
CO2 credits in the averaging set in any
model year in which you have a deficit.
(c) You may apply only surplus
credits to your deficit. You may not
apply credits to a deficit from an earlier
model year if they were generated in a
model year for which any of your engine
families for that averaging set had an
end-of-year credit deficit.
(d) If you do not remedy the deficit
with surplus credits within three model
years, we may void your certificate for
that engine family. We may void the
certificate based on your end-of-year
report. Note that voiding a certificate
applies ab initio. Where the net deficit
is less than the total amount of negative
credits originally generated by the
family, we will void the certificate only
with respect to the number of engines
needed to reach the amount of the net
deficit. For example, if the original
engine family generated 500 Mg of
negative credits, and the manufacturer’s
net deficit after three years was 250 Mg,
we would void the certificate with
respect to half of the engines in the
family.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1036.750 What can happen if I do not
comply with the provisions of this subpart?

(a) For each engine family
participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditioned
upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and
after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our
satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void
the certificate of conformity for an
engine family if you fail to comply with
any provisions of this subpart.
(b) You may certify your engine
family to an FCL above an applicable
standard based on a projection that you
will have enough emission credits to
offset the deficit for the engine family.
See § 1036.745 for provisions specifying
what happens if you cannot show in
your final report that you have enough
actual emission credits to offset a deficit
for any pollutant in an engine family.
(c) We may void the certificate of
conformity for an engine family if you
fail to keep records, send reports, or give
us information we request. Note that
failing to keep records, send reports, or
give us information we request is also a
violation of 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2).
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we
void your certificate under this section
(see § 1036.820).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 1036.755 Information provided to the
Department of Transportation.

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 each manufacturer’s equivalent fuel
consumption data that required by
NHTSA under 49 CFR 535.8. We will
send a report to DOT for each engine
manufacturer based on each regulatory
category and subcategory, including
sufficient information for NHTSA to
determine fuel consumption and
associated credit values. See 49 CFR
535.8 to determine if NHTSA deems
submission of this information to EPA
to also be a submission to NHTSA.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other
Reference Information
§ 1036.801

Definitions.

The following definitions apply to
this part. The definitions apply to all
subparts unless we note otherwise. All
undefined terms have the meaning the
Act gives to them. The definitions
follow:
Act means the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Adjustable parameter has the
meaning given in 40 CFR part 86.
Advanced technology means
technology certified under § 1036.615,
40 CFR 1037.104(d)(7) or 1037.615.
Aftertreatment means relating to a
catalytic converter, particulate filter, or
any other system, component, or
technology mounted downstream of the
exhaust valve (or exhaust port) whose
design function is to decrease emissions
in the engine exhaust before it is
exhausted to the environment. Exhaustgas recirculation (EGR) and
turbochargers are not aftertreatment.
Aircraft means any vehicle capable of
sustained air travel above treetop
heights.
Alcohol-fueled engine mean an engine
that is designed to run using an alcohol
fuel. For purposes of this definition,
alcohol fuels do not include fuels with
a nominal alcohol content below 25
percent by volume.
Auxiliary emission control device
means any element of design that senses
temperature, motive speed, engine RPM,
transmission gear, or any other
parameter for the purpose of activating,
modulating, delaying, or deactivating
the operation of any part of the emission
control system.
Averaging set has the meaning given
in § 1036.740.

PO 00000

Frm 00291

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57395

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
the applicable transient and/or steadystate testing, rounded to the same
number of decimal places as the
applicable standard. Note that you may
have two certified emission levels for
CO2 if you certify a family for both
vocational and tractor use.
Complete vehicle means a vehicle
meeting the definition of complete
vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801 when it is
first sold as a vehicle. For example,
where a vehicle manufacturer sells an
incomplete vehicle to a secondary
manufacturer, the vehicle is not a
complete vehicle under this part, even
after its final assembly.
Compression-ignition means relating
to a type of reciprocating, 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
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,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57396

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

references in this part to the
deteriorated emission level mean the
official emission result.
Deterioration factor means the
relationship between emissions at the
end of useful life (or point of highest
emissions if it occurs before the end of
useful life) and emissions at the lowhour/low-mileage test point, expressed
in one of the following ways:
(1) For multiplicative deterioration
factors, the ratio of emissions at the end
of useful life (or point of highest
emissions) to emissions at the low-hour
test point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors,
the difference between emissions at the
end of useful life (or point of highest
emissions) and emissions at the lowhour test point.
Dual-fuel means relating to an engine
designed for operation on two different
types of fuel but not on a continuous
mixture of those fuels.
Emission control system means any
device, system, or element of design that
controls or reduces the emissions of
regulated pollutants from an engine.
Emission-data engine means an
engine that is tested for certification.
This includes engines tested to establish
deterioration factors.
Emission-related maintenance means
maintenance that substantially affects
emissions or is likely to substantially
affect emission deterioration.
Engine configuration means a unique
combination of engine hardware and
calibration (related to the emission
standards) within an engine family.
Engines within a single engine
configuration differ only with respect to
normal production variability or factors
unrelated to compliance with emission
standards.
Engine family has the meaning given
in § 1036.230.
Excluded means relating to engines
that are not subject to some or all of the
requirements of this part as follows:
(1) An engine that has been
determined not to be a heavy-duty
engine is excluded from this part.
(2) Certain heavy-duty engines are
excluded from the requirements of this
part under § 1036.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of
this part may exclude a heavy-duty
engine generally subject to this part
from one or more specific standards or
requirements of this part.
Exempted has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1068.30.
Exhaust-gas recirculation means a
technology that reduces emissions by
routing exhaust gases that had been
exhausted from the combustion
chamber(s) back into the engine to be
mixed with incoming air before or

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 1.03 and
rounded to the same number of decimal
places as the standard (e.g., the nearest
whole g/hp-hr for the 2016 CO2
standards).
Flexible-fuel means relating to an
engine designed for operation on any
mixture of two or more different types
of fuels.
Fuel type means a general category of
fuels such as diesel fuel, gasoline, or
natural gas. There can be multiple
grades within a single fuel type, such as
premium gasoline, regular gasoline, or
gasoline with 10 percent ethanol.
Good engineering judgment has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. See
40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative
process we use to evaluate good
engineering judgment.
Greenhouse gas pollutants and
greenhouse gases means compounds
regulated under this part based
primarily on their impact on the
climate. This includes CO2, CH4, and
N2O.
Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
means the value specified by the vehicle
manufacturer as the maximum design
loaded weight of a single vehicle,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
Heavy-duty engine means any engine
which the engine manufacturer could
reasonably expect to be used for motive
power in a heavy-duty vehicle. For
purposes of this definition in this part,

PO 00000

Frm 00292

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the term ‘‘engine’’ includes internal
combustion engines and other devices
that convert chemical fuel into motive
power. For example, a fuel cell used in
a heavy-duty vehicle is a heavy-duty
engine.
Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor
vehicle above 8,500 pounds GVWR or
that has a vehicle curb weight above
6,000 pounds or that has a basic vehicle
frontal area greater than 45 square feet.
Curb weight has the meaning given in 40
CFR 86.1803, consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 1037.140. Basic
vehicle frontal area has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 86.1803.
Hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain
means an engine or powertrain that
includes energy storage features other
than a conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel. Supplemental
electrical batteries and hydraulic
accumulators are examples of hybrid
energy storage systems. Note that certain
provisions in this part treat hybrid
engines and powertrains intended for
vehicles that include regenerative
braking differently than those intended
for vehicles that do not include
regenerative braking.
Hydrocarbon (HC) means the
hydrocarbon group on which the
emission standards are based for each
fuel type. For alcohol-fueled engines,
HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent (NMHCE). For all other
engines, HC means nonmethane
hydrocarbon (NMHC).
Identification number means a unique
specification (for example, a model
number/serial number combination)
that allows someone to distinguish a
particular engine from other similar
engines.
Incomplete vehicle means a vehicle
meeting the definition of incomplete
vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801 when it is
first sold as a vehicle.
Innovative technology means
technology certified under § 1036.610.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) means
a liquid hydrocarbon fuel that is stored
under pressure and is composed
primarily of nonmethane compounds
that are gases at atmospheric conditions.
Low-hour means relating to an engine
that has stabilized emissions and
represents the undeteriorated emission
level. This would generally involve less
than 125 hours of operation.
Manufacture means the physical and
engineering process of designing,
constructing, and/or assembling a
heavy-duty engine or a heavy-duty
vehicle.
Manufacturer has the meaning given
in section 216(1) of the Act. In general,
this term includes any person who
manufactures an engine, vehicle, or

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
piece of equipment for sale in the
United States or otherwise introduces a
new engine into commerce in the
United States. This includes importers
who import engines or vehicles for
resale.
Medium-duty passenger vehicle has
the meaning given in 40 CFR 86.1803.
Model year means the manufacturer’s
annual new model production period,
except as restricted under this
definition. It must include January 1 of
the calendar year for which the model
year is named, may not begin before
January 2 of the previous calendar year,
and it must end by December 31 of the
named calendar year. Manufacturers
may not adjust model years to
circumvent or delay compliance with
emission standards or to avoid the
obligation to certify annually.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 85.1703.
Natural gas means a fuel whose
primary constituent is methane.
New motor vehicle engine means a
motor vehicle engine meeting the
criteria of either paragraph (1) or (2) of
this definition.
(1) A motor vehicle engine for which
the ultimate purchaser has never
received the equitable or legal title is a
new motor vehicle engine. This kind of
engine might commonly be thought of
as ‘‘brand new’’ although a new motor
vehicle engine may include previously
used parts. Under this definition, the
engine is new from the time it is
produced until the ultimate purchaser
receives the title or places it into
service, whichever comes first.
(2) An imported motor vehicle engine
is a new motor vehicle engine if it was
originally built on or after January 1,
1970.
Noncompliant engine means an
engine that was originally covered by a
certificate of conformity, but is not in
the certified configuration or otherwise
does not comply with the conditions of
the certificate.
Nonconforming engine means an
engine not covered by a certificate of
conformity that would otherwise be
subject to emission standards.
Nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC)
means the sum of all hydrocarbon
species except methane, as measured
according to 40 CFR part 1065.
Official emission result means the
measured emission rate for an emissiondata engine on a given duty cycle before
the application of any deterioration
factor, but after the applicability of any
required regeneration adjustment
factors.
Owner’s manual means a document or
collection of documents prepared by the
engine or vehicle manufacturer for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

owner or operator to describe
appropriate engine maintenance,
applicable warranties, and any other
information related to operating or
keeping the engine. The owner’s manual
is typically provided to the ultimate
purchaser at the time of sale.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Percent has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1065.1001. Note that this means
percentages identified in this part are
assumed to be infinitely precise without
regard to the number of significant
figures. For example, one percent of
1,493 is 14.93.
Petroleum means gasoline or diesel
fuel or other fuels normally derived
from crude oil. This does not include
methane or LPG.
Placed into service means put into
initial use for its intended purpose.
Primary intended service class has the
meaning given in § 1036.140.
Rated power has the meaning given in
40 CFR part 86.
Rechargeable Energy Storage System
(RESS) means the component(s) of a
hybrid engine or vehicle that store
recovered energy for later use, such as
the battery system in an electric hybrid
vehicle.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30.
Round has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1065.1001.
Scheduled maintenance means
adjusting, repairing, removing,
disassembling, cleaning, or replacing
components or systems periodically to
keep a part or system from failing,
malfunctioning, or wearing prematurely.
It also may mean actions you expect are
necessary to correct an overt indication
of failure or malfunction for which
periodic maintenance is not
appropriate.
Small manufacturer means a
manufacturer meeting the criteria
specified in 13 CFR 121.201. For
manufacturers owned by a parent
company, the employee and revenue
limits apply to the total number of
employees and total revenue of the
parent company and all its subsidiaries.
Spark-ignition means relating to a
gasoline-fueled engine or any other type
of engine with a spark plug (or other
sparking device) and with operating
characteristics significantly similar to
the theoretical Otto combustion cycle.
Spark-ignition engines usually use a
throttle to regulate intake air flow to
control power during normal operation.
Steady-state has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1065.1001.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30.

PO 00000

Frm 00293

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57397

Test engine means an engine in a test
sample.
Test sample means the collection of
engines selected from the population of
an engine family for emission testing.
This may include testing for
certification, production-line testing, or
in-use testing.
Tractor means a vehicle meeting the
definition of ‘‘tractor’’ in 40 CFR
1037.801, but not classified as a
‘‘vocational tractor’’ under 40 CFR
1037.630, or relating to such a vehicle.
Tractor engine means an engine
certified for use in tractors. Where an
engine family is certified for use in both
tractors and vocational vehicles, ‘‘tractor
engine’’ means an engine that the engine
manufacturer reasonably believes will
be (or has been) installed in a tractor.
Note that the provisions of this part may
require a manufacturer to document
how it determines that an engine is a
tractor engine.
Ultimate purchaser means, with
respect to any new engine or vehicle,
the first person who in good faith
purchases such new engine or vehicle
for purposes other than resale.
United States has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Upcoming model year means for an
engine family the model year after the
one currently in production.
U.S.-directed production volume
means the number of engines, subject to
the requirements of this part, produced
by a manufacturer for which the
manufacturer has a reasonable
assurance that sale was or will be made
to ultimate purchasers in the United
States. This does not include engines
certified to state emission standards that
are different than the emission
standards in this part.
Vehicle has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1037.801.
Vocational engine means an engine
certified for use in vocational vehicles.
Where an engine family is certified for
use in both tractors and vocational
vehicles, ‘‘vocational engine’’ means an
engine that the engine manufacturer
reasonably believes will be (or has been)
installed in a vocational vehicle. Note
that the provisions of this part may
require a manufacturer to document
how it determines that an engine is a
vocational engine.
Vocational vehicle means a vehicle
meeting the definition of ‘‘vocational’’
vehicle in 40 CFR 1037.801.
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
We (us, our) means the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
and any authorized representatives.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57398

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

§ 1036.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.

The following symbols, acronyms,
and abbreviations apply to this part:
ABT averaging, banking, and trading.
AECD auxiliary emission control
device.
ASTM American Society for Testing
and Materials.
BTU British thermal units.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations.
CH4 methane.
CO carbon monoxide.
CO2 carbon dioxide.
DF deterioration factor.
DOT Department of Transportation.
E85 gasoline blend including
nominally 85 percent ethanol.
EPA Environmental Protection
Agency.
FCL Family Certification Level.
FEL Family Emission Limit.
g/hp–hr grams per brake horsepowerhour.
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating.
HC hydrocarbon.
kg kilogram.
kgC kilogram carbon.
kW kilowatts.
lb pound.
lbC pound carbon.
LPG liquefied petroleum gas.
Mg megagrams (10 6 grams, or one
metric ton).
MJ megajoules.
N2O nitrous oxide.
NARA National Archives and
Records Administration.
NHTSA National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
NOx oxides of nitrogen (NO and
NO2).
NTE not-to-exceed.
PM particulate matter.
RESS rechargeable energy storage
system.
RPM revolutions per minute.
SET Supplemental Emission Test (see
40 CFR 86.1362).
U.S. United States.
U.S.C. United States Code.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1036.810

Incorporation by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
the Environmental Protection Agency
must publish a notice of the change in
the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Room B102, EPA West Building,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202–1744,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

and is available from the sources listed
below. It is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O.
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA,
19428–2959, (610) 832–9585, http://
www.astm.org/.
(1) ASTM D 240–09 Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter, approved July 1, 2009, IBR
approved for § 1036.530(b).
(2) ASTM D4809–09a Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter (Precision Method),
approved September 1, 2009, IBR
approved for § 1036.530(b).
(3) ASTM D5291–10 Standard Test
Methods for Instrumental Determination
of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in
Petroleum Products and Lubricants,
approved May 1, 2010, IBR approved for
§ 1036.530(b).
§ 1036.815

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.
(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.
§ 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

PO 00000

Frm 00294

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 and
40 CFR 1068.25 and 1068.101 describe
your obligation to report truthful and
complete information. This includes
information not related to certification.
Failing to properly report information
and keep the records we specify violates
40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may
involve civil or criminal penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for
approval to the Designated Compliance
Officer (see § 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
related to duplicate labels sent to
equipment manufacturers.
(ii) In subpart C of this part we
identify a wide range of information
required to certify engines.
(iii) In subpart G of this part we
identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making
demonstrations and getting approval
related to various special compliance
provisions.
(iv) In §§ 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]
■ 34. A new part 1037 is added to
subchapter U to read as follows:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
PART 1037—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW HEAVY–DUTY MOTOR
VEHICLES
Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
Sec.
1037.1 Applicability
1037.5 Excluded vehicles.
1037.10 How is this part organized?
1037.15 Do any other regulation parts apply
to me?
1037.30 Submission of information.
Subpart B—Emission Standards and
Related Requirements
1037.101 Overview of emission standards
for heavy-duty vehicles.
1037.102 Exhaust emission standards for
NOX, HC, PM, and CO.
1037.104 Exhaust emission standards for
CO2, CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR.
1037.105 Exhaust emission standards for
CO2 for vocational vehicles.
1037.106 Exhaust emission standards for
CO2 for tractors above 26,000 pounds
GVWR.
1037.115 Other requirements.
1037.120 Emission-related warranty
requirements.
1037.125 Maintenance instructions and
allowable maintenance.
1037.135 Labeling.
1037.140 Curb weight and roof height.
1037.150 Interim provisions.
Subpart C—Certifying Vehicle families
1037.201 General requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity.
1037.205 What must I include in my
application?
1037.210 Preliminary approval before
certification.
1037.220 Amending maintenance
instructions.
1037.225 Amending applications for
certification.
1037.230 Vehicle families, sub-families,
and configurations.
1037.241 Demonstrating compliance with
exhaust emission standards for
greenhouse gas pollutants.
1037.250 Reporting and recordkeeping.
1037.255 What decisions may EPA make
regarding my certificate of conformity?

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Subpart E—In-Use Testing
1037.401 General provisions.

1037.701 General provisions.
1037.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.
1037.710 Averaging.
1037.715 Banking.
1037.720 Trading.
1037.725 What must I include in my
application for certification?
1037.730 ABT reports.
1037.735 Recordkeeping.
1037.740 Restrictions for using emission
credits.
1037.745 End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.
1037.750 What can happen if I do not
comply with the provisions of this
subpart?
1037.755 Information provided to the
Department of Transportation.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other Reference
Information
1037.801 Definitions.
1037.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
1037.810 Incorporation by reference.
1037.815 Confidential information.
1037.820 Requesting a hearing.
1037.825 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Appendix I to Part 1037—Heavy-duty
Transient Chassis Test Cycle
Appendix II to Part 1037—Power Take-Off
Test Cycle
Appendix III to Part 1037—Emission Control
Identifiers

Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
§ 1037.1

Subpart F—Test and Modeling Procedures
1037.501 General testing and modeling
provisions.
1037.510 Duty-cycle exhaust testing.
1037.520 Modeling CO2 emissions to show
compliance.
1037.521 Aerodynamic measurements.
1037.525 Special procedures for testing
hybrid vehicles with power take-off.
1037.550 Special procedures for testing
post-transmission hybrid systems.
Subpart G—Special Compliance Provisions
1037.601 What compliance provisions
apply to these vehicles?

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.

Subpart D—[Reserved]

VerDate Mar<15>2010

1037.610 Vehicles with innovative
technologies.
1037.615 Hybrid vehicles and other
advanced technologies.
1037.620 Shipment of incomplete vehicles
to secondary vehicle manufacturers.
1037.630 Special purpose tractors.
1037.631 Exemption for vocational vehicles
intended for off-road use.
1037.640 Variable vehicle speed limiters.
1037.645 In-use compliance with family
emission limits (FELs).
1037.650 Tire manufacturers.
1037.655 Post-useful life vehicle
modifications.
1037.660 Automatic engine shutdown
systems.

Jkt 223001

Applicability

This part contains standards and
other regulations applicable to the
emission of the air pollutant defined as
the aggregate group of six greenhouse
gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
methane, hydrofluorocarbons,
perflurocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride. The regulations in this
part 1037 apply for all new heavy-duty
vehicles, except as provided in § 1037.5.
This includes electric vehicles and
vehicles fueled by conventional and
alternative fuels.

PO 00000

Frm 00295

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 1037.5

57399

Excluded vehicles.

Except for the definitions specified in
§ 1037.801, this part does not apply to
the following vehicles:
(a) Vehicles not meeting the definition
of ‘‘motor vehicle’’.
(b) Vehicles excluded from the
definition of ‘‘heavy-duty vehicle’’ in
§ 1037.801 because of vehicle weight,
weight rating, and frontal area (such as
light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks).
(c) Medium-duty passenger vehicles.
(d) Vehicles produced in model years
before 2014, unless they are certified
under § 1037.150.
(e) Vehicles subject to the light-duty
greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR part
86. See 40 CFR 86.1818 for greenhouse
gas standards that apply for these
vehicles. An example of such a vehicle
would be a vehicle meeting the
definition of ‘‘heavy-duty vehicle’’ in
§ 1037.801 and 40 CFR 86.1803, but also
meeting the definition of ‘‘light truck’’
in 40 CFR 86.1818–12(b)(2).
§ 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) Subpart E of this part addresses
testing of in-use vehicles.
(f) Subpart F of this part describes
how to test your vehicles and perform
emission modeling (including
references to other parts of the Code of
Federal Regulations) for vehicles subject
to the standards of § 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.
Section 1037.601 describes how 40 CFR
part 1068 applies for heavy-duty
vehicles.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes
how you may generate and use emission

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57400

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

credits to certify vehicles that are
subject to the standards of § 1037.105 or
§ 1037.106.
(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 that apply
broadly, but do not necessarily apply for
all vehicles or all persons. The issues
addressed by these provisions include
these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for
manufacturers and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket
changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for
certain vehicles.
(4) Importing vehicles.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of
your production.
(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(c) Part 86 of this chapter applies for
certain vehicles as specified in this part.
For example, the test procedures and
most of part 86, subpart S, applies for
vehicles subject to § 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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.101 Overview of emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

(a) This part specifies emission
standards for certain vehicles and for
certain pollutants. It also summarizes
other standards that apply under 40 CFR
part 86. This part contains standards
and other regulations applicable to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

emission of the air pollutant defined as
the aggregate group of six greenhouse
gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
methane, hydrofluorocarbons,
perflurocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride.
(b) The regulated emissions are
addressed in four groups:
(1) Exhaust emissions of NOX, HC,
PM, and CO. These pollutants are
sometimes described collectively as
‘‘criteria pollutants’’ because they are
either criteria pollutants under the
Clean Air Act or precursors to the
criteria pollutant ozone. These
pollutants are also sometimes described
collectively as ‘‘non-greenhouse gas
pollutants’’, although they do not
necessarily have negligible global
warming potential. As described in
§ 1037.102, standards for these
pollutants are provided in 40 CFR part
86.
(2) Exhaust emissions of CO2, CH4,
and N2O. These pollutants are described
collectively in this part as ‘‘greenhouse
gas pollutants’’ because they are
regulated primarily based on their
impact on the climate. These standards
are provided in §§ 1037.104 through
1037.106.
(3) Hydrofluorocarbons. These
pollutants are also ‘‘greenhouse gas
pollutants’’ but are treated separately
from exhaust greenhouse gas pollutants
listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
These standards are provided in
§ 1037.115.
(4) Fuel evaporative emissions. These
requirements are described in 40 CFR
part 86.
(c) The regulated heavy-duty vehicles
are addressed in different groups as
follows:
(1) For criteria pollutants, vehicles are
regulated based on gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR), whether they are
considered ‘‘spark-ignition’’ or
‘‘compression-ignition,’’ and whether
they are first sold as complete or
incomplete vehicles. These groupings
apply as described in 40 CFR part 86.
(2) For greenhouse gas pollutants,
vehicles are regulated in the following
groups:
(i) Complete and certain incomplete
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR (see § 1037.104 for further
specification). Certain provisions of 40
CFR part 86 apply for these vehicles; see
§ 1037.104(h) for a list of provisions in
this part 1037 that also apply for these
vehicles. These provisions may also be
optionally applied to certain other
vehicles, as described in § 1037.104.
(ii) Tractors above 26,000 pounds
GVWR.

PO 00000

Frm 00296

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(iii) All other vehicles subject to
standards under this part. These other
vehicles are referred to as ‘‘vocational’’
vehicles.
§ 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.
§ 1037.104 Exhaust emission standards
for CO2, CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.

This section applies for heavy-duty
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds
GVWR. See paragraph (f) of this section
and § 1037.150 of this section for
provisions excluding certain vehicles
from this section, and allowing other
vehicles to be certified under this
section.
(a) Fleet-average CO2 emission
standards. Fleet-average CO2 emission
standards apply for each manufacturer
as follows:
(1) Calculate a work factor, WF, for
each vehicle subconfiguration (or group
of subconfigurations allowed under
paragraph (a)(4) of this section),
rounded to the nearest pound, using the
following equation:
WF = 0.75 × (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
subconfiguration (or group of
subconfigurations allowed under
paragraph (a)(4) of this section) you
produce using one of the following
equations, rounding to the nearest 0.1 g/
mile:
(i) For spark-ignition vehicles: CO2
Target (g/mile) = 0.0440 × 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 subconfiguration
(Targeti) and U.S.-directed production
volume of each vehicle subconfiguration
for the given model year (Volumei):

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

(4) You may group subconfigurations
within a configuration together for
purposes of calculating your fleetaverage standard as follows:
(i) You may group together
subconfigurations that have the same
equivalent test weight (ETW), GVWR,
and GCWR. Calculate your work factor
and target value assuming a curb weight
equal to two times ETW minus GVWR.
(ii) You may group together other
subconfigurations if you use the lowest
target value calculated for any of the
subconfigurations.
(b) Production and in-use CO2
standards. Each vehicle you produce
that is subject to the standards of this
section has an ‘‘in-use’’ CO2 standard
that is calculated from your test result
and that applies for selective
enforcement audits and in-use testing.
This in-use CO2 standard for each
vehicle is equal to the applicable
deteriorated emission level multiplied
by 1.10 and rounded to the nearest 0.1
g/mile.
(c) N2O and CH4 standards. Except as
allowed under this paragraph (c), all
vehicles subject to the standards of this
section must comply with an N2O
standard of 0.05 g/mile and a CH4
standard of 0.05 g/mile. You may
specify CH4 and/or N2O alternate
standards using CO2 emission credits
instead of these otherwise applicable
emission standards for one or more test
groups, consistent with the provisions
of 40 CFR 86.1818. To do this, calculate
the CH4 and/or N2O emission credits
needed (negative credits) using the
equation in this paragraph (c) based on
the FEL(s) you specify for your vehicles
during certification. You must adjust the
calculated emissions by the global
warming potential (GWP): GWP equals
25 for CH4 and 298 for N2O. This means
you must use 25 Mg of positive CO2
credits to offset 1 Mg of negative CH4
credits and 298 Mg of positive CO2
credits to offset 1 Mg of negative N2O
credits. Note that 40 CFR 86.1818–12(f)
does not apply for vehicles subject to
the standards of this section. Calculate
credits using the following equation:
CO2 Credits Needed (Mg) = [(FEL—Std)
× (U.S.-directed production volume)
× (Useful Life)] × (GWP) ÷ 1,000,000
(d) Compliance provisions. Except as
specified in this paragraph (d) or
elsewhere in this section, the provisions
of 40 CFR part 86, describing
compliance with the greenhouse gas
standards of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

apply with respect to the standards of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
(1) The CO2 standards of this section
apply with respect to CO2 emissions,
not with respect to carbon-related
exhaust emissions (CREE).
(2) Vehicles subject to the standards
of this section are included in a single
greenhouse gas averaging set separate
from any averaging sets otherwise
included in 40 CFR part 86.
(3) Special credit and incentive
provisions related to flexible fuel
vehicles and air conditioning in 40 CFR
part 86 do not apply for vehicles subject
to the standards of this section.
(4) The CO2, N2O, and CH4 standards
apply for a weighted average of the city
(55%) and highway (45%) test cycle
results as specified for light-duty
vehicles in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
Note that this differs from the way the
criteria pollutant standards apply for
heavy-duty vehicles.
(5) Apply an additive deterioration
factor of zero to measured CO2
emissions unless good engineering
judgment indicates that emissions are
likely to deteriorate in use. Use good
engineering judgment to develop
separate deterioration factors for N2O
and CH4.
(6) Credits are calculated using the
useful life value (in miles) in place of
the ‘‘vehicle lifetime miles’’ specified in
40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(7) Credits generated from hybrid
vehicles with regenerative braking or
from vehicles with other advanced
technologies may be used to show
compliance with any standards of this
part or 40 CFR part 1036, subject to the
service class restrictions in § 1037.740.
Include these vehicles in a separate
fleet-average calculation (and exclude
them from your conventional fleetaverage calculation). You must first
apply these advanced technology
vehicle credits to any deficits for other
vehicles in the averaging set before
applying them to other averaging sets.
(8) The provisions of 40 CFR 86.1818
do not apply.
(9) Calculate your fleet-average
emission rate consistent with good
engineering judgment and the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.1865. The
following additional provisions apply:
(i) Unless we approve a lower
number, you must test at least ten
subconfigurations. If you produce more
than 100 subconfigurations in a given

PO 00000

Frm 00297

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57401

model year, you must test at least ten
percent of your subconfigurations. For
purposes of this paragraph (d)(9)(i),
count carryover tests, but do not include
analytically derived CO2 emission rates,
data substitutions, or other untested
allowances. We may approve a lower
number of tests for manufacturers that
have limited product offerings, or low
sales volumes. Note that good
engineering judgment and other
provisions of this part may require you
to test more subconfigurations than
these minimum values.
(ii) The provisions of paragraph (g) of
this section specify how you may use
analytically derived CO2 emission rates.
(iii) At least 90 percent of final
production volume at the configuration
level must be represented by test data
(real, data substituted, or analytical).
(10) For dual fuel, multi-fuel, and
flexible fuel vehicles, perform exhaust
testing on each fuel type (for example,
gasoline and E85).
(i) For your fleet-average calculations,
use either the conventional-fueled CO2
emission rate or a weighted average of
your emission results as specified in 40
CFR 600.510–12(k) for light-duty trucks.
(ii) If you certify to an alternate
standard for N2O or CH4 emissions, you
may not exceed the alternate standard
when tested on either fuel.
(11) Test your vehicles with an
equivalent test weight based on its
Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight
(ALVW). Determine equivalent test
weight from the ALVW as specified in
40 CFR 86.129, except that you may
round values to the nearest 500 pound
increment for ALVW above 14,000
pounds).
(12) The following definitions apply
for purposes of this section:
(i) Configuration means a
subclassification within a test group
which is based on engine code,
transmission type and gear ratios, final
drive ratio, and other parameters which
we designate. Note that this differs from
the definition in 40 CFR 86.1803
because it excludes inertia weight class
as a criterion.
(ii) Subconfiguration means a unique
combination within a vehicle
configuration (as defined in this
paragraph (d)(12)) of equivalent test
weight, road-load horsepower, and any
other operational characteristics or
parameters that we determine may
significantly affect CO2 emissions
within a vehicle configuration.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.008

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(e) Useful life. Your vehicles must
meet the exhaust emission standards of
this section throughout their full useful
life, expressed in service miles or
calendar years, whichever comes first.
The useful life values for the standards
of this section are those that apply for
criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86.
(f) Exclusion of vehicles not certified
as complete vehicles. The standards of
this section apply for each vehicle that
is chassis-certified with respect to
criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S. The standards of this section
do not apply for other vehicles, except
as noted in § 1037.150. Note that
vehicles excluded under this paragraph
(f) are not considered to be ‘‘subject to
the standards of this section.’’ The
vehicle standards and requirements of
§ 1037.105 apply for the excluded

(1) Except as specified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this section, use the following
equation to calculate the ADC of a new

vehicle from road load force coefficients
(F0, F1, F2), axle ratio, and test weight:

Where:
ADC = Analytically derived combined city/
highway CO2 emission rate (g/mile) for a
new vehicle.
CO2base = Combined city/highway CO2
emission rate (g/mile) of a baseline
vehicle.
DF0 = F0 of the new vehicle—F0 of the
baseline vehicle.
DF1 = F1 of the new vehicle—F1 of the
baseline vehicle.
DF2 = F2 of the new vehicle—F2 of the
baseline vehicle.
DAR = Axle ratio of the new vehicle—axle
ratio of the baseline vehicle.

all applicable emission standards in the
model year associated with the ADC.
(ii) You must include in the pool of
tests which will be considered for
baseline selection all official tests of the
same or equivalent basic engine,
transmission class, engine code,
transmission code, engine horsepower,
dynamometer drive wheels, and
compression ratio as the ADC
subconfiguration. Do not include tests
in which emissions exceed any
applicable standards.
(iii) Where necessary to minimize the
CO2 adjustment, you may supplement
the pool with tests associated with
worst-case engine or transmission codes
and carryover or carry-across engine
families. If you do, all the data that
qualify for inclusion using the elected
worst-case substitution (or carryover or
carry-across) must be included in the
pool as supplemental data (i.e.,
individual test vehicles may not be
selected for inclusion). You must also
include the supplemental data in all
subsequent pools, where applicable.
(iv) Tests previously used during the
subject model year as baseline tests in
ten other ADC subconfigurations must
be eliminated from the pool. (v) Select
the tested subconfiguration with the
smallest absolute difference between the
ADC and the test CO2 emission rate for

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

DETW = ETW of the new vehicle—ETW of
the baseline vehicle.

(2) The purpose of this section is to
accurately estimate CO2 emission rates.
You must apply the provisions of this
section consistent with good
engineering judgment. For example, do
not use the equation in paragraph (g)(1)
of this section where good engineering
judgment indicates that it will not
accurately estimate emissions. You may
ask us to approve alternate equations
that allow you to estimate emissions
more accurately.
(3) You may select, without our prior
approval, baseline test data that meet all
the following criteria:
(i) Vehicles considered for selection
for the baseline test must comply with

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00298

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

vehicles. The GHG standards of 40 CFR
part 1036 also apply for engines used in
these excluded vehicles. If you are not
the engine manufacturer, you must
notify the engine manufacturer that its
engines are subject to 40 CFR part 1036
because you intend to use their engines
in your excluded vehicles.
(g) Analytically derived CO2 emission
rates (ADCs). This paragraph (g)
describes an allowance to use estimated
(i.e., analytically derived) CO2 emission
rates based on baseline test data instead
of measured emission rates for
calculating fleet-average emissions. Note
that these ADCs are similar to ADFEs
used for light-duty vehicles. Note also
that F terms used in this paragraph (g)
represent coefficients from the following
road load equation:

combined emissions. Use this as the
baseline test for the target ADC
subconfiguration.
(4) You may ask us to allow you use
baseline test data not fully meeting the
provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this
section.
(5) Calculate the ADC rounded to the
nearest 0.1 g/mile. The downward
adjustment of ADC from the baseline is
limited to ADC values 20 percent below
the baseline emission rate (i.e., baseline
emission rate × 0.80). The upward
adjustment is not limited.
(6) You may not submit an ADC if an
actual test has been run on the target
subconfiguration during the certification
process or on a development vehicle
that is eligible to be declared as an
emission-data vehicle.
(7) No more than 40 percent of the
subconfigurations tested in your final
CO2 submission may be represented by
ADCs.
(8) You must retain for five years the
pool of tests, the vehicle description and
tests chosen as the baseline and the
basis for its selection, the target ADC
subconfiguration, and the calculated
emission rates. We may ask to see these
records at any time.
(9) We may perform or order a
confirmatory test of any
subconfiguration covered by an ADC.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.010

(iii) The terms ‘‘complete vehicle’’
and ‘‘incomplete vehicle’’ have the
meanings given for ‘‘complete heavyduty vehicle’’ and ‘‘incomplete heavyduty vehicle’’ in 40 CFR 86.1803.
(13) This paragraph (d)(13) applies for
CO2 reductions resulting from
technologies that were not in common
use before 2010 that are not reflected in
the specified test procedures. We may
allow you to generate emission credits
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR
86.1866–12(d). You do not need to
provide justification for not using the 5cycle methodology option.
(14) You must submit pre-model year
reports before you submit your
applications for certification for a given
model year. Unless we specify
otherwise, include the information
specified for pre-model year reports in
49 CFR 535.8.

ER15SE11.009

57402

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(10) Where we determine that you did
not fully comply with the provisions of
this paragraph (g), we may rescind the
use of ADC data, require generation of
actual test data, and require
recalculation of your fleet-average
emission rate.
(h) Applicability of part 1037
provisions. Except as specified in this
section, the requirements of this part do
not apply to vehicles certified to the
standards of this section. The following
provisions are the only provisions of
this part that apply to vehicles certified
under this section:
(1) The provisions of this section.

(2) [Reserved]
(3) The air conditioning standards in
§ 1037.115.
(4) The interim provisions of
§ 1037.150(a), (b), (c), (e)–(i), (l), and
(m).
(5) The definitions of § 1037.801, to
the extent such terms are used relative
to vehicles subject to standards under
this section.
§ 1037.105 Exhaust emission standards
for CO2 for vocational vehicles.

(a) The standards of this section apply
for the following vehicles:

57403

(1) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds
GVWR and at or below 26,000 pounds
GVWR, but not certified to the vehicle
standards § 1037.104.
(2) Vehicles above 26,000 pounds
GVWR that are not tractors.
(3) Vocational tractors.
(4) Vehicles at or below 14,000
pounds GVWR that are excluded from
the standards in § 1037.104 under
§ 1037.104 (f) or use engines certified
under § 1037.150(m).
(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.

TABLE 1 TO § 1037.105—CO2 STANDARDS FOR VOCATIONAL VEHICLES
GVWR
(pounds)
GVWR ≤ 19,500 ......................................................................................................................................................
19,500 < GVWR ≤ 33,000 .......................................................................................................................................
33,000 < GVWR ......................................................................................................................................................

(c) No CH4 or N2O standards apply
under this section. See 40 CFR part 1036
for CH4 or N2O standards that apply to
engines used in these vehicles.
(d) You may generate or use emission
credits under the ABT program as
described in subpart H of this part. This
requires that you specify a Family
Emission Limit (FEL) for CO2 for each
vehicle subfamily. The FEL may not be
less than the result of emission
modeling from § 1037.520. These FELs
serve as the emission standards for the
vehicle subfamily instead of the
standards specified in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(e) Your vehicles must meet the
exhaust emission standards of this
section throughout their full useful life,
expressed in service miles or calendar
years, whichever comes first. The

following useful life values apply for the
standards of this section:
(1) 110,000 miles or 10 years,
whichever comes first, for vehicles at or
below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(2) 185,000 miles or 10 years,
whichever comes first, for vehicles
above 19,500 pounds GVWR and at or
below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(3) 435,000 miles or 10 years,
whichever comes first, for vehicles
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(f) See § 1037.631 for provisions that
exempt certain vehicles used in off-road
operation from the standards of this
section.
(g) You may optionally certify a
vocational vehicle to the standards and
useful life applicable to a higher vehicle
service class (such as medium heavyduty instead of light heavy-duty),

CO2 standard
(g/ton-mile) for
model years
2014–2016

CO2 standard
(g/ton-mile) for
model year
2017 and later

388
234
226

373
225
222

provided you do not generate credits
with the vehicle. If you include smaller
vehicles in a credit-generating subfamily
(with an FEL below the standard),
exclude its production volume from the
credit calculation.
§ 1037.106 Exhaust emission standards
for CO2 for tractors above 26,000 pounds
GVWR.

(a) The CO2 standards of this section
apply for tractors above 26,000 pounds
GVWR. Note that the standards of this
section do not apply for vehicles
classified as ‘‘vocational tractors’’ under
§ 1037.630,
(b) The CO2 standards for tractors
above 26,000 pounds GVWR are given
in Table 1 to this section. The
provisions of § 1037.241 specify how to
comply with these standards.

TABLE 1 TO § 1037.106—CO2 STANDARDS FOR TRACTORS ABOVE 26,000 POUNDS GVWR
GVWR
(pounds)

Sub-category

26,000 < GVWR ≤ 33,000 ............................................

Low-Roof (all cab styles) .............................................
Mid-Roof (all cab styles) ..............................................
High-Roof (all cab styles) .............................................
Low-Roof Day Cab .......................................................
Low-Roof Sleeper Cab .................................................
Mid-Roof Day Cab .......................................................
Mid-Roof Sleeper Cab .................................................
High-Roof Day Cab ......................................................
High-Roof Sleeper Cab ................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

GVWR > 33,000 ...........................................................

(c) No CH4 or N2O standards apply
under this section. See 40 CFR part 1036

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

for CH4 or N2O standards that apply to
engines used in these vehicles.

PO 00000

Frm 00299

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

CO2 standard
(g/ton-mile) for
model years
2014–2016

CO2 standard
(g/ton-mile) for
model year
2017 and later

107
119
124
81
68
88
76
92
75

104
115
120
80
66
86
73
89
72

(d) You may generate or use emission
credits under the ABT program, as

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57404

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

described in subpart H of this part. This
requires that you specify a Family
Emission Limit (FEL) for each pollutant
you include in the ABT program for
each vehicle subfamily. The FEL may
not be less than the result of emission
modeling from § 1037.520. These FELs
serve as the emission standards for the
specific vehicle subfamily instead of the
standards specified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(e) Your vehicles must meet the
exhaust emission standards of this
section throughout their full useful life,
expressed in service miles or calendar
years, whichever comes first. The
following useful life values apply for the
standards of this section:
(1) 185,000 miles or 10 years,
whichever comes first, for vehicles at or
below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(2) 435,000 miles or 10 years,
whichever comes first, for vehicles
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(f) You may optionally certify a tractor
to the standards and useful life
applicable to a higher vehicle service
class (such as heavy heavy-duty instead
of medium heavy-duty), provided you
do not generate credits with the vehicle.
If you include smaller vehicles in a
credit-generating subfamily (with an
FEL below the standard), exclude its
production volume from the credit
calculation.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.115

Other requirements.

Vehicles required to meet the
emission standards of this part must
meet the following additional
requirements, except as noted elsewhere
in this part:
(a) Adjustable parameters. Vehicles
that have adjustable parameters must
meet all the requirements of this part for
any adjustment in the physically
adjustable range. We may require that
you set adjustable parameters to any
specification within the adjustable range
during any testing. See 40 CFR part 86
for information related to determining
whether or not an operating parameter
is considered adjustable. You must
ensure safe vehicle operation
throughout the physically adjustable
range of each adjustable parameter,
including consideration of production
tolerances. Note that adjustable roof
fairings are deemed not to be adjustable
parameters.
(b) Prohibited controls. You may not
design your vehicles with emission
control devices, systems, or elements of
design that cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare, or safety while operating. For
example, this would apply if the vehicle
emits a noxious or toxic substance it
would otherwise not emit that

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

contributes to such an unreasonable
risk.
(c) Air conditioning leakage. Loss of
refrigerant from your air conditioning
systems may not exceed 1.50 percent
per year, except as allowed by
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section.
Calculate the total leakage rate in g/year
as specified in 40 CFR 86.166. Calculate
the percent leakage rate as: [total leakage
rate (g/yr)] ÷ [total refrigerant capacity
(g)] × 100. Round your leakage rate to
the nearest one-hundredth of a percent.
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
1430 (which is the global warming
potential of HFC–134a). Apply this
adjustment before comparing your
leakage rate to the standard. Determine
global warming potentials consistent
with 40 CFR 86.1866. Note that global
warming potentials represent the
equivalent grams of CO2 that would
have the same global warming impact
(over 100 years) as one gram of the
refrigerant.
(3) If your total refrigerant capacity is
less than 734 grams, your leakage rate
may exceed 1.50 percent, as long as the
total leakage rate does not exceed 11.0
g/yr. If your system uses a refrigerant
other than HFC–134a, you may adjust
your leakage rate as specified in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
§ 1037.120 Emission-related warranty
requirements.

(a) General requirements. You must
warrant to the ultimate purchaser and
each subsequent purchaser that the new
vehicle, including all parts of its
emission control system, meets two
conditions:
(1) It is designed, built, and equipped
so it conforms at the time of sale to the
ultimate purchaser with the
requirements of this part.
(2) It is free from defects in materials
and workmanship that cause the vehicle
to fail to conform to the requirements of
this part during the applicable warranty
period.
(b) Warranty period. (1) Your
emission-related warranty must be valid
for at least:

PO 00000

Frm 00300

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(i) 5 years or 50,000 miles for sparkignition vehicles and light heavy-duty
vehicles.
(ii) 5 years or 100,000 miles for
medium and heavy heavy-duty vehicles.
(iii) 2 years or 24,000 miles for tires.
(2) You may offer an emission-related
warranty more generous than we
require. The emission-related warranty
for the vehicle may not be shorter than
any basic mechanical warranty you
provide to that owner without charge for
the vehicle. Similarly, the emissionrelated warranty for any component
may not be shorter than any warranty
you provide to that owner without
charge for that component. This means
that your warranty for a given vehicle
may not treat emission-related and nonemission-related defects differently for
any component. The warranty period
begins when the vehicle is placed into
service.
(c) Components covered. The
emission-related warranty covers
vehicle speed limiters, idle shutdown
systems, fairings, and hybrid system
components, to the extent such
emission-related components are
included in the certified emission
controls. The emission-related warranty
covers all components whose failure
would increase a vehicle’s emissions of
air conditioning refrigerants for vehicles
subject to air conditioning leakage
standards. The emission-related
warranty covers tires and all
components whose failure would
increase a vehicle’s evaporative
emissions (for vehicles subject to
evaporative emission standards). The
emission-related warranty covers these
components even if another company
produces the component. Your
emission-related warranty does not need
to cover components whose failure
would not increase a vehicle’s
emissions of any regulated pollutant.
(d) Limited applicability. You may
deny warranty claims under this section
if the operator caused the problem
through improper maintenance or use,
as described in 40 CFR 1068.115.
(e) Owner’s manual. Describe in the
owners manual the emission-related
warranty provisions from this section
that apply to the vehicle.
§ 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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
requirements related to tire
replacement.
(a) Critical emission-related
maintenance. Critical emission-related
maintenance includes any adjustment,
cleaning, repair, or replacement of
critical emission-related components.
This may also include additional
emission-related maintenance that you
determine is critical if we approve it in
advance. You may schedule critical
emission-related maintenance on these
components if you demonstrate that the
maintenance is reasonably likely to be
done at the recommended intervals on
in-use vehicles. We will accept
scheduled maintenance as reasonably
likely to occur if you satisfy any of the
following conditions:
(1) You present data showing that, if
a lack of maintenance increases
emissions, it also unacceptably degrades
the vehicle’s performance.
(2) You present survey data showing
that at least 80 percent of vehicles in the
field get the maintenance you specify at
the recommended intervals.
(3) You provide the maintenance free
of charge and clearly say so in your
maintenance instructions.
(4) You otherwise show us that the
maintenance is reasonably likely to be
done at the recommended intervals.
(b) Recommended additional
maintenance. You may recommend any
additional amount of maintenance on
the components listed in paragraph (a)
of this section, as long as you state
clearly that these maintenance steps are
not necessary to keep the 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

maintenance under paragraph (b) of this
section.
(d) Noncritical emission-related
maintenance. Subject to the provisions
of this paragraph (d), you may schedule
any amount of emission-related
inspection or maintenance that is not
covered by paragraph (a) of this section
(that is, maintenance that is neither
explicitly identified as critical 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. 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

PO 00000

Frm 00301

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57405

with the identified component or
service.
(g) [Reserved]
(h) Owner’s manual. Explain the
owner’s responsibility for proper
maintenance in the owner’s manual.
(i) Tire maintenance and
replacement. Include instructions that
will enable the owner to replace tires so
that the vehicle conforms to the original
certified vehicle configuration.
§ 1037.135

Labeling.

(a) Assign each vehicle a unique
identification number and permanently
affix, engrave, or stamp it on the vehicle
in a legible way. The vehicle
identification number (VIN) serves this
purpose.
(b) At the time of manufacture, affix
a permanent and legible label
identifying each vehicle. The label must
be—
(1) Attached in one piece so it is not
removable without being destroyed or
defaced.
(2) Secured to a part of the vehicle
needed for normal operation and not
normally requiring replacement.
(3) Durable and readable for the
vehicle’s entire life.
(4) Written in English.
(c) The label must—
(1) Include the heading ‘‘VEHICLE
EMISSION CONTROL
INFORMATION’’.
(2) Include your full corporate name
and trademark. You may identify
another company and use its trademark
instead of yours if you comply with the
branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(3) Include EPA’s standardized
designation for the vehicle family.
(4) State the regulatory sub-category
that determines the applicable emission
standards for the vehicle family (see
definition in § 1037.801).
(5) State the date of manufacture
[DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR].
You may omit this from the label if you
stamp, engrave, or otherwise
permanently identify it elsewhere on
the engine, in which case you must also
describe in your application for
certification where you will identify the
date on the engine.
(6) Identify the emission control
system. Use terms and abbreviations as
described in Appendix III to this part or
other applicable conventions.
(7) Identify any requirements for fuel
and lubricants that do not involve fuelsulfur levels.
(8) State: ‘‘THIS VEHICLE COMPLIES
WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR
[MODEL YEAR] HEAVY–DUTY
VEHICLES.’’
(9) Include the following statement, if
applicable: ‘‘THIS VEHICLE IS

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57406

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION
STANDARDS WITH UP TO x
GALLONS OF FUEL TANK
CAPACITY.’’ Complete this statement
by identifying the maximum specified
fuel tank capacity associated with your
certification.
(d) You may add information to the
emission control information label to
identify other emission standards that
the vehicle meets or does not meet (such
as European standards). You may also
add other information to ensure that the
vehicle will be properly maintained and
used.
(e) You may ask us to approve
modified labeling requirements in this
part 1037 if you show that it is
necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate
label is consistent with the requirements
of this part.
§ 1037.140

Curb weight and roof height.

(a) Where applicable, a vehicle’s curb
weight and roof height are determined
from nominal design specifications, as
provided in this section. Round the
weight to the nearest pound and height
to the nearest inch. Base roof height on
fully inflated tires having a static loaded
radius equal to the arithmetic mean of
the largest and smallest static loaded
radius of tires you offer or a standard
tire we approve.
(b) The nominal design specifications
must be within the range of the actual
weights and roof heights of production
vehicles considering normal production
variability. If after production begins it
is determined that your nominal design
specifications do not represent
production vehicles, we may require
you to amend your application for
certification under § 1037.225.
(c) If your vehicle is equipped with an
adjustable roof fairing, measure the roof
height with the fairing in its lowest
setting.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.150

Interim provisions.

The provisions in this section apply
instead of other provisions in this part.
(a) Incentives for early introduction.
The provisions of this paragraph (a)
apply with respect to vehicles produced
in model years before 2014.
Manufacturers may voluntarily certify
in model year 2013 (or earlier model
years for electric vehicles) to the
greenhouse gas standards of this part.

(1) This paragraph (a)(1) applies for
regulatory sub-categories subject to the
standards of § 1037.105 or § 1037.106.
Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section, to generate early credits
under this paragraph for any vehicles
other than electric vehicles, you must
certify your entire U.S.-directed
production volume within the
regulatory sub-category to these
standards. Except as specified in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, if some
vehicle families within a regulatory subcategory are certified after the start of
the model year, you may generate
credits only for production that occurs
after all families are certified. For
example, if you produce three vehicle
families in an averaging set and you
receive your certificates for those
families on January 4, 2013, March 15,
2013, and April 24, 2013, you may not
generate credits for model year 2013
production in any of the families that
occurs before April 24, 2013. Calculate
credits relative to the standard that
would apply in model year 2014 using
the equations in subpart H of this part.
You may bank credits equal to the
surplus credits you generate under this
paragraph (a) multiplied by 1.50. For
example, if you have 1.0 Mg of surplus
credits for model year 2013, you may
bank 1.5 Mg of credits. Credit deficits
for an averaging set prior to model year
2014 do not carry over to model year
2014. These credits may be used to
show compliance with the standards of
this part for 2014 and later model years.
We recommend that you notify EPA of
your intent to use this provision before
submitting your applications.
(2) This paragraph (a)(2) applies for
regulatory sub-categories subject to the
standards of § 1037.104. To generate
early credits under this paragraph (a)(2)
for any vehicles other than electric
vehicles, you must certify your entire
U.S.-directed production volume within
the regulatory sub-category to these
standards. If you calculate a separate
fleet average for advanced-technology
vehicles under § 1037.104(c)(7), you
must certify your entire U.S.-directed
production volume of both advanced
and conventional vehicles within the
regulatory sub-category. Except as
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section, if some test groups are certified
after the start of the model year, you
may generate credits only for

production that occurs after all test
groups are certified. For example, if you
produce three test groups in an
averaging set and you receive your
certificates for those test groups on
January 4, 2013, March 15, 2013, and
April 24, 2013, you may not generate
credits for model year 2013 production
in any of the test groups that occurs
before April 24, 2013. Calculate credits
relative to the standard that would
apply in model year 2014 using the
applicable equations in 40 CFR part 86
and your model year 2013 U.S.-directed
production volumes. These credits may
be used to show compliance with the
standards of this part for 2014 and later
model years. We recommend that you
notify EPA of your intent to use this
provision before submitting your
applications.
(3) You may generate emission credits
for the number of additional SmartWay
designated tractors (relative to your
2012 production), provided you do not
generate credits for those vehicles under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Calculate credits for each regulatory
sub-category relative to the standard
that would apply in model year 2014
using the equations in subpart H of this
part. Use a production volume equal to
the number of designated model year
2013 SmartWay tractors minus the
number of designated model year 2012
SmartWay tractors. You may bank
credits equal to the surplus credits you
generate under this paragraph (a)(3)
multiplied by 1.50. Your 2012 and 2013
model years must be equivalent in
length.
(4) This paragraph (a)(4) applies
where you do not receive your final
certificate in a regulatory sub-category
within 30 days of submitting your final
application for that sub-category.
Calculate your credits for all production
that occurs 30 days or more after you
submit your final application for the
sub-category.
(b) Phase-in provisions. Each
manufacturer must choose one of the
following options for phasing in the
standards of § 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 vehicles
in model years 2014 through 2017 based
on the CO2 target values specified in the
following table:

TABLE 1 TO § 1037.150
Model year and engine cycle

Alternate CO2 target (g/mile)

2014 Spark-Ignition .............................................................................................
2015 Spark-Ignition .............................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00302

Fmt 4701

[0.0482 × (WF)] + 371
[0.0479 × (WF)] + 369

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57407

TABLE 1 TO § 1037.150—Continued
Model year and engine cycle
2016
2017
2014
2015
2016
2017

Alternate CO2 target (g/mile)

Spark-Ignition .............................................................................................
Spark-Ignition .............................................................................................
Compression-Ignition .................................................................................
Compression-Ignition .................................................................................
Compression-Ignition .................................................................................
Compression-Ignition .................................................................................

(2) To implement the phase-in under
this paragraph (b)(2), the standards in
§ 1037.104 apply as specified for model

[0.0469
[0.0460
[0.0478
[0.0474
[0.0460
[0.0445

×
×
×
×
×
×

(WF)]
(WF)]
(WF)]
(WF)]
(WF)]
(WF)]

+
+
+
+
+
+

year 2019, with compliance for vehicles
in model years 2014 through 2018 based

362
354
368
366
354
343

on the CO2 target values specified in the
following table:

TABLE 2 TO § 1037.150
Model year and engine cycle

Alternate CO2 target (g/mile)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

2014 Spark-Ignition .............................................................................................
2015 Spark-Ignition .............................................................................................
2016–2018 Spark-Ignition ...................................................................................
2014 Compression-Ignition .................................................................................
2015 Compression-Ignition .................................................................................
2016–2018 Compression-Ignition .......................................................................

(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 each model year before
introducing these excluded vehicles
into U.S. commerce. This notification
must include a description of the
manufacturer’s qualification as a small
business under 13 CFR 121.201. You
must label your excluded vehicles with
the following statement: ‘‘THIS
VEHICLE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40
CFR 1037.150(c).’’.
(d) Air conditioning leakage for
vocational vehicles. The air
conditioning leakage standard of
§ 1037.115 does not apply for vocational
vehicles.
(e) Model year 2014 N2O standards. In
model year 2014 and earlier,
manufacturers may show compliance
with the N2O standards using an
engineering analysis. This allowance
also applies for later test groups families
carried over from model 2014 consistent
with the provisions of 40 CFR 86.1839.
You may not certify to an N2O FEL
different than the standard without
measuring N2O emissions.
(f) Electric vehicles. All electric
vehicles are deemed to have zero
emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. No
emission testing is required for electric
vehicles.
(g) Compliance date. Compliance with
the standards of this part is optional

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

[0.0482
[0.0479
[0.0456
[0.0478
[0.0474
[0.0440

×
×
×
×
×
×

(WF)]
(WF)]
(WF)]
(WF)]
(WF)]
(WF)]

prior to January 1, 2014. This means
that if your 2014 model year begins
before January 1, 2014, you may certify
for a partial model year that begins on
January 1, 2014 and ends on the day
your model year would normally end.
You must label model year 2014
vehicles excluded under this paragraph
(g) with the following statement: ‘‘THIS
VEHICLE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40
CFR 1037.150(g).’’
(h) Off-road vehicle exemption. In
unusual circumstances, vehicle
manufacturers may ask us to exempt
vehicles under § 1037.631 based on
other criteria that are equivalent to those
specified in § 1037.631(a). For example,
we would normally not grant relief in
cases where the vehicle manufacturer
had credits or other compliant tires
were available.
(i) Credit multiplier for advanced
technology. If you generate credits from
vehicles certified with advanced
technology, you may multiply these
credits by 1.50, except that you may not
apply this multiplier in addition to the
early-credit multiplier of paragraph (a)
of this section.
(j) Limited prohibition related to early
model year engines. The prohibition in
§ 1037.601 against introducing into U.S.
commerce a vehicle containing an
engine not certified to the standards of
this part does not apply for vehicles
using model year 2014 or 2015 sparkignition engines, or any model year
2013 or earlier engines.
(k) Verifying drag areas from in-use
vehicles. We may measure the drag area
of your vehicles after they have been
placed into service. Your vehicle

PO 00000

Frm 00303

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

+
+
+
+
+
+

371
369
352
368
366
339

conforms to the regulations of this part
with respect to aerodynamic
performance if we measure its drag area
to be at or below the maximum drag
area allowed for the bin to which that
configuration was certified. To account
for measurement variability, your
vehicle is also deemed to conform to the
regulations of this part with respect to
aerodynamic performance if we measure
its drag area to at or below the
maximum drag area allowed for the bin
above the bin to which you certified (for
example, Bin II if you certified the
vehicle to Bin III), unless we determine
that you knowingly produced the
vehicle to have a higher drag area than
is allowed for the bin to which it was
certified.
(l) Optional certification under
§ 1037.104. You may certify certain
complete or cab-complete vehicles to
the standards of § 1037.104. All vehicles
optionally certified under this
paragraph (l) are deemed to be subject
to the standards of § 1037.104. Note that
certification under this paragraph (l)
does not affect how you may or may not
certify with respect to criteria
pollutants. For example, certifying a
Class 4 vehicle under this paragraph
does not allow you to chassis-certify
these vehicles with respect to criteria
emissions.
(1) You may certify complete or cabcomplete spark-ignition vehicles to the
standards of § 1037.104.
(2) You may apply the provisions of
§ 1037.104 to cab-complete vehicles
based on a complete sister vehicle. In
unusual circumstances, you may ask us
to apply these provisions to Class 2b or

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57408

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

3 incomplete vehicles that do not meet
the definition of cab-complete. Except
as specified in paragraph (l)(3) of this
section, for purposes of § 1037.104, a
complete sister vehicle is a complete
vehicle of the same vehicle
configuration (as defined in § 1037.104)
as the cab-complete vehicle. Calculate
the target value under § 1037.104(a)
based on the same work factor value
that applies for the complete sister
vehicle. Test these cab-complete
vehicles using the same equivalent test
weight and other dynamometer settings
that apply for the complete vehicle from
which you used the work factor value.
For certification, you may submit the
test data from that complete sister
vehicle instead of performing the test on
the cab-complete vehicle. You are not
required to produce the complete sister
vehicle for sale to use the provisions of
this paragraph (l)(2). This means the
complete sister vehicle may be a
carryover vehicle from a prior model
year or a vehicle created solely for the
purpose of testing.
(3) You may use as complete sister
vehicle a complete vehicle that is not of
the same vehicle configuration as the
cab-complete vehicle as specified in this
paragraph (l)(3). This allowance applies
where the complete vehicle is not of the
same vehicle configuration as the cabcomplete vehicle only because of factors
unrelated to coastdown performance. If
your complete sister vehicle is covered
by this paragraph (l)(3), you may not
submit the test data from that complete
sister vehicle and must perform the test
on the cab-complete vehicle.
(m) Loose engine sales. This
paragraph (m) applies for spark-ignition
engines identical to engines used in
vehicles certified to the standards of
§ 1037.104, where you sell such engines
as loose engines or as engines installed
in incomplete vehicles that are not cabcomplete vehicles. For purposes of this
paragraph (m), engines would not be
considered to be identical if they used
different engine hardware. You may
include such engines in a test group
certified to the standards of § 1037.104,
subject to the following provisions:
(1) Engines certified under this
paragraph (m) are deemed to be certified
to the standards of 40 CFR 1036.108 as
specified in 40 CFR 1036.108(a)(4).
(2) The U.S.-directed production
volume of engines you sell as loose
engines or installed in incomplete
heavy-duty vehicles that are not cabcomplete vehicles in any given model
year may not exceed ten percent of the
total U.S.-directed production volume of
engines of that design that you produce
for heavy-duty applications for that
model year, including engines you

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

produce for complete vehicles, cabcomplete vehicles, and other incomplete
vehicles. The total number of engines
you may certify under this paragraph
(m), of all engine designs, may not
exceed 15,000 in any model year.
Engines produced in excess of either of
these limits are not covered by your
certificate. For example, if you produce
80,000 complete model year 2017 Class
2b pickup trucks with a certain engine
and 10,000 incomplete model year 2017
Class 3 vehicles with that same engine,
and you do not apply the provisions of
this paragraph (m) to any other engine
designs, you may produce up to 10,000
engines of that design for sale as loose
engines under this paragraph (m). If you
produced 11,000 engines of that design
for sale as loose engines, the last 1,000
of them that you produced in that model
year 2017 would be considered
uncertified.
(3) This paragraph (m) does not apply
for engines certified to the standards of
40 CFR 1036.108(a)(1).
(4) Label the engines as specified in
40 CFR 1036.135 including the
following compliance statement: ‘‘THIS
ENGINE WAS CERTIFIED TO THE
ALTERNATE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSION STANDARDS OF 40 CFR
1036.108(a)(4).’’ List the test group
name instead of an engine family name.
(5) Vehicles using engines certified
under this paragraph (m) are subject to
the emission standards of § 1037.105.
(6) For certification purposes, your
engines are deemed to have a CO2 target
value and test result equal to the CO2
target value and test result for the
complete vehicle in the applicable test
group with the highest equivalent test
weight, except as specified in paragraph
(m)(6)(ii) of this section. Use these
values to calculate your target value,
fleet-average emission rate, and in-use
emission standard. Where there are
multiple complete vehicles with the
same highest equivalent test weight,
select the CO2 target value and test
result as specified in paragraphs
(m)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(i) If one or more of the CO2 test
results exceed the applicable target
value, use the CO2 target value and test
result of the vehicle that exceeds its
target value by the greatest amount.
(ii) If none of the CO2 test results
exceed the applicable target value,
select the highest target value and set
the test result equal to it. This means
that you may not generate emission
credits from vehicles certified under
this paragraph (m).
(7) State in your applications for
certification that your test group and
engine family will include engines
certified under this paragraph (m). This

PO 00000

Frm 00304

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

applies for your greenhouse gas vehicle
test group and your criteria pollutant
engine family. List in each application
the name of the corresponding test
group/engine family.
Subpart C—Certifying Vehicle families
§ 1037.201 General requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity.

(a) You must send us a separate
application for a certificate of
conformity for each vehicle family. A
certificate of conformity is valid from
the indicated effective date until the end
of the model year for which it is issued,
which may not extend beyond
December 31 of that year. You must
renew your certification annually for
any vehicles you continue to produce.
(b) The application must contain all
the information required by this part
and must not include false or
incomplete statements or information
(see § 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 perform confirmatory
testing on your vehicles; for example,
we may test vehicles to verify drag areas
or other GEM inputs. We may require
you to deliver your test vehicles to a
facility we designate for our testing.
Alternatively, you may choose to deliver
another vehicle that is identical in all
material respects to the test vehicle.
Where certification is based on testing
components such as tires, we may
require you to deliver test components
to a facility we designate for our testing.
§ 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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
which your vehicles are designed to
operate (for example, ultra low-sulfur
diesel fuel).
(b) Explain how the emission control
system operates. As applicable, describe
in detail all system components for
controlling greenhouse gas and
evaporative emissions, including all
auxiliary emission control devices
(AECDs) and all fuel-system
components you will install on any
production vehicle. Identify the part
number of each component you
describe. For this paragraph (b), treat as
separate AECDs any devices that
modulate or activate differently from
each other.
(c) For vehicles subject to air
conditioning standards, include:
(1) The refrigerant leakage rates (leak
scores).
(2) The refrigerant capacity of the air
conditioning systems.
(3) The corporate name of the final
installer of the air conditioning system.
(d) Describe any vehicles you selected
for testing and the reasons for selecting
them.
(e) Describe any test equipment and
procedures that you used, including any
special or alternate test procedures you
used (see § 1037.501).
(f) Describe how you operated any
emission-data vehicle before testing,
including the duty cycle and the
number of vehicle operating miles used
to stabilize emission levels. Explain
why you selected the method of service
accumulation. Describe any scheduled
maintenance you did.
(g) List the specifications of any test
fuel to show that it falls within the
required ranges we specify in 40 CFR
part 1065.
(h) Identify the vehicle family’s useful
life.
(i) Include the maintenance
instructions and warranty statement you
will give to the ultimate purchaser of
each new vehicle (see §§ 1037.120 and
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, this means that you must
identify multiple CO2 FELs. For
example, you may identify the highest
and lowest FELs to which any of your
subfamilies will be certified and also list
all possible FELs in between (which
will be in 1 g/ton-mile increments).
(l) Where applicable, identify the
vehicle family’s deterioration factors
and describe how you developed them.
Present any emission test data you used
for this (see § 1037.241(c)).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(m) Where applicable, state that you
operated your emission-data vehicles as
described in the application (including
the test procedures, test parameters, and
test fuels) to show you meet the
requirements of this part.
(n) Present evaporative test data to
show your vehicles meet the
evaporative emission standards we
specify in subpart B of this part, if
applicable. Report all valid test results
from emission-data vehicles and
indicate whether there are test results
from invalid tests or from any other tests
of the emission-data vehicle, whether or
not they were conducted according to
the test procedures of subpart F of this
part. We may require you to report these
additional test results. We may ask you
to send other information to confirm
that your tests were valid under the
requirements of this part and 40 CFR
part 86.
(o) Report modeling results for ten
configurations. Include modeling inputs
and detailed descriptions of how they
were derived. Unless we specify
otherwise, include the configuration
with the highest modeling result, the
lowest modeling result, and the
configurations with the highest
projected sales.
(p) Describe all adjustable operating
parameters (see § 1037.115), including
production tolerances. You do not need
to include parameters that do not affect
emissions covered by your application.
Include the following in your
description of each parameter:
(1) The nominal or recommended
setting.
(2) The intended physically adjustable
range.
(3) The limits or stops used to
establish adjustable ranges.
(4) Information showing why the
limits, stops, or other means of
inhibiting adjustment are effective in
preventing adjustment of parameters on
in-use vehicles to settings outside your
intended physically adjustable ranges.
(q) [Reserved]
(r) Unconditionally certify that all the
vehicles in the vehicle family comply
with the requirements of this part, other
referenced parts of the CFR, and the
Clean Air Act.
(s) Include good-faith estimates of
U.S.-directed production volumes by
subfamily. We may require you to
describe the basis of your estimates.
(t) Include the information required
by other subparts of this part. For
example, include the information
required by § 1037.725 if you participate
in the ABT program.
(u) Include other applicable
information, such as information

PO 00000

Frm 00305

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57409

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.
§ 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,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57410

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

this paragraph (b) would cover adding
instructions to increase the frequency of
filter changes for vehicles in severe-duty
applications.
(c) You need not request approval if
you are making only minor corrections
(such as correcting typographical
mistakes), clarifying your maintenance
instructions, or changing instructions
for maintenance unrelated to emission
control. We may ask you to send us
copies of maintenance instructions
revised under this paragraph (c).

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

vehicle family is not appropriate to
show compliance for the new or
modified vehicle configuration, include
new test data or emission modeling
showing that the new or modified
vehicle configuration meets the
requirements of this part.
(c) We may ask for more test data or
engineering evaluations. You must give
us these within 30 days after we request
them.
(d) For vehicle families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
we will determine whether the existing
certificate of conformity covers your
newly added or modified vehicle. You
may ask for a hearing if we deny your
request (see § 1037.820).
(e) For vehicle families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
you may start producing the new or
modified vehicle configuration anytime
after you send us your amended
application and before we make a
decision under paragraph (d) of this
section. However, if we determine that
the affected vehicles do not meet
applicable requirements, we will notify
you to cease production of the vehicles
and may require you to recall the
vehicles at no expense to the owner.
Choosing to produce vehicles under this
paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to
recall all vehicles that we determine do
not meet applicable emission standards
or other requirements and to remedy the
nonconformity at no expense to the
owner. If you do not provide
information required under paragraph
(c) of this section within 30 days after
we request it, you must stop producing
the new or modified vehicles.
(f) You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in certain cases after
the start of production. The changed
FEL may not apply to vehicles you have
already introduced into U.S. commerce,
except as described in this paragraph (f).
You may ask us to approve a change to
your FEL in the following cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for
your vehicle subfamily at any time. In
your request, you must show that you
will still be able to meet the emission
standards as specified in subparts B and
H of this part. Use the appropriate FELs
with corresponding production volumes
to calculate emission credits for the
model year, as described in subpart H of
this part.
(2) Where testing applies, you may
ask to lower the FEL for your vehicle
subfamily only if you have test data
from production vehicles showing that
emissions are below the proposed lower
FEL. Otherwise, you may ask to lower
your FEL for your vehicle subfamily at
any time. The lower FEL applies only to
vehicles you produce after we approve

PO 00000

Frm 00306

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the new FEL. Use the appropriate FELs
with corresponding production volumes
to calculate emission credits for the
model year, as described in subpart H of
this part.
(3) You may ask to add an FEL for
your vehicle family at any time.
§ 1037.230 Vehicle families, sub-families,
and configurations.

(a) For purposes of certifying your
vehicles to greenhouse gas standards,
divide your product line into families of
vehicles as specified in this section.
Your vehicle family is limited to a
single model year. Group vehicles in the
same vehicle family if they are the same
in all the following aspects:
(1) The regulatory sub-category (or
equivalent in the case of vocational
tractors), as follows:
(i) Vocational vehicles at or below
19,500 pounds GVWR.
(ii) Vocational vehicles (other than
vocational tractors) above 19,500
pounds GVWR and at or below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(iii) Vocational vehicles (other than
vocational tractors) above 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(iv) Low-roof tractors above 26,000
pounds GVWR and at or below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(v) Mid-roof tractors above 26,000
pounds GVWR and at or below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(vi) High-roof tractors above 26,000
pounds GVWR and at or below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(vii) Low-roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(viii) Low-roof sleeper cab tractors
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(ix) Mid-roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(x) Mid-roof sleeper cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(xi) High-roof day cab tractors above
33,000 pounds GVWR.
(xii) High-roof sleeper cab tractors
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(xiii) Vocational tractors.
(2) Vehicle technology as follows:
(i) Group together vehicles that do not
contain advanced or innovative
technologies.
(ii) Group together vehicles that
contain the same advanced/innovative
technologies.
(b) If the vehicles in your family are
being certified to more than one FEL,
subdivide your greenhouse gas vehicle
families into subfamilies that include
vehicles with identical FELs. Note that
you may add subfamilies at any time
during the model year.
(c) Group vehicles into configurations
consistent with the definition of
‘‘vehicle configuration’’ in § 1037.801.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Note that vehicles with hardware or
software differences that are related to
measured or modeled emissions are
considered to be different vehicle
configurations even if they have the
same GEM inputs and FEL. Note also,
that you are not required to separately
identify all configurations for
certification. See paragraph (g) of this
section for provisions allowing you to
group certain hardware differences into
the same configuration. Note that you
are not required to identify all possible
configurations for certification; also, you
are required to include in your end-of
year report only those configurations
you produced.
(d) For a vehicle model that straddles
a roof-height, cab type, or GVWR
division, you may include all the
vehicles in the same vehicle family if
you certify the vehicle family to the
more stringent standards. For roof
height, this means you must certify to
the taller roof standards. For cab-type
and GVWR, this means you must certify
to the numerically lower standards.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) You may divide your families into
more families than specified in this
section.
(g) You may ask us to allow you to
group into the same configuration
vehicles that have very small body
hardware differences that do not
significantly affect drag areas. Note that
this allowance does not apply for
substantial differences, even if the
vehicles have the same measured drag
areas.

are likely to deteriorate during the
useful life, we may require you to
develop and apply deterioration factors
consistent with good engineering
judgment. For example, you may need
to apply a deterioration factor to address
deterioration of battery performance for
an electric hybrid vehicle. Where the
highest useful life emissions occur
between the end of useful life and at the
low-hour test point, base deterioration
factors for the vehicles on the difference
between (or ratio of) the point at which
the highest emissions occur and the
low-hour test point.
§ 1037.250

Reporting and recordkeeping.

(a) Within 90 days after the end of the
model year, send the Designated
Compliance Officer a report including
the total U.S.-directed production
volume of vehicles you produced in
each vehicle family during the model
year(based on information available at
the time of the report). Report by vehicle
identification number and vehicle
configuration and identify the subfamily
identifier. Report uncertified vehicles
sold to secondary vehicle
manufacturers. Small manufacturers
may omit the reporting requirements of
this paragraph (a).
(b) Organize and maintain the
following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any
summary information you send us.
(2) Any of the information we specify
in § 1037.205 that you were not required
to include in your application.
(3) A detailed history of each
emission-data vehicle, if applicable.
§ 1037.241 Demonstrating compliance with
(4) Production figures for each vehicle
exhaust emission standards for greenhouse family divided by assembly plant.
gas pollutants.
(5) Keep a list of vehicle identification
(a) For purposes of certification, your
numbers for all the vehicles you
vehicle family is considered in
produce under each certificate of
compliance with the emission standards conformity.
in § 1037.105 or § 1037.106 if all vehicle
(c) Keep routine data from emission
configurations in that family have
tests required by this part (such as test
modeled CO2 emission rates (as
cell temperatures and relative humidity
specified in subpart F of this part) at or
readings) for one year after we issue the
below the applicable standards. See 40
associated certificate of conformity.
CFR part 86, subpart S, for showing
Keep all other information specified in
compliance with the standards of
this section for eight years after we issue
§ 1037.104. Note that your FELs are
your certificate.
considered to be the applicable
(d) Store these records in any format
emission standards with which you
and on any media, as long as you can
must comply if you participate in the
promptly send us organized, written
ABT program in subpart H of this part.
records in English if we ask for them.
(b) Your vehicle family is deemed not You must keep these records readily
to comply if any vehicle configuration
available. We may review them at any
in that family has a modeled CO2
time.
emission rate that is above its FEL.
§ 1037.255 What decisions may EPA make
(c) We may require you to provide an
regarding my certificate of conformity?
engineering analysis showing that the
(a) If we determine your application is
performance of your emission controls
complete and shows that the vehicle
will not deteriorate during the useful
family meets all the requirements of this
life with proper maintenance. If we
part and the Act, we will issue a
determine that your emission controls

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00307

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57411

certificate of conformity for your vehicle
family for that model year. We may
make the approval subject to additional
conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for
certification if we determine that your
vehicle family fails to comply with
emission standards or other
requirements of this part or the Clean
Air Act. We will base our decision on
all available information. If we deny
your application, we will explain why
in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your
application or suspend or revoke your
certificate if you do any of the
following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing
or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete
information (paragraph (e) of this
section applies if this is fraudulent).
This includes doing anything after
submission of your application to
render any of the submitted information
false or incomplete.
(3) Render any test data inaccurate.
(4) Deny us from completing
authorized activities despite our
presenting a warrant or court order (see
40 CFR 1068.20). This includes a failure
to provide reasonable assistance.
(5) Produce vehicles for importation
into the United States at a location
where local law prohibits us from
carrying out authorized activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested
information or amend your application
to include all vehicles being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise
circumvents the intent of the Act or this
part, with respect to your engine family.
(d) We may void the certificate of
conformity for a vehicle family if you
fail to keep records, send reports, or give
us information as required under this
part or the Act. Note that these are also
violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we
find that you intentionally submitted
false or incomplete information. This
includes rendering submitted
information false or incomplete after
submission.
(f) If we deny your application or
suspend, revoke, or void your
certificate, you may ask for a hearing
(see § 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. For example, we may test vehicles
to verify drag areas or other GEM inputs.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57412

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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) [Reserved]
(b) Where exhaust emission testing is
required, use the equipment and
procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 to
determine whether your vehicles meet
the duty-cycle emission standards in
subpart B of this part. Measure the
emissions of all the exhaust constituents
subject to emission standards as
specified in 40 CFR part 1066. Use the
applicable duty cycles specified in
§ 1037.510.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Use the applicable fuels specified
40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid tests.
(1) For service accumulation, use the
test fuel or any commercially available
fuel that is representative of the fuel that
in-use vehicles will use.
(2) For diesel-fueled vehicles, use the
appropriate diesel fuel specified for
emission testing. Unless we specify
otherwise, the appropriate diesel test
fuel is ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel.
(3) For gasoline-fueled vehicles, use
the gasoline specified for ‘‘General
Testing’’.
(e) You may use special or alternate
procedures as specified in 40 CFR
1065.10.
(f) This subpart is addressed to you as
a manufacturer, but it applies equally to
anyone who does testing for you, and to
us when we perform testing to
determine if your vehicles meet
emission standards.

Where:
payload = the standard payload, in tons, as
specified in § 1037.705.
w = weighting factor for the appropriate test
cycle, as described in paragraph (c) of
this section.

(g) Apply this paragraph (g) whenever
we specify use of standard trailers.
Unless otherwise specified, a tolerance
of ±2 inches applies for all nominal
trailer dimensions.
(1) The standard trailer for high-roof
tractors must meet the following
criteria:
(i) It is an unloaded two-axle dry van
box trailer 53.0 feet long, 102 inches
wide, and 162 inches high (measured
from the ground with the trailer level).
(ii) It has a king pin located with its
center 36±0.5 inches from the front of
the trailer and a minimized trailer gap
(no greater than 45 inches).
(iii) It has a smooth surface with
nominally flush rivets and does not
include any aerodynamic features such
as side fairings, boat tails, or gap
reducers. It may have a scuff band of no
more than 0.13 inches in thickness.
(iv) It includes dual 22.5 inch wheels,
standard mudflaps, and standard
landing gear. The centerline of the rearmost axle must be 146 inches from the
rear of the trailer.
(2) The standard trailer for mid-roof
tractors is an empty two-axle tanker
trailer 42±1 feet long by 140 inches
high.
(i) It has a 40±1 feet long cylindrical
tank with a 7000±7 gallon capacity,
smooth surface, and rounded ends.
(ii) The standard tanker trailer does
not include any aerodynamic features
such as side fairings, but does include
a centered 20 inch manhole, sidecentered ladder, and lengthwise
walkway. It includes dual 24.5 inch
wheels.
(3) The standard trailer for low-roof
tractors is an unloaded two-axle flat bed

m = grams of CO2 emitted over the
appropriate test cycle.
D = miles driven over the appropriate test
cycle.

trailer 53±1 feet long and 102 inches
wide.
(i) The deck height is 60.0±0.5 inches
in the front and 55.0±0.5 inches in the
rear. The standard trailer does not
include any aerodynamic features such
as side fairings.
(ii) It includes an air suspension and
dual 22.5 inch wheels on tandem axles
spread up to 122 inches apart between
axle centerlines, measured along the
length of the trailer.
§ 1037.510

Duty-cycle exhaust testing.

This section applies where exhaust
emission testing is required, such as
when applying the provisions of
§ 1037.615. Note that for most vehicles,
testing under this section is not
required.
(a) Where applicable, measure
emissions by testing the vehicle on a
chassis dynamometer with the
applicable test cycles. Each test cycle
consists of a series of speed commands
over time: variable speeds for the
transient test and constant speeds for
the cruise tests. None of these cycles
include vehicle starting or warmup;
each test cycle begins with a running,
warmed-up vehicle. Start sampling
emissions at the start of each cycle. The
transient cycle is specified in Appendix
I to this part. For the 55 mph and 65
mph cruise cycles, sample emissions for
300 second cycles with constant vehicle
speeds of 55.0 mph and 65.0 mph,
respectively. The tolerance around these
speed setpoints is ±1.0 mph.
(b) Calculate the official emission
result from the following equation:

(c) Apply weighting factors specific to
each type of vehicle and for each duty
cycle as described in the following
table:

TABLE 1 TO § 1037.510—WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR DUTY CYCLES

Vocational ........................................................................................................................
Vocational Hybrid Vehicles ..............................................................................................
Day Cabs .........................................................................................................................
Sleeper Cabs ...................................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00308

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

55 mph cruise
(%)
42
75
19
5

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

21
9
17
9

15SER2

65 mph cruise
(%)
37
16
64
86

ER15SE11.011

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Transient
(%)

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(d) For transient testing, compare
actual second-by-second vehicle speed
with the speed specified in the test
cycle and ensure any differences are
consistent with the criteria as specified
in 40 CFR part 1066. If the speeds do
not conform to these criteria, the test is
not valid and must be repeated.
(e) Run test cycles as specified in 40
CFR part 86. For cruise cycle testing of
vehicles equipped with cruise control,
use the vehicle’s cruise control to
control the vehicle speed. For vehicles
equipped with adjustable VSLs, test the
vehicle with the VSL at its highest
setting.
(f) Test the vehicle using its adjusted
loaded vehicle weight, unless we
determine this would be
unrepresentative of in-use operation as
specified in 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1).
(g) For hybrid vehicles, correct for the
net energy change of the energy storage
device as described in 40 CFR 1066.501.
§ 1037.520 Modeling CO2 emissions to
show compliance.

This section describes how to use the
GEM simulation tool (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.
(a) General modeling provisions. To
run the GEM, enter all applicable inputs
as specified by the model. All seven of
the following inputs apply for sleeper
cab tractors, while some do not apply
for other regulatory subcategories:
(1) Regulatory subcategory (such as
‘‘Class 8 Combination—Sleeper Cab—
High Roof’’).
(2) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag, as
described in paragraph (b) of this
section. Leave this field blank for
vocational vehicles.
(3) Steer tire rolling resistance, as
described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(4) Drive tire rolling resistance, as
described in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(5) Vehicle speed limit, as described
in paragraph (d) of this section. Leave
this field blank for vocational vehicles.

57413

(6) Vehicle weight reduction, as
described in paragraph (e) of this
section. Leave this field blank for
vocational vehicles.
(7) Extended idle reduction credit, as
described in paragraph (f) of this
section. Leave this field blank for
vehicles other than Class 8 sleeper cabs.
(b) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag
and drag area. Determine the
appropriate drag area as follows:
(1) Use the recommended method or
an alternate method to establish a value
for the vehicle’s drag area, expressed in
m2 and rounded to two decimal places.
Where we allow you to group multiple
configurations together, measure the
drag area of the worst-case
configuration. Measure drag areas
specified in § 1037.521.
(2) Determine the bin level for your
vehicle based on the drag area from
paragraph (b)(1) of this section as shown
in the following tables:

TABLE 1 TO § 1037.520—HIGH-ROOF DAY AND SLEEPER CABS
If your measured CDA (m2)
is . . .

Bin level

Then your CD input is . . .

High-Roof Day Cabs
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin

I ..................................................................................................................................
II .................................................................................................................................
III ................................................................................................................................
IV ...............................................................................................................................
V ................................................................................................................................

≥ 8.0
7.1–7.9
6.2–7.0
5.6–6.1
≤ 5.5

0.79
0.72
0.63
0.56
0.51

≥ 7.6
6.7–7.5
5.8–6.6
5.2–5.7
≤ 5.1

0.75
0.68
0.60
0.52
0.47

High-Roof Sleeper Cabs
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin

I ..................................................................................................................................
II .................................................................................................................................
III ................................................................................................................................
IV ...............................................................................................................................
V ................................................................................................................................

TABLE 2 TO § 1037.520— LOW-ROOF DAY AND SLEEPER CABS
If your measured CDA (m2)
is . . .

Bin level

Then your CD input is . . .

Low-Roof Day and Sleeper Cabs
Bin I ..................................................................................................................................
Bin II .................................................................................................................................

≥ 5.1
≤ 5.0

0.77
0.71

≥ 5.6
≤ 5.5

0.87
0.82

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Mid-Roof Day and Sleeper Cabs
Bin I ..................................................................................................................................
Bin II .................................................................................................................................

(3) For low- and mid-roof tractors, you
may determine your drag area bin based
on the drag area bin of an equivalent
high-roof tractor. If the high-roof tractor

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

is in Bin I or Bin II, then you may
assume your equivalent low- and midroof tractors are in Bin I. If the high-roof
tractor is in Bin III, Bin IV, or Bin V,

PO 00000

Frm 00309

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

then you may assume your equivalent
low- and mid-roof tractors are in Bin II.
(c) Steer and drive tire rolling
resistance. You must have a tire rolling
resistance level (TRRL) for each tire

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57414

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

configuration. For purposes of this
section, you may consider tires with the
same SKU number to be the same
configuration.
(1) Measure tire rolling resistance in
kg per metric ton as specified in ISO
28580 (incorporated by reference in
§ 1037.810), except as specified in this
paragraph (c). Use good engineering
judgment to ensure that your test results
are not biased low. You may ask us to
identify a reference test laboratory to
which you may correlate your test
results. Prior to beginning the test
procedure in Section 7 of ISO 28580 for
a new bias-ply tire, perform a break-in
procedure by running the tire at the
specified test speed, load, and pressure
for 60±2 minutes.
(2) For each tire design tested,
measure rolling resistance of at least
three different tires of that specific
design and size. Perform the test at least
once for each tire. Use the arithmetic
mean of these results as your test result.
You may use this value as your GEM
input or select a higher TRRL. You must
test at least one tire size for each tire
model, and may use engineering
analysis to determine the rolling
resistance of other tire sizes of that
model. Note that for tire sizes that you
do not test, we will treat your
analytically derived rolling resistances
the same as test results, and we may

perform our own testing to verify your
values. We may require you to test a
small sub-sample of untested tire sizes
that we select.
(3) If you obtain your test results from
the tire manufacturer or another third
party, you must obtain a signed
statement from them verifying the tests
were conducted according to the
requirements of this part. Such
statements are deemed to be
submissions to EPA.
(4) For tires marketed as light truck
tires and that have load ranges C, D, or
E, use as the GEM input TRRL at or
above the measured rolling resistance
multiplied by 0.87.
(d) Vehicle speed limit. If the vehicles
will be equipped with a vehicle speed
limiter, input the maximum vehicle
speed to which the vehicle will be
limited (in miles per hour rounded to
the nearest 0.1 mile per hour) as
specified in § 1037.640. Otherwise leave
this field blank. Use good engineering
judgment to ensure the limiter is tamper
resistant. We may require you to obtain
preliminary approval for your designs.
(e) Vehicle weight reduction. For
purposes of this paragraph (e), highstrength steel is steel with tensile
strength at or above 350 MPa.
(1) Vehicle weight reduction inputs
for wheels are specified relative to dualwide tires with conventional steel

wheels. For purposes of this paragraph
(e)(1), a light-weight aluminum wheel is
one that weighs at least 21 lb less than
a comparable conventional steel wheel.
The inputs are listed in Table 4 to this
section. For example, a tractor with
aluminum steel wheels and eight (4×2)
dual-wide aluminum drive wheels
would have an input of 210 lb (2×21 +
8×21).

TABLE 3 TO § 1037.520—WHEELRELATED WEIGHT REDUCTIONS
Weight reduction technology

Single-Wide Drive Tire with
Steel Wheel ...................
Aluminum Wheel ...........
Light-Weight Aluminum
Wheel .........................
Steer Tire or Dual-wide Drive
Tire with . . .
High-Strength Steel
Wheel .........................
Aluminum Wheel ...........
Light-Weight Aluminum
Wheel .........................

Weight
reduction
(lb per tire or
wheel)
84
139
147

8
21
30

(2) Vehicle weight reduction inputs
for components other than wheels are
specified relative to mild steel
components as specified in the
following table:

TABLE 4 TO § 1037.520—NONWHEEL-RELATED WEIGHT REDUCTIONS
Aluminum weight
reduction (lb)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Weight reduction technologies
Door .........................................................................................................................................................
Roof .........................................................................................................................................................
Cab rear wall ...........................................................................................................................................
Cab floor ..................................................................................................................................................
Hood Support Structure System ..............................................................................................................
Fairing Support Structure System ...........................................................................................................
Instrument Panel Support Structure ........................................................................................................
Brake Drums—Drive (4) ..........................................................................................................................
Brake Drums—Non Drive (2) ..................................................................................................................
Frame Rails .............................................................................................................................................
Crossmember—Cab ................................................................................................................................
Crossmember—Suspension ....................................................................................................................
Crossmember—Non Suspension (3) .......................................................................................................
Fifth Wheel ...............................................................................................................................................
Radiator Support ......................................................................................................................................
Fuel Tank Support Structure ...................................................................................................................
Steps ........................................................................................................................................................
Bumper ....................................................................................................................................................
Shackles ..................................................................................................................................................
Front Axle ................................................................................................................................................
Suspension Brackets, Hangers ...............................................................................................................
Transmission Case ..................................................................................................................................
Clutch Housing ........................................................................................................................................
Drive Axle Hubs (8) .................................................................................................................................
Non Drive Front Hubs (2) ........................................................................................................................
Driveshaft .................................................................................................................................................
Transmission/Clutch Shift Levers ............................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00310

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

20
60
49
56
15
35
5
140
60
440
15
25
15
100
20
40
35
33
10
60
100
50
40
160
40
20
20

15SER2

High-strength steel
weight reduction
(lb)
6
18
16
18
3
6
1
11
8
87
5
6
5
25
6
12
6
10
3
15
30
12
10
4
5
5
4

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(3) You may ask to apply the
innovative technology provisions of
§ 1037.610 for weight reductions not
covered by this paragraph (e).
(f) Extended idle reduction credit. If
your tractor is equipped with idle
reduction technology meeting the
requirements of § 1037.660 that will
automatically shut off the main engine
after 300 seconds or less, use 5.0 g/tonmile as the input (or a lesser value
specified in § 1037.660). Otherwise
leave this field blank.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.521

Aerodynamic measurements.

This section describes how to
determine the aerodynamic drag area
(CDA) of your vehicle using the
coastdown procedure in 40 CFR part
1066 or an alternative method correlated
to it.
(a) General. The primary method for
measuring the aerodynamic drag area of
vehicles is specified in paragraph (b) of
this section. You may determine the
drag area using an alternate method,
consistent with the provisions of this
section and good engineering judgment,
based on wind tunnel testing,
computational fluid dynamic modeling,
or constant-speed road load testing. See
40 CFR 1068.5 for provisions describing
how we may evaluate your engineering
judgment. All drag areas measured
using an alternative method (CDAalt)
must be adjusted to be equivalent to the
corresponding drag areas that would
have been measured using the
coastdown procedure as follows:
(1) Unless good engineering judgment
requires otherwise, assume that
coastdown drag areas are proportional
to drag areas measured using alternative
methods. This means you may apply a
single constant adjustment factor
(Falt-aero) for a given alternate drag area
method using the following equation:
CDA = CDAalt × Falt-aero
(2) Determine Falt-aero by performing
coastdown testing and applying your
alternate method on the same vehicle.
Unless we approve another vehicle, the
vehicle must be a Class 8, high-roof,
sleeper cab with a full aerodynamics
package, pulling a standards trailer.
Where you have more than one model
meeting these criteria, use the model
with the highest projected sales. If you
do not have such a model you may use
your most comparable model with prior
approval. If good engineering judgment
allows the use of a single, constant
value of Falt-aero, calculate it from this
coastdown drag area (CDAcoast) divided
by alternative drag area (CDAalt):
Falt-aero = CDAcoast ÷ CDAalt
(3) Calculate Falt-aero to at least three
decimal places. For example, if your

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

coastdown testing results in a drag area
of 6.430, but your wind tunnel method
results in a drag area of 6.200, Falt-aero
would be 1.037.
(b) Recommended method. Perform
coastdown testing as described in 40
CFR part 1066, subpart D, subject to the
following additional provisions:
(1) The specifications of this
paragraph (b)(1) apply when measuring
drag areas for tractors. Test high-roof
tractors with a standard box trailer. Test
low- and mid-roof tractors without a
trailer (sometimes referred to as in a
‘‘bobtail configuration’’). You may test
low- and mid-roof tractors with a trailer
to evaluate innovative technologies.
(2) The specifications of this
paragraph (b)(2) apply for tractors and
standard trailers. Use tires mounted on
steel rims in a dual configuration
(except for steer tires). The tires must—
(i) Be SmartWay-Verified tires or have
a rolling resistance below 5.1 kg/ton.
(ii) Have accumulated at least 2,175
miles of prior use but have no less than
50 percent of their original tread depth
(as specified for truck cabs in SAE
J1263).
(iii) Not be retreads or have any
apparent signs of chunking or uneven
wear.
(iv) Be size 295/75R22.5 or 275/
80R22.5.
(3) Calculate the drag area (CDA) in
m2 from the coastdown procedure
specified in 40 CFR part 1066.
(c) Approval. You must obtain
preliminary approval before using any
methods other than coastdown testing to
determine drag coefficients. Send your
request for approval to the Designated
Compliance Officer. Keep records of the
information specified in this paragraph
(c). Unless we specify otherwise,
include this information with your
request. You must provide any
information we require to evaluate
whether you are apply the provisions of
this section consistent with good
engineering judgment.
(1) Include all of the following for
your coastdown results:
(i) The name, location, and
description of your test facilities,
including background/history,
equipment and capability, and track and
facility elevation, along with the grade
and size/length of the track.
(ii) Test conditions for each test
result, including date and time, wind
speed and direction, ambient
temperature and humidity, vehicle
speed, driving distance, manufacturer
name, test vehicle/model type, model
year, applicable model engine family,
tire type and rolling resistance, weight
of tractor-trailer (as tested), and driver
identifier(s).

PO 00000

Frm 00311

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57415

(iii) Average drag area result as
calculated in 40 CFR 1066, subpart D)
and all of the individual run results
(including voided or invalid runs).
(2) Identify the name and location of
the test facilities for your wind tunnel
method (if applicable). Also include the
following things to describe the test
facility:
(i) Background/history.
(ii) The layout (with diagram), type,
and construction (structural and
material) of the wind tunnel.
(iii) Wind tunnel design details:
corner turning vane type and material,
air settling, mesh screen specification,
air straightening method, tunnel
volume, surface area, average duct area,
and circuit length.
(iv) Wind tunnel flow quality:
temperature control and uniformity,
airflow quality, minimum airflow
velocity, flow uniformity, angularity
and stability, static pressure variation,
turbulence intensity, airflow
acceleration and deceleration times, test
duration flow quality, and overall
airflow quality achievement.
(v) Test/working section information:
test section type (e.g., open, closed,
adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular,
square, oval), length, contraction ratio,
maximum air velocity, maximum
dynamic pressure, nozzle width and
height, plenum dimensions and net
volume, maximum allowed model scale,
maximum model height above road,
strut movement rate (if applicable),
model support, primary boundary layer
slot, boundary layer elimination
method, and photos and diagrams of the
test section.
(vi) Fan section description: fan type,
diameter, power, maximum rotational
speed, maximum top speed, support
type, mechanical drive, and sectional
total weight.
(vii) Data acquisition and control
(where applicable): acquisition type,
motor control, tunnel control, model
balance, model pressure measurement,
wheel drag balances, wing/body panel
balances, and model exhaust
simulation.
(viii) Moving ground plane or rolling
road (if applicable): construction and
material, yaw table and range, moving
ground length and width, belt type,
maximum belt speed, belt suction
mechanism, platen instrumentation,
temperature control, and steering.
(ix) Facility correction factors and
purpose.
(3) Include all of the following for
your computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) method (if applicable):
(i) Official name/title of the software
product.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57416

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Date and version number for the
software product.
(iii) Manufacturer/company name,
address, phone number and Web
address for software product.
(iv) Identify if the software code is
Navier-Stokes or Lattice-Boltzmann
based.
(4) Include all of the following for any
other method (if applicable):
(i) Official name/title of the
procedure(s).
(ii) Description of the procedure.
(iii) Cited sources for any
standardized procedures that the
method is based on.
(iv) Modifications/deviations from the
standardized procedures for the method
and rational for modifications/
deviations.
(v) Data comparing this requested
procedure to the coastdown reference
procedure.
(vi) Information above from the other
methods as applicable to this method
(e.g., source location/address,
background/history).
(d) Wind tunnel methods. (1) You may
measure drag areas consistent with the
modified SAE procedures described in
this paragraph (d) using any wind
tunnel recognized by the Subsonic
Aerodynamic Testing Association. If
your wind tunnel is not capable of
testing in accordance with these
modified SAE procedures, you may ask
us to approve your alternate test
procedures if you demonstrate that your
procedures produce equivalent data. For
purposes of this paragraph (d), data are
equivalent if they are the same or better
with respect to repeatability and
unbiased correlation with coastdown
testing. Note that, for wind tunnels not
capable of these modified SAE
procedures, good engineering judgment
may require you to base your alternate
method adjustment factor on more than
one vehicle. You may not develop your
correction factor until we have
approved your alternate method. The
applicable SAE procedures are SAE
J1252, SAE J1594, and SAE J2071
(incorporated by reference in
§ 1037.810). The following
modifications apply for SAE J1252:
(i) The minimum Reynold’s number
(Remin) is 1.0 × 106 instead of the value
specified in section 5.2 of the SAE
procedure. Your model frontal area at
zero yaw angle may exceed the
recommended 5 percent of the active
test section area, provided it does not
exceed 25 percent.
(ii) For full-scale wind tunnel testing,
use good engineering judgment to select
a test article (tractor and trailer) that is
a reasonable representation of the test
article used for the reference method

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

testing. For example, where your wind
tunnel is not long enough to test the
tractor with a standard 53 foot trailer, it
may be appropriate to use shorter box
trailer. In such a case, the correlation
developed using the shorter trailer
would only be valid for testing with the
shorter trailer.
(iii) For reduced-scale wind tunnel
testing, a one-eighth (1/8th) or larger
scale model of a heavy-duty tractor and
trailer must be used, and the model
must be of sufficient design to simulate
airflow through the radiator inlet grill
and across an engine geometry
representative of those commonly used
in your test vehicle.
(2) You must perform wind tunnel
testing and the coastdown procedure on
the same tractor model and provide the
results for both methods. Conduct the
wind tunnel tests at a zero yaw angle
and, if so equipped, utilizing the
moving/rolling floor (i.e., the moving/
rolling floor should be on during the
test, as opposed to static) for
comparison to the coastdown
procedure, which corrects to a zero yaw
angle for the oncoming wind.
(e) Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD). You may determine drag areas
using a CFD method, consistent with
good engineering judgment and the
requirements of this paragraph (e) using
commercially available CFD software
code. Conduct the analysis assuming
zero yaw angle, and ambient conditions
consistent with coastdown procedures.
For simulating a wind tunnel test, the
analysis should accurately model the
particular wind tunnel and assume a
wind tunnel blockage ratio consistent
with SAE J1252 (incorporated by
reference in § 1037.810) or one that
matches the selected wind tunnel,
whichever is lower. For simulation of
open road conditions similar to that
experienced during coastdown test
procedures, the CFD analysis should
assume a blockage ratio at or below 0.2
percent.
(1) Take the following steps for CFD
code with a Navier-Stokes formula
solver:
(i) Perform an unstructured, timeaccurate, analysis using a mesh grid size
with total volume element count of at
least 50 million cells of hexahedral and/
or polyhedral mesh cell shape, surface
elements representing the geometry
consisting of no less than 6 million
elements, and a near-wall cell size
corresponding to a y+ value of less than
300, with the smallest cell sizes applied
to local regions of the tractor and trailer
in areas of high flow gradients and
smaller geometry features.
(ii) Perform the analysis with a
turbulence model and mesh

PO 00000

Frm 00312

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

deformation enabled (if applicable) with
boundary layer resolution of ±95
percent. Once result convergence is
achieved, demonstrate the convergence
by supplying multiple, successive
convergence values for the analysis. The
turbulence model may use k-epsilon (ke), shear stress transport k-omega (SST
k-w), or other commercially accepted
methods.
(2) For Lattice-Boltzman based CFD
code, perform an unstructured, timeaccurate analysis using a mesh grid size
with total surface elements of at least 50
million cells using cubic volume
elements and triangular and/or
quadrilateral surface elements with a
near wall cell size of no greater than 6
mm on local regions of the tractor and
trailer in areas of high flow gradients
and smaller geometry features, with cell
sizes in other areas of the mesh grid
starting at twelve millimeters and
increasing in size from this value as the
distance from the tractor-trailer model
increases.
(3) All CFD analysis should be
conducted using the following
conditions:
(i) A tractor-trailer combination using
the manufacturer’s tractor and the
standard trailer, as applicable.
(ii) An environment with a blockage
ratio at or below 0.2 percent to simulate
open road conditions, a zero degree yaw
angle between the oncoming wind and
the tractor-trailer combination.
(iii) Ambient conditions consistent
with the coastdown test procedures
specified in this part.
(iv) Open grill with representative
back pressures based on data from the
tractor model,
(v) Turbulence model and mesh
deformation enabled (if applicable).
(vi) Tires and ground plane in motion
consistent with and simulating a vehicle
moving in the forward direction of
travel.
(vii) The smallest cell size should be
applied to local regions on the tractor
and trailer in areas of high flow
gradients and smaller geometry features
(e.g., the a-pillar, mirror, visor, grille
and accessories, trailer leading and
trailing edges, rear bogey, tires, and
tractor-trailer gap).
(viii) Simulate a speed of 55 mph.
(4) You may ask us to allow you to
perform CFD analysis using parameters
and criteria other than those specified in
this paragraph (e), consistent with good
engineering judgment, if you can
demonstrate that the specified
conditions are not feasible (e.g.,
insufficient computing power to
conduct such analysis, inordinate length
of time to conduct analysis, equivalent
flow characteristics with more feasible

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57417

criteria/parameters) or improved criteria
may yield better results (e.g., different
mesh cell shape and size). To support
this request, we may require that you
supply data demonstrating that your
selected parameters/criteria will provide
a sufficient level of detail to yield an
accurate analysis, including comparison
of key characteristics between your
criteria/parameters and the criteria
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of
this section (e.g., pressure profiles, drag
build-up, and/or turbulent/laminar flow

at key points on the front of the tractor
and/or over the length of the tractortrailer combination).
(f) Yaw sweep corrections. You may
optionally apply this paragraph (f) for
vehicles with aerodynamic features that
are more effective at reducing windaveraged drag than is predicted by zeroyaw drag. You may correct your zeroyaw drag area as follows if the ratio of
the zero-yaw drag area divided by yaw
sweep drag area for your vehicle is
greater than 0.8065 (which represents

the ratio expected for a typical
aerodynamic Class 8 high-roof sleeper
cab tractor):
(1) Determine the zero-yaw drag area
and the yaw sweep drag area for your
vehicle using the same alternate method
as specified in this subpart. Measure
drag area for 0°, ¥6°, and +6°. Use the
arithmetic mean of the ¥6° and +6°
drag areas as the ±6° drag area.
(2) Calculate your yaw sweep
correction factor (CFys) using the
following equation:

(3) Calculate your corrected drag area
for determining the aerodynamic bin by
multiplying the measured zero-yaw drag
area by CFys. The correction factor may
be applied to drag areas measured using
other procedures. For example, we
would apply CFys to drag areas
measured using the recommended
coastdown method. If you use an
alternative method, you would also
need to apply an alternative correction
(Falt-aero) and calculate the final drag area
using the following equation:
CDA = Falt-aero · CFys · (CDA)zero-alt
(4) You may ask us to apply CFys to
similar vehicles incorporating the same
design features.
(5) As an alternative, you may choose
to calculate the wind-averaged drag area
according to SAE J1252 (incorporated by
reference in § 1037.810) and substitute
this value into the equation in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the
±6° yaw-averaged drag area.

fully charged RESS. These procedures
may be used for whole vehicles or with
a post-transmission hybrid system.
When testing just the post-transmission
hybrid system, you must include all
hardware for the PTO system. You may
ask us to modify the provisions of this
section to allow testing hybrid vehicles
other than electric-battery hybrids,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
(a) Select two vehicles for testing as
follows:
(1) Select a vehicle with a hybrid
powertrain to represent the vehicle
family. If your vehicle family includes
more than one vehicle model, use good
engineering judgment to select the
vehicle type with the maximum number
of PTO circuits that has the smallest
potential reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions.
(2) Select an equivalent conventional
vehicle as specified in § 1037.615.
(b) Measure PTO emissions from the
fully warmed-up conventional vehicle
as follows:
(1) Without adding any additional
restrictions, instrument the vehicle with
pressure transducers at the outlet of the
hydraulic pump for each circuit.
(2) Operate the PTO system with no
load for at least 15 seconds. Measure the
pressure and record the average value
over the last 10 seconds (pmin). Apply
maximum operator demand to the PTO
system until the pressure relief valve
opens and pressure stabilizes; measure

the pressure and record the average
value over the last 10 seconds (pmax).
(3) Denormalize the PTO duty cycle in
Appendix II of this part using the
following equation:
prefi = NPi · (pmax¥min) + pmin

§ 1037.525 Special procedures for testing
hybrid vehicles with power take-off.

This section describes the procedure
for quantifying the reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions as a result of
running power take-off (PTO) devices
with a hybrid powertrain. The
procedures are written to test the PTO
so that all the energy is produced with
the engine. The full test for the hybrid
vehicle is from a fully charged
renewable energy storage system (RESS)
to a depleted RESS and then back to a

Where:
prefi = the reference pressure at each point
i in the PTO cycle.
NPi= the normalized pressure at each point
i in the PTO cycle.
pmax= the maximum pressure measured in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
pmin= the minimum pressure measured in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(4) If the PTO system has two circuits,
repeat paragraph (b)(2) and (3) of this
section for the second PTO circuit.
(5) Install a system to control
pressures in the PTO system during the
cycle.
(6) Start the engine.
(7) Operate the vehicle over one or
both of the denormalized PTO duty
cycles, as applicable. Collect CO2
emissions during operation over each
duty cycle.
(8) Use the provisions of 40 CFR part
1066 to collect and measure emissions.
Calculate emission rates in grams per
test without rounding.
(9) For each test, validate the pressure
in each circuit with the pressure
specified from the cycle according to 40
CFR 1065.514. Measured pressures must
meet the specifications in the following
table for a valid test:

TABLE 1 OF § 1037.525—STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR VALIDATING DUTY CYCLES
Pressure

Slope, |a1| .................................................................................................................................................
Absolute value of intercept, |a0| ...............................................................................................................
Standard error of estimate, SEE ..............................................................................................................
Coefficient of determination, r2 ...............................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00313

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030.
≤ 2.0% of maximum mapped pressure.
≤ 10% of maximum mapped pressure.
≥ 0.970.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.012

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Parameter

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(10) Continue testing over the three
vehicle drive cycles, as otherwise
required by this part.
(11) Calculate combined cycleweighted emissions of the four cycles as
specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(c) Measure PTO emissions from the
fully warmed-up hybrid vehicle as
follows:
(1) Perform the steps in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(2) Prepare the vehicle for testing by
operating it as needed to stabilize the
battery at a full state of charge. For
electric hybrid vehicles, we recommend
running back-to-back PTO tests until
engine operation is initiated to charge
the battery. The battery should be fully
charged once engine operation stops.
The ignition should remain in the ‘‘on’’
position.

(3) Turn the vehicle and PTO system
off while the sampling system is being
prepared.
(4) Turn the vehicle and PTO system
on such that the PTO system is
functional, whether it draws power from
the engine or a battery.
(5) Operate the vehicle over the PTO
cycle(s) without turning the vehicle off,
until the engine starts and then shuts
down. The test cycle is completed once
the engine shuts down. Measure
emissions as described in paragraphs
(b)(2) and (3) of this section. Use good
engineering judgment to minimize the
variability in testing between the two
types of vehicles.
(6) Refer to paragraph (b)(9) of this
section for cycle validation.
(7) Continue testing over the three
vehicle drive cycles, as otherwise
required by this part.
(8) Calculate combined 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:
(1) Calculate the g/ton-mile emission
rate for the driving portion of the test
specified in § 1037.510.
(2) Calculate the g/hr emission rate for
the PTO portion of the test by dividing
the total mass emitted over the cycle
(grams) by the time of the test (hours).
For testing where fractions of a cycle
were run (for example, where three
cycles are completed and the halfway
point of a fourth PTO cycle is reached
before the engine starts and shuts down
again), use the following procedures to
calculate the time of the test:
(i) Add up the time run for all
complete tests.
(ii) For fractions of a test, use the
following equation to calculate the time:

Where:
ttest = time of the incomplete test.
i = the number of each measurement interval.
N = the total number of measurement
intervals.
NPcircuit_1 = Normalized pressure command
from circuit 1 of the PTO cycle.
NPcircuit_2 = Normalized pressure command
from circuit 2 of the PTO cycle. Let
NPcircuit_2 = 1 if there is only one circuit.
tcycle = time of a complete cycle.

§ 1037.550 Special procedures for testing
post-transmission hybrid systems.

(d) Calculate the transmission output
shaft’s angular speed target for the
driver model, fnref,driver, from the linear
speed associated with the vehicle cycle
using the following equation:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00314

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Where:
Scyclei = vehicle speed of the test cycle for
each point i.
kd = final drive ratio (the angular speed of the
transmission output shaft divided by the
angular speed of the drive axle), as
declared by the manufacturer.
r = radius of the loaded tires, as declared by
the manufacturer.

(e) Use either speed control or torque
control to program the dynamometer to
follow the test cycle, as follows:
(1) Speed control. Program
dynamometers using speed control as
described in this paragraph (e)(1). We
recommend speed control for automated
manual transmissions or other designs
where there is a power interrupt during
shifts. Calculate the transmission output
shaft’s angular speed target for the
dynamometer, fnref,dyno, from the
measured linear speed at the
dynamometer rolls using the following
equation:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.014

(iii) Sum the time from complete
cycles (paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this
section) and from partial cycles
(paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section).
(3) Convert the g/hr PTO result to an
equivalent g/mi value based on the
assumed fraction of engine operating
time during which the PTO is operating
(28 percent) and an assumed average
vehicle speed while driving (27.1 mph).
The conversion factor is: Factor =
(0.280)/(1.000¥0.280)/(27.1 mph) =
0.0144 hr/mi. Multiply the g/hr
emission rate by 0.0144 hr/mi.
(4) Divide the g/mi PTO emission rate
by the standard payload and add this
value to the g/ton-mile emission rate for
the driving portion of the test.
(e) Follow the provisions of
§ 1037.615 to calculate improvement
factors and benefits for advanced
technologies.

This section describes the procedure
for simulating a chassis test with a posttransmission hybrid system for A to B
testing. The hardware that must be
included in these tests is the engine, the
transmission, the hybrid electric motor,
the power electronics between the
hybrid electric motor and the RESS, and
the RESS. You may ask us to modify the
provisions of this section to allow
testing non-electric hybrid vehicles,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
(a) Set up the engine according to 40
CFR 1065.110 to account for work
inputs and outputs and accessory work.
(b) Collect CO2 emissions while
operating the system over the test cycles
specified in § 1037.510.
(c) Collect and measure emissions as
described in 40 CFR part 1066.
Calculate emission rates in grams per
ton-mile without rounding. Determine
values for A, B, C, and M for the vehicle
being simulated as specified in 40 CFR
part 1066. If you will apply an
improvement factor or test results to
multiple vehicle configurations, use
values of A, B, C, M, kd, and r that
represent the vehicle configuration with
the smallest potential reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions as a result of
the hybrid capability.

ER15SE11.013

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57418

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57419

Where:

t = elapsed time in the driving schedule as
measured by the dynamometer, in
seconds.
Let ti-1 = 0.

(2) Torque control. Program
dynamometers using torque control as
described in this paragraph (e)(2).
(i) Calculate the transmission output
shaft’s torque target, Trefi, using the
following equation:

Where:
Ti = instantaneous measured torque at the
transmission output shaft.
fn,i = instantaneous measured angular speed
of the transmission output shaft.

Where:
FRi = total road load force at the surface of
the roll, calculated using the equation in
40 CFR 1066.210(d)(4), as specified in
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section.

(ii) Calculate the total road load force
based on instantaneous speed values, Si,

calculated from the equation in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(3) For each test, validate the
measured transmission output shaft’s
speed or torque with the corresponding
reference values according to 40 CFR
1065.514(e). You may delete points
when the vehicle is braking or stopped.
Perform the validation based on speed
and torque values at the transmission
output shaft. For steady-state tests (55
mph and 65 mph cruise), apply cyclevalidation criteria by treating the
sampling periods from the two tests as
a continuous sampling period. Perform
this validation based on the following
parameters for either speed-control or
torque-control, as applicable:

0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ...........................................
≤2.0% of maximum test speed ........................
≤5% of maximum test speed ...........................
≥0.970 ..............................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Subpart G—Special Compliance
Provisions
§ 1037.601 What compliance provisions
apply to these vehicles?

(a) Engine and vehicle manufacturers,
as well as owners and operators of
vehicles subject to the requirements of
this part, and all other persons, must
observe the provisions of this part, the
provisions of the Clean Air Act, and the
following provisions of 40 CFR part
1068:
(1) The exemption and importation
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subparts
C and D, apply for vehicles subject to
this part 1037, except that the hardship
exemption provisions of 40 CFR
1068.245, 1068.250, and 1068.255 do
not apply for motor vehicles.
(2) Manufacturers may comply with
the defect reporting requirements of 40
CFR 1068.501 instead of the defect
reporting requirements of 40 CFR part
85.
(b) Vehicles exempted from the
applicable standards of 40 CFR part 86
are exempt from the standards of this
part without request. Similarly, vehicles
are exempt without request if the

PO 00000

Frm 00315

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030.
≤2.0% of maximum torque.
≤10% of maximum torque.
≥0.850.

installed engine is exempted from the
applicable standards in 40 CFR part 86.
(c) The prohibitions of 40 CFR
86.1854 apply for vehicles subject to the
requirements of this part. The actions
prohibited under this provision include
the introduction into U.S. commerce of
a complete or incomplete vehicle
subject to the standards of this part
where the vehicle is not covered by a
valid certificate of conformity or
exemption.
(d) Except as specifically allowed by
this part, it is a violation of section
203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(1)) to introduce into U.S.
commerce a tractor containing an engine
not certified for use in tractors; or to
introduce into U.S. commerce a
vocational vehicle containing a light
heavy-duty or medium heavy-duty
engine not certified for use in vocational
vehicles. This prohibition applies
especially to the vehicle manufacturer.
(e) A vehicle manufacturer that
completes assembly of a vehicle at two
or more facilities may ask to use as the
date of manufacture for that vehicle the
date on which manufacturing is
completed at the place of main
assembly, consistent with provisions of

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.018

Slope, a1 .............................................................
Absolute value of intercept, a0 ...........................
Standard error of estimate, SEE ........................
Coefficient of determination, r 2 ..........................

(f) Send a brake signal when throttle
position is equal to zero and vehicle
speed is greater than the reference
vehicle speed from the test cycle. The
brake signal should be turned off when
the torque measured at the transmission
output shaft is less than the reference
torque. Set a delay before changing the
brake state using good engineering
judgment to prevent the brake signal
from dithering.
(g) The driver model should be
designed to follow the cycle as closely
as possible and must meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 1066.430(e) for
transient testing and § 1037.510 for
steady-state testing.
(h) Correct for the net energy change
of the energy storage device as described
in 40 CFR 1066.501.
(i) Follow the provisions of § 1037.510
to weight the cycle results and
§ 1037.615 to calculate improvement
factors and benefits for advanced
technologies.

Torque control

ER15SE11.017

Speed control

ER15SE11.016

Parameter

ER15SE11.015

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

TABLE 1 OF § 1037.550—STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR VALIDATING DUTY CYCLES

57420

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

49 CFR 567.4. Note that such staged
assembly is subject to the provisions of
40 CFR 1068.260(c). Include your
request in your application for
certification, along with a summary of
your staged-assembly process. You may
ask to apply this allowance to some or
all of the vehicles in your vehicle
family. Our approval is effective when
we grant your certificate. We will not
approve your request if we determine
that you intend to use this allowance to
circumvent the intent of this part.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.610 Vehicles with innovative
technologies.

(a) You may ask us to apply the
provisions of this section for CO2
emission reductions resulting from
vehicle technologies that were not in
common use with heavy-duty vehicles
before model year 2010 that are not
reflected in the GEM simulation tool.
These provisions may be applied for
CO2 emission reductions reflected using
the specified test procedures, provided
they are not reflected in the GEM. We
will apply these provisions only for
technologies that will result in
measurable, demonstrable, and
verifiable real-world CO2 emission
reductions.
(b) The provisions of this section may
be applied as either an improvement
factor or as a separate credit, consistent
with good engineering judgment. We
recommend that you base your credit/
adjustment on A to B testing of pairs of
vehicles differing only with respect to
the technology in question.
(1) Calculate improvement factors as
the ratio of in-use emissions with the
technology divided by the in-use
emissions without the technology. Use
the improvement-factor approach where
good engineering judgment indicates
that the actual benefit will be
proportional to emissions measured
over the test procedures specified in this
part.
(2) Calculate separate credits (g/tonmile) based on the difference between
the in-use emission rate with the
technology and the in-use emission rate
without the technology. Multiply this
difference by the number of vehicles,
standard payload, and useful life. Use
the separate-credit approach where good
engineering judgment indicates that the
actual benefit will be not be
proportional to emissions measured
over the test procedures specified in this
part.
(3) We may require you to discount or
otherwise adjust your improvement
factor or credit to account for
uncertainty or other relevant factors.
(c) You may perform A to B testing by
measuring emissions from the vehicles

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

during chassis testing or from in-use onroad testing. We recommend that you
perform on-road testing according to
SAE J1321 Joint TMC/SAE Fuel
Consumption Test Procedure Type II
Reaffirmed 1986–10 or SAE J1526 Joint
TMC/SAE Fuel Consumption In-Service
Test Procedure Type III Issued 1987–06
(see § 1037.810 for information
availability of SAE standards), subject to
the following provisions:
(1) The minimum route distance is
100 miles.
(2) The route selected must be
representative in terms of grade. We will
take into account published and
relevant research in determining
whether the grade is representative.
(3) The vehicle speed over the route
must be representative of the drive-cycle
weighting adopted for each regulatory
subcategory. For example, if the route
selected for an evaluation of a
combination tractor with a sleeper cab
contains only interstate driving, the
improvement factor would apply only to
86 percent of the weighted result.
(4) The ambient air temperature must
be between 5 and 35°C, unless the
technology requires other temperatures
for demonstration.
(5) We may allow you to use a
Portable Emissions Measurement
System (PEMS) device for measuring
CO2 emissions during the on-road
testing.
(d) Send your request to the
Designated Compliance Officer. Include
a detailed description of the technology
and a recommended test plan. Also state
whether you recommend applying these
provisions using the improvementfactor method or the separate-credit
method. We recommend that you do not
begin collecting test data (for
submission to EPA) before contacting
us. For technologies for which the
engine manufacturer could also claim
credits (such as transmissions in certain
circumstances), we may require you to
include a letter from the engine
manufacturer stating that it will not seek
credits for the same technology.
(e) We may seek public comment on
your request, consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.1866. However,
we will generally not seek public
comment on credits or adjustments
based on A to B chassis testing
performed according to the duty-cycle
testing requirements of this part or inuse testing performed according to
paragraph (c) of this section.
§ 1037.615 Hybrid vehicles and other
advanced technologies.

(a) This section applies for hybrid
vehicles with regenerative braking,
vehicles equipped with Rankine-cycle

PO 00000

Frm 00316

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

engines, electric vehicles, and fuel cell
vehicles. You may not generate credits
for engine features for which the
engines generate credits under 40 CFR
part 1036.
(b) Generate advanced technology
emission credits for hybrid vehicles that
include regenerative braking (or the
equivalent) and energy storage systems,
fuel cell vehicles, and vehicles
equipped with Rankine-cycle engines as
follows:
(1) Measure the effectiveness of the
advanced system by chassis testing a
vehicle equipped with the advanced
system and an equivalent conventional
vehicle. Test the vehicles as specified in
subpart F of this part. For purposes of
this paragraph (b), a conventional
vehicle is considered to be equivalent if
it has the same footprint (as defined in
40 CFR 86.1803), vehicle service class,
aerodynamic drag, and other relevant
factors not directly related to the hybrid
powertrain. If you use § 1037.525 to
quantify the benefits of a hybrid system
for PTO operation, the conventional
vehicle must have same number of PTO
circuits and have equivalent PTO
power. If you do not produce an
equivalent vehicle, you may create and
test a prototype equivalent vehicle. The
conventional vehicle is considered
Vehicle A and the advanced vehicle is
considered Vehicle B. We may specify
an alternate cycle if your vehicle
includes a power take-off.
(2) Calculate an improvement factor
and g/ton-mile benefit using the
following equations and parameters:
(i) Improvement Factor = [(Emission
Rate A)—(Emission Rate B)]/(Emission
Rate A)
(ii) g/ton-mile benefit = Improvement
Factor × (GEM Result B)
(iii) Emission Rates A and B are the
g/ton-mile CO2 emission rates of the
conventional and advanced vehicles,
respectively, as measured under the test
procedures specified in this section.
GEM Result B is the g/ton-mile CO2
emission rate resulting from emission
modeling of the advanced vehicle as
specified in § 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:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(f) As specified in subpart H of this
part, credits generated under this
section may be used under this part
1037 outside of the averaging set in
which they were generated or used
under 40 CFR part 1036.
(g) You may certify using both
provisions of this section and the
innovative technology provisions of
§ 1037.610, provided you do not double
count emission benefits.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.620 Shipment of incomplete
vehicles to secondary vehicle
manufacturers.

This section specifies how
manufacturers may introduce partially
complete vehicles into U.S. commerce.
(a) The provisions of this section
allow manufacturers to ship partially
complete vehicles to secondary vehicle
manufacturers or otherwise introduce
them into U.S. commerce in the
following circumstances:
(1) Tractors. Manufacturers may
introduce partially complete tractors
into U.S. commerce if they are covered
by a certificate of conformity for tractors
and will be in their certified tractor
configuration before they reach the
ultimate purchasers. For example, this
would apply for sleepers initially
shipped without the sleeper
compartments attached. Note that
delegated assembly provisions may
apply (see 40 CFR 1068.261).
(2) Vocational vehicles.
Manufacturers may introduce partially
complete vocational vehicles into U.S.
commerce if they are covered by a
certificate of conformity for vocational
vehicles and will be in their certified
vocational configuration before they
reach the ultimate purchasers. Note that
delegated assembly provisions may
apply (see 40 CFR 1068.261).
(3) Uncertified vehicles that will be
certified by secondary vehicle
manufacturers. Manufacturers may
introduce into U.S. commerce partially
complete vehicles for which they do not
hold a certificate of conformity only as
allowed by paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The provisions of this paragraph
(b) generally apply where the secondary
vehicle manufacturer has substantial
control over the design and assembly of
emission controls. In determining
whether a manufacturer has substantial
control over the design and assembly of
emission controls, we would consider
the degree to which the secondary
manufacturer would be able to ensure
that the engine and vehicle will conform
to the regulations in their final
configurations.
(1) A secondary manufacturer may
finish assembly of partially complete
vehicles in the following cases:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(i) It obtains a vehicle that is not fully
assembled with the intent to
manufacture a complete vehicle in a
certified configuration.
(ii) It obtains a vehicle with the intent
to modify it to a certified configuration
before it reaches the ultimate purchaser.
For example, this may apply for
converting a gasoline-fueled vehicle to
operate on natural gas under the terms
of a valid certificate.
(2) Manufacturers may introduce
partially complete vehicles into U.S.
commerce as described in this
paragraph (b) if they have a written
request for such vehicles from a
secondary vehicle manufacturer that
will finish the vehicle assembly and has
certified the vehicle (or the vehicle has
been exempted or excluded from the
requirements of this part). The written
request must include a statement that
the secondary manufacturer has a
certificate of conformity (or exemption/
exclusion) for the vehicle and identify a
valid vehicle family name associated
with each vehicle model ordered (or the
basis for an exemption/exclusion). The
original vehicle manufacturer must
apply a removable label meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 1068.45 that
identifies the corporate name of the
original manufacturer and states that the
vehicle is exempt under the provisions
of § 1037.620. The name of the
certifying manufacturer must also be on
the label or, alternatively, on the bill of
lading that accompanies the vehicles
during shipment. The original
manufacturer may not apply a
permanent emission control information
label identifying the vehicle’s eventual
status as a certified vehicle.
(3) If you are the secondary
manufacturer and you will hold the
certificate, you must include the
following information in your
application for certification:
(i) Identify the original manufacturer
of the partially complete vehicle or of
the complete vehicle you will modify.
(ii) Describe briefly how and where
final assembly will be completed.
Specify how you have the ability to
ensure that the vehicles will conform to
the regulations in their final
configuration. (Note: This section
prohibits using the provisions of this
paragraph (b) unless you have
substantial control over the design and
assembly of emission controls.)
(iii) State unconditionally that you
will not distribute the vehicles without
conforming to all applicable regulations.
(4) If you are a secondary
manufacturer and you are already a
certificate holder for other families, you
may receive shipment of partially
complete vehicles after you apply for a

PO 00000

Frm 00317

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57421

certificate of conformity but before the
certificate’s effective date. This
exemption allows the original
manufacturer to ship vehicles after you
have applied for a certificate of
conformity. Manufacturers may
introduce partially complete vehicles
into U.S. commerce as described in this
paragraph (b)(4) if they have a written
request for such vehicles from a
secondary manufacturer stating that the
application for certification has been
submitted (instead of the information
we specify in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section). We may set additional
conditions under this paragraph (b)(4) to
prevent circumvention of regulatory
requirements.
(5) Both original and secondary
manufacturers must keep the records
described in this section for at least five
years, including the written request for
exempted vehicles and the bill of lading
for each shipment (if applicable). The
written request is deemed to be a
submission to EPA.
(6) These provisions are intended
only to allow secondary manufacturers
to obtain or transport vehicles in the
specific circumstances identified in this
section so any exemption under this
section expires when the vehicle
reaches the point of final assembly
identified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(7) For purposes of this section, an
allowance to introduce partially
complete vehicles into U.S. commerce
includes a conditional allowance to sell,
introduce, or deliver such vehicles into
commerce in the United States or
import them into the United States. It
does not include a general allowance to
offer such vehicles for sale because this
exemption is intended to apply only for
cases in which the certificate holder
already has an arrangement to purchase
the vehicles from the original
manufacturer. This exemption does not
allow the original manufacturer to
subsequently offer the vehicles for sale
to a different manufacturer who will
hold the certificate unless that second
manufacturer has also complied with
the requirements of this part. The
exemption does not apply for any
individual vehicles that are not labeled
as specified in this section or which are
shipped to someone who is not a
certificate holder.
(8) We may suspend, revoke, or void
an exemption under this section, as
follows:
(i) We may suspend or revoke your
exemption if you fail to meet the
requirements of this section. We may
suspend or revoke an exemption related
to a specific secondary manufacturer if
that manufacturer sells vehicles that are

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57422

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

in not in a certified configuration in
violation of the regulations. We may
disallow this exemption for future
shipments to the affected secondary
manufacturer or set additional
conditions to ensure that vehicles will
be assembled in the certified
configuration.
(ii) We may void an exemption for all
the affected vehicles if you intentionally
submit false or incomplete information
or fail to keep and provide to EPA the
records required by this section.
(iii) The exemption is void for a
vehicle that is shipped to a company
that is not a certificate holder or for a
vehicle that is shipped to a secondary
manufacturer that is not in compliance
with the requirements of this section.
(iv) The secondary manufacturer may
be liable for penalties for causing a
prohibited act where the exemption is
voided due to actions on the part of the
secondary manufacturer.
(c) Provide instructions along with
partially complete vehicles including all
information necessary to ensure that an
engine will be installed in its certified
configuration.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.630

Special purpose tractors.

(a) General provisions. This section
allows a vehicle manufacturer to
reclassify certain tractors as vocational
tractors. Vocational tractors are treated
as vocational vehicles and are exempt
from the standards of § 1037.106. Note
that references to ‘‘tractors’’ outside of
this section mean non-vocational
tractors.
(1) This allowance is intended only
for vehicles that do not typically operate
at highway speeds, or would otherwise
not benefit from efficiency
improvements designed for line-haul
tractors. This allowance is limited to the
following vehicle and application types:
(i) Low-roof tractors intended for
intra-city pickup and delivery, such as
those that deliver bottled beverages to
retail stores.
(ii) Tractors intended for off-road
operation (including mixed service
operation), such as those with
reinforced frames and increased ground
clearance.
(iii) Tractors with a GCWR over
120,000 pounds.
(2) Where we determine that a
manufacturer is not applying this
allowance in good faith, we may require
the manufacturer to obtain preliminary
approval before using this allowance.
(b) Requirements. The following
requirements apply with respect to
tractors reclassified under this section:
(1) The vehicle must fully conform to
all requirements applicable to
vocational vehicles under this part.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(2) Vehicles reclassified under this
section must be certified as a separate
vehicle family. However, they remain
part of the vocational regulatory subcategory and averaging set that applies
for their weight class.
(3) You must include the following
additional statement on the vehicle’s
emission control information label
under § 1037.135: ‘‘THIS VEHICLE WAS
CERTIFIED AS A VOCATIONAL
TRACTOR UNDER 40 CFR 1037.630.’’.
(4) You must keep records for three
years to document your basis for
believing the vehicles will be used as
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. Include in your application for
certification a brief description of your
basis.
(c) Production limit. No manufacturer
may produce more than 21,000 vehicles
under this section in any consecutive
three model year period. This means
you may not exceed 6,000 in a given
model year if the combined total for the
previous two years was 15,000. The
production limit applies with respect to
all Class 7 and Class 8 tractors certified
or exempted as vocational tractors. Note
that in most cases, the provisions of
paragraph (a) of this section will limit
the allowable number of vehicles to be
a number lower than the production
limit of this paragraph (c).
(d) Off-road exemption. All the
provisions of this section apply for
vocational tractors exempted under
§ 1037.631, except as follows:
(1) The vehicles are required to
comply with the requirements of
§ 1037.631 instead of the requirements
that would otherwise apply to
vocational vehicles. Vehicles complying
with the requirements of § 1037.631 and
using an engine certified to the
standards of 40 CFR part 1036 are
deemed to fully conform to all
requirements applicable to vocational
vehicles under this part.
(2) The vehicles must be labeled as
specified under § 1037.631 instead of as
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
§ 1037.631 Exemption for vocational
vehicles intended for off-road use.

This section provides an exemption
from the greenhouse gas standards of
this part for certain vocational vehicles
intended to be used extensively in offroad environments such as forests, oil
fields, and construction sites. This
section does not exempt the engine used
in the vehicle from the standards of 40
CFR part 86 or part 1036. Note that you
may not include these exempted
vehicles in any credit calculations
under this part.

PO 00000

Frm 00318

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(a) Qualifying criteria. Vocational
vehicles intended for off-road use
meeting either the criteria of paragraph
(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section are exempt
without request, subject to the
provisions of this section.
(1) Vehicles are exempt if the tires
installed on the vehicle have a
maximum speed rating at or below 55
mph.
(2) Vehicles are exempt if they were
primarily designed to perform work offroad (such as in oil fields, forests, or
construction sites), and they meet at
least one of the criteria of paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section and at least one
of the criteria of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section.
(i) The vehicle must have affixed
components designed to work in an offroad environment (i.e., hazardous
material equipment or off-road drill
equipment) or be designed to operate at
low speeds such that it is unsuitable for
normal highway operation.
(ii) The vehicle must meet one of the
following criteria:
(A) Have an axle that has a gross axle
weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds.
(B) Have a speed attainable in 2 miles
of not more than 33 mph.
(C) Have a speed attainable in 2 miles
of not more than 45 mph, an unloaded
vehicle weight that is not less than 95
percent of its gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR), and no capacity to carry
occupants other than the driver and
operating crew.
(b) Tractors. The provisions of this
section may apply for tractors only if
each tractor qualifies as a vocational
tractor under § 1037.630.
(c) Recordkeeping and reporting. (1)
You must keep records to document that
your exempted vehicle configurations
meet all applicable requirements of this
section. Keep these records for at least
eight years after you stop producing the
exempted vehicle model. We may
review these records at any time.
(2) You must also keep records of the
individual exempted vehicles you
produce, including the vehicle
identification number and a description
of the vehicle configuration.
(3) Within 90 days after the end of
each model year, you must send to the
Designated Compliance Officer a report
with the following information:
(i) A description of each exempted
vehicle configuration, including an
explanation of why it qualifies for this
exemption.
(ii) The number of vehicles exempted
for each vehicle configuration.
(d) Labeling. You must include the
following additional statement on the
vehicle’s emission control information
label under § 1037.135: ‘‘THIS VEHICLE

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
WAS EXEMPTED UNDER 40 CFR
1037.631.’’.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.640

Variable vehicle speed limiters.

This section specifies provisions that
apply for vehicle speed limiters (VSLs)
that you model under § 1037.520. This
does not apply for VSLs that you do not
model under § 1037.520.
(a) General. The regulations of this
part do not constrain how you may
design VSLs for your vehicles. For
example, you may design your VSL to
have a single fixed speed limit or a softtop speed limit. You may also design
your VSL to expire after accumulation
of a predetermined number of miles.
However, designs with soft tops or
expiration features are subject to
proration provisions under this section
that do not apply to fixed VSLs that do
not expire.
(b) Definitions. The following
definitions apply for purposes of this
section:
(1) Default speed limit means the
speed limit that normally applies for the
vehicle, except as follows:
(i) The default speed limit for
adjustable VSLs must represent the
speed limit that applies when the VSL
is adjusted to its highest setting under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) For VSLs with soft tops, the
default speed does not include speeds
possible only during soft-top operation.
(iii) For expiring VSLs, the default
does not include speeds that are
possible only after expiration.
(2) Soft-top speed limit means the
highest speed limit that applies during
soft-top operation.
(3) Maximum soft-top duration means
the maximum amount of time that a
vehicle could operate above the default
speed limit.
(4) Certified VSL means a VSL
configuration that applies when a
vehicle is new and until it expires.
(5) Expiration point means the
mileage at which a vehicle’s certified
VSL expires (or the point at which
tamper protections expire).
(6) Effective speed limit has the
meaning given in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(c) Adjustments. You may design your
VSL to be adjustable; however, this may
affect the value you use in the GEM.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, any adjustments
that can be made to the engine, vehicle,
or their controls that change the VSL’s
actual speed limit are considered to be
adjustable operating parameters.
Compliance is based on the vehicle
being adjusted to the highest speed limit
within this range.
(2) The following adjustments are not
adjustable parameters:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(i) Adjustments made only to account
for changing tire size or final drive ratio.
(ii) Adjustments protected by
encrypted controls or passwords.
(iii) Adjustments possible only after
the VSL’s expiration point.
(d) Effective speed limit. (1) For VSLs
without soft tops or expiration points
that expire before 1,259,000 miles, the
effective speed limit is the highest speed
limit that results by adjusting the VSL
or other vehicle parameters consistent
with the provisions of paragraph (c) of
this section.
(2) For VSLs with soft tops and/or
expiration points, the effective speed
limit is calculated as specified in this
paragraph (d)(2), which is based on 10
hours of operation per day (394 miles
per day for day cabs and 551 miles per
day for sleeper cabs). Note that this
calculation assumes that a fraction of
this operation is speed limited (3.9
hours and 252 miles for day cabs, and
7.3 hours and 474 miles for sleeper
cabs). Use the following equation to
calculate the effective speed limit,
rounded to the nearest 0.1 mph:
Effective speed = ExF * [STF* STSL +
(1–STF) * DSL] + (1–ExF)*65 mph
Where:
ExF = expiration point miles/1,259,000 miles
STF = maximum number of allowable soft
top operation hours per day/3.9 hours for
day cabs (or maximum miles per day/
252)
STF = maximum number of allowable soft
top operation hours per day/7.3 hours for
sleeper cabs (or maximum miles per day/
474)
STSL = the soft top speed limit
DSL = the default speed limit
§ 1037.645 In-use compliance with family
emission limits (FELs).

You may ask us to apply a higher inuse FEL for certain in-use vehicles,
subject to the provisions of this section.
Note that § 1037.225 contains provisions
related to changing FELs during a model
year.
(a) Purpose. This section is intended
to address circumstances in which it is
in the public interest to apply a higher
in-use FEL based on forfeiting an
appropriate number of emission credits.
(b) FELs. We may apply higher in-use
FELs to your vehicles as follows:
(1) Where your vehicle family
includes more than one sub-family with
different FELs, we may apply a higher
FEL within the family than was applied
to the vehicle’s configuration in your
final ABT report. For example, if your
vehicle family included three subfamilies with FELs of 200 g/ton-mile,
210 g/ton-mile, and 220 g/ton-mile, we
may apply a 220 g/ton-mile in-use FEL
to vehicles that were originally

PO 00000

Frm 00319

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57423

designated as part of the 200 g/ton-mile
or 210 g/ton-mile sub-families.
(2) Without regard to the number of
sub-families in your certified vehicle
family, we may specify new subfamilies with higher FELs than were
included in your final ABT report. We
may apply these higher FELs as in-use
FELs for your vehicles. For example, if
your vehicle family included three subfamilies with FELs of 200 g/ton-mile,
210 g/ton-mile, and 220 g/ton-mile, we
may specify a new 230 g/ton-mile subfamily.
(3) In specifying sub-families and inuse FELs, we would intend to accurately
reflect the actual in-use performance of
your vehicles, consistent with the
specified testing and modeling
provisions of this part.
(c) Equivalent families. We may apply
the higher FELs to other families in
other model years if they used
equivalent emission controls.
(d) Credit forfeiture. Where we specify
higher in-use FELs under this section,
you must forfeit CO2 emission credits
based on the difference between the inuse FEL and the otherwise applicable
FEL. Calculate the amount of credits to
be forfeited using the applicable
equation in § 1037.705, by substituting
the otherwise applicable FEL for the
standard and the in-use FEL for the
otherwise applicable FEL.
(e) Requests. Submit your request to
the Designated Compliance Officer.
Include the following in your request:
(1) The vehicle family name, model
year, and name/description of the
configuration(s) affected.
(2) A list of other vehicle families/
configurations/model years that may be
affected.
(3) The otherwise applicable FEL for
each configuration along with your
recommendations for higher in-use
FELs.
(4) Your source of credits for
forfeiture.
(f) Relation to recall. You may not
request higher in-use FELs for any
vehicle families for which we have
made a determination of
nonconformance and ordered a recall.
You may, however, make such requests
for vehicle families for which you are
performing a voluntary emission recall.
(g) Approval. We may approve your
request if we determine that you meet
the requirements of this section and
such approval is in the public interest.
We may include appropriate conditions
with our approval or we may approve
your request with modifications.
§ 1037.650

Tire manufacturers.

This section describes how the
requirements of this part apply with

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57424

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

respect to tire manufacturers that choose
to provide test data or emission
warranties for purposes of this part.
(a) Testing. You are responsible as
follows for test tires and emission test
results that you provide to vehicle
manufacturers for the purpose of the
manufacturer submitting them to EPA
for certification under this part:
(1) Such test results are deemed under
§ 1037.825 to be submissions to EPA.
This means that you may be subject to
criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001
if you knowingly submit false test
results to the manufacturer.
(2) You may not cause a vehicle
manufacturer to violate the regulations
by rendering inaccurate emission test
results you provide (or emission test
results from testing of test tires you
provide) to the vehicle manufacturer.
(3) Your provision of test tires and
emission test results to vehicle
manufacturers for the purpose of
certifying under this part is deemed to
be an agreement to provide tires to EPA
for confirmatory testing under
§ 1037.201.
(b) Warranty. You may contractually
agree to process emission warranty
claims on behalf of the manufacturer
certifying the vehicle with respect to
tires you produce.
(1) Your fulfillment of the warranty
requirements of this part is deemed to
fulfill the vehicle manufacturer’s
warranty obligations under this part
with respect to tires you warrant.
(2) You may not cause a vehicle
manufacturer to violate the regulations
by failing to fulfill the emission
warranty requirements that you
contractually agreed to fulfill.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.655 Post-useful life vehicle
modifications.

This section specifies vehicle
modifications that may occur after a
vehicle reaches the end of its regulatory
useful life. It does not apply with
respect to modifications that occur
within the useful life period. It also does
not apply with respect to engine
modifications or recalibrations. Note
that many such modifications to the
vehicle during the useful life and to the
engine at any time are presumed to
violate 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(A).
(a) General. Except as allowed by this
section, it is prohibited for any person
to remove or render inoperative any
emission control device installed to
comply with the requirements of this
part 1037.
(b) Allowable modifications. You may
modify a vehicle for the purpose of
reducing emissions, provided you have
a reasonable technical basis for knowing
that such modification will not increase

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

emissions of any other pollutant.
Reasonable technical basis has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. This
generally requires you to have
information that would lead an engineer
or other person familiar with engine and
vehicle design and function to
reasonably believe that the
modifications will not increase
emissions of any regulated pollutant.
(c) Examples of allowable
modifications. The following are
examples of allowable modifications:
(1) It is generally allowable to remove
tractor roof fairings after the end of the
vehicle’s useful life if the vehicle will
no longer be used primarily to pull box
trailers.
(2) Other fairings may be removed
after the end of the vehicle’s useful life
if the vehicle will no longer be used
significantly on highways with vehicle
speed of 55 miles per hour or higher.
(d) Examples of prohibited
modifications. The following are
examples of modifications that are not
allowable:
(1) No person may disable a vehicle
speed limiter prior to its expiration
point.
(2) No person may remove
aerodynamic fairings from tractors that
are used primarily to pull box trailers on
highways.
§ 1037.660
systems.

Automatic engine shutdown

This section specifies requirements
that apply for certified automatic engine
shutdown systems (AES) that are
modeled under § 1037.520. It does not
apply for AES systems that you do not
model under § 1037.520.
(a) Minimum requirements. Your AES
system must meet all of the
requirements of this paragraph (a) to be
modeled under § 1037.520. The system
must shut down the engine within 300
seconds when all the following
conditions are met:
(1) The transmission is set in neutral
with the parking brake engaged (or the
transmission is set to park if so
equipped).
(2) The operator has not reset the
system timer within the 300 seconds by
changing the position of the accelerator,
brake, or clutch pedal; or by some other
mechanism we approve.
(3) None of the override conditions of
paragraph (b) of this section are met.
(b) Override conditions. The system
may delay shutting the engine down
while any of the conditions of this
paragraph (b) apply. Engines equipped
with auto restart may restart during
override conditions. Note that these
conditions allow the system to delay
shutdown or restart, but do not allow it

PO 00000

Frm 00320

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

to reset the timer. The system may delay
shutdown—
(1) While an exhaust emission control
device is regenerating. The period
considered to be regeneration for
purposes of this allowance must be
consistent with good engineering
judgment and may differ in length from
the period considered to be regeneration
for other purposes. For example, in
some cases it may be appropriate to
include a cool down period for this
purpose but not for infrequent
regeneration adjustment factors.
(2) If necessary while servicing the
vehicle, provided the deactivation of the
AES system is accomplished using a
diagnostic scan tool. The system must
be automatically reactivated when the
engine is shutdown for more than 60
minutes.
(3) If the vehicle’s main battery stateof-charge is not sufficient to allow the
main engine to be restarted.
(4) If the external ambient
temperature reaches a level below
which or above which the cabin
temperature cannot be maintained
within reasonable heat or cold exposure
threshold limit values for the health and
safety of the operator (not merely
comfort).
(5) If the vehicle’s engine coolant
temperature is too low according to the
manufacturer’s engine protection
guidance. This may also apply for fuel
or oil temperatures. This allows the
engine to continue operating until it
reaches a predefined temperature at
which the shutdown sequence of
paragraph (a) of this section would
resume.
(6) The system may delay shutdown
while the vehicle’s main engine is
operating in power take-off (PTO) mode.
For purposes of this paragraph (b)(6), an
engine is considered to be in PTO mode
when a switch or setting designating
PTO mode is enabled.
(c) Expiration of AES systems. The
AES system may include an expiration
point (in miles) after which the AES
system may be disabled. If your vehicle
is equipped with an expiring AES
system that expires before 1,259,000
miles adjust the model input as follows:
Input = 5 g CO2/ton-mile × (miles at
expiration/1,259,000 miles)
(d) Adjustable parameters. Provisions
that apply generally with respect to
adjustable parameters also apply to the
AES system operating parameters,
except the following are not considered
to be adjustable parameters:
(1) Accelerator, brake, and clutch
pedals, with respect to resetting the idle
timer. Parameters associated with other
timer reset mechanisms we approve are
also not adjustable parameters.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Bypass parameters allowed for
vehicle service under paragraph (b)(2) of
this section.
(3) Parameters that are adjustable only
after the expiration point.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.701

General provisions.

(a) You may average, bank, and trade
(ABT) emission credits for purposes of
certification as described in this subpart
and in subpart B of this part to show
compliance with the standards of
§§ 1037.105 and 1037.106. Participation
in this program is voluntary.
(b) The definitions of Subpart I of this
part apply to this subpart. The following
definitions also apply:
(1) Actual emission credits means
emission credits you have generated
that we have verified by reviewing your
final report.
(2) Averaging set means a set of
vehicles in which emission credits may
be exchanged. Credits generated by one
vehicle may only be used by other
vehicles in the same averaging set. Note
that an averaging set may comprise
more than one regulatory subcategory.
See § 1037.740.
(3) Broker means any entity that
facilitates a trade of emission credits
between a buyer and seller.
(4) Buyer means the entity that
receives emission credits as a result of
a trade.
(5) Reserved emission credits means
emission credits you have generated
that we have not yet verified by
reviewing your final report.
(6) Seller means ‘the entity that
provides emission credits during a
trade.
(7) Standard means the emission
standard that applies under subpart B of
this part for vehicles not participating in
the ABT program of this subpart.
(8) Trade means to exchange emission
credits, either as a buyer or seller.
(c) Emission credits may be
exchanged only within an averaging set
as specified in § 1037.740.
(d) You may not use emission credits
generated under this subpart to offset
any emissions that exceed an FEL or
standard, except as allowed by
§ 1037.645.
(e) You may trade emission credits
generated from any number of your
vehicles to the vehicle purchasers or
other parties to retire the credits.
Identify any such credits in the reports
described in § 1037.730. Vehicles must
comply with the applicable FELs even
if you donate or sell the corresponding
emission credits under this paragraph
(e). Those credits may no longer be used

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

by anyone to demonstrate compliance
with any EPA emission standards.
(f) Emission credits may be used in
the model year they are generated.
Surplus emission credits may be banked
for future model years. Surplus
emission credits may sometimes be used
for past model years, as described in
§ 1037.745.
(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.
(h) See § 1037.740 for special credit
provisions that apply for credits
generated under § 1037.104(d)(7),
§ 1037.615 or 40 CFR 1036.615.
(i) Unless the regulations explicitly
allow it, you may not calculate credits
more than once for any emission
reduction. For example, if you generate
CO2 emission credits for a given hybrid
vehicle under this part, no one may
generate CO2 emission credits for the
hybrid engine under 40 CFR part 1036.
However, credits could be generated for
identical engine used in vehicles that
did not generate credits under this part.
§ 1037.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.

(a) The provisions of this section
apply separately for calculating
emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family or
subfamily, calculate positive or negative
emission credits relative to the
otherwise applicable emission standard.
Calculate positive emission credits for a
family or subfamily that has an FEL
below the standard. Calculate negative
emission credits for a family or
subfamily that has an FEL above the
standard. Sum your positive and
negative credits for the model year
before rounding. Round the sum of
emission credits to the nearest
megagram (Mg), using consistent units
throughout the following equations:
(1) For vocational vehicles:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FEL) ×
(Payload Tons) × (Volume) × (UL) ×
(10-6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard associated with
the specific tractor regulatory
subcategory (g/ton-mile).
FEL = the family emission limit for the
vehicle subfamily (g/ton-mile).
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each class in tons (2.85 tons for light
heavy-duty vehicles, 5.6 tons for
medium heavy-duty vehicles, and 7.5
tons for heavy heavy-duty vehicles).
Volume = U.S.-directed production volume
of the vehicle subfamily. For example, if
you produce three configurations with
the same FEL, the subfamily production

PO 00000

Frm 00321

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57425

volume would be the sum of the
production volumes for these three
configurations.
UL = useful life of the vehicle (110,000 miles
for light heavy-duty vehicles, 185,000
miles for medium heavy-duty vehicles,
and 435,000 miles for heavy heavy-duty
vehicles).

(2) For tractors:
Emission credits (Mg) = (Std-FEL) ×
(Payload tons) × (Volume) × (UL) ×
(10-6)
Where:
Std = the emission standard associated with
the specific tractor regulatory
subcategory (g/ton-mile).
FEL = the family emission limit for the
vehicle subfamily (g/ton-mile).
Payload tons = the prescribed payload for
each class in tons (12.5 tons for Class 7
and 19 tons for Class 8).
Volume = U.S.-directed production volume
of the vehicle subfamily.
UL = useful life of the tractor (435,000 miles
for Class 8 and 185,000 miles for Class
7).

(c) As described in § 1037.730,
compliance with the requirements of
this subpart is determined at the end of
the model year based on actual U.S.directed production volumes. Keep
appropriate records to document these
production volumes. Do not include any
of the following vehicles to calculate
emission credits:
(1) Vehicles that you do not certify to
the CO2 standards of this part because
they are permanently exempted under
subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR
part 1068.
(2) Exported vehicles.
(3) Vehicles not subject to the
requirements of this part, such as those
excluded under § 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 (or subfamilies) to an
FEL above the applicable standard,
subject to any applicable FEL caps and
other provisions in subpart B of this
part, if you show in your application for
certification that your projected balance
of all emission-credit transactions in
that model year is greater than or equal
to zero or that a negative balance is
allowed under § 1037.745.
(c) If you certify a vehicle family to an
FEL that exceeds the otherwise
applicable standard, you must obtain

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57426

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

enough emission credits to offset the
vehicle family’s deficit by 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
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.
(d) Banked credits retain the
designation of the averaging set in
which they were generated.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.720

Trading.

(a) Trading is the exchange of
emission credits between
manufacturers, or the transfer of credits
to another party to retire them. You may
use traded emission credits for
averaging, banking, or further trading
transactions. Traded emission credits
remain subject to the averaging-set
restrictions based on the averaging set in
which they were generated.
(b) You may trade actual emission
credits as described in this subpart. You
may also trade reserved emission
credits, but we may revoke these
emission credits based on our review of
your records or reports or those of the
company with which you traded
emission credits. You may trade banked
credits within an averaging set to any
certifying manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit
balance results from a transaction, both
the buyer and seller are liable, except in
cases we deem to involve fraud. See
§ 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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 1037.725 What must I include in my
application for certification?

(a) You must declare in your
application for certification your intent
to use the provisions of this subpart for
each vehicle family that will be certified
using the ABT program. You must also
declare the FELs you select for the
vehicle family or subfamily for each
pollutant for which you are using the
ABT program. Your FELs must comply
with the specifications of subpart B of
this part, including the FEL caps. FELs
must be expressed to the same number
of decimal places as the applicable
standards.
(b) Include the following in your
application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of
your belief, you will not have a negative
balance of emission credits for any
averaging set when all emission credits
are calculated at the end of the year; or
a statement that you will have a
negative balance of emission credits for
one or more averaging sets but that it is
allowed under § 1037.745.
(2) Calculations of projected emission
credits (positive or negative) based on
projected U.S.-directed production
volumes. We may require you to include
similar calculations from your other
vehicle families to project your net
credit balances for the model year. If
you project negative emission credits for
a family or subfamily, state the source
of positive emission credits you expect
to use to offset the negative emission
credits.
§ 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.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following information
for each vehicle family participating in
the ABT program:
(1) Vehicle-family and subfamily
designations.
(2) The regulatory subcategory and
emission standards that would
otherwise apply to the vehicle family.
(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you
change the FEL after the start of
production, identify the date that you
started using the new FEL and/or give
the vehicle identification number for the
first vehicle covered by the new FEL. In
this case, identify each applicable FEL
and calculate the positive or negative
emission credits as specified in
§ 1037.225.
(4) The projected and actual U.S.directed production volumes for the

PO 00000

Frm 00322

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

model year. If you changed an FEL
during the model year, identify the
actual production volume associated
with each FEL.
(5) Useful life.
(6) Calculated positive or negative
emission credits for the whole vehicle
family. Identify any emission credits
that you traded, as described in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(7) If you have a negative credit
balance for the averaging set in the
given model year, specify whether the
vehicle family (or certain subfamilies
with the vehicle family) have a credit
deficit for the year. Consider for
example, a manufacturer with three
vehicle families (‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’) in
a given averaging set. If family A
generates enough credits to offset the
negative credits of family B but not
enough to also offset the negative credits
of family C (and the manufacturer has
no banked credits in the averaging set),
the manufacturer may designate families
A and B as having no deficit for the
model year, provided it designates
family C as having a deficit for the
model year.
(c) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following additional
information:
(1) Show that your net balance of
emission credits from all your
participating vehicle families in each
averaging set in the applicable model
year is not negative, except as allowed
under § 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,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 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
credits.

Restrictions for using emission

The following restrictions apply for
using emission credits:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(a) Averaging sets. Except as specified
in paragraph (b) of this section,
emission credits may be exchanged only
within an averaging set. There are three
principal averaging sets for vehicles
subject to this subpart.
(1) Vehicles at or below 19,500
pounds GVWR that are subject to the
standards of § 1037.105.
(2) Vehicles above 19,500 pounds
GVWR but at or below 33,000 pounds
GVWR.
(3) Vehicles over 33,000 pounds
GVWR.
(4) Note that other separate averaging
sets also apply for emission credits not
related to this subpart. For example,
under § 1037.104, an additional
averaging set comprises all vehicles
subject to the standards of that section.
Separate averaging sets also apply for
engines under 40 CFR part 1036,
including engines used in vehicles
subject to this subpart.
(b) Credits from hybrid vehicles and
other advanced technologies. The
averaging set restrictions of paragraph
(a) of this section do not apply for
credits generated under
§ 1037.104(d)(7), § 1037.615 or 40 CFR
1036.615 from hybrid vehicles with
regenerative braking, or from other
advanced technologies.
(1) The maximum amount of credits
you may bring into the following service
class groups is 60,000 Mg per model
year:
(i) Spark-ignition engines, light heavyduty compression-ignition engines, and
light heavy-duty vehicles. This group
comprises the averaging set listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) of this section and the
averaging set listed in 40 CFR
1036.740(a)(1) and (2).
(ii) Medium heavy-duty compressionignition engines and medium heavyduty vehicles. This group comprises the
averaging sets listed in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section and 40 CFR
1036.740(a)(3).
(iii) Heavy heavy-duty compressionignition engines and heavy heavy-duty
vehicles. This group comprises the
averaging sets listed in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section and 40 CFR
1036.740(a)(4).
(2) The limit specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section does not limit the
amount of advanced technology credits
that can be used within a service class
group if they were generated in that
same service class group.
(c) Credit life. Credits expire after five
years.
(d) Other restrictions. Other sections
of this part specify additional
restrictions for using emission credits
under certain special provisions.

PO 00000

Frm 00323

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 1037.745

57427

End-of-year CO2 credit deficits.

Except as allowed by this section, we
may void the certificate of any vehicle
family certified to an FEL above the
applicable standard for which you do
not have sufficient credits by the
deadline for submitting the final report.
(a) Your certificate for a vehicle
family for which you do not have
sufficient CO2 credits will not be void
if you remedy the deficit with surplus
credits within three model years. For
example, if you have a credit deficit of
500 Mg for a vehicle family at the end
of model year 2015, you must generate
(or otherwise obtain) a surplus of at
least 500 Mg in that same averaging set
by the end of model year 2018.
(b) You may apply only surplus
credits to your deficit. You may not
apply credits to a deficit from an earlier
model year if they were generated in a
model year for which any of your
vehicle families for that averaging set
had an end-of-year credit deficit.
(c) If you do not remedy the deficit
with surplus credits within three model
years, we may void your certificate for
that vehicle family. Note that voiding a
certificate applies ab initio. Where the
net deficit is less than the total amount
of negative credits originally generated
by the family, we will void the
certificate only with respect to the
number of vehicles needed to reach the
amount of the net deficit. For example,
if the original vehicle family generated
500 Mg of negative credits, and the
manufacturer’s net deficit after three
years was 250 Mg, we would void the
certificate with respect to half of the
vehicles in the family.
§ 1037.750 What can happen if I do not
comply with the provisions of this subpart?

(a) For each vehicle family
participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditioned
upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and
after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our
satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void
the certificate of conformity for a
vehicle family if you fail to comply with
any provisions of this subpart.
(b) You may certify your vehicle
family or subfamily to an FEL above an
applicable standard based on a
projection that you will have enough
emission credits to offset the deficit for
the vehicle family. See § 1037.745 for
provisions specifying what happens if
you cannot show in your final report
that you have enough actual emission
credits to offset a deficit for any
pollutant in a vehicle family.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57428

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(c) We may void the certificate of
conformity for a vehicle family if you
fail to keep records, send reports, or give
us information we request. Note that
failing to keep records, send reports, or
give us information we request is also a
violation of 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2).
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we
void your certificate under this section
(see § 1037.820).
§ 1037.755 Information provided to the
Department of Transportation.

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 each manufacturer’s equivalent fuel
consumption data required by NHTSA
under 49 CFR 535.8. We will send a
report to DOT for each vehicle
manufacturer based on each regulatory
category and subcategory, including
sufficient information for NHTSA to
determine fuel consumption and
associated credit values. See 49 CFR
535.8 to determine if NHTSA deems
submission of this information to EPA
to also be a submission to NHTSA.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other
Reference Information

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1037.801

Definitions.

The following definitions apply to
this part. The definitions apply to all
subparts unless we note otherwise. All
undefined terms have the meaning the
Act gives to them. The definitions
follow:
A to B testing means testing
performed in pairs to allow comparison
of vehicle A to vehicle B.
Act means the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Adjustable parameter means any
device, system, or element of design that
someone can adjust (including those
which are difficult to access) and that,
if adjusted, may affect measured or
modeled emissions (as applicable). You
may ask us to exclude a parameter that
is difficult to access if it cannot be
adjusted to affect emissions without
significantly degrading vehicle
performance, or if you otherwise show
us that it will not be adjusted in a way
that affects emissions during in-use
operation.
Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight
means the numerical average of vehicle
curb weight and GVWR.
Advanced technology means vehicle
technology certified under § 1037.615,
§ 1037.104(d)(7), or 40 CFR 1036.615.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00324

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(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.
Curb weight has the meaning given in
40 CFR 86.1803, consistent with the
provisions of § 1037.140.
Date of manufacture means the date
on which the certifying vehicle
manufacturer completes its
manufacturing operations, except as
follows:
(1) Where the certificate holder is an
engine manufacturer that does not
manufacture the chassis, the date of
manufacture of the vehicle is based on
the date assembly of the vehicle is
completed.
(2) We may approve an alternate date
of manufacture based on the date on
which the certifying (or primary)
manufacturer completes assembly at the
place of main assembly, consistent with
the provisions of § 1037.601 and 49 CFR
567.4.
Day cab means a type of tractor cab
that is not a sleeper cab.
Designated Compliance Officer means
the Manager, Heavy-Duty and Nonroad
Engine Group (6405–J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
Designated Enforcement Officer
means the Director, Air Enforcement
Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Deteriorated emission level means the
emission level that results from
applying the appropriate deterioration
factor to the official emission result of
the emission-data vehicle. Note that
where no deterioration factor applies,
references in this part to the
deteriorated emission level mean the
official emission result.
Deterioration factor means the
relationship between emissions at the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Driver model means an automated
controller that simulates a person
driving a vehicle.
Electric vehicle means a vehicle that
does not include an engine, and is
powered solely by an external source of
electricity and/or solar power. Note that
this does not include electric hybrid or
fuel-cell vehicles that use a chemical
fuel such as gasoline, diesel fuel, or
hydrogen. Electric vehicles may also be
referred to as all-electric vehicles to
distinguish them from hybrid vehicles.
Emission control system means any
device, system, or element of design that
controls or reduces the emissions of
regulated pollutants from a vehicle.
Emission-data vehicle means a
vehicle that is tested for certification.
This includes vehicle tested to establish
deterioration factors.
Emission-related maintenance means
maintenance that substantially affects
emissions or is likely to substantially
affect emission deterioration.
Excluded means relating to vehicles
that are not subject to some or all of the
requirements of this part as follows:
(1) A vehicle that has been
determined not to be a motor vehicle is
excluded from this part.
(2) Certain vehicles are excluded from
the requirements of this part under
§ 1037.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of
this part may exclude a vehicle
generally subject to this part from one
or more specific standards or
requirements of this part.
Exempted has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1068.30.
Family emission limit (FEL) means an
emission level declared by the
manufacturer to serve in place of an
otherwise applicable emission standard
under the ABT program in subpart H of
this part. The family emission limit
must be expressed to the same number
of decimal places as the emission
standard it replaces. Note that an FEL
may apply as a ‘‘subfamily’’ emission
limit.
Fuel system means all components
involved in transporting, metering, and
mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the
combustion chamber(s), including the
fuel tank, fuel pump, fuel filters, fuel
lines, carburetor or fuel-injection

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

components, and all fuel-system vents.
It also includes components for
controlling evaporative emissions, such
as fuel caps, purge valves, and carbon
canisters.
Fuel type means a general category of
fuels such as diesel fuel or natural gas.
There can be multiple grades within a
single fuel type, such as high-sulfur or
low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Good engineering judgment has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. See
40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative
process we use to evaluate good
engineering judgment.
Gross combination weight rating
(GCWR) means the value specified by
the vehicle manufacturer as the
maximum weight of a loaded vehicle
and trailer, consistent with good
engineering judgment. For example,
compliance with SAE J2807 is generally
considered to be consistent with good
engineering judgment, especially for
Class 3 and smaller vehicles.
Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
means the value specified by the vehicle
manufacturer as the maximum design
loaded weight of a single vehicle,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
Heavy-duty engine means any engine
used for (or for which the engine
manufacturer could reasonably expect
to be used for) motive power in a 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
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00325

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57429

Hydrocarbon (HC) means the
hydrocarbon group on which the
emission standards are based for each
fuel type. For alcohol-fueled vehicles,
HC means nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent (NMHCE) for exhaust
emissions and total hydrocarbon
equivalent (THCE) for evaporative
emissions. For all other vehicles, HC
means nonmethane hydrocarbon
(NMHC) for exhaust emissions and total
hydrocarbon (THC) for evaporative
emissions.
Identification number means a unique
specification (for example, a model
number/serial number combination)
that allows someone to distinguish a
particular vehicle from other similar
vehicles.
Incomplete vehicle has the meaning
given in the definition of vehicle in this
section.
Innovative technology means
technology certified under § 1037.610.
Light-duty truck means any motor
vehicle rated at or below 8,500 pounds
GVWR with a curb weight at or below
6,000 pounds and basic vehicle frontal
area at or below 45 square feet, which
is:
(1) Designed primarily for purposes of
transportation of property or is a
derivation of such a vehicle; or
(2) Designed primarily for
transportation of persons and has a
capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(3) Available with special features
enabling off-street or off-highway
operation and use.
Light-duty vehicle means a passenger
car or passenger car derivative capable
of seating 12 or fewer passengers.
Low-mileage means relating to a
vehicle with stabilized emissions and
represents the undeteriorated emission
level. This would generally involve
approximately 4000 miles of operation.
Low rolling resistance tire means a tire
on a vocational vehicle with a TRRL at
or below of 7.7 kg/metric ton, a steer tire
on a tractor with a TRRL at or below 7.7
kg/metric ton, or a drive tire on a tractor
with a TRRL at or below 8.1 kg/metric
ton.
Manufacture means the physical and
engineering process of designing,
constructing, and/or assembling a
vehicle.
Manufacturer has the meaning given
in section 216(1) of the Act. In general,
this term includes any person who
manufactures a vehicle or vehicle for
sale in the United States or otherwise
introduces a new motor vehicle into
commerce in the United States. This
includes importers who import vehicles
or vehicles for resale.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57430

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Medium-duty passenger vehicle
(MDPV) has the meaning given in 40
CFR 86.1803.
Model year means the manufacturer’s
annual new model production period,
except as restricted under this definition
and 40 CFR part 85, subpart X. It must
include January 1 of the calendar year
for which the model year is named, may
not begin before January 2 of the
previous calendar year, and it must end
by December 31 of the named calendar
year.
(1) The manufacturer who holds the
certificate of conformity for the vehicle
must assign the model year based on the
date when its manufacturing operations
are completed relative to its annual
model year period. In unusual
circumstances where completion of
your assembly is delayed, we may allow
you to assign a model year one year
earlier, provided it does not affect
which regulatory requirements will
apply.
(2) Unless a vehicle is being shipped
to a secondary manufacturer that will
hold the certificate of conformity, the
model year must be assigned prior to
introduction of the vehicle into U.S.
commerce. The certifying manufacturer
must redesignate the model year if it
does not complete its manufacturing
operations within the originally
identified model year. A vehicle
introduced into U.S. commerce without
a model year is deemed to have a model
year equal to the calendar year of its
introduction into U.S. commerce unless
the certifying manufacturer assigns a
later date.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 85.1703.
New motor vehicle means a motor
vehicle meeting the criteria of either
paragraph (1) or (2) of this definition.
New motor vehicles may be complete or
incomplete.
(1) A motor vehicle for which the
ultimate purchaser has never received
the equitable or legal title is a new motor
vehicle. This kind of vehicle might
commonly be thought of as ‘‘brand
new’’ although a new motor vehicle may
include previously used parts. Under
this definition, the vehicle is new from
the time it is produced until the
ultimate purchaser receives the title or
places it into service, whichever comes
first.
(2) An imported heavy-duty motor
vehicle originally produced after the
1969 model year is a new motor vehicle.
Noncompliant vehicle means a
vehicle that was originally covered by a
certificate of conformity, but is not in
the certified configuration or otherwise
does not comply with the conditions of
the certificate.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
Owners manual means a document or
collection of documents prepared by the
vehicle manufacturer for the owners or
operators to describe appropriate
vehicle maintenance, applicable
warranties, and any other information
related to operating or keeping the
vehicle. The owners manual is typically
provided to the ultimate purchaser at
the time of sale.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Particulate trap means a filtering
device that is designed to physically
trap all particulate matter above a
certain size.
Percent has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1065.1001. Note that this means
percentages identified in this part are
assumed to be infinitely precise without
regard to the number of significant
figures. For example, one percent of
1,493 is 14.93.
Placed into service means put into
initial use for its intended purpose.
Power take-off (PTO) means a
secondary engine shaft (or equivalent)
that provides substantial auxiliary
power for purposes unrelated to vehicle
propulsion or normal vehicle
accessories such as air conditioning,
power steering, and basic electrical
accessories. A typical PTO uses a
secondary shaft on the engine to
transmit power to a hydraulic pump
that powers auxiliary equipment, such
as a boom on a bucket truck. You may
ask us to consider other equivalent
auxiliary power configurations (such as
those with hybrid vehicles) as power
take-off systems.
Rechargeable Energy Storage System
(RESS) means the component(s) of a
hybrid engine or vehicle that store
recovered energy for later use, such as
the battery system in an electric hybrid
vehicle.
Regulatory sub-category means one of
following groups:
(1) Spark-ignition vehicles subject to
the standards of § 1037.104. Note that
this category includes most gasolinefueled heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans.

PO 00000

Frm 00326

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(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-roof tractors at or above
26,000 pounds GVWR but below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(7) Mid-roof tractors at or above
26,000 pounds GVWR but below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(8) High-roof tractors at or above
26,000 pounds GVWR but below 33,000
pounds GVWR.
(9) Low-roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(10) Low-roof sleeper cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(11) Mid-roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(12) Mid-roof sleeper cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(13) High-roof day cab tractors at or
above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(14) High-roof sleeper cab tractors at
or above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
Relating to as used in this section
means relating to something in a
specific, direct manner. This expression
is used in this section only to define
terms as adjectives and not to broaden
the meaning of the terms.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30.
Roof height means the maximum
height of a vehicle (rounded to the
nearest inch), excluding narrow
accessories such as exhaust pipes and
antennas, but including any wide
accessories such as roof fairings.
Measure roof height of the vehicle
configured to have its maximum height
that will occur during actual use, with
properly inflated tires and no driver,
passengers, or cargo onboard. Roof
height may also refer to the following
categories:
(1) Low-roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 120 inches
or less.
(2) Mid-roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 121 to 147
inches.
(3) High-roof means relating to a
vehicle with a roof height of 148 inches
or more.
Round has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1065.1001.
Scheduled maintenance means
adjusting, repairing, removing,
disassembling, cleaning, or replacing
components or systems periodically to
keep a part or system from failing,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
malfunctioning, or wearing prematurely.
It also may mean actions you expect are
necessary to correct an overt indication
of failure or malfunction for which
periodic maintenance is not
appropriate.
Sleeper cab means a type of tractor
cab that has a compartment behind the
driver’s seat intended to be used by the
driver for sleeping. This includes cabs
accessible from the driver’s
compartment and those accessible from
outside the vehicle.
Small manufacturer means a
manufacturer meeting the criteria
specified in 13 CFR 121.201. For
manufacturers owned by a parent
company, the employee and revenue
limits apply to the total number
employees and total revenue of the
parent company and all its subsidiaries.
Spark-ignition means relating to a
gasoline-fueled engine or any other type
of engine with a spark plug (or other
sparking device) and with operating
characteristics significantly similar to
the theoretical Otto combustion cycle.
Spark-ignition engines usually use a
throttle to regulate intake air flow to
control power during normal operation.
Standard payload means the vehicle
payload assumed for each class in tons
for modeling and calculating emission
credits. There are three standard
payloads:
(1) 2.85 tons for light heavy-duty
vehicles.
(2) 5.6 tons for medium heavy-duty
vehicles.
(3) 7.5 tons for heavy heavy-duty
vehicles.
Standard trailer has the meaning
given in § 1037.501.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30.
Test sample means the collection of
vehicles selected from the population of
a vehicle family for emission testing.
This may include testing for
certification, production-line testing, or
in-use testing.
Test vehicle means a vehicle in a test
sample.
Test weight means the vehicle weight
used or represented during testing.
Tire rolling resistance level (TRRL)
means a value with units of kg/metric
ton that represents that rolling
resistance of a tire configuration. TRRLs
are used as inputs to the GEM model
under § 1037.520. Note that a
manufacturer may assign a value higher
than the measured rolling resistance of
a tire configuration.
Total hydrocarbon has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This
generally means the combined mass of
organic compounds measured by the
specified procedure for measuring total

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 has the meaning given for
‘‘truck tractor’’ in 49 CFR 571.3. This
includes most heavy-duty vehicles
specifically designed for the primary
purpose of pulling trailers, but does not
include vehicles designed to carry other
loads. For purposes of this definition
‘‘other loads’’ would not include loads
carried in the cab, sleeper compartment,
or toolboxes. Examples of vehicles that
are similar to tractors but that are not
tractors under this part include
dromedary tractors, automobile haulers,
straight trucks with trailers hitches, and
tow trucks. Note that the provisions of
this part that apply for tractors do not
apply for tractors that are classified as
vocational tractors under § 1037.630.
Ultimate purchaser means, with
respect to any new vehicle, the first
person who in good faith purchases
such new vehicle for purposes other
than resale.
United States has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Upcoming model year means for a
vehicle family the model year after the
one currently in production.
U.S.-directed production volume
means the number of vehicle units,
subject to the requirements of this part,
produced by a manufacturer for which
the manufacturer has a reasonable
assurance that sale was or will be made
to ultimate purchasers in the United
States. This does not include vehicles
certified to state emission standards that
are different than the emission
standards in this part.
Useful life means the period during
which a vehicle is required to comply
with all applicable emission standards.
Vehicle means equipment intended
for use on highways that meets the
criteria of paragraph (1)(i) or (1)(ii) of
this definition, as follows:
(1) The following equipment are
vehicles:
(i) A piece of equipment that is
intended for self-propelled use on
highways becomes a vehicle when it
includes at least an engine, a
transmission, and a frame. (Note: For
purposes of this definition, any

PO 00000

Frm 00327

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57431

electrical, mechanical, and/or hydraulic
devices attached to engines for the
purpose of powering wheels are
considered to be transmissions.)
(ii) A piece of equipment that is
intended for self-propelled use on
highways becomes a vehicle when it
includes a passenger compartment
attached to a frame with axles.
(2) Vehicles may be complete or
incomplete vehicles as follows:
(i) A complete vehicle is a functioning
vehicle that has the primary load
carrying device or container (or
equivalent equipment) attached.
Examples of equivalent equipment
would include fifth wheel trailer
hitches, firefighting equipment, and
utility booms.
(ii) An incomplete vehicle is a vehicle
that is not a complete vehicle.
Incomplete vehicles may also be cabcomplete vehicles. This may include
vehicles sold to secondary vehicle
manufacturers.
(iii) The primary use of the terms
‘‘complete vehicle’’ and ‘‘incomplete
vehicle’’ are to distinguish whether a
vehicle is complete when it is first sold
as a vehicle.
(iv) You may ask us to allow you to
certify a vehicle as incomplete if you
manufacture the engines and sell the
unassembled chassis components, as
long as you do not produce and sell the
body components necessary to complete
the vehicle.
(3) Equipment such as trailers that are
not self-propelled are not ‘‘vehicles’’
under this part 1037.
Vehicle configuration means a unique
combination of vehicle hardware and
calibration (related to measured or
modeled emissions) within a vehicle
family. Vehicles with hardware or
software differences, but that have no
hardware or software differences related
to measured or modeled emissions may
be included in the same vehicle
configuration. Note that vehicles with
hardware or software differences related
to measured or modeled emissions are
considered to be different configurations
even if they have the same GEM inputs
and FEL. Vehicles within a vehicle
configuration differ only with respect to
normal production variability or factors
unrelated to measured or modeled
emissions.
Vehicle family has the meaning given
in § 1037.230.
Vehicle service class means a
vehicle’s weight class as specified in
this definition. Note that, while vehicle
service class is similar to primary
intended service class for engines, they
are not necessarily the same. For
example, a medium heavy-duty vehicle
may include a light heavy-duty engine.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57432

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Note also that while spark-ignition
engines do not have a primary intended
service class, vehicles using sparkignition engines have a vehicle service
class.
(1) Light heavy-duty vehicles are
those vehicles with GVWR below 19,500
pounds.
Vehicles In this class include heavyduty pickup trucks and vans, motor
homes and other recreational vehicles,
and some straight trucks with a single
rear axle. Typical applications would
include personal transportation, lightload commercial delivery, passenger
service, agriculture, and construction.
(2) Medium heavy-duty vehicles are
those vehicles with GVWR from 19,500
to 33,000 pounds. Vehicles in this class
include school buses, straight trucks
with a single rear axle, city tractors, and
a variety of special purpose vehicles
such as small dump trucks, and refuse
trucks. Typical applications would
include commercial short haul and
intra-city delivery and pickup.
(3) Heavy heavy-duty vehicles are
those vehicles with GVWR above 33,000
pounds. Vehicles in this class include
tractors, urban buses, and other heavy
trucks.
Vehicle subfamily or subfamily means
a subset of a vehicle family including
vehicles subject to the same FEL(s).
Vocational tractor means a vehicle
classified as a vocational tractor under
§ 1037.630.
Vocational vehicle means relating to a
vehicle subject to the standards of
§ 1037.105 (including vocational
tractors).
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30.
Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel
other than diesel or biodiesel that is a
liquid at atmospheric pressure and has
a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 2.0
pounds per square inch.
We (us, our) means the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
and any authorized representatives.
§ 1037.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

The following symbols, acronyms,
and abbreviations apply to this part:
ABT Averaging, banking, and trading.
AECD auxiliary emission control device.
CD drag coefficient.
CDA drag area.
CFD computational fluid dynamics.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations.
CH4 methane.
CO carbon monoxide.
CO2 carbon dioxide.
CREE carbon-related exhaust emissions.
DOT Department of Transportation.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency.
ETW equivalent test weight.
FEL Family Emission Limit.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

g grams.
GAWR gross axle weight rating.
GCWR gross combination weight rating.
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating.
GWP global-warming potential.
HC hydrocarbon.
ISO International Organization for
Standardization.
kg kilograms.
m meter.
mm millimeter
mph miles per hour.
N2O nitrous oxide.
NARA National Archives and Records
Administration.
NHTSA National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration.
NOX oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2).
PM particulate matter.
PTO power take-off.
RESS rechargeable energy storage system.
RPM revolutions per minute.
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers.
SKU Stock-keeping unit.
TRRL Tire rolling resistance level.
U.S.C. United States Code.
VSL vehicle speed limiter.
WF work factor.
§ 1037.810

Incorporation by reference.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
the Environmental Protection Agency
must publish a notice of the change in
the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Room B102, EPA West Building,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202–1744,
and is available from the sources listed
below. It is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
(b) International Organization for
Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH–
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, (41)
22749 0111, http://www.iso.org, or
central@iso.org.
(1) ISO 28580:2009(E) ‘‘Passenger car,
truck and bus tyres—Methods of
measuring rolling resistance—Single
point test and correlation of
measurement results’’, First Edition,
July 1, 2009; IBR approved for
§ 1037.520(c).
(2) [Reserved]
(c) U.S. EPA, Office of Air and
Radiation, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105, http://www.epa.gov:

PO 00000

Frm 00328

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(1) GEM simulation tool, Version 2.0,
August 2011; IBR approved for
§ 1037.520. The computer code for this
model is available as noted in paragraph
(a) of this section. A working version of
this software is also available for
download at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
climate/gem.htm.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Society of Automotive Engineers,
400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale,
PA 15096–0001, (877) 606–7323 (U.S.
and Canada) or (724) 776–4970 (outside
the U.S. and Canada), http://
www.sae.org.
(1) SAE J1252, SAE Wind Tunnel Test
Procedure for Trucks and Buses,
Revised July 1981, IBR approved for
§ 1037.521(d), (e), and (f).
(2) SAE J1594, Vehicle Aerodynamics
Terminology, Revised July 2010, IBR
approved for § 1037.521(d).
(3) SAE J2071, Aerodynamic Testing
of Road Vehicles—Open Throat Wind
Tunnel Adjustment, Revised June 1994,
IBR approved for § 1037.521(d).
§ 1037.815

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
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.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57433

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(b) The regulations in § 1037.255 and
40 CFR 1068.25 and 1068.101 describe
your obligation to report truthful and
complete information. This includes
information not related to certification.
Failing to properly report information
and keep the records we specify violates
40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may
involve civil or criminal penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for
approval to the Designated Compliance
Officer (see § 1037.801).
(d) Any written information we
require you to send to or receive from
another company is deemed to be a
required record under this section. Such
records are also deemed to be
submissions to EPA. Keep these records
for eight years unless the regulations
specify a different period. We may
require you to send us these records
whether or not you are a certificate
holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq), the Office
of Management and Budget approves
the reporting and recordkeeping
specified in the applicable regulations.
The following items illustrate the kind
of reporting and recordkeeping we
require for vehicles regulated under this
part:
(1) We specify the following
requirements related to vehicle
certification in this part 1037:
(i) In subpart C of this part we identify
a wide range of information required to
certify vehicles.
(ii) In subpart G of this part we
identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making
demonstrations and getting approval
related to various special compliance
provisions.
(iii) In § 1037.725, 1037.730, and
1037.735 we specify certain records
related to averaging, banking, and
trading.
(2) We specify the following
requirements related to testing in 40
CFR part 1066:
(i) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an
overview of principles for reporting
information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we
specify information needs for
establishing various changes to
published test procedures.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish
basic guidelines for storing test
information.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify
data that may be appropriate for
collecting during testing of in-use
vehicles using portable analyzers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE
Time
sec.

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.41
1.18
2.26
3.19
3.97
4.66
5.32
5.94
6.48
6.91
7.28
7.64
8.02
8.36
8.60
8.74
8.82
8.82
8.76
8.66
8.58
8.52
8.46
8.38
8.31
8.21
8.11
8.00
7.94
7.94
7.80
7.43
6.79
5.81
4.65
3.03
1.88
1.15
1.14
1.12
1.11
1.19
1.57
2.31
3.37
4.51
5.56
6.41
7.09
7.59
7.99
8.32
8.64
8.91
9.13
9.29
9.40
9.39
9.20
8.84
8.35
7.81
7.22

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.53
1.01
1.43
1.77
2.08
2.38
2.66
2.90
3.09
3.25
3.42
3.59
3.74
3.84
3.91
3.94
3.94
3.92
3.87
3.84
3.81
3.78
3.75
3.71
3.67
3.63
3.58
3.55
3.55
3.49
3.32
3.04
2.60
2.08
1.35
0.84
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.53
0.70
1.03
1.51
2.02
2.49
2.87
3.17
3.39
3.57
3.72
3.86
3.98
4.08
4.15
4.20
4.20
4.11
3.95
3.73
3.49
3.23

1 ...........................................
2 ...........................................
3 ...........................................
4 ...........................................
5 ...........................................
6 ...........................................
7 ...........................................
8 ...........................................
9 ...........................................
10 .........................................
11 .........................................
12 .........................................
13 .........................................
14 .........................................
15 .........................................
16 .........................................
17 .........................................
18 .........................................
19 .........................................
20 .........................................
21 .........................................
22 .........................................
23 .........................................
24 .........................................
25 .........................................
26 .........................................
27 .........................................
28 .........................................
29 .........................................
30 .........................................
31 .........................................
32 .........................................
33 .........................................
34 .........................................
35 .........................................
36 .........................................
37 .........................................
38 .........................................
39 .........................................
40 .........................................
41 .........................................
42 .........................................
43 .........................................
44 .........................................
45 .........................................
46 .........................................
47 .........................................
48 .........................................
49 .........................................
50 .........................................
51 .........................................
52 .........................................
53 .........................................
54 .........................................
55 .........................................
56 .........................................
57 .........................................
58 .........................................
59 .........................................
60 .........................................
61 .........................................
62 .........................................
63 .........................................
64 .........................................
65 .........................................
66 .........................................
67 .........................................
68 .........................................
69 .........................................

PO 00000

Frm 00329

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued
Time
sec.
70 .........................................
71 .........................................
72 .........................................
73 .........................................
74 .........................................
75 .........................................
76 .........................................
77 .........................................
78 .........................................
79 .........................................
80 .........................................
81 .........................................
82 .........................................
83 .........................................
84 .........................................
85 .........................................
86 .........................................
87 .........................................
88 .........................................
89 .........................................
90 .........................................
91 .........................................
92 .........................................
93 .........................................
94 .........................................
95 .........................................
96 .........................................
97 .........................................
98 .........................................
99 .........................................
100 .......................................
101 .......................................
102 .......................................
103 .......................................
104 .......................................
105 .......................................
106 .......................................
107 .......................................
108 .......................................
109 .......................................
110 .......................................
111 .......................................
112 .......................................
113 .......................................
114 .......................................
115 .......................................
116 .......................................
117 .......................................
118 .......................................
119 .......................................
120 .......................................
121 .......................................
122 .......................................
123 .......................................
124 .......................................
125 .......................................
126 .......................................
127 .......................................
128 .......................................
129 .......................................
130 .......................................
131 .......................................
132 .......................................
133 .......................................
134 .......................................
135 .......................................
136 .......................................
137 .......................................
138 .......................................

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

6.65
6.13
5.75
5.61
5.65
5.80
5.95
6.09
6.21
6.31
6.34
6.47
6.65
6.88
7.04
7.05
7.01
6.90
6.88
6.89
6.96
7.04
7.17
7.29
7.39
7.48
7.57
7.61
7.59
7.53
7.46
7.40
7.39
7.38
7.37
7.37
7.39
7.42
7.43
7.40
7.39
7.42
7.50
7.57
7.60
7.60
7.61
7.64
7.68
7.74
7.82
7.90
7.96
7.99
8.02
8.01
7.87
7.59
7.20
6.52
5.53
4.36
3.30
2.50
1.94
1.56
0.95
0.42
0.00

2.97
2.74
2.57
2.51
2.53
2.59
2.66
2.72
2.78
2.82
2.83
2.89
2.97
3.08
3.15
3.15
3.13
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.11
3.15
3.21
3.26
3.30
3.34
3.38
3.40
3.39
3.37
3.33
3.31
3.30
3.30
3.29
3.29
3.30
3.32
3.32
3.31
3.30
3.32
3.35
3.38
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.42
3.43
3.46
3.50
3.53
3.56
3.57
3.59
3.58
3.52
3.39
3.22
2.91
2.47
1.95
1.48
1.12
0.87
0.70
0.42
0.19
0.00

57434

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Time
sec.
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.11
2.65
4.45
5.68
6.75
7.59
7.75
7.63
7.67
8.70
10.20
11.92
12.84
13.27
13.38
13.61
14.15
14.84
16.49
18.33
20.36
21.47
22.35
22.96
23.46
23.92
24.42
24.99
25.91
26.26
26.38
26.26
26.49
26.76
27.07
26.64

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.18
1.99
2.54
3.02
3.39
3.46
3.41
3.43
3.89
4.56
5.33
5.74
5.93
5.98
6.08
6.33
6.63
7.37
8.19
9.10
9.60
9.99
10.26
10.49
10.69
10.92
11.17
11.58
11.74
11.79
11.74
11.84
11.96
12.10
11.91

Jkt 223001

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued
Time
sec.
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276

PO 00000

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

Frm 00330

Fmt 4701

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

25.99
24.77
24.04
23.39
22.73
22.16
21.66
21.39
21.43
20.67
17.98
13.15
7.71
3.30
0.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.57
3.07
4.57
5.65
6.95
8.05
9.13
10.05
11.62
12.92
13.84
14.38
15.64
17.14
18.21
18.90
19.44

11.62
11.07
10.75
10.46
10.16
9.91
9.68
9.56
9.58
9.24
8.04
5.88
3.45
1.48
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.70
1.37
2.04
2.53
3.11
3.60
4.08
4.49
5.19
5.78
6.19
6.43
6.99
7.66
8.14
8.45
8.69

Sfmt 4700

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued
Time
sec.
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

20.09
21.89
24.15
26.26
26.95
27.03
27.30
28.10
29.44
30.78
32.09
33.24
34.46
35.42
35.88
36.03
35.84
35.65
35.31
35.19
35.12
35.12
35.04
35.08
35.04
35.34
35.50
35.77
35.81
35.92
36.23
36.42
36.65
36.26
36.07
35.84
35.96
36.00
35.57
35.00
34.08
33.39
32.20
30.32
28.48
26.95
26.18
25.38
24.77
23.46
22.39
20.97
20.09
18.90
18.17
16.48
15.07
12.23
10.08
7.71
7.32
8.63
10.77
12.65
13.88
15.03
15.64
16.99
17.98

8.98
9.79
10.80
11.74
12.05
12.08
12.20
12.56
13.16
13.76
14.35
14.86
15.40
15.83
16.04
16.11
16.02
15.94
15.78
15.73
15.70
15.70
15.66
15.68
15.66
15.80
15.87
15.99
16.01
16.06
16.20
16.28
16.38
16.21
16.12
16.02
16.08
16.09
15.90
15.65
15.24
14.93
14.39
13.55
12.73
12.05
11.70
11.35
11.07
10.49
10.01
9.37
8.98
8.45
8.12
7.37
6.74
5.47
4.51
3.45
3.27
3.86
4.81
5.66
6.20
6.72
6.99
7.60
8.04

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Time
sec.
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

19.13
18.67
18.25
18.17
18.40
19.63
20.32
21.43
21.47
21.97
22.27
22.69
23.15
23.69
23.96
24.27
24.34
24.50
24.42
24.38
24.31
24.23
24.69
25.11
25.53
25.38
24.58
23.77
23.54
23.50
24.15
24.30
24.15
23.19
22.50
21.93
21.85
21.55
21.89
21.97
21.97
22.01
21.85
21.62
21.62
22.01
22.81
23.54
24.38
24.80
24.61
23.12
21.62
19.90
18.86
17.79
17.25
16.91
16.75
16.75
16.87
16.37
16.37
16.49
17.21
17.41
17.37
16.87
16.72

8.55
8.35
8.16
8.12
8.23
8.78
9.08
9.58
9.60
9.82
9.96
10.14
10.35
10.59
10.71
10.85
10.88
10.95
10.92
10.90
10.87
10.83
11.04
11.23
11.41
11.35
10.99
10.63
10.52
10.51
10.80
10.86
10.80
10.37
10.06
9.80
9.77
9.63
9.79
9.82
9.82
9.84
9.77
9.67
9.67
9.84
10.20
10.52
10.90
11.09
11.00
10.34
9.67
8.90
8.43
7.95
7.71
7.56
7.49
7.49
7.54
7.32
7.32
7.37
7.69
7.78
7.77
7.54
7.47

Jkt 223001

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued
Time
sec.
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483

PO 00000

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

Frm 00331

Fmt 4701

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

16.22
15.76
14.72
13.69
12.00
10.43
8.71
7.44
5.71
4.22
2.30
1.00
0.00
0.61
1.19
1.61
1.53
2.34
4.29
7.25
10.20
12.46
14.53
16.22
17.87
19.74
21.01
22.23
22.62
23.61
24.88
26.15
26.99
27.56
28.18
28.94
29.83
30.78
31.82
32.78
33.24
33.47
33.31
33.08
32.78
32.39
32.13
31.82
31.55
31.25
30.94
30.71
30.56
30.79
31.13
31.55
31.51
31.47
31.44
31.51
31.59
31.67
32.01
32.63
33.39
34.31
34.81
34.20
32.39

7.25
7.05
6.58
6.12
5.36
4.66
3.89
3.33
2.55
1.89
1.03
0.45
0.00
0.27
0.53
0.72
0.68
1.05
1.92
3.24
4.56
5.57
6.50
7.25
7.99
8.82
9.39
9.94
10.11
10.55
11.12
11.69
12.07
12.32
12.60
12.94
13.34
13.76
14.22
14.65
14.86
14.96
14.89
14.79
14.65
14.48
14.36
14.22
14.10
13.97
13.83
13.73
13.66
13.76
13.92
14.10
14.09
14.07
14.05
14.09
14.12
14.16
14.31
14.59
14.93
15.34
15.56
15.29
14.48

Sfmt 4700

57435

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued
Time
sec.
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

30.29
28.56
26.45
24.79
23.12
20.73
18.33
15.72
13.11
10.47
7.82
5.70
3.57
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.50
3.00
4.50
5.80
6.52
6.75
6.44
6.17
6.33
6.71
7.40
7.67
7.33
6.71
6.41
6.60
6.56
5.94
5.45
5.87
6.71
7.56
7.59
7.63
7.67
7.67
7.48
7.29
7.29
7.40

13.54
12.77
11.82
11.08
10.34
9.27
8.19
7.03
5.86
4.68
3.50
2.55
1.60
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.67
1.34
2.01
2.59
2.91
3.02
2.88
2.76
2.83
3.00
3.31
3.43
3.28
3.00
2.87
2.95
2.93
2.66
2.44
2.62
3.00
3.38
3.39
3.41
3.43
3.43
3.34
3.26
3.26
3.31

57436

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued
Time
sec.
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

7.48
7.52
7.52
7.48
7.44
7.28
7.21
7.09
7.06
7.29
7.75
8.55
9.09
10.04
11.12
12.46
13.00
14.26
15.37
17.02
18.17
19.21
20.17
20.66
21.12
21.43
22.66
23.92
25.42
25.53
26.68
28.14
30.06
30.94
31.63
32.36
33.24
33.66
34.12

3.34
3.36
3.36
3.34
3.33
3.25
3.22
3.17
3.16
3.26
3.46
3.82
4.06
4.49
4.97
5.57
5.81
6.37
6.87
7.61
8.12
8.59
9.02
9.24
9.44
9.58
10.13
10.69
11.36
11.41
11.93
12.58
13.44
13.83
14.14
14.47
14.86
15.05
15.25

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued
Time
sec.
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

35.92
37.72
39.26
39.45
39.83
40.18
40.48
40.75
41.02
41.36
41.79
42.40
42.82
43.05
43.09
43.24
43.59
44.01
44.35
44.55
44.82
45.05
45.31
45.58
46.00
46.31
46.54
46.61
46.92
47.19
47.46
47.54
47.54
47.54
47.50
47.50
47.50
47.31
47.04

16.06
16.86
17.55
17.64
17.81
17.96
18.10
18.22
18.34
18.49
18.68
18.95
19.14
19.25
19.26
19.33
19.49
19.67
19.83
19.92
20.04
20.14
20.26
20.38
20.56
20.70
20.81
20.84
20.98
21.10
21.22
21.25
21.25
21.25
21.23
21.23
21.23
21.15
21.03

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST
CYCLE—Continued
Time
sec.
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668

.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................

Speed
mph

Speed
m/s

46.77
45.54
43.24
41.52
39.79
38.07
36.34
34.04
32.45
30.86
28.83
26.45
24.27
22.04
19.82
17.04
14.26
11.52
8.78
7.17
5.56
3.72
3.38
3.11
2.58
1.66
0.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

20.91
20.36
19.33
18.56
17.79
17.02
16.25
15.22
14.51
13.80
12.89
11.82
10.85
9.85
8.86
7.62
6.37
5.15
3.93
3.21
2.49
1.66
1.51
1.39
1.15
0.74
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

APPENDIX II TO PART 1037—POWER TAKE-OFF TEST CYCLE

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Cycle simulation

Mode

Utility ........................................................................................................................................
Utility ........................................................................................................................................
Utility ........................................................................................................................................
Utility ........................................................................................................................................
Utility ........................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................
Refuse ......................................................................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00332

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Start
time of
mode

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

0
33
40
145
289
361
363
373
384
388
401
403
413
424
442
468
473
486
512
517
530
532

15SER2

Normalized
pressure,
circuit 1
(%)
0.0
80.5
0.0
83.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.2
29.3
0.0
11.2
29.3
0.0
12.8
12.8

Normalized
pressure,
circuit 2
(%)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
38.0
53.0
73.0
0.0
13.0
38.0
53.0
73.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
38.2

57437

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX II TO PART 1037—POWER TAKE-OFF TEST CYCLE—Continued
Cycle simulation

Refuse
Refuse
Refuse
Refuse
Refuse
Refuse
Refuse
Refuse
Refuse

......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................

Appendix III to Part 1037—Emission
Control Identifiers
This appendix identifies abbreviations for
emission control information labels, as
required under § 1037.135.

35. The authority citation for part
1039 continues to read as follows:

■

Idle Reduction Technology
-IRT5—Engine shutoff after 5 minutes or less
of idling
-IRTE—Expiring engine shutoff
Tires
-LRRA—Low rolling resistance tires (all)
-LRRD—Low rolling resistance tires (drive)
-LRRS—Low rolling resistance tires (steer)
Aerodynamic Components
-ATS—Aerodynamic side skirt and/or fuel
tank fairing
-ARF—Aerodynamic roof fairing
-ARFR—Adjustable height aerodynamic roof
fairing
-TGR—Gap reducing fairing (tractor to trailer
gap)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Other Components
-ADVH—Vehicle includes advanced hybrid
technology components

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

-ADVO—Vehicle includes other advanced
technology components (i.e., non-hybrid
system)
-INV—Vehicle includes innovative
technology components

PART 1039—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW AND IN–USE NONROAD
COMPRESSION–IGNITION ENGINES

Vehicle Speed Limiters
-VSL—Vehicle speed limiter
-VSLS—‘‘Soft-top’’ vehicle speed limiter
-VSLE—Expiring vehicle speed limiter
-VSLD—Vehicle speed limiter with both
‘‘soft-top’’ and expiration

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

36. Section 1039.510 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
to read as follows:

■

§ 1039.510 Which duty cycles do I use for
transient testing?

*

*
*
*
*
(b) The transient test sequence
consists of an initial run through the
transient duty cycle from a cold start, 20
minutes with no engine operation, then
a final run through the same transient
duty cycle. Calculate the official
transient emission result from the
following equation:
*
*
*
*
*

Frm 00333

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Normalized
pressure,
circuit 1
(%)

541
550
553
566
568
577
586
589
600

Normalized
pressure,
circuit 2
(%)

12.8
12.8
0.0
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
0.0
0.0

53.4
73.5
0.0
11.1
38.2
53.4
73.5
0.0
0.0

PART 1065—ENGINE–TESTING
PROCEDURES
37. The authority citation for part
1065 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart A—[Amended]
38. Section 1065.1 is amended by
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

■

§ 1065.1

Applicability.

*

Subpart F—[Amended]

PO 00000

Start
time of
mode

Mode

*
*
*
*
(h) 40 CFR part 1066 describes how to
measure emissions from vehicles that
are subject to standards in g/mile or g/
kilometer. Those vehicle testing
provisions extensively reference
portions of this part 1065. See 40 CFR
part 1066 and the standard-setting part
for additional information.
■ 39. Section 1065.15 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1065.15 Overview of procedures for
laboratory and field testing.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) The following figure illustrates the
allowed measurement configurations
described in this part 1065:
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

*

*

*

VerDate Mar<15>2010

*

40. Section 1065.20 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(1), and (e) to read as follows:

■

*

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00334

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 1065.20 Units of measure and overview
of calculations.

(a) System of units. The procedures in
this part generally follow the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.019

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57438

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
International System of Units (SI), as
detailed in NIST Special Publication
811, which we incorporate by reference
in § 1065.1010. The following
exceptions apply:
(1) We designate angular speed, fn, of
an engine’s crankshaft in revolutions
per minute (r/min), rather than the SI
unit of radians per second (rad/s). This
is based on the commonplace use of r/
min in many engine dynamometer
laboratories.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Rounding. You are required to
round certain final values, such as final
emission values. You may round
intermediate values when transferring
data as long as you maintain at least six
significant digits (which requires more
than six decimal places for values less
than 0.1), or all significant digits if
fewer than six digits are available.
Unless the standard-setting part
specifies otherwise, do not round other
intermediate values. Round values to
the number of significant digits
necessary to match the number of
decimal places of the applicable
standard or specification as described in
this paragraph (e). Note that

specifications expressed as percentages
have infinite precision (as described in
paragraph (e)(7) of this section). Use the
following rounding convention, which
is consistent with ASTM E29 and NIST
SP 811:
(1) If the first (left-most) digit to be
removed is less than five, remove all the
appropriate digits without changing the
digits that remain. For example,
3.141593 rounded to the second decimal
place is 3.14.
(2) If the first digit to be removed is
greater than five, remove all the
appropriate digits and increase the
lowest-value remaining digit by one. For
example, 3.141593 rounded to the
fourth decimal place is 3.1416.
(3) If the first digit to be removed is
five with at least one additional nonzero digit following the five, remove all
the appropriate digits and increase the
lowest-value remaining digit by one. For
example, 3.141593 rounded to the third
decimal place is 3.142.
(4) If the first digit to be removed is
five with no additional non-zero digits
following the five, remove all the
appropriate digits, increase the lowestvalue remaining digit by one if it is odd

57439

and leave it unchanged if it is even. For
example, 1.75 and 1.750 rounded to the
first decimal place are 1.8; while 1.85
and 1.850 rounded to the first decimal
place are also 1.8. Note that this
rounding procedure will always result
in an even number for the lowest-value
digit.
(5) This paragraph (e)(5) applies if the
regulation specifies rounding to an
increment other than decimal places or
powers of ten (to the nearest 0.01, 0.1,
1, 10, 100, etc.). To round numbers for
these special cases, divide the quantity
by the specified rounding increment.
Round the result to the nearest whole
number as described in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (4) of this section.
Multiply the rounded number by the
specified rounding increment. This
value is the desired result. For example,
to round 0.90 to the nearest 0.2, divide
0.90 by 0.2 to get a result of 4.5, which
rounds to 4. Multiplying 4 by 0.2 gives
0.8, which is the result of rounding 0.90
to the nearest 0.2.
(6) The following tables further
illustrate the rounding procedures
specified in this paragraph (e):

Rounding increment
Quantity
10
3.141593 ..........................................................................................................
123,456.789 .....................................................................................................
5.500 ................................................................................................................
4.500 ................................................................................................................

1

0
123,460
10
0

0.1

3
123,457
6
4

0.01

3.1
123,456.8
5.5
4.5

3.14
123,456.79
5.50
4.50

Rounding increment
Quantity
25

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

229.267 ............................................................................................................
62.500 ..............................................................................................................
87.500 ..............................................................................................................
7.500 ................................................................................................................

(7) This paragraph (e)(7) applies
where we specify a limit or tolerance as
some percentage of another value (such
as ±2% of a maximum concentration).
You may show compliance with such
specifications either by applying the
percentage to the total value to calculate
an absolute limit, or by converting the
absolute value to a percentage by
dividing it by the total value.
(i) Do not round either value (the
absolute limit or the calculated
percentage), except as specified in
paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section. For
example, assume we specify that an
analyzer must have a repeatability of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

3
225
50
100
0

±1% of the maximum concentration or
better, the maximum concentration is
1059 ppm, and you determine
repeatability to be ±6.3 ppm. In this
example, you could calculate an
absolute limit of ±10.59 ppm (1059 ppm
× 0.01) or calculate that the 6.3 ppm
repeatability is equivalent to a
repeatability of 0.5949008498584%.
(ii) Prior to July 1, 2013, you may treat
tolerances (and equivalent
specifications) specified in percentages
as having fixed rather than infinite
precision. For example, 2% would be
equivalent to 1.51% to 2.50% and 2.0%
would be equivalent to 1.951% to

PO 00000

Frm 00335

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

0.5
228
63
87
6

0.02
229.5
62.5
87.5
7.5

229.26
62.50
87.50
7.50

2.050%. Note that this allowance
applies whether or not the percentage is
explicitly specified as a percentage of
another value.
(8) You may use measurement devices
that incorporate internal rounding,
consistent with the provisions of this
paragraph (e)(8). You may use devices
that use any rounding convention if
they report six or more significant
digits. You may use devices that report
fewer than six digits, consistent with
good engineering judgment and the
accuracy, repeatability, and noise
specifications of this part. Note that this
provision does not necessarily require

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57440

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

you to perform engineering analysis or
keep records.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—[Amended]
41. Section 1065.125 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory
text to read as follows:

■

§ 1065.125

Engine intake air.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) Use a charge-air cooling system
with a total intake-air capacity that
represents production engines’ in-use
installation. Design any laboratory
charge-air cooling system to minimize
accumulation of condensate. Drain any
accumulated condensate. Before starting
a duty cycle (or preconditioning for a
duty cycle), completely close all drains
that would normally be closed during
in-use operation. Keep those drains
closed during the emission test.
Maintain coolant conditions as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 42. Section 1065.140 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(6)(ii)(C) and (D)
to read as follows:
§ 1065.140 Dilution for gaseous and PM
constituents.

*

*
*
(c) * * *

*

*

(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Identify the maximum potential
mole fraction of dilute exhaust lost on
a continuous basis during the entire test
interval. This value must be less than or
equal to 0.02. Calculate on a continuous
basis the mole fraction of water that
would be in equilibrium with liquid
water at the measured minimum surface
temperature. Subtract this mole fraction
from the mole fraction of water that
would be in the exhaust without
condensation (either measured or from
the chemical balance), and set any
negative values to zero. This difference
is the potential mole fraction of the
dilute exhaust that would be lost due to
water condensation on a continuous
basis.
(D) Integrate the product of the molar
flow rate of the dilute exhaust and the
potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust
lost, and divide by the totalized dilute
exhaust molar flow over the test
interval. This is the potential mole
fraction of the dilute exhaust that would
be lost due to water condensation over
the entire test interval. Note that this
assumes no re-evaporation. This value
must be less than or equal to 0.005.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 43. Section 1065.170 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1)(vi) to read as
follows:

§ 1065.170 Batch sampling for gaseous
and PM constituents.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Maintain a filter face velocity near
100 cm/s with less than 5% of the
recorded flow values exceeding
100 cm/s, unless you expect the net PM
mass on the filter to exceed 400 μg,
assuming a 38 mm diameter filter stain
area. Measure face velocity as the
volumetric flow rate of the sample at the
pressure upstream of the filter and
temperature of the filter face as
measured in § 1065.140(e), divided by
the filter’s exposed area. You may use
the exhaust stack or CVS tunnel
pressure for the upstream pressure if the
pressure drop through the PM sampler
up to the filter is less than 2 kPa.
*
*
*
*
*
44. Section 1065.190 is amended by
revising Table 1 in paragraph (d)(3) to
read as follows:

■

§ 1065.190 PM-stabilization and weighing
environments for gravimetric analysis.

*

*
*
(d) * * *
(3) * * *

*

*

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.190—DEWPOINT TOLERANCE AS A FUNCTION OF % PM CHANGE AND % SULFURIC ACID PM
Expected sulfuric acid fraction of PM

±0.5% PM
mass change

±1% PM
mass change

±2% PM
mass change

5% .......................................................................................................................................................
50% .....................................................................................................................................................
100% ...................................................................................................................................................

±3 °C ...........
±0.3 °C ........
±0.15 °C ......

±6 °C ...........
±0.6 °C ........
±0.3 °C ........

±12 °C
±1.2 °C
±0.6 °C

*

*

*

*

§ 1065.205 Performance specifications for
measurement instruments.

*

Subpart C—[Amended]
45. Section 1065.205 is revised to read
as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

■

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Your test system as a whole must
meet all the applicable calibrations,
verifications, and test-validation criteria
specified in subparts D and F of this
part or subpart J of this part for using
PEMS and for performing field testing.
We recommend that your instruments

PO 00000

Frm 00336

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

meet the specifications in Table 1 of this
section for all ranges you use for testing.
We also recommend that you keep any
documentation you receive from
instrument manufacturers showing that
your instruments meet the
specifications in Table 1 of this section.
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

46. Section 1065.220 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text

■

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00337

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57441

and adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read
as follows:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.020

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57442

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

§ 1065.220

Fuel flow meter.

(a) Application. You may use fuel
flow in combination with a chemical
balance of fuel, inlet air, and raw
exhaust to calculate raw exhaust flow as
described in § 1065.655(e), as follows:
(1) * * *
(iii) For calculating the dilution air
flow for background correction as
described in § 1065.667.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 47. Section 1065.225 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and
(a)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
§ 1065.225

Intake-air flow meter.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) Application. You may use an
intake-air flow meter in combination
with a chemical balance of fuel, inlet
air, and raw exhaust to calculate raw
exhaust flow as described in
§ 1065.655(e) and (f), as follows:
(1) * * *
(iii) For validating minimum dilution
ratio for PM batch sampling as
described in § 1065.546.
(iv) For calculating the dilution air
flow for background correction as
described in § 1065.667.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 48. Section 1065.250 is revised to read
as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.250
analyzer.

Nondispersive infrared

(a) Application. Use a nondispersive
infrared (NDIR) analyzer to measure CO
and CO2 concentrations in raw or
diluted exhaust for either batch or
continuous sampling.
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use an NDIR
analyzer that meets the specifications in
Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that your
NDIR-based system must meet the
calibration and verifications in
§§ 1065.350 and 1065.355 and it must
also meet the linearity verification in
§ 1065.307. You may use an NDIR
analyzer that has compensation
algorithms that are functions of other
gaseous measurements and the engine’s
known or assumed fuel properties. The
target value for any compensation
algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias high
and no bias low), regardless of the
uncompensated signal’s bias.
■ 49. Section 1065.260 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.260

Flame-ionization detector.

(a) Application. Use a flameionization detector (FID) analyzer to
measure hydrocarbon concentrations in
raw or diluted exhaust for either batch
or continuous sampling. Determine

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

hydrocarbon concentrations on a carbon
number basis of one, C1. For measuring
THC or THCE you must use a FID
analyzer. For measuring CH4 you must
meet the requirements of paragraph (f)
of this section. See subpart I of this part
for special provisions that apply to
measuring hydrocarbons when testing
with oxygenated fuels.
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use a FID analyzer
that meets the specifications in Table 1
of § 1065.205. Note that your FID-based
system for measuring THC, THCE, or
CH4 must meet all the verifications for
hydrocarbon measurement in subpart D
of this part, and it must also meet the
linearity verification in § 1065.307. You
may use a FID analyzer that has
compensation algorithms that are
functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine’s known
or assumed fuel properties. The target
value for any compensation algorithm is
0% (that is, no bias high and no bias
low), regardless of the uncompensated
signal’s bias.
(c) Heated FID analyzers. For
measuring THC or THCE from
compression-ignition engines, twostroke spark-ignition engines, and fourstroke spark-ignition engines below 19
kW, you must use heated FID analyzers
that maintain all surfaces that are
exposed to emissions at a temperature of
(191 ±11) °C.
(d) FID fuel and burner air. Use FID
fuel and burner air that meet the
specifications of § 1065.750. Do not
allow the FID fuel and burner air to mix
before entering the FID analyzer to
ensure that the FID analyzer operates
with a diffusion flame and not a
premixed flame.
(e) NMHC. For demonstrating
compliance with NMHC standards, you
may either measure THC and CH4 and
determine NMHC as described in
§ 1065.660(b)(2) or (3), or you may
measure THC and determine NMHC as
described in § 1065.660(b)(1).
(f) CH4. For reporting CH4 or for
demonstrating compliance with CH4
standards, you may use a FID analyzer
with a nonmethane cutter as described
in § 1065.265 or you may use a GC–FID
as described in § 1065.267. Determine
CH4 as described in § 1065.660(c).
■ 50. Section 1065.265 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1065.265

Nonmethane cutter.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) System performance. Determine
nonmethane-cutter performance as
described in § 1065.365 and use the
results to calculate CH4 or NMHC
emissions in § 1065.660.
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00338

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

51. Section 1065.267 is revised to read
as follows:

■

§ 1065.267 Gas chromatograph with a
flame ionization detector.

(a) Application. You may use a gas
chromatograph with a flame ionization
detector (GC–FID) to measure CH4
concentrations of diluted exhaust for
batch sampling. While you may also use
a nonmethane cutter to measure CH4, as
described in § 1065.265, use a reference
procedure based on a gas
chromatograph for comparison with any
proposed alternate measurement
procedure under § 1065.10.
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use a GC–FID that
meets the specifications in Table 1 of
§ 1065.205, and it must also meet the
linearity verification in § 1065.307.
■ 52. Section 1065.270 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1065.270

Chemiluminescent detector.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use a CLD that
meets the specifications in Table 1 of
§ 1065.205. Note that your CLD-based
system must meet the quench
verification in § 1065.370 and it must
also meet the linearity verification in
§ 1065.307. You may use a heated or
unheated CLD, and you may use a CLD
that operates at atmospheric pressure or
under a vacuum. You may use a CLD
that has compensation algorithms that
are functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine’s known
or assumed fuel properties. The target
value for any compensation algorithm is
0% (that is, no bias high and no bias
low), regardless of the uncompensated
signal’s bias.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 53. Section 1065.272 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1065.272

N2O measurement devices.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use an NDUV
analyzer that meets the specifications in
Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that your
NDUV-based system must meet the
verifications in § 1065.372 and it must
also meet the linearity verification in
§ 1065.307. You may use a NDUV
analyzer that has compensation
algorithms that are functions of other
gaseous measurements and the engine’s
known or assumed fuel properties. The
target value for any compensation
algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias high
and no bias low), regardless of the
uncompensated signal’s bias.
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54. Section 1065.275 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:

■

§ 1065.275

N2O measurement devices.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Instrument types. You may use any
of the following analyzers to measure
N2O:
(1) Nondispersive infrared (NDIR)
analyzer. You may use an NDIR
analyzer that has compensation
algorithms that are functions of other
gaseous measurements and the engine’s
known or assumed fuel properties. The
target value for any compensation
algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias high
and no bias low), regardless of the
uncompensated signal’s bias.
(2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR)
analyzer. You may use an FTIR analyzer
that has compensation algorithms that
are functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine’s known
or assumed fuel properties. The target
value for any compensation algorithm is
0% (that is, no bias high and no bias
low), regardless of the uncompensated
signal’s bias. Use appropriate analytical
procedures for interpretation of infrared
spectra. For example, EPA Test Method
320 is considered a valid method for
spectral interpretation (see http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/
method320.html).
(3) Laser infrared analyzer. You may
use a laser infrared analyzer that has
compensation algorithms that are
functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine’s known
or assumed fuel properties. The target
value for any compensation algorithm is
0% (that is, no bias high and no bias
low), regardless of the uncompensated
signal’s bias. Examples of laser infrared
analyzers are pulsed-mode highresolution narrow band mid-infrared
analyzers, and modulated continuous
wave high-resolution narrow band midinfrared analyzers.
(4) Photoacoustic analyzer. You may
use a photoacoustic analyzer that has
compensation algorithms that are
functions of other gaseous
measurements. The target value for any
compensation algorithm is 0% (that is,
no bias high and no bias low), regardless
of the uncompensated signal’s bias. Use
an optical wheel configuration that
gives analytical priority to measurement
of the least stable components in the
sample. Select a sample integration time
of at least 5 seconds. Take into account
sample chamber and sample line
volumes when determining flush times
for your instrument.
(5) Gas chromatograph analyzer. You
may use a gas chromatograph with an
electron-capture detector (GC–ECD) to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

measure N2O concentrations of diluted
exhaust for batch sampling.
(i) You may use a packed or porous
layer open tubular (PLOT) column
phase of suitable polarity and length to
achieve adequate resolution of the N2O
peak for analysis. Examples of
acceptable columns are a PLOT column
consisting of bonded polystyrenedivinylbenzene or a Porapack Q packed
column. Take the column temperature
profile and carrier gas selection into
consideration when setting up your
method to achieve adequate N2O peak
resolution.
(ii) Use good engineering judgment to
zero your instrument and correct for
drift. You do not need to follow the
specific procedures in §§ 1065.530 and
1065.550(b) that would otherwise apply.
For example, you may perform a span
gas measurement before and after
sample analysis without zeroing and use
the average area counts of the pre-span
and post-span measurements to generate
a response factor (area counts/span gas
concentration), which you then
multiply by the area counts from your
sample to generate the sample
concentration.
(c) Interference verification. Perform
interference verification for NDIR, FTIR,
laser infrared analyzers, and
photoacoustic analyzers using the
procedures of § 1065.375. Interference
verification is not required for GC–ECD.
Certain interference gases can positively
interfere with NDIR, FTIR, and
photoacoustic analyzers by causing a
response similar to N2O. When running
the interference verification for these
analyzers, use interference gases as
follows:
(1) The interference gases for NDIR
analyzers are CO, CO2, H2O, CH4, and
SO2. Note that interference species, with
the exception of H2O, are dependent on
the N2O infrared absorption band
chosen by the instrument manufacturer.
For each analyzer determine the N2O
infrared absorption band. For each N2O
infrared absorption band, use good
engineering judgment to determine
which interference gases to use in the
verification.
(2) Use good engineering judgment to
determine interference gases for FTIR,
and laser infrared analyzers. Note that
interference species, with the exception
of H2O, are dependent on the N2O
infrared absorption band chosen by the
instrument manufacturer. For each
analyzer determine the N2O infrared
absorption band. For each N2O infrared
absorption band, use good engineering
judgment to determine interference
gases to use in the verification.

PO 00000

Frm 00339

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57443

(3) The interference gases for
photoacoustic analyzers are CO, CO2,
and H2O.
■ 55. Section 1065.280 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1065.280 Paramagnetic and
magnetopneumatic O2 detection analyzers.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use a PMD or MPD
analyzer that meets the specifications in
Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that it must
meet the linearity verification in
§ 1065.307. You may use a PMD or MPD
that has compensation algorithms that
are functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine’s known
or assumed fuel properties. The target
value for any compensation algorithm is
0% (that is, no bias high and no bias
low), regardless of the uncompensated
signal’s bias.
■ 56. Section 1065.284 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1065.284

Zirconia (ZrO2) analyzer.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use a ZrO2
analyzer that meets the specifications in
Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that your
ZrO2-based system must meet the
linearity verification in § 1065.307. You
may use a Zirconia analyzer that has
compensation algorithms that are
functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine’s known
or assumed fuel properties. The target
value for any compensation algorithm is
0% (that is, no bias high and no bias
low), regardless of the uncompensated
signal’s bias.
■ 57. Section 1065.295 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1065.295 PM inertial balance for fieldtesting analysis.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use a balance that
meets the specifications in Table 1 of
§ 1065.205. Note that your balancebased system must meet the linearity
verification in § 1065.307. If the balance
uses an internal calibration process for
routine spanning and linearity
verifications, the process must be NISTtraceable. You may use an inertial PM
balance that has compensation
algorithms that are functions of other
gaseous measurements and the engine’s
known or assumed fuel properties. The
target value for any compensation
algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias high
and no bias low), regardless of the
uncompensated signal’s bias.
*
*
*
*
*

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57444

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart D—[Amended]

§ 1065.303 Summary of required
calibration and verifications.

58. Section 1065.303 is revised to read
as follows:

The following table summarizes the
required and recommended calibrations

■

and verifications described in this
subpart and indicates when these have
to be performed:

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.303—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATIONS
Type of calibration or verification

Minimum frequency a

§ 1065.305: Accuracy, repeatability and noise ...

Accuracy: Not required, but recommended for initial installation.
Repeatability: Not required, but recommended for initial installation.
Noise: Not required, but recommended for initial installation.
Speed: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance.
Torque: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance.
Electrical power: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance.
Fuel flow rate: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Intake-air, dilution air, diluted exhaust, and batch sampler flow rates: Upon initial installation,
within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance, unless flow is verified by propane check or by carbon or oxygen balance.
Raw exhaust flow rate: Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing and after major
maintenance, unless flow is verified by propane check or by carbon or oxygen balance.
Gas dividers: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Gas analyzers (unless otherwise noted): Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing
and after major maintenance.
FTIR and photoacoustic analyzers: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and
after major maintenance.
GC–ECD: Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
PM balance: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance.
Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing
and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response.

§ 1065.307: Linearity verification ........................

§ 1065.308: Continuous gas analyzer system
response
and
updating-recording
verification—for gas analyzers not continuously compensated for other gas species.
§ 1065.309: Continuous gas analyzer systemresponse
and
updating-recording
verification—for gas analyzers continuously
compensated for other gas species.
§ 1065.310: Torque .............................................
§ 1065.315: Pressure, temperature, dewpoint ....
§ 1065.320: Fuel flow ..........................................
§ 1065.325: Intake flow .......................................
§ 1065.330: Exhaust flow ....................................
§ 1065.340: Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) .............
§ 1065.341:
CVS
and
batch
sampler
verification b.
§ 1065.342 Sample dryer verification .................
§ 1065.345: Vacuum leak ...................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O interference ...........
§ 1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and H2O interference.
§ 1065.360: FID calibrationn ...............................
THC FID optimization, and THC FID verification

§ 1065.362: Raw exhaust FID O2 interference ...
§ 1065.365:
§ 1065.370:
§ 1065.372:
§ 1065.375:
§ 1065.376:
§ 1065.378:

Nonmethane cutter penetration ......
CLD CO2 and H2O quench .............
NDUV HC and H2O interference ....
N2O analyzer interference ..............
Chiller NO2 penetration ...................
NO2-to-NO converter conversion ....

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response.

Upon
Upon
Upon
Upon
Upon
Upon
Upon

initial
initial
initial
initial
initial
initial
initial

installation and after major maintenance.
installation and after major maintenance.
installation and after major maintenance.
installation and after major maintenance.
installation and after major maintenance.
installation and after major maintenance.
installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance.

For thermal chillers: upon installation and after major maintenance.
For osmotic membranes; upon installation, within 35 days of testing, and after major maintenance.
For laboratory testing: upon initial installation of the sampling system, within 8 hours before the
start of the first test interval of each duty-cycle sequence, and after maintenance such as
pre-filter changes.
For field testing: after each installation of the sampling system on the vehicle, prior to the start
of the field test, and after maintenance such as pre-filter changes.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Calibrate all FID analyzers: upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Optimize and determine CH4 response for THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation and
after major maintenance.
Verify CH4 response for THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation, within 185 days before
testing, and after major maintenance.
For all FID analyzers: upon initial installation, and after major maintenance.
For THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and after FID optimization according to § 1065.360.
Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance.

PO 00000

Frm 00340

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57445

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.303—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATIONS—Continued
Type of calibration or verification

Minimum frequency a

§ 1065.390: PM balance and weighing ..............

Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
Zero, span, and reference sample verifications: within 12 hours of weighing, and after major
maintenance.
Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
Other verifications: upon initial installation and after major maintenance.

§ 1065.395: Inertial PM balance and weighing ..

a Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering
judgment.
b The CVS verification described in § 1065.341 is not required for systems that agree within ±2% based on a chemical balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and diluted exhaust.

59. Section 1065.307 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and Table 1 at the
end of the section to read as follows:

■

§ 1065.307

Linearity verification.

(a) Scope and frequency. Perform a
linearity verification on each
measurement system listed in Table 1 of
this section at least as frequently as
indicated in Table 1 of § 1065.303,

consistent with measurement system
manufacturer recommendations and
good engineering judgment. Note that
this linearity verification may replace
requirements we previously referred to
as ‘‘calibrations’’. The intent of a
linearity verification is to determine that
a measurement system responds
proportionally over the measurement
range of interest. A linearity verification

generally consists of introducing a series
of at least 10 reference values to a
measurement system. The measurement
system quantifies each reference value.
The measured values are then
collectively compared to the reference
values by using a least squares linear
regression and the linearity criteria
specified in Table 1 of this section.
*
*
*
*
*

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.307—MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE LINEARITY VERIFICATIONS
Linearity criteria
Measurement system

Quantity
ƒn
T
P
˙
m
n˙
n˙
n˙
n˙
n˙
x/xspan
x
x
m
p
Tdew

Speed .................................................................
Torque ................................................................
Electrical power ..................................................
Fuel flow rate ......................................................
Intake-air flow rate ..............................................
Dilution air flow rate ...........................................
Diluted exhaust flow rate ....................................
Raw exhaust flow rate ........................................
Batch sampler flow rates ....................................
Gas dividers .......................................................
Gas analyzers for laboratory testing ..................
Gas analyzers for field testing ...........................
PM balance ........................................................
Pressures ...........................................................
Dewpoint for intake air, PM-stabilization and
balance environments.
Other dewpoint measurements ..........................
Analog-to-digital conversion of temperature signals.

60. Section 1065.340 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) through (g),
adding paragraph (h), and adding and
reserving paragraph (i) before Figure 1
to read as follows:

■

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.340 Diluted exhaust flow (CVS)
calibration.

(a) Overview. This section describes
how to calibrate flow meters for diluted
exhaust constant-volume sampling
(CVS) systems.
(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this
calibration while the flow meter is
installed in its permanent position,
except as allowed in paragraph (c) of
this section. Perform this calibration

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Tdew
T

⎢ xmin(a1-1)+a0 ⎢
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤

0.05% · ƒnmax
1% · Tmax ...................
1% · Pmax ...................
˙ max ..................
1% · m
1% · n˙max ...................
1% · n˙max ...................
1% · n˙max ...................
1% · n˙max ...................
1% · n˙max ...................
0.5% · xmax/xspan
0.5% · x˙max ................
1% · x˙max ...................
1% · mmax ..................
1% · p˙max ...................
0.5% · Tdewmax

≤ 1% · Tdewmax
≤ 1% · T˙max

a1
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.99–1.01
0.99–1.01
0.99–1.01
0.99–1.01
0.99–1.01

≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤

0.99–1.01
0.99–1.01

≤ 1% · Tdewmax
≤ 1% · Tmax

after you change any part of the flow
configuration upstream or downstream
of the flow meter that may affect the
flow-meter calibration. Perform this
calibration upon initial CVS installation
and whenever corrective action does not
resolve a failure to meet the diluted
exhaust flow verification (i.e., propane
check) in § 1065.341.
(c) Ex-situ CFV and SSV calibration.
You may remove a CFV or SSV from its
permanent position for calibration as
long as it meets the following
requirements when installed in the CVS:
(1) Upon installation of the CFV or
SSV into the CVS, use good engineering
judgment to verify that you have not

PO 00000

Frm 00341

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

SEE
2% · ƒnmax
2% · Tmax ..................
2% · Pmax ..................
˙ max
2% · m
2% · n˙max ..................
2% · n˙max ..................
2% · n˙max ..................
2% · n˙max ..................
2% · n˙max ..................
2% · xmax/xspan
1% · x˙max ...................
1% · x˙max ...................
˙ max .................
1% · m
1% · p˙max ..................
0.5% · Tdewmax

r2
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥
≥

0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.990
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998
0.998

≥ 0.998
≥ 0.998

introduced any leaks between the CVS
inlet and the venturi.
(2) After ex-situ venturi calibration,
you must verify all venturi flow
combinations for CFVs or at minimum
of 10 flow points for an SSV using the
propane check as described in
§ 1065.341. Your propane check result
for each venturi flow point may not
exceed the tolerance in § 1065.341(f)(5).
(3) To verify your ex-situ calibration
for a CVS with more than a single CFV,
perform the following check to verify
that there are no flow meter entrance
effects that can prevent you from
passing this verification.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57446

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(i) Use a constant flow device like a
CFO kit to deliver a constant flow of
propane to the dilution tunnel.
(ii) Measure hydrocarbon
concentrations at a minimum of 10
separate flow rates for an SSV flow
meter, or at all possible flow
combinations for a CFV flow meter,
while keeping the flow of propane
constant. We recommend selecting CVS
flow rates in a random order.
(iii) Measure the concentration of
hydrocarbon background in the dilution
air at the beginning and end of this test.
Subtract the average background
concentration from each measurement
at each flow point before performing the
regression analysis in paragraph
(c)(3)(iv) of this section.
(iv) Perform a power regression using
all the paired values of flow rate and
corrected concentration to obtain a
relationship in the form of y = a · x b.
Use concentration as the independent
variable and flow rate as the dependent
variable. For each data point, calculate
the difference between the measured
flow rate and the value represented by
the curve fit. The difference at each
point must be less than ±1% of the
appropriate regression value. The value
of b must be between ¥1.005 and
¥0.995. If your results do not meet
these limits, take corrective action
consistent with § 1065.341(a).
(d) Reference flow meter. Calibrate a
CVS flow meter using a reference flow
meter such as a subsonic venturi flow
meter, a long-radius ASME/NIST flow
nozzle, a smooth approach orifice, a
laminar flow element, a set of critical
flow venturis, or an ultrasonic flow
meter. Use a reference flow meter that
reports quantities that are NISTtraceable within ±1% uncertainty. Use
this reference flow meter’s response to
flow as the reference value for CVS
flow-meter calibration.
(e) Configuration. Do not use an
upstream screen or other restriction that
could affect the flow ahead of the
reference flow meter, unless the flow
meter has been calibrated with such a
restriction.
(f) PDP calibration. Calibrate a
positive-displacement pump (PDP) to
determine a flow-versus-PDP speed
equation that accounts for flow leakage
across sealing surfaces in the PDP as a
function of PDP inlet pressure.
Determine unique equation coefficients
for each speed at which you operate the
PDP. Calibrate a PDP flow meter as
follows:
(1) Connect the system as shown in
Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Leaks between the calibration flow
meter and the PDP must be less than
0.3% of the total flow at the lowest

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

calibrated flow point; for example, at
the highest restriction and lowest PDPspeed point.
(3) While the PDP operates, maintain
a constant temperature at the PDP inlet
within ±2% of the mean absolute inlet
temperature, T¯in.
(4) Set the PDP speed to the first
speed point at which you intend to
calibrate.
(5) Set the variable restrictor to its
wide-open position.
(6) Operate the PDP for at least 3 min
to stabilize the system. Continue
operating the PDP and record the mean
values of at least 30 seconds of sampled
data of each of the following quantities:
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference
flow meter, Ô
nref. This may include
several measurements of different
quantities, such as reference meter
pressures and temperatures, for
calculating Ô
nref.
(ii) The mean temperature at the PDP
inlet, T¯in.
(iii) The mean static absolute pressure
at the PDP inlet, p¯in.
(iv) The mean static absolute pressure
at the PDP outlet, p¯out.
HERE
(v) The mean PDP speed, f¯nPDP.
HERE
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor
valve to decrease the absolute pressure
at the inlet to the PDP, p¯in.
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(e)(6) and (7) of this section to record
data at a minimum of six restrictor
positions ranging from the wide open
restrictor position to the minimum
expected pressure at the PDP inlet.
(9) Calibrate the PDP by using the
collected data and the equations in
§ 1065.640.
(10) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(e)(6) through (9) of this section for each
speed at which you operate the PDP.
(11) Use the equations in § 1065.642
to determine the PDP flow equation for
emission testing.
(12) Verify the calibration by
performing a CVS verification (i.e.,
propane check) as described in
§ 1065.341.
(13) Do not use the PDP below the
lowest inlet pressure tested during
calibration.
(g) CFV calibration. Calibrate a
critical-flow venturi (CFV) to verify its
discharge coefficient, Cd, at the lowest
expected static differential pressure
between the CFV inlet and outlet.
Calibrate a CFV flow meter as follows:
(1) Connect the system as shown in
Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Verify that any leaks between the
calibration flow meter and the CFV are
less than 0.3% of the total flow at the
highest restriction.

PO 00000

Frm 00342

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(3) Start the blower downstream of the
CFV.
(4) While the CFV operates, maintain
a constant temperature at the CFV inlet
within ±2% of the mean absolute inlet
temperature, T¯in.
(5) Set the variable restrictor to its
wide-open position. Instead of a
variable restrictor, you may alternately
vary the pressure downstream of the
CFV by varying blower speed or by
introducing a controlled leak. Note that
some blowers have limitations on
nonloaded conditions.
(6) Operate the CFV for at least 3 min
to stabilize the system. Continue
operating the CFV and record the mean
values of at least 30 seconds of sampled
data of each of the following quantities:
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference
flow meter, Ô
nref. This may include
several measurements of different
quantities, such as reference meter
pressures and temperatures, for
calculating Ô
nref.
(ii) The mean dewpoint of the
calibration air, T¯dew. See § 1065.640 for
permissible assumptions during
emission measurements.
(iii) The mean temperature at the
venturi inlet, T¯in.
(iv) The mean static absolute pressure
at the venturi inlet, p¯in.
(v) The mean static differential
pressure between the CFV inlet and the
CFV outlet, Dp¯CFV.
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor
valve or decrease the downstream
pressure to decrease the differential
pressure across the CFV, Dp¯CFV.
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(f)(6) and (7) of this section to record
mean data at a minimum of ten
restrictor positions, such that you test
the fullest practical range of Dp¯CFV
expected during testing. We do not
require that you remove calibration
components or CVS components to
calibrate at the lowest possible
restrictions.
(9) Determine Cd and the lowest
allowable pressure ratio, r, according to
§ 1065.640.
(10) Use Cd to determine CFV flow
during an emission test. Do not use the
CFV below the lowest allowed r, as
determined in § 1065.640.
(11) Verify the calibration by
performing a CVS verification (i.e.,
propane check) as described in
§ 1065.341.
(12) If your CVS is configured to
operate more than one CFV at a time in
parallel, calibrate your CVS by one of
the following:
(i) Calibrate every combination of
CFVs according to this section and
§ 1065.640. Refer to § 1065.642 for

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
instructions on calculating flow rates for
this option.
(ii) Calibrate each CFV according to
this section and § 1065.640. Refer to
§ 1065.642 for instructions on
calculating flow rates for this option.
(h) SSV calibration. Calibrate a
subsonic venturi (SSV) to determine its
calibration coefficient, Cd, for the
expected range of inlet pressures.
Calibrate an SSV flow meter as follows:
(1) Connect the system as shown in
Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Verify that any leaks between the
calibration flow meter and the SSV are
less than 0.3% of the total flow at the
highest restriction.
(3) Start the blower downstream of the
SSV.
(4) While the SSV operates, maintain
a constant temperature at the SSV inlet
within ±2% of the mean absolute inlet
temperature, T¯in.
(5) Set the variable restrictor or
variable-speed blower to a flow rate
greater than the greatest flow rate
expected during testing. You may not
extrapolate flow rates beyond calibrated
values, so we recommend that you make
sure the Reynolds number, Re#, at the
SSV throat at the greatest calibrated
flow rate is greater than the maximum
Re# expected during testing.
(6) Operate the SSV for at least 3 min
to stabilize the system. Continue
operating the SSV and record the mean
of at least 30 seconds of sampled data
of each of the following quantities:
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference
flow meter Ô
nref. This may include
several measurements of different
quantities, such as reference meter
pressures and temperatures, for
calculating Ô
nref.
(ii) Optionally, the mean dewpoint of
the calibration air, T¯dew. See § 1065.640
for permissible assumptions.
(iii) The mean temperature at the
venturi inlet, T¯in.
(iv) The mean static absolute pressure
at the venturi inlet, p¯in.
(v) Static differential pressure
between the static pressure at the
venturi inlet and the static pressure at
the venturi throat, Dp¯ssv.
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor
valve or decrease the blower speed to
decrease the flow rate.
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(g)(6) and (7) of this section to record
data at a minimum of ten flow rates.
(9) Determine a functional form of Cd
versus Re# by using the collected data
and the equations in § 1065.640.
(10) Verify the calibration by
performing a CVS verification (i.e.,
propane check) as described in
§ 1065.341 using the new Cd versus Re#
equation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(11) Use the SSV only between the
minimum and maximum calibrated flow
rates.
(12) Use the equations in § 1065.642
to determine SSV flow during a test.
(i) Ultrasonic flow meter calibration.
[Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
■ 61. Section 1065.341 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), and
(f)(5) and adding paragraph (a)(7) to read
as follows:
§ 1065.341 CVS and batch sampler
verification (propane check).

(a) * * *
(5) Change in CVS calibration.
Perform a calibration of the CVS flow
meter as described in § 1065.340.
(6) Flow meter entrance effects.
Inspect the CVS tunnel to determine
whether the entrance effects from the
piping configuration upstream of the
flow meter adversely affect the flow
measurement.
(7) Other problems with the CVS or
sampling verification hardware or
software. Inspect the CVS system, CVS
verification hardware, and software for
discrepancies.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(5) Subtract the reference C3H8 mass
from the calculated mass. If this
difference is within ±2% of the
reference mass, the CVS passes this
verification. If not, take corrective action
as described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 62. Section 1065.350 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(7) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.350 H2O interference verification
for CO2 NDIR analyzers.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(7) While the analyzer measures the
sample’s concentration, record 30
seconds of sampled data. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of this data. The
analyzer meets the interference
verification if this value is within (0.0
± 0.4) mmol/mol.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 63. Section 1065.360 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 1065.360 FID optimization and
verification.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) THC FID methane (CH4) response
verification. This procedure is only for
FID analyzers that measure THC. If the
value of RFCH4[THC–FID] from paragraph
(d) of this section is within ±5% of its

PO 00000

Frm 00343

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57447

most recent previously determined
value, the THC FID passes the methane
response verification. For example, if
the most recent previous value for
RFCH4[THC–FID] was 1.05 and it changed
by ±0.05 to become 1.10 or it changed
by ¥0.05 to become 1.00, either case
would be acceptable because ±4.8% is
less than ±5%. Verify RFCH4[THC–FID] as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 64. Section 1065.370 is amended by
revising paragraph (g)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.370 CLD CO2 and H2O quench
verification.

*

*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) You may omit this verification if
you can show by engineering analysis
that for your NOX sampling system and
your emission calculation procedures,
the combined CO2 and H2O interference
for your NOX CLD analyzer always
affects your brake-specific NOX
emission results within no more than
±1% of the applicable NOX standard. If
you certify to a combined emission
standard (such as a NOX + NMHC
standard), scale your NOX results to the
combined standard based on the
measured results (after incorporating
deterioration factors, if applicable). For
example, if your final NOX + NMHC
value is half of the emission standard,
double the NOX result to estimate the
level of NOX emissions corresponding to
the applicable standard.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 65. Section 1065.372 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.372 NDUV analyzer HC and H2O
interference verification.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) You may omit this verification if
you can show by engineering analysis
that for your NOX sampling system and
your emission calculation procedures,
the combined HC and H2O interference
for your NOX NDUV analyzer always
affects your brake-specific NOX
emission results by less than 0.5% of
the applicable NOX standard.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 66. Section 1065.378 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(3)(iv) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.378 NO2-to-NO converter
conversion verification.

*

*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Switch the ozonator on and adjust
the ozone generation rate so the NO

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57448

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

measured by the analyzer is 20 percent
of xNOref or a value which would
simulate the maximum concentration of
NO2 expected during testing, while
maintaining at least 10 percent
unreacted NO. This ensures that the
ozonator is generating NO2 at the
maximum concentration expected
during testing. Record the concentration
of NO by calculating the mean of 30
seconds of sampled data from the
analyzer and record this value as
xNOmeas.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart F—[Amended]
67. Section 1065.510 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (b)(5)(i), and (b)(6).
■ b. By adding paragraph (b)(7).
■ c. By revising paragraphs (c)(2), (d)(5),
(f)(3), (f)(5), and (g).
■ d. By adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (h)
to read as follows:
■

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.510

Engine mapping.

(a) Applicability, scope, and
frequency. An engine map is a data set
that consists of a series of paired data
points that represent the maximum
brake torque versus engine speed,
measured at the engine’s primary output
shaft. Map your engine if the standardsetting part requires engine mapping to
generate a duty cycle for your engine
configuration. Map your engine while it
is connected to a dynamometer or other
device that can absorb work output from
the engine’s primary output shaft
according to § 1065.110. To establish
speed and torque values for mapping,
we generally recommend that you
stabilize an engine for at least 15
seconds at each setpoint and record the
mean feedback speed and torque of the
last (4 to 6) seconds. Configure any
auxiliary work inputs and outputs such
as hybrid, turbo-compounding, or
thermoelectric systems to represent
their in-use configurations, and use the
same configuration for emission testing.
See Figure 1 of § 1065.210. This may
involve configuring initial states of
charge and rates and times of auxiliarywork inputs and outputs. We
recommend that you contact the
Designated Compliance Officer before
testing to determine how you should
configure any auxiliary-work inputs and
outputs. Use the most recent engine
map to transform a normalized duty
cycle from the standard-setting part to a
reference duty cycle specific to your
engine. Normalized duty cycles are
specified in the standard-setting part.
You may update an engine map at any
time by repeating the engine-mapping

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

procedure. You must map or re-map an
engine before a test if any of the
following apply:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For any engine subject only to
steady-state duty cycles, you may
perform an engine map by using
discrete speeds. Select at least 20 evenly
spaced setpoints from 95% of warm idle
speed to the highest speed above
maximum power at which 50% of
maximum power occurs. We refer to
this 50% speed as the check point speed
as described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of
this section. At each setpoint, stabilize
speed and allow torque to stabilize.
Record the mean speed and torque at
each setpoint. Use linear interpolation
to determine intermediate speeds and
torques. Use this series of speeds and
torques to generate the power map as
described in paragraph (e) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Use one of the following methods
to determine warm high-idle speed for
engines with a high-speed governor if
they are subject to transient testing with
a duty cycle that includes reference
speed values above 100%:
(i) You may use a manufacturerdeclared warm high-idle speed if the
engine is electronically governed. For
engines with a high-speed governor that
shuts off torque output at a
manufacturer-specified speed and
reactivates at a lower manufacturerspecified speed (such as engines that
use ignition cut-off for governing),
declare the middle of the specified
speed range as the warm high-idle
speed.
(ii) Measure the warm high-idle speed
using the following procedure:
(A) Set operator demand to maximum
and use the dynamometer to target zero
torque on the engine’s primary output
shaft. If the mean feedback torque is
within ±1% of Tmax mapped, you may use
the observed mean feedback speed at
that point as the measured warm highidle speed.
(B) If the engine is unstable as a result
of in-use production components (such
as engines that use ignition cut-off for
governing, as opposed to unstable
dynamometer operation), you must use
the mean feedback speed from
paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) of this section as
the measured warm high-idle speed.
The engine is considered unstable if any
of the 1 Hz speed feedback values are
not within ±2% of the calculated mean
feedback speed. We recommend that
you determine the mean as the value
representing the midpoint between the

PO 00000

Frm 00344

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

observed maximum and minimum
recorded feedback speed.
(C) If your dynamometer is not
capable of achieving a mean feedback
torque within ±1% of Tmax mapped,
operate the engine at a second point
with operator demand set to maximum
with the dynamometer set to target a
torque equal to the recorded mean
feedback torque on the previous point
plus 20% of Tmax mapped. Use this data
point and the data point from paragraph
(b)(6)(ii)(A) of this section to extrapolate
the engine speed where torque is equal
to zero.
(D) You may use a manufacturerdeclared Tmax instead of the measured
Tmax mapped. If you do this, or if you are
able to determine mean feedback speed
as described in paragraphs (b)(6)(ii)(A)
and (B) of this section, you may measure
the warm high-idle speed before
running the speed sweep specified in
paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
(7) For engines with a low-speed
governor, if a nonzero idle torque is
representative of in-use operation,
operate the engine at warm idle with the
manufacturer-declared idle torque. Set
the operator demand to minimum, use
the dynamometer to target the declared
idle torque, and allow the engine to
govern the speed. Measure this speed
and use it as the warm idle speed for
cycle generation in § 1065.512. We
recommend recording at least 30 values
of speed and using the mean of those
values. If you identify multiple warm
idle torques under paragraph (f)(4)(i) of
this section, measure the warm idle
speed at each torque. You may map the
idle governor at multiple load levels and
use this map to determine the measured
warm idle speed at the declared idle
torque(s).
(c) * * *
(2) Map the amount of negative torque
required to motor the engine by
repeating paragraph (b) of this section
with minimum operator demand. You
may start the negative torque map at
either the minimum or maximum speed
from paragraph (b) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) For engines with an electric hybrid
system, you may create a negative
torque map that would include the full
negative torque of the electric hybrid
system, so operator demand will be at
a minimum when the reference duty
cycle specifies negative torque values.
(d) * * *
(5) Perform one of the following:
(i) For constant-speed engines subject
only to steady-state testing, you may
perform an engine map by using a series
of discrete torques. Select at least five
evenly spaced torque setpoints from no-

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
load to 80% of the manufacturerdeclared test torque or to a torque
derived from your published maximum
power level if the declared test torque
is unavailable. Starting at the 80%
torque point, select setpoints in 2.5%
intervals, stopping at the endpoint
torque. The endpoint torque is defined
as the first discrete mapped torque value
greater than the torque at maximum
observed power where the engine
outputs 90% of the maximum observed
power; or the torque when engine stall
has been determined using good
engineering judgment (i.e. sudden
deceleration of engine speed while
adding torque). You may continue
mapping at higher torque setpoints. At
each setpoint, allow torque and speed to
stabilize. Record the mean feedback
speed and torque at each setpoint. From
this series of mean feedback speed and
torque values, use linear interpolation to
determine intermediate values. Use this
series of mean feedback speeds and
torques to generate the power map as
described in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(ii) For any constant-speed engine,
you may perform an engine map with a
continuous torque sweep by continuing
to record the mean feedback speed and
torque at 1 Hz or more frequently. Use
the dynamometer to increase torque.
Increase the reference torque at a
constant rate from no-load to the
endpoint torque as defined in paragraph
(d)(5)(i) of this section. You may
continue mapping at higher torque
setpoints. Unless the standard-setting
part specifies otherwise, target a torque
sweep rate equal to the manufacturerdeclared test torque (or a torque derived
from your published power level if the
declared test torque is not known)
divided by 180 s. Stop recording after
you complete the sweep. Verify that the
average torque sweep rate over the
entire map is within ±7% of the target
torque sweep rate. Use linear
interpolation to determine intermediate
values from this series of mean feedback
speed and torque values. Use this series
of mean feedback speeds and torques to
generate the power map as described in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(iii) For electric power generation
applications in which normal engine
operation is limited to a specific speed
range, map the engine with two points
as described in this paragraph (d)(5)(iii).
After stabilizing at the no-load governed
speed in paragraph (d)(4) of this section,
record the mean feedback speed and
torque. Continue to operate the engine
with the governor or simulated governor
controlling engine speed using operator
demand, and control the dynamometer
to target a speed of 97.5% of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

recorded mean no-load governed speed.
If the in-use performance class of the
electric power generation application is
known, you may use those values in
place of 97.5% (e.g., for ISO 8528–5 G3
Performance Class, the steady-state
frequency band is less than or equal to
0.5%, so use 99.75% instead of 97.5%).
Allow speed and torque to stabilize.
Record the mean feedback speed and
torque. Record the target speed. The
absolute value of the speed error (the
mean feedback speed minus the target
speed) must be no greater than 20% of
the difference between the recorded
mean no-load governed speed and the
target speed. From this series of two
mean feedback speed and torque values,
use linear interpolation to determine
intermediate values. Use this series of
two mean feedback speeds and torques
to generate a power map as described in
paragraph (e) of this section. Note that
the measured maximum test torque
determined in § 1065.610(b)(1), will be
the mean feedback torque recorded on
the second point.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) Optional declared speeds. You
may use declared speeds instead of
measured speeds as follows:
(i) You may use a declared value for
maximum test speed for variable-speed
engines if it is within (97.5 to 102.5) %
of the corresponding measured value.
You may use a higher declared speed if
the length of the ‘‘vector’’ at the
declared speed is within 2% of the
length of the ‘‘vector’’ at the measured
value. The term vector refers to the
square root of the sum of normalized
engine speed squared and the
normalized full-load power (at that
speed) squared, consistent with the
calculations in § 1065.610.
(ii) You may use a declared value for
intermediate, ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, or ‘‘C’’ speeds
for steady-state tests if the declared
value is within (97.5 to 102.5)% of the
corresponding measured value.
(iii) For electronically governed
engines, you may use a declared warm
high-idle speed for calculating the
alternate maximum test speed as
specified in § 1065.610.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Optional declared torques. (i) For
variable-speed engines you may declare
a maximum torque over the engine
operating range. You may use the
declared value for measuring warm
high-idle speed as specified in this
section.
(ii) For constant-speed engines you
may declare a maximum test torque.
You may use the declared value for

PO 00000

Frm 00345

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57449

cycle generation if it is within (95 to
100) % of the measured value.
(g) Mapping variable-speed engines
with an electric hybrid system. Map
variable-speed engines that include
electric hybrid systems as described in
this paragraph (g). You may ask to apply
these provisions to other types of hybrid
engines, consistent with good
engineering judgment. However, do not
use this procedure for engines used in
hybrid vehicles where the hybrid
system is certified as part of the vehicle
rather than the engine. Follow the steps
for mapping a variable-speed engine as
given in paragraph (b)(5) of this section
except as noted in this paragraph (g).
You must generate one engine map with
the hybrid system inactive as described
in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, and
a separate map with the hybrid system
active as described in paragraph (g)(2) of
this section. See the standard-setting
part to determine how to use these
maps. The map with the system inactive
is typically used to generate steady-state
duty cycles, but may also be used to
generate transient cycles, such as those
that do not involve engine motoring.
This hybrid-inactive map is also used
for generating the hybrid-active map.
The hybrid-active map is typically used
to generate transient duty cycles that
involve engine motoring.
(1) Prepare the engine for mapping by
either deactivating the hybrid system or
by operating the engine as specified in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section and
remaining at this condition until the
rechargeable energy storage system
(RESS) is depleted. Once the hybrid has
been disabled or the RESS is depleted,
perform an engine map as specified in
paragraph (b)(5) of this section. If the
RESS was depleted instead of
deactivated, ensure that instantaneous
power from the RESS remains less than
2% of the instantaneous measured
power from the engine (or engine-hybrid
system) at all engine speeds.
(2) The purpose of the mapping
procedure in this paragraph (g) is to
determine the maximum torque
available at each speed, such as what
might occur during transient operation
with a fully charged RESS. Use one of
the following methods to generate a
hybrid-active map:
(i) Perform an engine map by using a
series of continuous sweeps to cover the
engine’s full range of operating speeds.
Prepare the engine for hybrid-active
mapping by ensuring that the RESS state
of charge is representative of normal
operation. Perform the sweep as
specified in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this
section, but stop the sweep to charge the
RESS when the power measured from
the RESS drops below the expected

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57450

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

maximum power from the RESS by
more than 2% of total system power
(including engine and RESS power).
Unless good engineering judgment
indicates otherwise, assume that the
expected maximum power from the
RESS is equal to the measured RESS
power at the start of the sweep segment.
For example, if the 3-second rolling
average of total engine-RESS power is
200 kW and the power from the RESS
at the beginning of the sweep segment
is 50 kW, once the power from the RESS
reaches 46 kW, stop the sweep to charge
the RESS. Note that this assumption is
not valid where the hybrid motor is
torque-limited. Calculate total system
power as a 3-second rolling average of
instantaneous total system power. After
each charging event, stabilize the engine
for 15 seconds at the speed at which you
ended the previous segment with
operator demand set to maximum before
continuing the sweep from that speed.
Repeat the cycle of charging, mapping,
and recharging until you have
completed the engine map. You may
shut down the system or include other
operation between segments to be
consistent with the intent of this
paragraph (g)(2)(i). For example, for
systems in which continuous charging
and discharging can overheat batteries
to an extent that affects performance,
you may operate the engine at zero
power from the RESS for enough time
after the system is recharged to allow
the batteries to cool. Use good
engineering judgment to smooth the
torque curve to eliminate
discontinuities between map intervals.

(ii) Perform an engine map by using
discrete speeds. Select map setpoints at
intervals defined by the ranges of engine
speed being mapped. From 95% of
warm idle speed to 90% of the expected
maximum test speed, select setpoints
that result in a minimum of 13 equally
spaced speed setpoints. From 90% to
110% of expected maximum test speed,
select setpoints in equally spaced
intervals that are nominally 2% of
expected maximum test speed. Above
110% of expected maximum test speed,
select setpoints based on the same speed
intervals used for mapping from 95%
warm idle speed to 90% maximum test
speed. You may stop mapping at the
highest speed above maximum power at
which 50% of maximum power occurs.
We refer to the speed at 50% power as
the check point speed as described in
paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section.
Stabilize engine speed at each setpoint,
targeting a torque value at 70% of peak
torque at that speed without hybridassist. Make sure the engine is fully
warmed up and the RESS state of charge
is within the normal operating range.
Snap the operator demand to maximum,
operate the engine there for at least 10
seconds, and record the 3-second rolling
average feedback speed and torque at 1
Hz or higher. Record the peak 3-second
average torque and 3-second average
speed at that point. Use linear
interpolation to determine intermediate
speeds and torques. Follow
§ 1065.610(a) to calculate the maximum
test speed. Verify that the measured
maximum test speed falls in the range
from 92 to 108% of the estimated

maximum test speed. If the measured
maximum test speed does not fall in this
range, rerun the map using the
measured value of maximum test speed.
(h) Other mapping procedures. You
may use other mapping procedures if
you believe the procedures specified in
this section are unsafe or
unrepresentative for your engine. Any
alternate techniques you use must
satisfy the intent of the specified
mapping procedures, which is to
determine the maximum available
torque at all engine speeds that occur
during a duty cycle. Identify any
deviations from this section’s mapping
procedures when you submit data to us.
68. Section 1065.514 is amended by
revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as
follows:

■

§ 1065.514 Cycle-validation criteria for
operation over specified duty cycles.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) For discrete-mode steady-state
testing, apply cycle-validation criteria
by treating the sampling periods from
the series of test modes as a continuous
sampling period, analogous to rampedmodal testing and apply statistical
criteria as described in paragraph (f)(1)
or (f)(2) of this section. Note that if the
gaseous and particulate test intervals are
different periods of time, separate
validations are required for the gaseous
and particulate test intervals. Table 2
follows:

TABLE 2 OF § 1065.514—DEFAULT STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR VALIDATING DUTY CYCLES
Parameter

Speed

Torque

Power

Slope, a1 ........................................
Absolute value of intercept, |a0| .....
Standard error of estimate, SEE ...

0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................
≤ 10% of warm idle ......................
≤ 5% of maximum test speed ......

Coefficient of determination, r2 ......

≥ 0.970 ..........................................

0.830 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................
≤ 2% of maximum mapped torque
≤ 10% of maximum mapped
torque.
≥ 0.850 ..........................................

0.830 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030.
≤ 2% of maximum mapped power.
≤ 10% of maximum mapped
power.
≥ 0.910.

69. Section 1065.520 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) introductory text,
(g)(5)(i), (g)(7), and (g)(8) and adding
paragraph (g)(9) to read as follows:

■

§ 1065.520 Pre-test verification procedures
and pre-test data collection.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

*
*
*
*
(g) Verify the amount of nonmethane
hydrocarbon contamination in the
exhaust and background HC sampling
systems within 8 hours before the start
of the first test interval of each dutycycle sequence for laboratory tests. You
may verify the contamination of a
background HC sampling system by

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

reading the last bag fill and purge using
zero gas. For any NMHC measurement
system that involves separately
measuring methane and subtracting it
from a THC measurement or for any CH4
measurement system that uses an NMC,
verify the amount of THC contamination
using only the THC analyzer response.
There is no need to operate any separate
methane analyzer for this verification;
however, you may measure and correct
for THC contamination in the CH4
sample train for the cases where NMHC
is determined by subtracting CH4 from
THC or, where CH4 is determined, using
an NMC as configured in § 1065.365(d),

PO 00000

Frm 00346

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(e), and (f); and using the calculations in
§ 1065.660(b)(2). Perform this
verification as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(i) For continuous sampling, record
the mean THC concentration as
overflow zero gas flows.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) You may correct the measured
initial THC concentration for drift as
follows:
(i) For batch and continuous HC
analyzers, after determining the initial
THC concentration, flow zero gas to the
analyzer zero or sample port. When the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
analyzer reading is stable, record the
mean analyzer value.
(ii) Flow span gas to the analyzer span
or sample port. When the analyzer
reading is stable, record the mean
analyzer value.
(iii) Use mean analyzer values from
paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(7)(i), and
(g)(7)(ii) of this section to correct the
initial THC concentration recorded in
paragraph (g)(6) of this section for drift,
as described in § 1065.550.
(8) If any of the xTHC[THC–FID]init values
exceed the greatest of the following
values, determine the source of the
contamination and take corrective
action, such as purging the system
during an additional preconditioning
cycle or replacing contaminated
portions:
(i) 2% of the flow-weighted mean wet,
net concentration expected at the HC
(THC or NMHC) standard.
(ii) 2% of the flow-weighted mean
wet, net concentration of HC (THC or
NMHC) measured during testing.
(iii) 2 μmol/mol.
(9) If corrective action does not
resolve the deficiency, you may request
to use the contaminated system as an
alternate procedure under § 1065.10.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 70. Section 1065.525 is amended by
removing paragraph (c)(4) and revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.525 Engine starting, restarting, and
shutdown.

(a) For test intervals that require
emission sampling during engine
starting, start the engine using one of the
following methods:
(1) Start the engine as recommended
in the owners manual using a
production starter motor or air-start
system and either an adequately charged
battery, a suitable power supply, or a
suitable compressed air source.
(2) Use the dynamometer to start the
engine. To do this, motor the engine
within ± 25% of its typical in-use
cranking speed. Stop cranking within 1
second of starting the engine.
(3) In the case of hybrid engines,
activate the system such that the engine
will start when its control algorithms
determine that the engine should
provide power instead of or in addition
to power from the RESS. Unless we
specify otherwise, engine starting
throughout this part generally refers to
this step of activating the system on
hybrid engines, whether or not that
causes the engine to start running.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 71. Section 1065.530 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(13) to read as
follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 1065.530

Emission test sequence.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(13) Drain any accumulated
condensate from the intake air system
before starting a duty cycle, as described
in § 1065.125(e)(1). If engine and
aftertreatment preconditioning cycles
are run before the duty cycle, treat the
preconditioning cycles and any
associated soak period as part of the
duty cycle for the purpose of opening
drains and draining condensate. Note
that you must close any intake air
condensate drains that are not
representative of those normally open
during in-use operation.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 72. Section 1065.546 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1065.546 Validation of minimum dilution
ratio for PM batch sampling, and drift
correction.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) Determine minimum dilution ratio
based on molar flow data. This involves
determination of at least two of the
following three quantities: Raw exhaust
flow (or previously diluted flow),
dilution air flow, and dilute exhaust
flow. You may determine the raw
exhaust flow rate based on the measured
intake air or fuel flow rate and the raw
exhaust chemical balance terms as given
in § 1065.655(e). You may determine the
raw exhaust flow rate based on the
measured intake air and dilute exhaust
molar flow rates and the dilute exhaust
chemical balance terms as given in
§ 1065.655(f). You may alternatively
estimate the molar raw exhaust flow rate
based on intake air, fuel rate
measurements, and fuel properties,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 73. Section 1065.550 is amended by
revising the section heading and
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 1065.550 Gas analyzer range validation
and drift validation.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Drift validation and drift
correction. Gas analyzer drift validation
is required for all gaseous exhaust
constituents for which an emission
standard applies. It is also required for
CO2 even if there is no CO2 emission
standard. It is not required for other
gaseous exhaust constituents for which
only a reporting requirement applies
(such as CH4 and N2O).
(1) Validate drift using one of the
following methods:
(i) For regulated exhaust constituents
determined from the mass of a single

PO 00000

Frm 00347

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57451

component, perform drift validation
based on the regulated constituent. For
example, when NOX mass is determined
with a dry sample measured with a CLD
and the removed water is corrected
based on measured CO2, CO, THC, and
NOX concentrations, you must validate
the calculated NOX value.
(ii) For regulated exhaust constituents
determined from the masses of multiple
subcomponents, perform the drift
validation based on either the regulated
constituent or all the mass
subcomponents. For example, when
NOX is measured with separate NO and
NO2 analyzers, you must validate either
the NOX value or both the NO and NO2
values.
(iii) For regulated exhaust
constituents determined from the
concentrations of multiple gaseous
emission subcomponents prior to
performing mass calculations, perform
drift validation on the regulated
constituent. You may not validate the
concentration subcomponents (e.g., THC
and CH4 for NMHC) separately. For
example, for NMHC measurements,
perform drift validation on NMHC; do
not validate THC and CH4 separately.
(2) Drift validation requires two sets
of emission calculations. For each set of
calculations, include all the constituents
in the drift validation. Calculate one set
using the data before drift correction
and calculate the other set after
correcting all the data for drift according
to § 1065.672. Note that for purposes of
drift validation, you must leave
unaltered any negative emission results
over a given test interval (i.e., do not set
them to zero). These unaltered results
are used when validating either test
interval results or composite brakespecific emissions over the entire duty
cycle for drift. For each constituent to be
validated, both sets of calculations must
include the following:
(i) Calculated mass (or mass rate)
emission values over each test interval.
(ii) If you are validating each test
interval based on brake-specific values,
calculate brake-specific emission values
over each test interval.
(iii) If you are validating over the
entire duty cycle, calculate composite
brake-specific emission values.
(3) The duty cycle is validated for
drift if you satisfy the following criteria:
(i) For each regulated gaseous exhaust
constituent, you must satisfy one of the
following:
(A) For each test interval of the duty
cycle, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected brakespecific emission values of the regulated
constituent must be within ± 4% of the
uncorrected value or the applicable
emissions standard, whichever is

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

greater. Alternatively, the difference
between the uncorrected and the
corrected emission mass (or mass rate)
values of the regulated constituent must
be within ± 4% of the uncorrected value
or the composite work (or power)
multiplied by the applicable emissions
standard, whichever is greater. For
purposes of validating each test interval,
you may use either the reference or
actual composite work (or power).
(B) For each test interval of the duty
cycle and for each subcomponent of the
regulated constituent, the difference
between the uncorrected and the
corrected brake-specific emission values
must be within ± 4% of the uncorrected
value. Alternatively, the difference
between the uncorrected and the
corrected emissions mass (or mass rate)
values must be within ± 4% of the
uncorrected value.
(C) For the entire duty cycle, the
difference between the uncorrected and
the corrected composite brake-specific
emission values of the regulated
constituent must be within ± 4% of the
uncorrected value or applicable
emission standard, whichever is greater.

(D) For the entire duty cycle and for
each subcomponent of the regulated
constituent, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected
composite brake-specific emission
values must be within ± 4% of the
uncorrected value.
(ii) Where no emission standard
applies for CO2, you must satisfy one of
the following:
(A) For each test interval of the duty
cycle, the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected brakespecific CO2 values must be within ± 4%
of the uncorrected value; or the
difference between the uncorrected and
the corrected CO2 mass (or mass rate)
values must be within ± 4% of the
uncorrected value.
(B) For the entire duty cycle, the
difference between the uncorrected and
the corrected composite brake-specific
CO2 values must be within ± 4% of the
uncorrected value.
(4) If the test is not validated for drift
as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, you may consider the test
results for the duty cycle to be valid
only if, using good engineering
judgment, the observed drift does not
affect your ability to demonstrate

*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) Use Table 1 of this section to
compare t to the tcrit values tabulated
versus the number of degrees of
freedom. If t is less than tcrit, then t
passes the t-test. The Microsoft Excel
software has a TINV function that
returns equivalent results and may be
used in place of Table 1, which follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Slope. Calculate a least-squares
regression slope, a1y, as follows:

Example:
N = 6000

y1 = 2045.8
y¯ = 1050.1

yref 1 = 2045.0
y¯ref = 1055.3

a1y = 1.0110

standard-setting part to generate a
reference duty cycle as described in
§ 1065.610. Calculate the total reference
work, Wref, as described in § 1065.650.
Divide the reference work by the duty
cycle’s time interval, Dtdutycycle, to
determine mean reference power, Pref.
(ii) Based on your engine design,
estimate maximum power, Pmax, the
design speed at maximum power, fnmax,
the design maximum intake manifold
boost pressure, pinmax, and temperature,
Tinmax. Also, estimate a mean fraction of

power that is lost due to friction and
pumping, P¯frict. Use this information
along with the engine displacement
volume, Vdisp, an approximate
volumetric efficiency, hV, and the
number of engine strokes per power
stroke (2-stroke or 4-stroke), Nstroke, to
estimate the maximum raw exhaust
molar flow rate, n˙ehmax.
(iii) Use your estimated values as
described in the following example
calculation:

*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(1) To estimate the flow-weighted
mean raw exhaust NOX concentration
from a turbocharged heavy-duty
compression-ignition engine at a NOX
standard of 2.5 g/(kW·hr), you may do
the following:
(i) Based on your engine design,
approximate a map of maximum torque
versus speed and use it with the
applicable normalized duty cycle in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00348

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Subpart G—[Amended]
74. Section 1065.602 is amended by
revising paragraph (f)(3) introductory
text, (h), and (l)(1) to read as follows:

■

§ 1065.602

Statistics.

*

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.022

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

*

compliance with the applicable
emission standards. For example, if the
drift-corrected value is less than the
standard by at least two times the
absolute difference between the
uncorrected and corrected values, you
may consider the data to be valid for
demonstrating compliance with the
applicable standard.

ER15SE11.021

57452

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Example:
eNOx = 2.5 g/(kW·hr)
Wref = 11.883 kW·hr
MNOx = 46.0055 g/mol = 46.0055·10¥6 g/μmol
Dtdutycycle = 20 min = 1200 s

57453

P¯ref = 35.65 kW
P¯frict = 15%
Pmax = 125 kW
pmax = 300 kPa = 300,000 Pa
Vdisp = 3.0 l = 0.0030 m3/r

fnmax = 2,800 r/min = 46.67 r/s
Nstroke = 4
hV = 0.9
R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K)
Tmax = 348.15 K

specify normalized speed commands,
use the no-load governed speed as the
measured fntest. This is the highest
engine speed where an engine outputs
zero torque. For variable-speed engines,
determine the measured fntest from the
power-versus-speed map, generated
according to § 1065.510, as follows:
(1) Based on the map, determine
maximum power, Pmax, and the speed at
which maximum power occurred, fnPmax.
If maximum power occurs at multiple

speeds, take fnPmax as the lowest of these
speeds. Divide every recorded power by
Pmax and divide every recorded speed by
fnPmax. The result is a normalized powerversus-speed map. Your measured fntest
is the speed at which the sum of the
squares of normalized speed and power
is maximum. Note that if multiple
maximum values are found, fntest should
be taken as the lowest speed of all
points with the same maximum sum of
squares. Determine fntest as follows:

n˙exhmax = 6.53 mol/s

x¯exp = 189.4 μmol/mol

*

*
*
*
*
■ 75. Section 1065.610 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (c) to
read as follows:
§ 1065.610

Duty cycle generation.

*
*
*
*
(a) Maximum test speed, fntest. This
section generally applies to duty cycles
for variable-speed engines. For constantspeed engines subject to duty cycles that

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(fnnorm1 = 1.002, Pnorm1 = 0.978, fn1 =
2359.71)
(fnnorm2 = 1.004, Pnorm2 = 0.977, fn2 =
2364.42)
(fnnorm3 = 1.006, Pnorm3 = 0.974, fn3 =
2369.13)

PO 00000

Frm 00349

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(fnnorm12 + Pnorm12) = (1.0022 + 0.9782) =
1.960
(fnnorm22 + Pnorm22) = (1.0042 + 0.9772) =
1.963
(fnnorm32 + Pnorm32) = (1.0062 + 0.9742) =
1.961
maximum = 1.963 at-i = 2
fntest = 2,364.42 r/min

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.025

Example:

ER15SE11.024

Where:
fntest = maximum test speed.
i = an indexing variable that represents one
recorded value of an engine map.
fnnormi = an engine speed normalized by
dividing it by fnPmax.
Pnormi = an engine power normalized by
dividing it by Pmax.

ER15SE11.023

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

ER15SE11.026

*

measured maximum test speed, fntest,
determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, replace fntest with fntest,alt. In this
case, fntest,alt becomes the ‘‘maximum test
speed’’ for that engine. Note that
§ 1065.510 allows you to apply an
optional declared maximum test speed

to the final measured maximum test
speed determined as an outcome of the
comparison between fntest, and fntest,alt in
this paragraph (a)(2). Determine fntest,alt
as follows:

Where:
fntest,alt = alternate maximum test speed
fnhi,idle = warm high-idle speed
fnidle = warm idle speed
% speedmax = maximum normalized speed
from duty cycle

(c) of this section by using the measured
maximum test speed determined
according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section—or use your declared
maximum test speed, as allowed in
§ 1065.510.
(4) For constant-speed engines,
transform normalized speeds to
reference speeds according to paragraph
(c) of this section by using the measured
no-load governed speed—or use your
declared maximum test speed, as
allowed in § 1065.510.
(b) * * *
(1) Based on the map, determine
maximum power, Pmax, and the speed at

which maximum power occurs, fnPmax. If
maximum power occurs at multiple
speeds, take fnPmax as the lowest of these
speeds. Divide every recorded power by
Pmax and divide every recorded speed by
fnPmax. The result is a normalized powerversus-speed map. Your measured Ttest
is the torque at which the sum of the
squares of normalized speed and power
is maximum. Note that that if multiple
maximum values are found, Ttest should
be taken as the highest torque of all
points with the same maximum sum of
squares. Determine Ttest as follows:

(fnnorm12 + Pnorm12) = (1.0022 + 0.9782) =
1.960
(fnnorm12 + Pnorm12) = (1.0042 + 0.9772) =
1.963
(fnnorm12 + Pnorm12) = (1.0062 + 0.9742) =
1.961
maximum = 1.963 at_i = 2
Ttest_ = 720.44 N·m
*
*
*
*
*

(c) Generating reference speed values
from normalized duty cycle speeds.
Transform normalized speed values to
reference values as follows:
(1) % speed. If your normalized duty
cycle specifies % speed values, use your
warm idle speed and your maximum
test speed to transform the duty cycle,
as follows:

lowest speed below maximum power at
which 50% of maximum power occurs.
Denote this value as nlo. Take nlo to be
warm idle speed if all power points at
speeds below the maximum power
speed are higher than 50% of maximum
power. Also determine the highest
speed above maximum power at which
70% of maximum power occurs. Denote

this value as nhi. If all power points at
speeds above the maximum power
speed are higher than 70% of maximum
power, take nhi to be the declared
maximum safe engine speed or the
declared maximum representative
engine speed, whichever is lower. Use
nhi and nlo to calculate reference values
for A, B, or C speeds as follows:

Example:
fnhi,idle = 2,200 r/min
fnidle = 800 r/min
% speedmax = 105% (Nonroad CI
Transient Cycle)
fntest,alt = (2,200¥800)/105% + 800
fntest,alt = 2,133 r/min
(3) For variable-speed engines,
transform normalized speeds to
reference speeds according to paragraph

Where:
Ttest = maximum test torque.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Example:
(fnnorm1 = 1.002, Pnorm1 = 0.978, T1 =
722.62 N·m)
(fnnorm2 = 1.004, Pnorm2 = 0.977, T2 =
720.44 N·m)
(fnnorm3 = 1.006, Pnorm3 = 0.974, T3 =
716.80 N·m)

Example:
% speed = 85%
fntest = 2,364 r/min
fnidle = 650 r/min
fnref = 85% · (2,364 ¥ 650) + 650
fnref = 2,107 r/min
(2) A, B, and C speeds. If your
normalized duty cycle specifies speeds
as A, B, or C values, use your powerversus-speed curve to determine the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00350

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.028

(2) For engines with a high-speed
governor that will be subject to a
reference duty cycle that specifies
normalized speeds greater than 100%,
calculate an alternate maximum test
speed, fntest,alt, as specified in this
paragraph (a)(2). If fntest,alt is less than the

ER15SE11.029

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

ER15SE11.027

57454

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57455

Example:
nlo = 1005 r/min
nhi = 2385 r/min
fnrefA = 0.25 · (2385 ¥ 1005) + 1005
fnrefB = 0.50 · (2385 ¥ 1005) + 1005
fnrefC = 0.75 · (2385 ¥ 1005) + 1005
fnrefA = 1350 r/min
fnrefB = 1695 r/min
fnrefC = 2040 r/min
(3) Intermediate speed. If your
normalized duty cycle specifies a speed
as ‘‘intermediate speed,’’ use your
torque-versus-speed curve to determine
the speed at which maximum torque

occurs. This is peak torque speed. If
maximum torque occurs in a flat region
of the torque-versus-speed curve, your
peak torque speed is the midpoint
between the lowest and highest speeds
at which the trace reaches the flat
region. For purposes of this paragraph
(c)(3), a flat region is one in which
measured torque values are within 2%
of the maximum recorded value.
Identify your reference intermediate
speed as one of the following values:
*
*
*
*
*

■

76. Section 1065.640 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5),
(e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(7) to read as
follows:

Example:
Ô
n&ref = 25.096 mol/s
R = 8.314472 J/(mol · K)
T¯in = 299.5 K

P¯in = 98290 Pa
f¯nPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s

Vrev = 0.03166 m3/r
(2) PDP slip correction factor, Ks (s/r):

Example:
f¯nPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
P¯out = 100.103 kPa
P¯in = 98.290 kPa

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.640—EXAMPLE OF
PDP CALIBRATION DATA

(e) * * *
(3) If the standard deviation of all the
Cd values is less than or equal to 0.3%
of the mean Cd, use the mean Cd in Eq
1065.642–6, and use the CFV only up to
the highest r measured during
calibration using the following equation:

§ 1065.640 Flow meter calibration
calculations.

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) PDP volume pumped per
revolution, Vrev (m3/r):

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

*

PO 00000

*

*

Frm 00351

*

Fmt 4701

50.43
49.86
48.54
47.30

0.056
¥0.013
0.028
¥0.061

*

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

ER15SE11.033
ER15SE11.032

755.0 .........................
987.6 .........................
1254.5 .......................
1401.3 .......................

a0 (m3/r)

ER15SE11.031

Ks = 0.006700 s/r
*
*
*
*
*
(5) The following example illustrates
these calculations:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

a1 (m3/
min)

¯fnPDP (r/min)

15SER2

ER15SE11.030

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

ER15SE11.034

*

57456

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Where:
Dp_CFV = Differential static pressure;
venturi inlet minus venturi outlet.

(4) If the standard deviation of all the
Cd values exceeds 0.3% of the mean Cd,
omit the Cd values corresponding to the
data point collected at the highest r
measured during calibration.
*
*
*
*
*

(7) If the standard deviation of the
remaining Cd values is less than or equal
to 0.3% of the mean of the remaining Cd,
use that mean Cd in Eq 1065.642–6, and
use the CFV values only up to the
highest r associated with the remaining
Cd.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 77. Section 1065.642 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 1065.642 SSV, CFV, and PDP molar flow
rate calculations.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) PDP molar flow rate. Based upon
the speed at which you operate the PDP
for a test interval, select the
corresponding slope, a1, and intercept,
a0, as calculated in § 1065.640, to
calculate molar flow rate, n˙ as follows:

Ô
n = 29.428 mol/s
*
*
*
*
*
■ 78. Section 1065.645 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.645
gas.

Amount of water in an ideal

This section describes how to
determine the amount of water in an
ideal gas, which you need for various
performance verifications and emission
calculations. Use the equation for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Tin = 323.5 K
Cp = 1000 (J/m3)/kPa
Ct = 60 s/min

vapor pressure of water in paragraph (a)
of this section or another appropriate
equation and, depending on whether
you measure dewpoint or relative
humidity, perform one of the
calculations in paragraph (b) or (c) of
this section. The equations for the vapor
pressure of water as presented in this
section are derived from equations in
‘‘Saturation Pressure of Water on the
New Kelvin Temperature Scale’’ (Goff,
J.A., Transactions American Society of
Heating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Vol. 63, No. 1607, pages 347–
354). Note that the equations were
originally published to derive vapor
pressure in units of atmospheres and

have been modified to derive results in
units of kPa by converting the last term
in each equation.
(a) Vapor pressure of water. Calculate
the vapor pressure of water for a given
saturation temperature condition, Tsat, as
follows, or use good engineering
judgment to use a different relationship
of the vapor pressure of water to a given
saturation temperature condition:
(1) For humidity measurements made at
ambient temperatures from (0 to
100) °C, or for humidity
measurements made over supercooled water at ambient
temperatures from (¥50 to 0) °C,
use the following equation:

PO 00000

Frm 00352

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.038

Vrev = 0.06383 m3/r

pout = 99950 Pa
pin = 98575 Pa
a0 = 0.056 (m3/r)
R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K)

ER15SE11.037

(m3/s)

ER15SE11.036

a1 = 50.43
= 0.8405
f¯nPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s
(m3/min)

ER15SE11.035

Example:

ER15SE11.039

Where:

(2) For humidity measurements over
ice at ambient temperatures from (–100
to 0) °C, use the following equation:

Example:
Tice = ¥15.4 °C

Tice = –15.4 + 273.15 = 257.75 K

log10(pH20) = ¥0.798207
pH20 = 10 ¥0.79821 = 0.159145 kPa
*
*
*
*
*
■ 79. Section 1065.650 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(1), and (c)(4).
■ b. By adding paragraph (c)(5).
■ c. By revising paragraphs (d)(7), (e)(4),
and (f)(4).

by its respective flow. For all systems,
make preliminary calculations as
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section to correct concentrations. Next,
use the method in paragraphs (c)(2)
through (4) of this section that is
appropriate for your system. Finally, if
necessary, calculate the mass of NMHC
as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this
section for all systems. Calculate the
total mass of emissions as follows:
(1) Concentration corrections. Perform
the following sequence of preliminary
calculations on recorded concentrations:
(i) Correct all gaseous emission
analyzer concentration readings,

§ 1065.650

Emission calculations.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) Total mass of emissions over a test
interval. To calculate the total mass of
an emission, multiply a concentration

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00353

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

including continuous readings, sample
bag readings, and dilution air
background readings, for drift as
described in § 1065.672. Note that you
must omit this step where brake-specific
emissions are calculated without the
drift correction for performing the drift
validation according to § 1065.550(b).
When applying the initial THC and CH4
contamination readings according to
§ 1065.520(g), use the same values for
both sets of calculations. You may also
use as-measured values in the initial set
of calculations and corrected values in
the drift-corrected set of calculations as
described in § 1065.520(g)(7).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.043

log10(pH20) = 0.074297
pH20 = 100.074297 = 1.186581 kPa

Example:

Tsat = 9.5 °C
Tsat = 9.5 + 273.15 = 282.65 K

ER15SE11.042

Tsat = saturation temperature of water at
measured conditions, K.

ER15SE11.041

Where:
pH20 = vapor pressure of water at saturation
temperature condition, kPa.

57457

ER15SE11.040

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57458

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

P1 = 33.41 kW
P2 = 33.09 kW
Using Eq. 1065.650–5,
Dt = 1/5 = 0.2 s

W = 16.875 kW · hr
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) The following example shows how
to calculate mass of emissions using
mean mass rate and mean power:
MCO = 28.0101 g/mol
x¯CO = 12.00 mmol/mol = 0.01200 mol/
mol
Ô
n = 1.530 mol/s
f¯n = 3584.5 r/min = 375.37 rad/s
T¯ = 121.50 N · m
Ô = 28.0101 · 0.01200 · 1.530
m
Ô = 0.514 g/s = 1850.4 g/hr
m
P¯ = 121.5·375.37
P¯ = 45607 W
Where:
P¯ = 45.607 kW
W = total work from the primary output shaft. eCO = 1850.4/45.61
Pi = instantaneous power from the primary
eCO = 40.57 g/(kW·hr)
output shaft over an interval i.
(f) * * *
(4) Example. The following example
shows how to calculate mass of
emissions using proportional values:
N = 3000
Example:
ƒrecord = 5 Hz
efuel = 285 g/(kW·hr)
N = 9000
wfuel = 0.869 g/g
ƒn1 = 1800.2 r/min
Mc = 12.0107 g/mol
ƒn2 = 1805.8 r/min
Õ
n1 = 3.922 mol/s = 14119.2 mol/hr
T1 = 177.23 N·m
xCcombdry1 = 91.634 mmol/mol =
T2 = 175.00 N·m
0.091634 mol/mol
Crev = 2·π rad/r
xH2Oexh1 = 27.21 mmol/mol = 0.02721
Ct1 = 60 s/min
mol/mol
Cp = 1000 (N·m·rad/s)/kW
Using Eq. 1065.650–5,
ƒrecord = 5 Hz
Dt = 0.2 s
Ct2 = 3600 s/hr
*

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.655 Chemical balances of fuel,
intake air, and exhaust.

*

*

*

VerDate Mar<15>2010

*

*

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00354

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

by a sampling system. Correct for
removed water according to § 1065.659.
(3) The calculated dilution air flow
when you do not measure dilution air
flow to correct for background
emissions as described in § 1065.667(c)
and (d).
(c) * * *
(5) The following example is a
solution for xdil/exh,x, xH2Oexh, and
xCcombdry using the equations in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.046

80. Section 1065.655 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b), (c)(5), (d), and
(e)(3) and adding paragraph (f) to read
as follows:

■

(b) Procedures that require chemical
balances. We require chemical balances
when you determine the following:
(1) A value proportional to total work,
¯ when you choose to determine brakeW
specific emissions as described in
§ 1065.650(f).
(2) The amount of water in a raw or
diluted exhaust flow, xH2Oexh, when you
do not measure the amount of water to
correct for the amount of water removed

ER15SE11.045

*

ER15SE11.044

¯ = 5.09 (kW·hr)
W
*
*
*
*

ER15SE11.047

ER15SE11.048

Example:
mPMdil = 6.853 g
DR = 6:1
mPM = 6.853 · 6
mPM = 41.118 g

(ii) For continuous or batch sampling,
you may measure background emissions
in the dilution air. You may then
subtract the measured background
emissions, as described in § 1065.667.
(5) Mass of NMHC. Compare the
corrected mass of NMHC to corrected
mass of THC. If the corrected mass of
NMHC is greater than 0.98 times the
corrected mass of THC, take the
corrected mass of NMHC to be 0.98
times the corrected mass of THC. If you
omit the NMHC calculations as
described in § 1065.660(b)(1), take the
corrected mass of NMHC to be 0.98
times the corrected mass of THC.
(d) * * *
(7) Integrate the resulting values for
power over the test interval. Calculate
total work as follows:

ER15SE11.049

(ii) Correct all THC and CH4
concentrations, including continuous
readings, sample bags readings, and
dilution air background readings, for
initial contamination, as described in
§ 1065.660(a).
(iii) Correct all concentrations
measured on a ‘‘dry’’ basis to a ‘‘wet’’
basis, including dilution air background
concentrations, as described in
§ 1065.659.
(iv) Calculate all NMHC and CH4
concentrations, including dilution air
background concentrations, as described
in § 1065.660.
(v) For emission testing with an
oxygenated fuel, calculate any HC
concentrations, including dilution air
background concentrations, as described
in § 1065.665. See subpart I of this part
for testing with oxygenated fuels.
(vi) Correct all the NOX
concentrations, including dilution air
background concentrations, for intakeair humidity as described in § 1065.670.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Additional provisions for diluted
exhaust sampling; continuous or batch.
The following additional provisions
apply for sampling emissions from
diluted exhaust:
(i) For sampling with a constant
dilution ratio, DR, of diluted exhaust
versus exhaust flow (e.g., secondary
dilution for PM sampling), calculate m
using the following equation:

ER15SE11.051

57459

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00355

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.050

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

α = 1.8
β = 0.05
γ = 0.0003
δ = 0.0001

(d) Carbon mass fraction. Determine
carbon mass fraction of fuel, wc, using
one of the following methods:
(1) You may calculate wc as described
in this paragraph (d)(1) based on
measured fuel properties. To do so, you

must determine values for α and β in all
cases, but you may set g and d to zero
if the default value listed in Table 1 of
this section is zero. Calculate wc using
the following equation:

Where:
wc = carbon mass fraction of fuel.
MC = molar mass of carbon.

α = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the
mixture of fuel(s) being combusted,
weighted by molar consumption.

MH = molar mass of hydrogen.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00356

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.053

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

ER15SE11.052

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57460

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
β = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the
mixture of fuel(s) being combusted,
weighted by molar consumption.
MO = molar mass of oxygen.
γ = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the
mixture of fuel(s) being combusted,
weighted by molar consumption.
MS = molar mass of sulfur.

δ = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the
mixture of fuel(s) being combusted,
weighted by molar consumption.
MN = molar mass of nitrogen.

wc = 0.8205

(2) You may use the default values in
the following table to determine wc for
a given fuel:

Example:
α = 1.8
β = 0.05

57461

γ = 0.0003
δ = 0.0001
MC = 12.0107
MH = 1.01
MO = 15.9994
MS = 32.065
MN = 14.0067

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.655—DEFAULT VALUES OF α, β, γ, δ, AND wc, FOR VARIOUS FUELS
Atomic hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen-to-carbon ratios
CHaObSgNd

Fuel
Gasoline ........................................................................................
E10 Gasoline ................................................................................
E15 Gasoline ................................................................................
E85 Gasoline ................................................................................
#1 Diesel .......................................................................................
#2 Diesel .......................................................................................
Liquefied Petroleum Gas ..............................................................
Natural gas ...................................................................................
E100 Ethanol ................................................................................
M100 Methanol .............................................................................
Residual fuel blends .....................................................................

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00357

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

you update and record n˙int and n˙dexh.
This calculated n˙exh may be used for the
PM dilution ratio verification in
§ 1065.546; the calculation of dilution
air molar flow rate in the background
correction in § 1065.667; and the
calculation of mass of emissions in
§ 1065.650(c) for species that are
measured in the raw exhaust.
(1) Crankcase flow rate. If engines are
not subject to crankcase controls under
the standard-setting part, calculate raw
exhaust flow as described in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section.
(2) Dilute exhaust and intake air
molar flow rate calculation. Calculate
n˙exh as follows:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.056

Example:
˙ fuel = 7.559 g/s
m
wc = 0.869 g/g
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
xCcombdry = 99.87 mmol/mol = 0.09987
mol/mol
xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764
mol/mol

n˙exh = 6.066 mol/s
(f) Calculated raw exhaust molar flow
rate from measured intake air molar
flow rate, dilute exhaust molar flow
rate, and dilute chemical balance. You
may calculate the raw exhaust molar
flow rate, n˙exh, based on the measured
intake air molar flow rate, n˙int, the
measured dilute exhaust molar flow
rate, n˙dexh, and the values calculated
using the chemical balance in paragraph
(c) of this section. Note that the
chemical balance must be based on
dilute exhaust gas concentrations. For
continuous-flow calculations, solve for
the chemical balance in paragraph (c) of
this section at the same frequency that

ER15SE11.055

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Must be determined by measured fuel properties as described in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.

(3) Fuel mass flow rate calculation.
˙ fuel, calculate n˙exh as follows:
Based on m

Where:
n˙exh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from
which you measured emissions.
˙ fuel = fuel flow rate including humidity in
m
intake air.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

0.866
0.833
0.817
0.576
0.861
0.869
0.819
0.747
0.521
0.375

ER15SE11.054

(e) * * *

CH1.85O0S0N0
CH1.92O0.03S0N0
CH1.95O0.05S0N0
CH2.73O0.38S0N0
CH1.93O0S0N0
CH1.80O0S0N0
CH2.64O0S0N0
CH3.78 O0.016S0N0
CH3O0.5S0N0
CH4O1S0N0

Carbon
mass fraction, wc g/g

57462

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(a) If you remove water upstream of a
concentration measurement, x, or
upstream of a flow measurement, n,
correct for the removed water. Perform
this correction based on the amount of
water at the concentration
measurement, xH2O[emission]meas, and at
the flow meter, xH2Oexh, whose flow is
used to determine the mass emission
rate or total mass over a test interval.
For continuous analyzers downstream
of a sample dryer for transient and
ramped-modal cycles, you must apply
this correction on a continuous basis
over the test interval, even if you use
one of the options in § 1065.145(e)(2)
that results in a constant value for
xH2O[emission]meas because xH2Oexh varies

over the test interval. For batch
analyzers, determine the flow-weighted
average based on the continuous xH2Oexh
values determined as described in
paragraph (c) of this section. For batch
analyzers, you may determine the flowweighted average xH2Oexh based on a
single value of xH2Oexh determined as
described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of
this section, using flow-weighted
average or batch concentration inputs.
(b) Determine the amount of water
remaining downstream of a sample
dryer and at the concentration
measurement using one of the methods
described in § 1065.145(e)(2). If you use
a sample dryer upstream of an analyzer
and if the calculated amount of water
remaining downstream of the sample
dryer and at the concentration
measurement, xH2O[emission]meas, is higher
than the amount of water at the flow
meter, xH2Oexh, set xH2O[emission]meas equal
to xH2Oexh. If you use a sample dryer
upstream of storage media, you must be
able to demonstrate that the sample
dryer is removing water continuously
(i.e., xH2Oexh is higher than
xH2O[emission]meas throughout the test
interval).
(c) For a concentration measurement
where you did not remove water, you
may set xH2O[emission]meas equal to xH2Oexh.

You may determine the amount of water
at the flow meter, xH2Oexh, using any of
the following methods:
(1) Measure the dewpoint and
absolute pressure and calculate the
amount of water as described in
§ 1065.645.
(2) If the measurement comes from
raw exhaust, you may determine the
amount of water based on intake-air
humidity, plus a chemical balance of
fuel, intake air, and exhaust as
described in § 1065.655.
(3) If the measurement comes from
diluted exhaust, you may determine the
amount of water based on intake-air
humidity, dilution air humidity, and a
chemical balance of fuel, intake air, and
exhaust as described in § 1065.655.
*
*
*
*
*

Example:
xTHCuncor = 150.3 μmol/mol
xTHCinit = 1.1 μmol/mol
xTHCcor = 150.3—1.1
xTHCcor = 149.2 μmol/mol
(2) For the NMHC determination
described in paragraph (b) of this
section, correct xTHC[THC–FID] for initial
THC contamination using Equation
1065.660–1. You may correct
xTHC[NMC–FID] for initial contamination
of the CH4 sample train using Equation
1065.660–1, substituting in CH4
concentrations for THC.
(3) For the CH4 determination
described in paragraph (c) of this

section, you may correct xTHC[NMC–FID]
for initial THC contamination of the CH4
sample train using Equation 1065.660–
1, substituting in CH4 concentrations for
THC.
(b) NMHC determination. Use one of
the following to determine NMHC
concentration, xNMHC:
(1) If you do not measure CH4, you
may omit the calculation of NMHC
concentrations and calculate the mass of
NMHC as described in § 1065.650(c)(5).
(2) For nonmethane cutters, calculate
xNMHC using the nonmethane cutter’s
penetration fraction (PF) of CH4 and the
response factor penetration fraction

(RFPF) of C2H6 from § 1065.365, the
response factor (RF) of the THC FID to
CH4 from § 1065.360, the initial THC
contamination and dry-to-wet corrected
THC concentration xTHC[THC–FID]cor as
determined in paragraph (a) of this
section, and the dry-to-wet corrected
CH4 concentration xTHC[NMC–FID]cor
optionally corrected for initial THC
contamination as determined in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(i) Use the following equation for
penetration fractions determined using
an NMC configuration as outlined in
§ 1065.365(d):

Example:
n˙int = 7.930mol/s
xraw/exhdry = 0.1544 mol/mol
xint/exhdry = 0.1451 mol/mol
xH2Oexh = 32.46 mmol/mol - 0.03246
mol/mol
n˙dexh = 49.02 mol/s
n˙exh = (0.1544¥0.145( · (1¥0.03246) ·
49.02 + 7.930 = 0.4411 + 7.930 =
8.371 mol/s
■ 81. Section 1065.659 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to
read as follows:

82. Section 1065.660 is revised to read
as follows:

■

§ 1065.660 THC, NMHC, and CH4
determination.

(a) THC determination and initial
THC/CH4 contamination corrections. (1)
If we require you to determine THC
emissions, calculate xTHC[THC–FID]cor
using the initial THC contamination
concentration xTHC[THC–FID]init from
§ 1065.520 as follows:

ER15SE11.058

Removed water correction.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00358

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.057

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.659

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57463

penetration fraction, according to
§ 1065.365(d).

Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination and dry-towet corrected, as measured by the THC
FID during sampling while bypassing the
NMC.

xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination (optional) and
dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the
NMC FID during sampling through the
NMC.
RFCH4[THC–FID] = response factor of THC FID
to CH4, according to § 1065.360(d).
RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID] = nonmethane cutter
combined ethane response factor and

Example:
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = 150.3 μmol/mol
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = 20.5 μmol/mol
RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID] = 0.019
RFCH4[THC–FID] = 1.05

xNMHC = 131.4 μmol/mol

(ii) For penetration fractions
determined using an NMC configuration

as outlined in section § 1065.365(e), use
the following equation:

Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination and dry-towet corrected, as measured by the THC
FID during sampling while bypassing the
NMC.
PFCH4[NMC–FID] = nonmethane cutter CH4
penetration fraction, according to
§ 1065.365(e).
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination (optional) and

dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the
THC FID during sampling through the
NMC.
PFC2H6[NMC–FID] = nonmethane cutter ethane
penetration fraction, according to
§ 1065.365(e).

Example:

(iii) For penetration fractions
determined using an NMC configuration
as outlined in section § 1065.365(f), use
the following equation:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Example:
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = 150.3 μmol/mol
PFCH4[NMC–FID] = 0.990
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = 20.5 μmol/mol
RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID] = 0.019

PO 00000

Frm 00359

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

xNMHC = 132.5 μmol/mol
(3) For a GC–FID, calculate xNMHC
using the THC analyzer’s response
factor (RF) for CH4, from § 1065.360, and
the initial THC contamination and dryto-wet corrected THC concentration
xTHC[THC–FID]cor as determined in
paragraph (a) of this section as follows:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.062

RFCH4[THC–FID] = 0.980

ER15SE11.061

THC FID during sampling through the
NMC.
RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID] = nonmethane cutter CH4
combined ethane response factor and
penetration fraction, according to
§ 1065.365(f).
RFCH4[THC–FID] = response factor of THC FID
to CH4, according to § 1065.360(d).

ER15SE11.060

Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination and dry-towet corrected, as measured by the THC
FID during sampling while bypassing the
NMC.
PFCH4[NMC–FID] = nonmethane cutter CH4
penetration fraction, according to
§ 1065.365(f).
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination (optional) and
dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the

ER15SE11.059

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

ER15SE11.063

ER15SE11.067

xTHC[THC–FID]cor = 150.3 μmol/mol
PFCH4[NMC–FID] = 0.990
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = 20.5 μmol/mol
PFC2H6[NMC–FID] = 0.020

xNMHC = 132.3 μmol/mol

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Example:
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = 10.4 μmol/mol
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = 150.3 μmol/mol
RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID] = 0.019
RFCH4[THC–FID] = 1.05

PFC2H6[NMC–FID] = nonmethane cutter ethane
penetration fraction, according to
§ 1065.365(e).
RFCH4[THC–FID] = response factor of THC FID
to CH4, according to § 1065.360(d).
PFCH4[NMC–FID] = nonmethane cutter CH4
penetration fraction, according to
§ 1065.365(e).

Example:
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = 10.4 μmol/mol
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = 150.3 μmol/mol
PFC2H6[NMC–FID] = 0.020

xCH4 = 7.69 μmol/mol
(ii) For penetration fractions
determined using an NMC configuration
as outlined in § 1065.365(e), use the
following equation:

RFCH4[THC–FID] = 1.05
PFCH4[NMC–FID] = 0.990

xCH4 = 7.25 μmol/mol
(iii) For penetration fractions
determined using an NMC configuration
as outlined in § 1065.365(f), use the
following equation:

ER15SE11.069

Where:
xCH4 = concentration of CH4.
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination (optional) and
dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the
NMC FID during sampling through the
NMC.
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination and dry-towet corrected, as measured by the THC
FID during sampling while bypassing the
NMC.

RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID] = the combined ethane
response factor and penetration fraction
of the nonmethane cutter, according to
§ 1065.365(d).
RFCH4[THC–FID] = response factor of THC FID
to CH4, according to § 1065.360(d).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00360

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.068

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Where:
xCH4 = concentration of CH4.
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination (optional) and
dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the
NMC FID during sampling through the
NMC.
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination and dry-towet corrected, as measured by the THC
FID during sampling while bypassing the
NMC.

contamination and dry-to-wet corrected
THC concentration xTHC[THC–FID]cor as
determined in paragraph (a) of this
section, and the dry-to-wet corrected
CH4 concentration xTHC[NMC–FID]cor
optionally corrected for initial THC
contamination as determined in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(i) Use the following equation for
penetration fractions determined using
an NMC configuration as outlined in
§ 1065.365(d):

ER15SE11.072

Example:
xTHC[THC–FID[cor = 145.6 μmol/mol
RFCH4[THC–FID] = 0.970

xCH4 = 18.9 μmol/mol
xNMHC = 145.6¥0.970 · 18.9
xNMHC = 127.3 μmol/mol
(c) CH4 determination. Use one of the
following methods to determine CH4
concentration, xCH4:
(1) For nonmethane cutters, calculate
xCH4 using the nonmethane cutter’s
penetration fraction (PF) of CH4 and the
response factor penetration fraction
(RFPF) of C2H6 from § 1065.365, the
response factor (RF) of the THC FID to
CH4 from § 1065.360, the initial THC

ER15SE11.071

Where:
xNMHC = concentration of NMHC.
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination and dry-towet corrected, as measured by the THC
FID.
xCH4= concentration of CH4, dry-to-wet
corrected, as measured by the GC–FID.
RFCH4[THC–FID] = response factor of THC–FID
to CH4.

ER15SE11.070

57464

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.667 Dilution air background
emission correction.

(a) To determine the mass of
background emissions to subtract from a
diluted exhaust sample, first determine
the total flow of dilution air, ndil, over
the test interval. This may be a
measured quantity or a calculated
quantity. Multiply the total flow of
dilution air by the mean mole fraction
(i.e., concentration) of a background
emission. This may be a time-weighted
mean or a flow-weighted mean (e.g., a
proportionally sampled background).
Finally, multiply by the molar mass, M,
of the associated gaseous emission
constituent. The product of ndil and the
mean molar concentration of a
background emission and its molar
mass, M, is the total background
emission mass, m. In the case of PM,
where the mean PM concentration is
already in units of mass per mole of
¯ PM, multiply it by the total
sample, M

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00361

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(f) The following is an example of
using the fraction of dilution air in
diluted exhaust, xdil/exh, and the mass
rate of background emissions calculated
using the flow rate of diluted exhaust,
n˙dexh, as described in § 1065.650(c):
ER15SE11.076

(2) For a GC–FID, xCH4 is the actual
dry-to-wet corrected CH4 concentration
as measured by the analyzer.
■ 83. Section 1065.667 is revised to read
as follows:

Example:
MNOx = 46.0055 g/mol
x¯bkgnd = 0.05 μmol/mol = 0.05·10-6 mol/
mol
ndexh = 23280.5 mol
x¯dil/exh = 0.843 mol/mol
mbkgndNOxdexh =
46.0055·0.05·10¥6·23280.5
mbkgndNOxdexh = 0.0536 g
mbkgndNOx = 0.843 · 0.0536
mbkgndNOx = 0.0452 g

ER15SE11.075

xCH4 = 7.78 μmol/mol

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, or
remove background emissions from
dilution air by HEPA filtration,
chemical adsorption, or catalytic
scrubbing. You might also consider
using a partial-flow dilution technique
such as a bag mini-diluter, which uses
purified air as the dilution air.
(e) The following is an example of
using the flow-weighted mean fraction
of dilution air in diluted exhaust, x¯dil/exh,
and the total mass of background
emissions calculated using the total
flow of diluted exhaust, ndexh, as
described in § 1065.650(c):

Example:
MNOx = 46.0055 g/mol
xbkgnd = 0.05 μmol/mol = 0.05·10¥6 mol/
mol

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.074

Example:
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = 10.4 μmol/mol
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = 150.3 μmol/mol
RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID] = 0.019
PFCH4[NMC–FID] = 0.990
RFCH4[THC–FID] = 1.05

amount of dilution air flow, and the
result is the total background mass of
PM, mPM. Subtract total background
mass from total mass to correct for
background emissions.
(b) You may determine the total flow
of dilution air by a direct flow
measurement.
(c) You may determine the total flow
of dilution air by subtracting the
calculated raw exhaust molar flow as
described in § 1065.655(f) from the
measured dilute exhaust flow. This may
be done by totaling continuous
calculations or by using batch results.
(d) You may determine the total flow
of dilution air from the measured dilute
exhaust flow and a chemical balance of
the fuel, intake air, and dilute exhaust
as described in § 1065.655. For this
option, the molar flow of dilution air is
calculated by multiplying the dilute
exhaust flow by the mole fraction of
dilution gas to dilute exhaust, xdil/exh,
from the dilute chemical balance. This
may be done by totaling continuous
calculations or by using batch results.
For example, to use batch results, the
total flow of dilution air is calculated by
multiplying the total flow of diluted
exhaust, ndexh, by the flow-weighted
mean mole fraction of dilution air in
diluted exhaust, x¯dil/exh. Calculate x¯dil/exh
using flow-weighted mean
concentrations of emissions in the
chemical balance, as described in
§ 1065.655. The chemical balance in
§ 1065.655 assumes that your engine
operates stoichiometrically, even if it is
a lean-burn engine, such as a
compression-ignition engine. Note that
for lean-burn engines this assumption
could result in an error in emission
calculations. This error could occur
because the chemical balance in
§ 1065.655 treats excess air passing
through a lean-burn engine as if it was
dilution air. If an emission
concentration expected at the standard
is about 100 times its dilution air
background concentration, this error is
negligible. However, if an emission
concentration expected at the standard
is similar to its background
concentration, this error could be
significant. If this error might affect your
ability to show that your engines
comply with applicable standards, we
recommend that you either determine
the total flow of dilution air using one
of the more accurate methods in

ER15SE11.073

Where:
xCH4 = concentration of CH4.
xTHC[NMC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination (optional) and
dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the
NMC FID during sampling through the
NMC.
xTHC[THC–FID]cor = concentration of THC,
initial THC contamination and dry-towet corrected, as measured by the THC
FID during sampling while bypassing the
NMC.
RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID] = the combined ethane
response factor and penetration fraction
of the nonmethane cutter, according to
§ 1065.365(f).
PFCH4[NMC–FID] = nonmethane cutter CH4
penetration fraction, according to
§ 1065.365(f).
RFCH4[THC–FID] = response factor of THC FID
to CH4, according to § 1065.360(d).

57465

57466

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

n˙dexh = 23280.5 mol/s
xdil/exh = 0.843 mol/mol
˙ bkgndNOxdexh =
m
46.0055·0.05·10¥6·23280.5
˙ bkgndNOxdexh = 0.0536 g/hr
m
˙ bkgndNOx = 0.843 · 0.0536
m
˙ bkgndNOx = 0.0452 g/hr
m

See the standard-setting part to
determine if you may correct NOX
emissions for the effects of intake-air

humidity or temperature. Use the NOX
intake-air humidity and temperature
corrections specified in the standardsetting part instead of the NOX intakeair humidity correction specified in this
part 1065. If the standard-setting part
does not prohibit correcting NOX
emissions for intake-air humidity
according to this part 1065, correct NOX
concentrations for intake-air humidity
as described in this section. See
§ 1065.650(c)(1) for the proper sequence
for applying the NOX intake-air
humidity and temperature corrections.
You may use a time-weighted mean
combustion air humidity to calculate

Where:
quench = amount of CLD quench.
xNOdry = concentration of NO upstream of a
bubbler, according to § 1065.370(e)(4).
xNOwet = measured concentration of NO
downstream of a bubbler, according to
§ 1065.370(e)(9).
xH2Oexp = maximum expected mole fraction of
water during emission testing, according
to paragraph (b) of this section.

xH2Omeas = measured mole fraction of water
during the quench verification,
according to § 1065.370(e)(7).
xNOmeas = measured concentration of NO
when NO span gas is blended with CO2
span gas, according to § 1065.370(d)(10).
xNOact = actual concentration of NO when NO
span gas is blended with CO2 span gas,
according to § 1065.370(d)(11) and

calculated according to Equation
1065.675–2.
xCO2exp = maximum expected concentration
of CO2 during emission testing,
according to paragraph (c) of this section.
xCO2act = actual concentration of CO2 when
NO span gas is blended with CO2 span
gas, according to § 1065.370(d)(9).

Where:
xNOspan = the NO span gas concentration
input to the gas divider, according to
§ 1065.370(d)(5).
xCO2span = the CO2 span gas concentration
input to the gas divider, according to
§ 1065.370(d)(4).

Example:
xNOdry = 1800.0 μmol/mol
xNOwet = 1739.6 μmol/mol
xH2Oexp = 0.030 mol/mol
xH2Omeas = 0.030 mol/mol
xNOmeas = 1515.2 μmol/mol

xNOspan = 3001.6 μmol/mol
xCO2exp = 3.2%
xCO2span = 6.1%
xCO2act = 2.98%

84. Section 1065.670 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:

■

85. Section 1065.675 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

■

§ 1065.675 CLD quench verification
calculations.

*
*
*
*
(d) Calculate quench as follows:

ER15SE11.078

ER15SE11.079

*

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00362

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4725

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.077

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.670 NOX intake-air humidity and
temperature corrections.

this correction if your combustion air
humidity remains within a tolerance of
±0.0025 mol/mol of the mean value over
the test interval. For intake-air humidity
correction, use one of the following
approaches:
*
*
*
*
*

57467

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
quench = (¥0.0036655¥0.
014020171)·100% = ¥1.7685671%
Subpart H—[Amended]
86. Section 1065.750 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory
text and (a)(4) to read as follows:

■

§ 1065.750

Analytical gases.

*

*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(3) Use the following gas mixtures,
with gases traceable within ±1% of the
NIST-accepted value or other gas
standards we approve:
*
*
*
*
*

(4) You may use gases for species
other than those listed in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section (such as methanol
in air, which you may use to determine
response factors), as long as they are
traceable to within ±3% of the NISTaccepted value or other similar
standards we approve, and meet the
stability requirements of paragraph (b)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 87. Section 1065.790 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1065.790

Mass standards.

(a) PM balance calibration weights.
Use PM balance calibration weights that

are certified as NIST-traceable within
0.1% uncertainty. Calibration weights
may be certified by any calibration lab
that maintains NIST-traceability. Make
sure your highest calibration weight has
no greater than ten times the mass of an
unused PM-sample medium.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart J—[Amended]
88. Section 1065.915 is amended by
revising Table 1 in paragraph (a) to read
as follows:

■

§ 1065.915

PEMS instruments.

(a) * * *

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.915—RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PEMS MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE
Measured
quantity
symbol

Rise time, t10–90,
and
fall time, t90–10

Recording update
frequency

Accuracy 1

Repeatability 1

Engine speed transducer.
Engine torque estimator, BSFC
(This is a signal
from an engine’s
ECM)
General pressure
transducer (not a
part of another instrument)
Atmospheric pressure meter
General temperature sensor (not a
part of another instrument)
General dewpoint
sensor.
Exhaust flow meter

fn ..........................

1 s .......................

1 Hz means .........

1 s .......................

1 Hz means .........

2% of pt. or 1% of
max.
2% of pt. or 1% of
max.

0.5% of max.

T or BSFC ...........

5% of pt. or 1% of
max.
8% of pt. or 5% of
max.

p ..........................

5 s .......................

1 Hz .....................

5% of pt. or 5% of
max.

2% of pt. or 0.5%
of max.

1% of max.

patmos ....................

50 s .....................

0.1 Hz ..................

250 Pa .................

200 Pa .................

100 Pa.

T ..........................

5 s .......................

1 Hz .....................

1% of pt. K or 5 K

0.5% of pt. K or 2
K.

0.5% of max 0.5
K.

Tdew .....................

50 s .....................

0.1 Hz ..................

3 K .......................

1 K .......................

1 K.

n ..........................

1 s .......................

1 Hz means .........

2% of pt ...............

2% of max.

Dilution air, inlet air,
exhaust, and
sample flow meters
Continuous gas analyzer.
Gravimetric PM balance.
Inertial PM balance

n ..........................

1 s .......................

1 Hz means .........

5% of pt. or 3% of
max.
2.5% of pt. or
1.5% of max.

1.25% of pt. or
0.75% of max.

1% of max.

x ..........................

5 s .......................

1 Hz .....................

N/A ......................

N/A ......................

2% of pt. or 2% of
meas.
0.5 μg ..................

1% of max.

mPM .....................

4% of pt. or 4% of
meas.
See § 1065.790 ...

mPM .....................

N/A ......................

N/A ......................

4% of pt. or 4% of
meas.

2% of pt. or 2% of
meas.

1% of max.

Measurement

Noise 1

1% of max.

N/A.

1 Accuracy, repeatability, and noise are all determined with the same collected data, as described in § 1065.305, and based on absolute values. ‘‘pt.’’ refers to the overall flow-weighted mean value expected at the standard; ‘‘max.’’ refers to the peak value expected at the standard over
any test interval, not the maximum of the instrument’s range; ‘‘meas’’ refers to the actual flow-weighted mean measured over any test interval.

*

*

*

*

*

89. Section 1065.925 is amended by
revising paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and
(h)(3) to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

■

§ 1065.925
testing.

PEMS preparation for field

*

*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) Select the HC analyzer range for
measuring the maximum concentration
expected at the HC standard.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(2) Zero the HC analyzers using a zero
gas or ambient air introduced at the
analyzer port. When zeroing a FID, use
the FID’s burner air that would be used
for in-use measurements (generally
either ambient air or a portable source
of burner air).
(3) Span the HC analyzer using span
gas introduced at the analyzer port.
*
*
*
*
*

PO 00000

Frm 00363

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Subpart K—[Amended]
90. Section 1065.1001 is amended by
revising the introductory text and the
definitions for ‘‘Idle speed’’, ‘‘Percent
(%)’’, and ‘‘Round’’ and adding
definitions for ‘‘Electric power
generation application’’, ‘‘High-idle
speed’’, and ‘‘High-speed governor’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

■

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57468
§ 1065.1001

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Electric power generation application
means an application whose purpose is
to generate a precise frequency of
electricity, which is characterized by an
engine that controls engine speed very
precisely. This would generally not
apply to welders or portable home
generators.
*
*
*
*
*
High-idle speed means the engine
speed at which an engine governor
function controls engine speed with
operator demand at maximum and with
zero load applied. ‘‘Warm high-idle
speed’’ is the high-idle speed of a
warmed-up engine.
High-speed governor means any
device, system, or element of design that
modulates the engine output torque for
the purpose of limiting the maximum
engine speed.
*
*
*
*
*
Idle speed means the engine speed at
which an engine governor function

Symbol

Quantity

Unit

a .................
A .................
A0 ................

mole per mole ................................
square meter .................................
........................................................

F .................
f ...................
fn .................
γ ..................

atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio ....
area ................................................
intercept of least squares regression.
slope of least squares regression
ratio of diameters ...........................
atomic oxygen to carbon ratio .......
number of carbon atoms in a molecule.
Diameter ........................................
dilution ratio ...................................
error between a quantity and its
reference.
brake-specific emission or fuel
consumption.
F-test statistic ................................
frequency .......................................
angular speed (shaft) ....................
ratio of specific heats ....................

K .................
l ...................
μ .................
M .................
m .................
˙ .................
m
n ..................
N .................
n ..................
h« .................
P .................
PF ...............
p ..................
r ..................
r ..................
R2 ................
Ra ...............
Re# ..............
RF ...............
RH ..............
s .................
S .................
SEE ............
T .................
T .................
T .................
t ...................
Δt ................

correction factor .............................
length .............................................
viscosity, dynamic ..........................
molar mass1 ...................................
mass ..............................................
mass rate .......................................
viscosity, kinematic ........................
total number in series ....................
amount of substance .....................
amount of substance rate ..............
power .............................................
penetration fraction ........................
pressure .........................................
mass density ..................................
ratio of pressures ...........................
coefficient of determination ...........
average surface roughness ...........
Reynolds number ..........................
response factor ..............................
relative humidity .............................
non¥biased standard deviation ....
Sutherland constant .......................
standard estimate of error .............
absolute temperature .....................
Celsius temperature ......................
torque (moment of force) ...............
time ................................................
time interval, period, 1/frequency ..

A1 ................
β ..................
β ..................
C# ................
d ..................
DR ..............
e ..................
e ..................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

controls engine speed with operator
demand at minimum and with
minimum load applied (greater than or
equal to zero). For engines without a
governor function that controls idle
speed, idle speed means the
manufacturer-declared value for lowest
engine speed possible with minimum
load. This definition does not apply for
operation designated as ‘‘high-idle
speed.’’ ‘‘Warm idle speed’’ is the idle
speed of a warmed-up engine.
*
*
*
*
*
Percent (%) means a representation of
exactly 0.01. Numbers expressed as
percentages in this part (such as a
tolerance of ±2%) have infinite
precision, so 2% and 2.000000000%
have the same meaning. This means that
where we specify some percentage of a
total value, the calculated value has the
same number of significant digits as the
total value. For example, 2% of a span
value where the span value is 101.3302
is 2.026604.
*
*
*
*
*

VerDate Mar<15>2010

21:34 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Round means to apply the rounding
convention specified in § 1065.20(e),
unless otherwise specified.
*
*
*
*
*
91. Section 1065.1005 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a), (e), (f)(2), and (g) to read
as follows:

■

§ 1065.1005 Symbols, abbreviations,
acronyms, and units of measure.

The procedures in this part generally
follow the International System of Units
(SI), as detailed in NIST Special
Publication 811, which we incorporate
by reference in § 1065.1010. See
§ 1065.20 for specific provisions related
to these conventions. This section
summarizes the way we use symbols,
units of measure, and other
abbreviations.
(a) Symbols for quantities. This part
uses the following symbols and units of
measure for various quantities:

Unit symbol

Units in terms of SI base units

mol/mol
m2

1
m2

m/m
mol/mol

1
1

meter ..............................................
mole per mol ..................................
........................................................

m
mol/mol

m
1

gram per kilowatt hour ...................

g/(kW·hr)

g·3.6-1·106·m-2·kg·s2

Hz
r/min
(J/(kg·K))/(J/(kg·K))

s-1
2·π·60-1· m·m-1x·s-1
1

m
Pa·s
g/mol
kg
kg/s
m-2/s

1
m
m-1·kg·s
10-3·kg·mol-1
kg
kg·s-1
m-2·s-1

mol
mol/s
kW

mol
mol·s-1
103·m2·kg·s-3

Pa
kg/m3
Pa/Pa

m-1·kg·s-2
kg·m-3
1

μm

10--6 m

K

K

K
°C
N·m
s
s

K
K¥273.15
m-2·kg·s-2
s
s

........................................................
meter per meter .............................
mole per mole ................................
........................................................

........................................................
hertz ...............................................
revolutions per minute ...................
(joule per kilogram kelvin) per
(joule per kilogram kelvin).
........................................................
meter ..............................................
pascal second ................................
gram per mole ...............................
kilogram .........................................
kilogram per second ......................
meter squared per second ............
........................................................
mole ...............................................
mole per second ............................
kilowatt ...........................................
........................................................
pascal ............................................
kilogram per cubic meter ...............
pascal per pascal ..........................
........................................................
micrometer .....................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
kelvin ..............................................
........................................................
kelvin ..............................................
degree Celsius ...............................
newton meter .................................
second ...........................................
second ...........................................

PO 00000

Frm 00364

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57469

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Symbol

Quantity

Unit

V .................
V˙ .................
W ................
wc ................
x ..................

volume ...........................................
volume rate ....................................
work ...............................................
carbon mass fraction .....................
amount of substance mole fraction
2.
flow-weighted mean concentration
generic variable .............................

cubic meter ....................................
cubic meter per second .................
kilowatt hour ..................................
gram per gram ...............................
mole per mole ................................

m3
m3/s
kW·hr
g/g
mol/mol

m3
m3·s-1
3.6·10-6·m2·kg·s-2
1
1

mole per mole ................................
........................................................

mol/mol

1

x¯ ..................
y ..................

Unit symbol

Units in terms of SI base units

1 See paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the values to use for molar masses. Note that in the cases of NO and HC, the regulations specify effective molar masses
X
based on assumed speciation rather than actual speciation.
2 Note that mole fractions for THC, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, and NOTHC are expressed on a C equivalent basis.
1

*

*
*
*
*
(e) Subscripts. This part uses the
following subscripts to define a
quantity:
Subscript

Quantity

abs .....................
act ......................
air .......................
atmos .................
cal .......................
CFV ....................
cor ......................
dil ........................
dexh ...................
exh .....................
exp .....................

Quantity

Subscript

hi,idle ..................
i ..........................
idle ......................
in ........................
init .......................

condition at high¥idle.
an individual of a series.
condition at idle.
quantity in.
initial quantity, typically
before an emission test.
an individual of a series.
the maximum (i.e., peak)
value expected at the
standard over a test interval; not the maximum
of an instrument range.
measured quantity.
quantity out.
partial quantity.
positive¥displacement
pump.

ref .......................
rev ......................
sat ......................
slip ......................
span ...................
SSV ....................
std ......................
test .....................
test,alt .................
uncor ..................
zero ....................

j ..........................
max ....................

meas ..................
out ......................
part .....................
PDP ....................

Quantity
reference quantity.
revolution.
saturated condition.
PDP slip.
span quantity.
subsonic venturi.
standard condition.
test quantity.
alternate test quantity.
uncorrected quantity.
zero quantity.

(f) * * *
(2) This part uses the following molar
masses or effective molar masses of
chemical species:
g/mol
(10¥3.
kg.mol¥1)

Symbol

Quantity

Mair ............................................................................
MAr ............................................................................
MC .............................................................................
MC3H8 ........................................................................
MCH4 .........................................................................
MCO ...........................................................................
MCO2 .........................................................................
MH .............................................................................
MH2 ...........................................................................
MH2O .........................................................................
MHe ...........................................................................
MN .............................................................................
MN2 ...........................................................................
MNMHC ......................................................................
MNMHCE ....................................................................
MNOx .........................................................................
MN2O .........................................................................
MO .............................................................................
MO2 ...........................................................................
MS .............................................................................
MTHC .........................................................................
MTHCE .......................................................................

molar mass of dry air 1 .....................................................................................
molar mass of argon .........................................................................................
molar mass of carbon .......................................................................................
molar mass of propane .....................................................................................
molar mass of methane ....................................................................................
molar mass of carbon monoxide ......................................................................
molar mass of carbon dioxide ..........................................................................
molar mass of atomic hydrogen .......................................................................
molar mass of molecular hydrogen ..................................................................
molar mass of water .........................................................................................
molar mass of helium .......................................................................................
molar mass of atomic nitrogen .........................................................................
molar mass of molecular nitrogen ....................................................................
effective molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon 2 ........................................
effective molar mass of nonmethane equivalent hydrocarbon 2 ......................
effective molar mass of oxides of nitrogen 3 ....................................................
molar mass of nitrous oxide .............................................................................
molar mass of atomic oxygen ..........................................................................
molar mass of molecular oxygen .....................................................................
molar mass of sulfur .........................................................................................
effective molar mass of total hydrocarbon 2 .....................................................
effective molar mass of total hydrocarbon equivalent 2 ...................................

1 See
2 The
3 The

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

absolute quantity.
actual condition.
air, dry.
atmospheric.
calibration quantity.
critical flow venturi.
corrected quantity.
dilution air.
diluted exhaust.
raw exhaust.
expected quantity.

Subscript

28.96559
39.948
12.0107
44.09562
16.043
28.0101
44.0095
1.00794
2.01588
18.01528
4.002602
14.0067
28.0134
13.875389
13.875389
46.0055
44.0128
15.9994
31.9988
32.065
13.875389
13.875389

paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air.
effective molar masses of THC, THCE, NMHC, and NMHCE are defined by an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, of 1.85.
effective molar mass of NOX is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO2.

*

*
*
*
*
(g) Other acronyms and abbreviations.
This part uses the following additional
abbreviations and acronyms:
ASTM American Society for Testing
and Materials
BMD bag mini-diluter

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

BSFC brake-specific fuel consumption
CARB California Air Resources Board
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CFV critical-flow venturi
CI compression-ignition
CITT Curb Idle Transmission Torque
CLD chemiluminescent detector
CVS constant-volume sampler

PO 00000

Frm 00365

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

DF deterioration factor
ECM electronic control module
EFC electronic flow control
EGR exhaust gas recirculation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEL Family Emission Limit
FID flame-ionization detector
GC gas chromatograph

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57470

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

GC–ECD gas chromatograph with an
electron-capture detector
GC–FID gas chromatograph with a
flame ionization detector
IBP initial boiling point
ISO International Organization for
Standardization
LPG liquefied petroleum gas
NDIR nondispersive infrared
NDUV nondispersive ultraviolet
NIST National Institute for Standards
and Technology
NMC nonmethane cutter
PDP positive-displacement pump
PEMS portable emission measurement
system
PFD partial-flow dilution
PMP Polymethylpentene
pt. a single point at the mean value
expected at the standard.
PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene
(commonly known as TeflonTM)
RE rounding error
RESS rechargeable energy storage
system
RMC ramped-modal cycle
RMS root-mean square
RTD resistive temperature detector
SSV subsonic venturi
SI spark-ignition
UCL upper confidence limit
UFM ultrasonic flow meter
U.S.C. United States Code
■ 92. Section 1065.1010 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1065.1010

Reference materials.

Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
the Environmental Protection Agency
must publish a notice of the change in
the Federal Register and the material
must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Room B102, EPA West Building,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202–1744,
and is available from the sources listed
below. It is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) NIST material. Table 3 of this
section lists material from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 http://
www.nist.gov. Table 3 follows:

TABLE 3 OF § 1065.1010—NIST
MATERIALS
Document number and name

Part 1065
reference

NIST Special Publication
811, 2008 Edition, Guide
for the Use of the International System of Units
(SI), March 2008.
NIST Technical Note 1297,
1994 Edition, Guidelines
for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of
NIST Measurement Results, Barry N. Taylor and
Chris E. Kuyatt.

1065.20(a)
and (e),
1065.1005.

*

*

*

*

1065.1001.

*

93. A new part 1066 is added to
subchapter U to read as follows:

■

PART 1066—VEHICLE-TESTING
PROCEDURES
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.

Subpart C—Dynamometer Specifications
1066.201 Dynamometer overview.
1066.210 Dynamometers.
1066.215 Summary of verification and
calibration procedures for chassis
dynamometers.
1066.220 Linearity verification.
1066.225 Roll runout and diameter
verification procedure.
1066.230 Time verification procedure.
1066.235 Speed verification procedure.
1066.240 Torque transducer verification
and calibration.
1066.245 Response time verification.
1066.250 Base inertia verification.
1066.255 Parasitic loss verification.
1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation
evaluation.

PO 00000

Frm 00366

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration
verification.
1066.270 Unloaded coastdown verification.
1066.280 Driver’s aid.
Subpart D—Coastdown
1066.301 Overview of coastdown
procedures.
1066.310 Coastdown procedures for heavyduty vehicles.
Subpart E—Vehicle Preparation and
Running a Test
1066.401 Overview.
1066.407 Vehicle preparation and
preconditioning.
1066.410 Dynamometer test procedure.
1066.420 Pre-test verification procedures
and pre-test data collection.
1066.425 Engine starting and restarting.
1066.430 Performing emission tests
Subpart F—Hybrids
1066.501 Overview.
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 that are not
subject to chassis testing for exhaust
emissions under 40 CFR part 86.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The procedures of this part may
apply to other types of vehicles, as
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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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 http://www.epa.gov, and in
particular http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/
testing/regulations.htm.
§ 1066.2 Submitting information to EPA
under this part.

(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
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 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?
(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

57471

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:

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.5—DESCRIPTION OF PART 1066 SUBPARTS
This subpart

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Subpart
Subpart
Subpart
Subpart
Subpart
Subpart
Subpart
Subpart

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

§ 1066.10

Describes these specifications or procedures

...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................

Other procedures.

(a) Your testing. The procedures in
this part apply for all testing you do to
show compliance with emission
standards, with certain exceptions listed

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Applicability and general provisions.
Equipment for testing.
Dynamometer specifications.
Coastdowns for testing.
How to prepare your vehicle and run an emission test.
How to test hybrid vehicles.
Test procedure calculations.
Definitions and reference material.

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

PO 00000

Frm 00367

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57472

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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 for
laboratory testing, field testing, or both,
as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c). All
the test procedures noted 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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1066.15

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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
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
all aspects of testing under this part, not
only for those provisions where we
specifically re-state this requirement.

PO 00000

Frm 00368

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 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, which we
incorporate by reference in § 1066.710.
(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. The rounding
provisions of 40 CFR 1065.20 apply for
calculations in this part. This generally
specifies that you round final values but
not intermediate values. Use good
engineering judgment to record the
appropriate number of significant digits
for all measurements.
(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 applies 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,
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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

§ 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.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(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.
(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.
(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.
Subpart C—Dynamometer
Specifications
§ 1066.201

§ 1066.210

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Dynamometers.

(a) General requirements. A chassis
dynamometer typically uses electrically
generated load forces combined with its
rotational inertia to recreate the
mechanical inertia and frictional forces
that a vehicle exerts on road surfaces
(known as ‘‘road load’’). Load forces are
calculated using vehicle-specific
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 ±0.05%
of the maximum forces simulated by the
dynamometer or ±0.9 N (±0.2 lbf),
whichever is greater, during a test.

Where:
FR = total road-load force to be applied at the
surface of the roll. The total force is the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

Dynamometer overview.

This subpart addresses chassis
dynamometers and related equipment.

PO 00000

sum of the individual tractive forces
applied at each roll surface.

Frm 00369

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(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 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 36 m/s (80
mph) and a maximum acceleration rate
of 3.6 m/s2 (8 mph/s) in two-wheel
drive and four-wheel drive
configurations.
(2) For vehicles with GVWR above
14,000 lbs, the dynamometer must be
able to fully simulate a driving schedule
with a maximum speed of 29 m/s (65
mph) and a maximum acceleration rate
of 1.3 m/s2 (3 mph/s) in either twowheel drive or four-wheel drive
configurations.
(d) Component requirements. The
dynamometer must meet the following
specifications:
(1) For vehicles with GVWR at or
below 14,000 lbs, the nominal roll
diameter must be 1.20 to 1.25 meters.
The dynamometer must have an
independent drive roll for each axle
being driven by the vehicle during an
emission test.
(2) For vehicles with GVWR above
14,000 lbs, the nominal roll diameter
must be at least 1.20 meters and no
greater than 3.10 meters. The
dynamometer must have an
independent drive roll for each axle,
except that two drive axles may share a
single drive roll. Use good engineering
judgment to ensure that the
dynamometer roll diameter is large
enough to provide sufficient tire-roll
contact area to avoid 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:

i = a counter to indicate a point in time over
the driving schedule. For a dynamometer
operating at 10-Hz intervals over a 600-

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.080

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.

57473

57474

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

second 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
N·s/m. See subpart C of this part.
S = linear speed at the roll surfaces as
measured by the dynamometer, in mph
or m/s. Let Si-1 = 0.
C = coefficient representing aerodynamic
effects, which are a function of vehicle
speed squared, in lbf/mph2 or N·s2/m2.
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
§ 1066.310(b)(7) and dividing the weight
by the acceleration due to gravity as
specified in 40 CFR 1065.630, consistent
with good engineering judgment.

t = elapsed time in the driving schedule as
measured by the dynamometer, in
seconds. Let ti-1 = 0.

(5) The dynamometer must be
designed to generally apply an actual
road-load force within ±1% or ±9.8 N
(±2.2 lbf) of the reference value,
whichever is greater. Dynamometers
that do not fully meet this specification
may be used consistent with good
engineering judgment. For example,
slightly higher errors may be
permissible during highly transient
operation.
(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
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.
§ 1066.215 Summary of verification and
calibration procedures for chassis
dynamometers.

(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 they must occur:

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.215—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED DYNAMOMETER CALIBRATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS
Type of calibration or verification

Minimum frequency a

§ 1066.220: Linearity verification ........................

Speed: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Torque (load): Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation, within 7 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation, within 7 days before testing, and after major maintenance.

§ 1066.225: Roll runout and diameter ................
§ 1066.230: Time ................................................
§ 1066.235: Speed measurement .......................
§ 1066.240: Torque (load) transducer ................
§ 1066.245: Response time ................................
§ 1066.250: Base inertia .....................................
§ 1066.255: Parasitic loss ...................................
§ 1066.260: Parasitic friction compensation
evaluation.
§ 1066.265: Acceleration and deceleration ........
§ 1066.270: Unloaded coastdown ......................

Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation, within 7 days before testing, and after major maintenance.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

a Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering
judgment.

(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 regulation
directs otherwise, if the dynamometer
fails to meet any specified calibration or
verification, make any necessary

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
§ 1066.220

Linearity verification.

(a) Scope and frequency. Perform
linearity verifications upon initial
installation, within 370 days before
testing, and after major maintenance.
Note that these linearity verifications
may replace requirements 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

PO 00000

Frm 00370

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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
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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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
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
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.

57475

(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,
y¯i. Refer to 40 CFR 1065.602 for an
example of calculating an arithmetic
mean.
(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, y¯i, 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,, y¯i)), in
the linear regression calculations.

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.220—DYNAMOMETER MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE LINEARITY VERIFICATIONS
Linearity criteria
Measurement system

Quantity

Speed .............................
Torque (load) ..................

S
T

≤0.05% · Smax ................................
≤1% · Tmax ......................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1066.225 Roll runout and diameter
verification procedure.

(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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

a1

⎢ xmin(a1-1)+a0 ⎢

Jkt 223001

0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02

SEE
≤2% · Smax .....................................
≤2% · Tmax ......................................

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
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 as
the difference between these maximum
and minimum values.

PO 00000

Frm 00371

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

r2
≥0.990
≥0.990

(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 2.26-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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(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 1000 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 1066.235

(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:

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 370 days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
(c) Procedure. Use one of the
following procedures to verify the
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 speedcontrol mode. Set the dynamometer
speed to a value between 4.2 m/s 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:

PO 00000

Sact = 8.3053 m/s

Frm 00372

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Example:
Sact = 8.3053 m/s
Sref = 8.3000 m/s
Serror = 8.3053 ¥ 8.3000 = 0.0053 m/s
(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
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
frequency. Determine the roll speed, yact,
using Equation 1066.235–1, using the
stroboscope or photo tachometer’s
frequency for ƒ.
(ii) Compare the calculated roll speed,
yact, to the corresponding speed set
point, yref, to determine a value for
speed error, yerror, using Equation
1066.235–2.
(d) Performance evaluation. The
speed error determined in paragraph (c)

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.084

Time verification procedure.

(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:
(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
error in receiving the time and
frequency signal.
(ii) After at least 1000 seconds, re-dial
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:

f = frequency of the dynamometer speed
sensing device, in s¥1, accurate to at least
four significant figures.
droll = nominal roll diameter, in m, accurate
to the nearest 0.01 mm, consistent with
§ 1066.225(d).
n = the number of pulses per revolution from
the dynamometer roll speed sensor.
Example:
ƒ_ = 2.9231 Hz = 2.9231 s¥1
droll = 904.40 mm = 0.90440 m
n = 1 pulse/rev

ER15SE11.083

§ 1066.230

determine the time error, yerror, using
Equation 1066.230–1.
(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
functions of the coastdown timer
circuit. Use the signal generator to start
the verification period.
(ii) After at least 1000 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 1066.230–1.
(d) Performance evaluation. The time
error determined in paragraph (c) of this
section may not exceed ±0.001%.

ER15SE11.082

manufacturer’s recommendation to
correct the measurement to 20 °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.

ER15SE11.081

57476

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Calibrate torque-measurement
systems as described in 40 CFR
1065.310.
§ 1066.245

Response time verification.

(a) Overview. This section describes
how to verify the dynamometer’s
response time.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1066.250

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
elapsed time to accelerate from 10 to 40
mph, noting the corresponding speed
and time points to the nearest 0.01 mph

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

weight. Determine the dynamometer’s
settling response time, ts, 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.

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
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:

PO 00000

Frm 00373

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

ER15SE11.086

§ 1066.240 Torque transducer verification
and calibration.

(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
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

Where:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.085

of this section may not exceed ±0.02
m/s.

57477

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Example:
Ibref = 32.96 lbm
I¯bact = 33.01 lbm

Iberror = ¥0.15%

§ 1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation
evaluation.

(8) Calculate the inertia error for each
mean value of base inertia from
paragraph (c)(6) of this section. Use
Equation 1066.265–2, 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.

(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 §§ 1066.235 and1066.240.
You must also first verify the
dynamometer’s parasitic loss curve as
specified in § 1066.255.
(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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00374

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.
Example:
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

FCerror = ¥16.5 ft·lbf/s = ¥0.031 hp

(5) The friction compensation error
may not exceed ±0.1 hp.
§ 1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration
verification.

(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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.091

(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:

(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
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
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
perfectly, there will be no change in
speed during the measurement interval.
(4) Calculate the friction
compensation error, FCerror, using the
following equation:

ER15SE11.090

Ib = 32.90 lbm

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,
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 ±4.5
N (±1.0 lbf).

ER15SE11.089

Example:
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
Δt = 30.00 s

§ 1066.255

ER15SE11.088

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.
Δt = elapsed time during the measurement
interval to the nearest 0.01 s.

ER15SE11.087

57478

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
(c) Verification of acceleration and
deceleration rates. Activate the
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 per second
(or Hz) corresponding to 10 mph and 40
mph vehicle speeds, accurate to at least
four significant figures, using the
following equation:

Example:
Sinal = 40 mph
Sinit = 10 mph
t = 30.003 s

57479

a = 1 mph/s = 1.4667 ft/s2
F = 135.25 lbf

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
1066.265–2.
(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, a¯act, at each setting.
(5) Compare each mean acceleration
rate, a¯act, to the corresponding nominal
acceleration rate, aref, to determine
values for acceleration error, aerror, using
the following equation:

(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 1066.265–2. 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, a¯act, 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, a¯act, to the corresponding nominal
acceleration rate, aref, to determine
values for acceleration error, aerror, using
Equation 1066.265–4.
(e) Performance evaluation. The
acceleration error from paragraphs (c)(5)
and (d)(4) of this section may not exceed
±1.0%.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Where:
Ib = the dynamometer manufacturer’s stated
base inertia, in lbf·s2/ft.
a = nominal acceleration rate, in ft/s2.
Example:
Ib = 2967 lbm = 92.217 lbf·s2/ft

PO 00000

Frm 00375

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.095
ER15SE11.094

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.

(d) Verification of forces for
controlling acceleration and
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
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:

ER15SE11.093

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(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:

Example:
a¯act = 0.999 mph/s
aref = 1 mph/s
aerror = ¥0.100%

ER15SE11.092

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.

(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
the dynamometer’s settings derived
from coastdown testing. For
dynamometers that have an automated
process for this procedure, perform this
evaluation by setting the initial speed
and final speed and the 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 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

ER15SE11.096

§ 1066.270 Unloaded coastdown
verification.

Example:
I = 2000 lbm = 65.17 lbf·s2/ft
Ssi = 10 mph = 14.66 ft/s
t = 5.00 s

§ 1066.280

Driver’s aid.

Use good engineering judgment to
provide a driver’s aid that facilitates
compliance with the requirements of
§ 1066.430.
Subpart D—Coastdown
§ 1066.301 Overview of coastdown
procedures.

(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 § 1066.210(d)(3).
(b) The general procedure for
performing coastdown tests and
calculating load coefficients is described
in SAE J1263 and SAE J2263
(incorporated by reference in
§ 1066.710). This subpart specifies
certain deviations from those
procedures for certain applications.
(c) Use good engineering judgment for
all aspects of coastdown testing. For
example, minimize the effects of grade
by performing coastdown testing on
reasonably level surfaces and
determining coefficients based on
average values from vehicle operation in
opposite directions over the course.
§ 1066.310 Coastdown procedures for
heavy-duty vehicles.

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, F¯act, to the
corresponding Fref to determine values
for coastdown force error, Ferror, using
the following equation:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Example:
Fref = 192 lbf
F¯act = 191 lbf

Ferror = ¥0.5%

(7) The maximum allowable error,
Ferrormax, for all speed and inertia settings

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

This section describes coastdown
procedures that are unique to heavyduty motor vehicles. Note as specified
in the standard setting parts, this section
does not apply for certain heavy-duty
vehicles, such as those regulated under
40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(a) Determine load coefficients by
performing a minimum of 16 valid
coastdown runs (8 in each direction).
(b) Follow the provisions of Sections
1 through 9 of SAE J1263, and 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
meaning given in SAE J1263 or J2263
unless specified otherwise.
(1) The test condition specifications of
SAE J1263 apply except as follows for
wind and road conditions:
(i) We recommend that you do not
perform coastdown testing on days for
which winds are forecast to exceed 6.0
mph.
(ii) The grade of the test track or road
must not be excessive (considering
factors such as road safety standards
and effects on the coastdown results).
Road conditions should follow Section

PO 00000

Frm 00376

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

7.4 of SAE J1263, except that road grade
may exceed 0.5%. If road grade is
greater than 0.02% over the length of
the test surface, then the road grade as
a function of distance along the length
of the test surface must be incorporated
in the analysis. To calculate the force
due to grade use Section 11.5 of SAE
J2263.
(2) You must reach a top speed of
greater than 70 mph such that data
collection of the coastdown can start at
or above 70 mph. Data collection must
occur through a minimum speed at or
below 15 mph. Data analysis for valid
coastdown runs must include a
maximum speed of 70 mph and a
minimum speed of 15 mph.
(3) Gather data regarding wind speed
and direction, in coordination with
time-of-day data, using at least one
stationary electro-mechanical
anemometer and suitable data loggers
meeting the specifications of SAE J1263,
as well as the following additional
specifications for the anemometer
placed adjacent to the test surface:
(i) Run the zero-wind and zero-angle
calibration data collection.
(ii) The anemometer must have had
its outputs recorded at a wind speed of
0.0 mph within 24 hours before each
coastdown test in which it is used.
(iii) Record the location of the
anemometer using a GPS measurement
device adjacent to the test surface
(approximately) at the midway distance
along the test surface used for
coastdowns.
(iv) Position the anemometer such
that it will be at least 2.5 but not more
than 3.0 vehicle widths from the test
vehicle’s centerline as the test vehicle
passes the location of that anemometer.
(v) Mount the anemometer at a height
that is within 6 inches of half the test
vehicle’s maximum height.
(vi) Place the anemometer at least 50
feet from the nearest tree and at least 25
feet from the nearest bush (or equivalent
roadside features).
(vii) The height of the grass
surrounding the stationary anemometer
may not exceed 10% of the
anemometer’s mounted height, within a
radius equal to the anemometer’s
mounted height.
(4) You may split runs as per Section
9.3.1 of SAE J2263, but we recommend
whole runs. If you split a run, analyze
each portion separately, but count the
split runs as one run with respect to the
minimum number of runs required.
(5) 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

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.099

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.

is calculated from the following
formula, except that Ferrormax for vehicles
with GVWR above 14,000 lbs may be up
to ±1.0%:
Ferrormax (%) = (2.2 lbf/Fref)·100

ER15SE11.098

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.
(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:

ER15SE11.100

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

ER15SE11.097

57480

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(v) Calculate drag area, CDA, in m2
using the following equation:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Subpart E—Vehicle Preparation and
Running a Test
§ 1066.401

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.
(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
86, subpart B, or 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart G, to calculate emissions. The
standard-setting part may specify three

PO 00000

Frm 00377

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 1066.407 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 the standard setting 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.
(b) If testing will include
measurement of refueling emissions,
perform the vehicle preconditioning
steps as described in 40 CFR 86.153.
Otherwise, perform the vehicle
preconditioning steps as described in 40
CFR 86.132.
§ 1066.410

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.
(b) During dynamometer operation,
position a 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.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.104

Where:
g = Gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s2.
Dh = Change in height or altitude over the
measurement interval, in m. Assume
Dh = 0 if you are not correcting for grade.
Ds = Distance the vehicle travels down the
road during the measurement interval, in
m.
Am = the calculated value of the y-intercept
based on the curve-fit.

(8) Determine the A, B, and C
coefficients identified in § 1066.210 as
follows:
A = Am
B= 0
C = Dadj

ER15SE11.103

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

(iv) Plot the data from all the
coastdown runs on a single plot of Fi vs.
vi2 to determine the slope correlation, D,
based on the following equation:

T¯ = Average ambient temperature during
testing, in K.
P¯B = Average ambient pressuring during the
test, in kPa.

ER15SE11.102

Where:
v = Vehicle speed at the beginning and end
of the measurement interval. Let v0 = 0.
Dt = Elapsed time over the measurement
interval.

Where:
r = Air density at reference conditions = 1.17
kg/m3.

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 standardsetting 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 the reference speed
value is constant. Record instantaneous
and mean speed values over the cycle.

ER15SE11.101

extent practicable to allow runs to be
paired.
(6) All valid coastdown run times in
each direction must be within 2.0
standard deviations of the mean of the
valid coastdown run times (from 70
mph down to 15 mph) in that direction.
Eliminate runs outside this range. After
eliminating these runs you must have at
least eight valid runs each direction.
(7) Determine drag area, CDA, as
follows instead of using the procedure
specified in SAE J1263, Section 10:
(i) Measure vehicle speed at fixed
intervals over the coastdown run
(generally at 10 Hz), including speeds at
or above 15 mph and at or below 70
mph. Establish the height or altitude
corresponding to each interval as
described in SAE J2263 if you need to
incorporate the effects of road grade.
(ii) Calculate the vehicle’s effective
mass, Me, in kg by adding 56.7 kg to the
vehicle mass for each tire making road
contact. This accounts for the rotational
inertia of the wheels and tires.
(iii) Calculate the road-load force for
each measurement interval, Fi, using the
following equation:

57481

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57482

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(1) For vehicles with GVWR at or
below 14,000 lbs, you may use either of
the following cooling fan configurations:
(i) Use a fixed-speed fan to
appropriately direct cooling air to the
vehicle with the engine compartment
cover open. The fan capacity may not
exceed 2.50 m3/s. If you determine that
additional cooling is needed to properly
represent in-use operation, use good
engineering judgment to increase the
fan’s capacity or use additional fans,
subject to our approval.
(ii) Use a road-speed modulated fan
system that achieves a linear speed of
cooling air at the blower outlet that is
within ±3.0 mph (±1.3 m/s) of the
corresponding roll speed when vehicle
speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2
to 13.4 m/s), and within ±6.5 mph (±2.9
m/s) 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 cooling for in-use vehicles. We
recommend that the cooling fan have a
minimum opening of 0.2 m2 and a
minimum width of 0.8 m.
(2) For vehicles with GVWR above
14,000 lbs, use a road-speed modulated
fan system that achieves a linear speed
of cooling air at the blower outlet that
is within ±3.0 mph (±1.3 m/s) of the
corresponding roll speed when vehicle
speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2
to 13.4 m/s), and within ±10 mph (±4.5
m/s) 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 inuse vehicles. We recommend that the
cooling fan have a minimum opening of
2.75 m2, a minimum flow rate of 3,600
m3/min at 50 mph, and that it maintain
a minimum speed profile across the
duct, in the free stream flow, of ±15%
of the target flow rate.
(3) 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, subject
to our approval.
(c) Record the vehicle’s speed trace
based on the time and speed data from
the dynamometer. Record speed to at
least the nearest 0.01 m/s or 0.1 mph
and time to at least the nearest 0.1 s.
(d) You may perform practice runs for
operating the vehicle and the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

dynamometer controls to meet the
driving tolerances specified in
§ 1066.430 or adjust the emission
sampling equipment. Verify that the
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) For vehicles with GVWR above
14,000 lbs, you must use a vehicle pull
down mechanism that allows
simulation of the actual normal forces
that the tire and dynamometer roll
interface would see if a loaded vehicle
were actually being tested. Use of this
mechanism will ensure that wheel slip
does not occur when trying to accelerate
the loaded vehicle.
(g) Use good engineering judgment
when testing vehicles in four-wheel
drive or all-wheel drive mode. 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 may
require disengaging the second set of
drive wheels, either with a switch
available to 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. Alternatively, for
heavy-duty motor vehicles, up to two
drive axles may use a single drive roll,
as described in § 1066.210(d)(2).
(h) Warm up the dynamometer as
recommended by the dynamometer
manufacturer.
(i) 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.
§ 1066.420 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

PO 00000

Frm 00378

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

engine restarts) to the point at which
emission sampling begins.
(1) Ambient temperature must be (20
to 30) °C. See § 1066.430(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.
(d) You may perform a final
calibration of proportional-flow control
systems, which may include performing
practice runs.
(e) You may perform the following
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.
(6) You may conduct calibrations or
verifications on any idle equipment or
analyzers during preconditioning.
(7) Proceed with the test sequence
described in § 1066.430.
(f) Verify the amount of nonmethane
hydrocarbon (or equivalent)
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
1065.520(g).
§ 1066.425

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. In the case of hybrid vehicles,
this would generally involve activating
vehicle systems such that the engine
will start when the vehicle’s control

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
algorithms determine that the engine
should provide power instead of or in
addition to power from the rechargeable
energy storage system (RESS). Unless
we specify otherwise, engine starting
throughout this part generally refers to
this step of activating the system on
hybrid vehicles, whether or not that
causes the engine to start running.
(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 gain 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.
Record the reason for the malfunction (if
determined) and any corrective action.
See the standard-setting part for
instructions about reporting these
malfunctions.
§ 1066.430

Performing emission tests.

The overall test consists of prescribed
sequences of fueling, parking, and
driving at specified test conditions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(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 (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
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
sampling and recording background
concentrations.

PO 00000

Frm 00379

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57483

(13) Turn on cooling fans immediately
before starting 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 vehicles with 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) Operate the vehicle with the
appropriate accelerator pedal movement
necessary to achieve the speed versus
time relationship prescribed by the
driving schedule. Avoid smoothing
speed variations and excessive
accelerator pedal perturbations.
(5) Operate the vehicle smoothly,
following representative shift speeds
and procedures. For manual
transmissions, the operator shall release
the accelerator pedal during each shift
and accomplish the shift with minimum
time. 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.
(6) 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
6.7 m/s (15 mph), when engine

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57484

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

roughness is evident, or when engine
stalling is imminent.
(7) For test vehicles equipped with
manual transmissions, shift gears in a
way that represents reasonable shift
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

specifications in paragraph (b) of this
section. Instantaneous speeds must stay
within the following tolerances:
(1) The upper limit is 1.0 m/s (2 mph)
higher than the highest point on the
trace within 1.0 s of the given point in
time.
(2) The lower limit is 1.0 m/s (2 mph)
lower than the lowest point on the trace
within 1.0 s of the given time.
(3) The same limits apply for vehicle
preconditioning, except that the upper
and lower limits for speed values are
±2.0 m/s (±4 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

PO 00000

Frm 00380

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

speed values and the reason for the
deviation:
(i) Speed variations greater than the
specified limits are acceptable for up to
2.0 seconds on any occasion.
(ii) For vehicles that are not able to
maintain acceleration as specified in
paragraph (c)(5) 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.
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

BILLING CODE 4910–59–c

(1) If a vehicle is already running and
warmed up, and starting is not part of

(g) Start testing as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00381

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57485

the test cycle, operate the vehicle as
follows:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.105

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57486

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(i) For transient test cycles, control
vehicle speeds to follow a drive
schedule consisting of a series of idles,
accelerations, cruises, and
decelerations.
(ii) For 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
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. Analyze
nonconventional gaseous batch samples,
such as NMHCE sampling with ethanol,
as soon as practicable using good
engineering judgment.
(iii) Analyze background samples no
later than 60 minutes after the test cycle
is complete.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(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 § 1066.420(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
is necessary to remain consistent with
40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1).
Subpart F—Hybrids
§ 1066.501

Overview.

To correct fuel economy or emission
results for Net Energy Change of the
RESS, use the procedures specified for
charge-sustaining operation in SAE
J2711 (incorporated by reference in
§ 1066.710).
Subpart G—Calculations
§ 1066.601

Overview.

(a) This subpart describes how to—
(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

PO 00000

Frm 00382

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

appropriate. You may discard statistical
outliers, but you must report all results.
§ 1066.610 Mass-based and molar-based
exhaust emission calculations.

(a) Calculate your total mass of
emissions over a test cycle as specified
in 40 CFR 86.144 or 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart G.
(b) For composite emission
calculations over multiple test phases
and corresponding weighting factors,
see the standard-setting part.
Subpart H—Definitions and Other
Reference Material
§ 1066.701

Definitions.

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
§ 1066.250.
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 roadload 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.
Test weight has the meaning given in
the standard-setting part.
Unloaded coastdown means a
dynamometer coastdown run with the
vehicle wheels off the roll surface.
§ 1066.705 Symbols, abbreviations,
acronyms, and units of measure.

The procedures in this part generally
follow either the International System of

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Units (SI) or the United States
customary units, as detailed in NIST
Special Publication 811, which we
incorporate by reference in § 1066.710.
See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific
Symbol

Quantity

Unit

a ..........

acceleration .....................................

d ..........
F ..........
f ...........
I ...........
i ...........
M .........
N .........
n ..........
R .........
RL .......
S ..........

diameter ..........................................
force ................................................
frequency ........................................
inertia ..............................................
indexing variable .............................
mass ...............................................
total number in series .....................
total number of pulses in a series ..
dynamometer roll revolutions .........
road-load coefficient .......................
speed ..............................................

T ..........
T ..........
t ...........
Δt .........
y ..........

Celsius temperature ........................
torque (moment of force) ................
time .................................................
time interval, period, 1/frequency ...
generic variable ..............................

feet per second squared or meters
per second squared.
meters .............................................
pound force or newton ....................
hertz ................................................
pound mass or kilogram .................
.........................................................
pound mass or kilogram .................
.........................................................
.........................................................
revolutions per minute ....................
horsepower or kilowatt ....................
miles per hour or meters per second.
degree Celsius ................................
newton meter ..................................
second ............................................
second ............................................
.........................................................

(b) Symbols for chemical species. This
part uses the following symbols for
chemical species and exhaust
constituents:
Symbol

Species

CH4 ................
CO ..................
CO2 ................
NMHC ............
NMHCE ..........

methane
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
nonmethane hydrocarbon
nonmethane hydrocarbon
equivalent
nitric oxide
nitrogen dioxide
oxides of nitrogen
nitrous oxide
molecular oxygen
particulate mass
total hydrocarbon
total hydrocarbon equivalent

NO ..................
NO2 ................
NOX ................
N2O ................
O2 ...................
PM ..................
THC ................
THCE .............

(c) Superscripts. This part uses the
following superscripts to define a
quantity:
Superscript

Quantity

overbar (such as) y¯ ......

arithmetic mean

(d) Subscripts. This part uses the
following subscripts to define a
quantity:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

provisions related to these conventions.
This section summarizes the way we
use symbols, units of measure, and
other abbreviations.

Subscript

Quantity

int ...................
abs .................
act ..................
actint ..............

speed interval
absolute quantity
actual or measured condition
actual or measured condition
over the speed interval
atmospheric
base
coastdown

atmos .............
b .....................
c .....................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Subscript

(a) Symbols for quantities. This part
uses the following symbols and units of
measure for various quantities:

Unit in terms of SI base
units

Unit symbol

Quantity

57487

ft/s2 or m/s2

m·s¥2

m
lbf or N
Hz
lbm or kg

m
kg·s¥2
s¥1
kg

lbm or kg

kg

rpm
hp or kW
mph or m/s

2·π·60¥1· m·m¥1·s¥1
103·m2·kg·s¥3
m·s¥1

°C
N·m
s
s

K–273.15
m2·kg·s¥2
s
s

§ 1066.710

Reference materials.

(a) Certain material is incorporated by
e ..................... effective
reference into this part with the
error ............... error
approval of the Director of the Federal
exp ................. expected quantity
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
i ...................... an individual of a series
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
final ................ final
other than that specified in this section,
init .................. initial quantity, typically bethe Environmental Protection Agency
fore an emission test
must publish a notice of the change in
max ................ the maximum (i.e., peak)
the Federal Register and the material
value expected at the
must be available to the public. All
standard over a test interapproved material is available for
val; not the maximum of
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and
an instrument range
Radiation Docket and Information
meas .............. measured quantity
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
ref ................... reference quantity
Room B102, EPA West Building,
rev .................. revolution
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202–1744,
roll .................. dynamometer roll
and is available from the sources listed
s ..................... settling
below. It is also available for inspection
sat .................. saturated condition
at the National Archives and Records
si .................... speed interval
span ............... span quantity
Administration (NARA). For
test ................. test quantity
information on the availability of this
uncor .............. uncorrected quantity
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
zero ................ zero quantity
or go to http://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_
(e) Other acronyms and abbreviations. regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Society of Automotive Engineers,
This part uses the following additional
400
Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale,
abbreviations and acronyms:
PA 15096–0001, (877) 606–7323 (U.S.
and Canada) or (724) 776–4970 (outside
CFR ...... Code of Federal Regulations
the U.S. and Canada), http://
EPA ...... Environmental Protection Agency
www.sae.org.
FID ....... flame-ionization detector
(1) SAE J1263, Road Load
GVWR .. gross vehicle weight rating
NIST ..... National Institute for Standards Measurement and Dynamometer
Simulation Using Coastdown
and Technology
RESS ... rechargeable energy storage sys- Techniques, Revised March 2010, IBR
tem
approved for §§ 1066.301(b) and
SAE ...... Society of Automotive Engineers
1066.310(b).
U.S.C. .. United States Code
(2) SAE J2263, Road Load
Measurement Using Onboard

PO 00000

Frm 00383

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57488

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Anemometry and Coastdown
Techniques, Revised December 2008,
IBR approved for §§ 1066.301(b), and
1066.310(b).
(3) SAE J2711, Recommended Practice
for Measuring Fuel Economy and
Emissions of Hybrid-Electric and
Conventional Heavy-Duty Vehicles,
Issued September 2002, IBR approved
for § 1066.501.
(c) National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop
1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1070,
(301) 975–6478, http://www.nist.gov, or
inquiries@nist.gov.
(1) NIST Special Publication 811,
2008 Edition, Guide for the Use of the
International System of Units (SI),
March 2008, IBR approved for
§§ 1066.20(a) and 1066.705.
(2) [Reserved]
PART 1068—GENERAL COMPLIANCE
PROVISIONS FOR HIGHWAY,
STATIONARY, AND NONROAD
PROGRAMS
94. The authority citation for part
1068 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

95. The heading for part 1068 is
revised to read as set forth above.

■

Subpart A—[Amended]
96. Section 1068.1 is revised to read
as follows:

■

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 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
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 to the extent and
in the manner specified in 40 CFR parts
85, 86, 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

part 1048 or part 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
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.
Subpart C—[Amended]
97. Section 1068.210 is revised to read
as follows:

■

§ 1068.210 What are the provisions for
exempting test engines/equipment?

(a) We may exempt engines/
equipment that you will use for
research, investigations, studies,
demonstrations, or training. Note that
you are not required to get an exemption
under this section for engines that are
exempted under other provisions of this

PO 00000

Frm 00384

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

part, such as the manufacturer-owned
exemption in § 1068.215.
(b) Anyone may ask for a testing
exemption.
(c) If you are a certificate holder, you
may request an exemption for engines/
equipment you intend to include in test
programs over a two-year period.
(1) In your request, tell us the
maximum number of engines/
equipment involved and describe how
you will make sure exempted engines/
equipment are used only for this testing.
For example, if the exemption will
involve other companies using your
engines/equipment, describe your plans
to track individual units so you can
properly report on their final
disposition.
(2) Give us the information described
in paragraph (d) of this section if we ask
for it.
(d) If you are not a certificate holder,
do all the following things:
(1) Show that the proposed test
program has a valid purpose under
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Show you need an exemption to
achieve the purpose of the test program
(time constraints may be a basis for
needing an exemption, but the cost of
certification alone is not).
(3) Estimate the duration of the
proposed test program and the number
of engines/equipment involved.
(4) Allow us to monitor the testing.
(5) Describe how you will ensure that
you stay within this exemption’s
purposes. Address at least the following
things:
(i) The technical nature of the test.
(ii) The test site.
(iii) The duration and accumulated
engine/equipment operation associated
with the test.
(iv) Ownership and control of the
engines/equipment involved in the test.
(v) The intended final disposition of
the engines/equipment.
(vi) How you will identify, record,
and make available the engine/
equipment identification numbers.
(vii) The means or procedure for
recording test results.
(e) If we approve your request for a
testing exemption, we will send you a
letter or a memorandum describing the
basis and scope of the exemption. It will
also include any necessary terms and
conditions, which normally require you
to do the following:
(1) Stay within the scope of the
exemption.
(2) Create and maintain adequate
records that we may inspect.
(3) Add a permanent label to all
engines/equipment exempted under this
section, consistent with § 1068.45, with
at least the following items:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(i) The label heading ‘‘EMISSION
CONTROL INFORMATION’’.
(ii) Your corporate name and
trademark.
(iii) Engine displacement, family
identification, and model year of the
engine/equipment (as applicable), or
whom to contact for further information.
(iv) One of these statements (as
applicable):
(A) ‘‘THIS ENGINE IS EXEMPT
UNDER 40 CFR 1068.210 OR 1068.215
FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND
RELATED REQUIREMENTS.’’
(B) ‘‘THIS EQUIPMENT IS EXEMPT
UNDER 40 CFR 1068.210 OR 1068.215
FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND
RELATED REQUIREMENTS.’’
(4) Tell us when the test program is
finished.
(5) Tell us the final disposition of the
engines/equipment.
(6) Send us a written confirmation
that you meet the terms and conditions
of this exemption.
98. Section 1068.235 is revised to read
as follows:

■

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 1068.235 What are the provisions for
exempting engines/equipment used solely
for competition?

(a) New engines/equipment you
produce that are used solely for
competition are generally excluded from
emission standards. See the standardsetting parts for specific provisions
where applicable.
(b) If you modify any nonroad
engines/equipment after they have been
placed into service in the United States
so they will be used solely for
competition, they are exempt without
request. This exemption applies only to
the prohibition in § 1068.101(b)(1) and
is valid only as long as the engine/
equipment is used solely for
competition. You may not use the
provisions of this paragraph (b) to
circumvent the requirements that apply
to the sale of new competition engines
under the standard-setting part.
(c) If you modify any nonroad
engines/equipment under paragraph (b)
of this section, you must destroy the
original emission labels. If you loan,
lease, sell, or give any of these engines/
equipment to someone else, you must
tell the new owner (or operator, if
applicable) in writing that they may be
used only for competition.
Subpart D—[Amended]
99. Section 1068.325 is revised to read
as follows:

■

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 1068.325 What are the temporary
exemptions for imported engines/
equipment?

You may import engines/equipment
under certain temporary exemptions,
subject to the conditions in this section.
We may ask U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to require a specific bond
amount to make sure you comply with
the requirements of this subpart. You
may not sell or lease one of these
engines/equipment while it is in the
United States except as specified in this
section or § 1068.201(i). You must
eventually export the engine/equipment
as we describe in this section unless it
conforms to a certificate of conformity
or it qualifies for one of the permanent
exemptions in § 1068.315.
(a) Exemption for repairs or
alterations. You may temporarily import
nonconforming engines/equipment
under bond solely for repair or
alteration, subject to our advance
approval as described in paragraph (j) of
this section. You may operate the
engine/equipment in the United States
only as necessary to repair it, alter it, or
ship it to or from the service location.
Export the engine/equipment directly
after servicing is complete.
(b) Testing exemption. You may
temporarily import nonconforming
engines/equipment under bond for
testing if you follow the requirements of
§ 1068.210, subject to our advance
approval as described in paragraph (j) of
this section. You may operate the
engines/equipment in the United States
only as needed to perform tests. This
exemption expires one year after you
import the engine/equipment unless we
approve an extension. The engine/
equipment must be exported before the
exemption expires. You may sell or
lease the engines/equipment consistent
with the provisions of § 1068.210.
(c) Display exemption. You may
temporarily import nonconforming
engines/equipment under bond for
display if you follow the requirements
of § 1068.220, subject to our advance
approval as described in paragraph (j) of
this section. This exemption expires one
year after you import the engine/
equipment, unless we approve your
request for an extension. We may
approve an extension of up to one more
year for each request, but no more than
three years total. The engine/equipment
must be exported by the time the
exemption expires or directly after the
display concludes, whichever comes
first.
(d) Export exemption. You may
temporarily import nonconforming
engines/equipment to export them, as
described in § 1068.230. You may
operate the engine/equipment in the

PO 00000

Frm 00385

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57489

United States only as needed to prepare
it for export. Label the engine/
equipment as described in § 1068.230.
You may sell or lease the engines/
equipment for operation outside the
United States consistent with the
provisions of § 1068.230.
(e) Diplomatic or military exemption.
You may temporarily import
nonconforming engines/equipment
without bond if you represent a foreign
government in a diplomatic or military
capacity. In your request to the
Designated Compliance Officer (see
§ 1068.305), include either written
confirmation from the U.S. State
Department that you qualify for this
exemption or a copy of your orders for
military duty in the United States. We
will rely on the State Department or
your military orders to determine when
your diplomatic or military status
expires, at which time you must export
your exempt engines/equipment.
(f) Delegated-assembly exemption.
You may import a nonconforming
engine for final assembly under the
provisions of § 1068.261. You may sell
or lease the engines/equipment
consistent with the provisions of
§ 1068.261.
(g) Exemption for partially complete
engines. You may import an engine if
another company already has a
certificate of conformity and will be
modifying the engine to be in its final
certified configuration or a final exempt
configuration under the provisions of
§ 1068.262. You may also import a
partially complete engine by shipping it
from one of your facilities to another
under the provisions of § 1068.260(c). If
you are importing a used engine that
becomes new as a result of importation,
you must meet all the requirements that
apply to original engine manufacturers
under § 1068.262. You may sell or lease
the engines consistent with the
provisions of § 1068.262.
(h) [Reserved]
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Approvals. For the exemptions in
this section requiring our approval, you
must send a request to the Designated
Compliance Officer before importing the
engines/equipment. We will approve
your request if you meet all the
applicable requirements and conditions.
If another section separately requires
that you request approval for the
exemption, you may combine the
information requirements in a single
request. Include the following
information in your request:
(1) Identify the importer of the
engine/equipment and the applicable
postal address, e-mail address, and
telephone number.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57490

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Identify the engine/equipment
owner and the applicable postal
address, e-mail address, and telephone
number.
(3) Identify the engine/equipment by
model number (or name), serial number,
and original production year.
(4) Identify the specific regulatory
provision under which you are seeking
an exemption.
(5) Authorize EPA enforcement
officers to conduct inspections or testing
as allowed under the Clean Air Act.
(6) Include any additional information
we specify for demonstrating that you
qualify for the exemption.
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 amends 49 CFR
chapter V as follows:
PART 523—VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
100. The authority citation for part
523 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
■

101. Revise § 523.2 to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 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
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 subconfiguration of a model
type.
Basic vehicle frontal area is used as
defined in 40 CFR 86.1803.
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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).
Complete vehicle means a vehicle that
requires no further manufacturing
operations to perform its intended
function and is a functioning vehicle
that has the primary load carrying
device or container (or equivalent
equipment) attached or that is designed
to pull a trailer. Examples of equivalent
equipment would include fifth wheel
trailer hitches, firefighting equipment,
and utility booms.
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,

PO 00000

Frm 00386

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 vehicle).
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. For purposes of this
definition in this part, the term
‘‘engine’’ includes internal combustion
engines and other devices that convert
chemical fuel into motive power. For
example, a fuel cell and motor used in
a heavy-duty vehicle is a heavy-duty
engine.
Heavy-duty off-road vehicle means a
heavy-duty vocational vehicle or
vocational tractor that is intended for
off-road use meeting either of the
following criteria:
(1) Vehicles with tires installed
having a maximum speed rating at or
below 55 mph.
(2) Vehicles primarily designed to
perform work off-road (such as in oil
fields, forests, or construction sites), and
meeting at least one of the criteria of
paragraph (2)(i) of this definition and at
least one of the criteria of paragraph
(2)(ii) of this definition.
(i) Vehicle must have affixed
components designed to work in an offroad environment (for example,
hazardous material equipment or
drilling equipment) or was designed to
operate at low speeds making them
unsuitable for normal highway
operation.
(ii) Vehicles must:
(A) Have an axle that has a gross axle
weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds
or more;
(B) Have a speed attainable in 2 miles
of not more than 33 mph; or
(C) Have a speed attainable in 2 miles
of not more than 45 mph, an unloaded
vehicle weight that is not less than 95

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
percent of its gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR), and no capacity to carry
occupants other than the driver and
operating crew.
Heavy-duty vehicle means a vehicle as
defined in § 523.6.
Incomplete vehicle means a vehicle
which does not have the primary load
carrying device or container attached
when it is first sold as a vehicle or any
vehicle that does not meet the definition
of a complete vehicle. This may include
vehicles sold to secondary vehicle
manufacturers. Incomplete vehicles
include cab-complete vehicles.
Innovative technology means
technology certified under 40 CFR
1037.610.
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 vehicle’’’ 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
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.
Motor vehicle has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 85.1703.
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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
room-accelerator.
(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
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 with a body that
fully encloses the driver and a cargo
carrying or work performing
compartment. The distance from the
leading edge of the windshield to the
foremost body section of vans is
typically shorter than that of pickup
trucks and sport utility vehicles.
Vocational tractor means a tractor that
is classified as a vocational vehicle
according to 40 CFR 1037.630.
Vocational vehicle means a vehicle
that is equipped for a particular

PO 00000

Frm 00387

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57491

industry, trade or occupation such as
construction, heavy hauling, mining,
logging, oil fields, refuse and includes
vehicles such as school buses,
motorcoaches and RVs.
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 effective as
of December 20, 2007.
■ 102. Add a new § 523.6 to read as
follows:
§ 523.6

Heavy-duty vehicle.

(a) A heavy-duty vehicle is any
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 vehicles are divided into three
regulatory categories as follows:
(1) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans;
(2) Heavy-duty vocational vehicles;
and
(3) Truck tractors with a GVWR above
26,000 pounds.
(b) The heavy-duty vehicle
classification does not include:
(1) Vehicles defined as medium duty
passenger vehicles.
(2) Vehicles excluded from the
definition of ‘‘heavy-duty vehicle’’
because of vehicle weight or weight
rating (such as light duty vehicles as
defined in § 523.5).
(3) Vehicles excluded from the
definition of motor vehicle in 40 CFR
85.1703.
■ 103. 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
pounds and 14,000 pounds (Class 2b
through 3 vehicles) manufactured as
complete vehicles by a single or final
stage manufacturer or manufactured as
incomplete vehicles as designated by a
manufacturer. A manufacturer may also
optionally designate incomplete or
complete Class 4 or 5 vehicles as heavyduty pickup trucks or vans or sparkignition (or gasoline) engines certified
and sold as loose engines manufactured
for use in heavy-duty pickup trucks or
vans. See references in 40 CFR 1037.104
and 40 CFR 1037.150.
■ 104. Add a new § 523.8 to read as
follows:
§ 523.8

Heavy-duty vocational vehicle.

Heavy-duty vocational vehicles are
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57492

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

rating (GVWR) above 8,500 pounds
excluding:
(a) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans defined in § 523.7;
(b) Medium duty passenger vehicles;
and
(c) Truck tractors, except vocational
tractors, with a GVWR above 26,000
pounds;
■ 105. 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.
PART 534—RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF
MANUFACTURERS IN THE CONTEXT
OF CHANGES IN CORPORATE
RELATIONSHIPS
106. 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.
■

107. 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.
■ 108. Revise § 534.2 to read as follows:
§ 534.2

Applicability.

This part applies to manufacturers of
passenger automobiles, light trucks,
heavy-duty vehicles and the engines
manufactured for use in heavy-duty
vehicles as defined in 49 CFR part 523.
■ 109. Revise § 534.4 to read as follows.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

§ 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 this section.
(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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 vehicles and
heavy-duty vehicle engines, available
fuel consumption credits earned by a
predecessor after model year 2015, and
in model years 2013, 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 the general five-year
restriction on carrying credits forward
and the general three year restriction on
carrying credits backward.
(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.
(2) For heavy-duty vehicles and
heavy-duty vehicle engines, available
credits earned by a successor after
model year 2015, and in model years
2013, 2014 and 2015, if a manufacturer
voluntarily complies in those model
years, may be used by a predecessor
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.
■ 110. 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

PO 00000

Frm 00388

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 vehicles and
heavy-duty 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, the general 5-year restriction on
carrying credits forward, 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
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 vehicles and
heavy-duty vehicle 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, the general 5-year
restriction on carrying credits forward,

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
and the general three year restriction on
offsetting past credit shortfalls as
specified in the requirements of 49 CFR
535.7.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 111. Revise § 534.6 to read as follows.
§ 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 vehicles 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.
■ 112. A new part 535 is added to
chapter V to read as follows:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

PART 535 MEDIUM- AND HEAVY-DUTY
VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM
Sec.
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.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

§ 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 vehicles) and
engines manufactured for sale in the
United States 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
vehicles 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 complete
vehicle and chassis manufacturers of all
new heavy-duty vehicles, as defined in
49 CFR part 523, and to the
manufacturers of all heavy-duty engines
manufactured for use in the applicable
vehicles for each given model year.
(b) Complete vehicle manufacturers,
for the purpose of this part, include
manufacturers that produce heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans or truck tractors
as complete vehicles and that hold the
EPA certificate of conformity.
(c) Chassis manufacturers, for the
purpose of this part, include
manufacturers that produce incomplete
vehicles constructed for use as heavyduty pickup trucks or vans or heavyduty vocational vehicles and that hold
the EPA certificate of conformity. Some
vocational vehicle manufacturers are
both chassis and complete vehicle
manufacturers. These manufacturers
will be regulated as chassis
manufacturers under this program.
(d) Engine manufacturer, for the
purpose of this part, means a
manufacturer that manufactures engines
for heavy-duty vehicles and holds the
EPA certificate of conformity.
(e) The heavy-duty vehicles, chassis
and engines excluded from the
requirements of this part include:
(1) Recreational vehicles, including
motor homes.
(2) Vehicles and engines exempted by
EPA in accordance with 40 CFR parts
1036 and 1037.
(f) Vehicles and engines produced by
small business manufacturers as defined
by the Small Business Administration at

PO 00000

Frm 00389

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57493

13 CFR 121.201 are exempted as
specified in § 535.8(h).
(g) Heavy-duty off-road vehicles
meeting the criteria in 49 CFR part 523
are exempt without request from vehicle
standards of § 535.5(b). Manufacturers
of vehicles not meeting the criteria for
the heavy-duty off-road vehicle
exclusion may submit a petition as
specified in § 535.8(h) to EPA and
NHTSA for an exclusion from the
vehicle standards of § 535.5(b).
(h) A vehicle manufacturer that
completes assembly of a vehicle at two
or more facilities may ask to use as the
date of manufacture for that vehicle the
date on which manufacturing is
completed at the place of main
assembly, consistent with provisions of
49 CFR 567.4, as the model year. Note
that such staged assembly is subject to
the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.260(c).
NHTSA’s allowance of this provision is
effective when EPA approves the
manufacturer’s certificates of conformity
for these vehicles.
§ 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.
A to B testing means testing
performed in pairs to allow comparison
of vehicle A to vehicle B.
Act means the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act, as
amended by Pub. L. 94–163 and 96–425.
Administrator means the
Administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
or the Administrator’s delegate.
Advanced technology means vehicle
technology certified under 40 CFR
1036.615 and 1037.615.
Averaging set means, a set of engines
or vehicles in which fuel consumption
credits may be exchanged. Credits
generated by one engine or vehicle
family may only be used by other
respective engine or vehicle families in
the same averaging set. Note that an
averaging set may comprise more than
one regulatory subcategory. The
averaging sets for this HD program are
defined as follows:
(1) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans.
(2) Vocational light-heavy vehicles at
or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(3) Vocational and tractor mediumheavy vehicles above 19,500 pounds
GVWR but at or below 33,000 pounds
GVWR.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57494

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Vocational and tractor heavyheavy vehicles above 33,000 pounds
GVWR.
(5) Compression-ignition light heavyduty engines for Class 2b to 5 vehicles
with a GVWR above 8,500 pounds but
at or below 19,500 pounds.
(6) Compression-ignition medium
heavy-duty engines for Class 6 and 7
vehicles with a GVWR above 19,500 but
at or below 33,000 pounds.
(7) Compression-ignition heavy
heavy-duty engines for Class 8 vehicles
with a GVWR above 33,000 pounds.
(8) Spark-ignition engines in Class 2b
to 8 vehicles with a GVWR above 8,500
pounds.
Cab-complete vehicle has the meaning
given in 49 CFR part 523.
Carryover means relating to
certification based on emission data
generated from an earlier model year.
Certificate holder means the
manufacturer who holds the certificate
of conformity for the vehicle or engine
and that assigns the model year based
on the date when its manufacturing
operations are completed relative to its
annual model year period.
Certificate of Conformity means an
approval document granted by the EPA
to a manufacturer that submits an
application for a vehicle or engine
emissions family in 40 CFR 1036.205
and 1037.205. A certificate of
conformity is valid from the indicated
effective date until December 31 of the
model year for which it is issued. The
certificate must be renewed annually for
any vehicle a manufacturer continues to
produce.
Certification means 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 an
engine family for a given pollutant from
the applicable transient and/or steadystate testing rounded to the same
number of decimal places as the
applicable standard. Note that you may
have two certified emission levels for
CO2 if you certify a family for both
vocational and tractor use.
Chassis-cab 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 sister vehicle is a complete
vehicle of the same configuration as a
cab-complete vehicle.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
Configuration means a
subclassification within a test group
which is based on engine code,
transmission type and gear ratios, final
drive ratio, and other parameters which
the EPA designates.
Credits (or fuel consumption credits)
in this part means an earned allowance
recognizing the fuel consumption of a
particular manufacturer’s vehicles or
engines within a particular averaging set
exceeds (credit surplus or positive
credits) or falls below (credit shortfall,
deficit or negative credits) that
manufacturer’s fuel consumption
standard(s) for the regulatory
subcategory(s) that make-up the
averaging set for a given model year, or
purchased allowance. The value of an
earned credit is calculated according to
§ 535.7.
Curb weight has the meaning given in
40 CFR 86.1803.
Date of manufacture means the date
on which the certifying vehicle
manufacturer completes its
manufacturing operations, except as
follows:
(1) Where the certificate holder is an
engine manufacturer that does not
manufacture the chassis, the date of
manufacture of the vehicle is based on
the date assembly of the vehicle is
completed.
(2) EPA and NHTSA may approve an
alternate date of manufacture based on
the date on which the certifying (or
primary) vehicle manufacturer
completes assembly at the place of main
assembly, consistent with the provisions
of 40 CFR 1037.601 and 49 CFR 567.4.
Day cab means a type of truck tractor
cab that is not a ‘‘sleeper cab’’, as
defined in this section.
Dedicated vehicle has the same
meaning as dedicated automobile as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8). A
dedicated automobile means an
automobile that operates only on
alternative fuels like E85 or natural gas,
etc.
Dual fueled (multi-fuel or flexible-fuel
vehicle) has the same meaning as dual
fueled automobile as defined in 49
U.S.C. 32901(a)(9). For example, a
vehicle that operates on gasoline and
E85 or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
is considered a dual fueled vehicle.
Electric vehicle means a vehicle that
does not include an engine, and is
powered solely by an external source of
electricity and/or solar power. Note that

PO 00000

Frm 00390

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

this does not include electric hybrid or
fuel-cell vehicles that use a chemical
fuel such as gasoline, diesel fuel, or
hydrogen. Electric vehicles may also be
referred to as all-electric vehicles to
distinguish them from hybrid vehicles.
Engine family has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1036.230.
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 1037.801.
Final-stage manufacturer has the
meaning given in 49 CFR 567.3.
Fleet in this part means all the heavyduty vehicles 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 cell means an electrochemical
cell that produces electricity via the
non-combustion reaction of a
consumable fuel, typically hydrogen.
Fuel cell electric vehicle means a
motor vehicle propelled solely by an
electric motor where energy for the
motor is supplied by a fuel cell.
Fuel efficiency means the amount of
work performed for each gallon of fuel
consumed.
Good engineering judgment has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. See
40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative
process used to evaluate good
engineering judgment.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Heavy-duty vehicle has the meaning
given in 49 CFR part 523.
Hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain
means an engine or powertrain that
includes energy storage features other
than a conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel. Supplemental
electrical batteries and hydraulic
accumulators are examples of hybrid
energy storage systems. Note that certain
provisions in this part treat hybrid
engines and powertrains intended for
vehicles that include regenerative
braking different than those intended for
vehicles that do not include
regenerative braking.
Hybrid vehicle means a vehicle that
includes energy storage features (other
than a conventional battery system or
conventional flywheel) in addition to an
internal combustion engine or other
engine using consumable chemical fuel.
Supplemental electrical batteries and
hydraulic accumulators are examples of
hybrid energy storage systems. Note that
certain provisions in this part treat
hybrid vehicles that include
regenerative braking different than those
that do not include regenerative braking.
Incomplete vehicle has the meaning
given in 49 CFR part 523. For the
purpose of this regulation, a
manufacturer may request EPA and
NHTSA to allow the certification of a
vehicle as an incomplete vehicle if it
manufactures the engine and sells the
unassembled chassis components,
provided it does not produce and sell
the body components necessary to
complete the vehicle.
Innovative technology means
technology certified under 40 CFR
1037.610.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1036.801.
Low rolling resistance tire means a tire
on a vocational vehicle with a tire
rolling resistance level (TRRL) of 7.7 kg/
metric ton or lower, a steer tire on a
tractor with a TRRL of 7.7 kg/metric ton
or lower, or a drive tire on a tractor with
a TRRL of 8.1 kg/metric ton or lower.
Model type has the meaning given in
40 CFR 600.002.
Model year as it applies to engines
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

year. Manufacturers may not adjust
model years to circumvent or delay
compliance with standards.
Model year as it applies to vehicles
means the manufacturer’s annual new
model production period, except as
restricted under this definition and 40
CFR part 85, subpart X. It must include
January 1 of the calendar year for which
the model year is named, may not begin
before January 2 of the previous
calendar year, and it must end by
December 31 of the named calendar
year.
(1) The manufacturer who holds the
certificate of conformity for the vehicle
must assign the model year based on the
date when its manufacturing operations
are completed relative to its annual
model year period.
(2) Unless a vehicle is being shipped
to a secondary manufacturer that will
hold the certificate of conformity, the
model year must be assigned prior to
introduction of the vehicle into U.S.
commerce. The certifying manufacturer
must redesignate the model year if it
does not complete its manufacturing
operations within the originally
identified model year. A vehicle
introduced into U.S. commerce without
a model year is deemed to have a model
year equal to the calendar year of its
introduction into U.S. commerce unless
the certifying manufacturer assigns a
later date.
Natural gas has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1036.801. Vehicles that use a
pilot-ignited natural gas engine (which
uses a small diesel fuel ignition system),
are still considered natural gas vehicles.
NHTSA Enforcement means the
NHTSA Associate Administrator for
Enforcement, or his or her designee.
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.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)
means a hybrid electric vehicle that has
the capability to charge the battery or
batteries used for vehicle propulsion
from an off-vehicle electric source, such
that the off-vehicle source cannot be
connected to the vehicle while the
vehicle is in motion.
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,

PO 00000

Frm 00391

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57495

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.
Primary intended service class has the
meaning for engines as specified in 40
CFR 1036.140.
Rechargeable Energy Storage System
(RESS) means the component(s) of a
hybrid engine or vehicle that store
recovered energy for later use, such as
the battery system in a electric hybrid
vehicle.
Regulatory category means each of the
three types of heavy-duty vehicles
defined in 49 CFR 523.6 and the heavyduty engines used in these heavy-duty
vehicles.
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 with a
GVWR above 26,000 pounds but at or
below 33,000 pounds.
(6) Mid roof day cab tractors with a
GVWR above 26,000 pounds but at or
below 33,000 pounds.
(7) High roof day cab tractors with a
GVWR above 26,000 pounds but at or
below 33,000 pounds.
(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) Compression-ignition light
heavy-duty engines in Class 2b to 5
vehicles with a GVWR above 8,500
pounds but at or below 19,500 pounds.
(15) Compression-ignition medium
heavy-duty engines in Class 6 and 7
vocational vehicles with a GVWR above
19,500 but at or below 33,000 pounds.
(16) Compression-ignition heavy
heavy-duty engines in Class 8
vocational vehicles with a GVWR above
33,000 pounds.
(17) Compression-ignition medium
heavy-duty engines in Class 7 tractors

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57496

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

with a GVWR above 26,000 pounds but
at or below 33,000 pounds.
(18) Compression-ignition heavy
heavy-duty engines in Class 8 tractors
with a GVWR above 33,000 pounds.
(19) Spark-ignition engines in Class
2b to 8 vehicles 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. Determine
the base roof height on fully inflated
tires having a static loaded radius equal
to the arithmetic mean of the largest and
smallest static loaded radius of tires a
manufacturer offers or a standard tire
EPA approves. If a vehicle is equipped
with an adjustable roof fairing, measure
the roof height with the fairing in its
lowest setting. Once the maximum
height is determined, roof heights are
divided into the following categories:
(1) Low-roof means a vehicle with a
roof height of 120 inches or less.
(2) Mid-roof means a vehicle with a
roof height between 121 and 147 inches.
(3) High-roof means a vehicle with a
roof height of 148 inches or more.
Service class group means a group of
engine and vehicle averaging sets
defined as follows:
(1) Spark-ignition engines, light
heavy-duty compression-ignition
engines, light heavy-duty vocational
vehicles and heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans.
(2) Medium heavy-duty compressionignition engines and medium heavyduty vocational vehicles and tractors.
(3) Heavy heavy-duty compressionignition engines and heavy heavy-duty
vocational vehicles and tractors.
Sleeper cab means a type of truck cab
that has 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.
Subconfiguration means a unique
combination within a vehicle

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

configuration of equivalent test weight,
road-load horsepower, and any other
operational characteristics or parameters
that EPA determines may significantly
affect CO2 emissions within a vehicle
configuration.
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 or regulatory subcategory
and is used by NHTSA for determining
the fleet average fuel consumption.
Tire rolling resistance level (TRRL)
means a value with units of kg/metric
ton that represents that rolling
resistance of a tire configuration. TRRLs
are used as inputs to the GEM model
under 40 CFR 1037.520. Note that a
manufacturer may assign a value higher
than a measured rolling resistance of a
tire configuration.
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. This includes most
heavy-duty vehicles specifically
designed for the primary purpose of
pulling trailers, but does not include
vehicles designed to carry other loads.
For purposes of this definition ‘‘other
loads’’ would not include loads carried
in the cab, sleeper compartment, or
toolboxes. Examples of vehicles that are
similar to tractors but that are not
tractors under this part include
dromedary tractors, automobile haulers,
straight trucks with trailers hitches, and
tow trucks.
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.
Useful life has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1037.801.
Vehicle configuration means a unique
combination of vehicle hardware and
calibration (related to measured or
modeled emissions) within a vehicle
family. Vehicles with hardware or
software differences, but that have no
hardware or software differences related
to measured or modeled emissions or
fuel consumption can be included in the
same vehicle configuration. Note that
vehicles with hardware or software
differences related to measured or

PO 00000

Frm 00392

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

modeled emissions or fuel consumption
are considered to be different
configurations even if they have the
same GEM inputs and FEL. Vehicles
within a vehicle configuration differ
only with respect to normal production
variability or factors unrelated to
measured or modeled emissions and
fuel consumption for EPA and NHTSA.
Vehicle family has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1037.230.
Vehicle service class has the meaning
for vehicles as specified in the 40 CFR
1037.801.
Vocational tractor has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1037.630.
Zero emissions vehicle means an
electric vehicle or a fuel cell vehicle.
§ 535.5

Standards.

(a) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans. Each manufacturer of a fleet of
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans shall
comply with the fuel consumption
standards in this paragraph (a)
expressed in gallons per 100 miles. If
the manufacturer’s fleet includes
conventional vehicles (gasoline, diesel
and alternative fueled vehicles) and
advanced technology vehicles (hybrids
with regenerative braking, vehicles
equipped with Rankine-cycle engines,
electric and fuel cell vehicles), it should
divide its fleet into two separate fleets
each with its own separate fleet average
fuel consumption standard which a
manufacturer must comply with the
requirements of this paragraph (a).
(1) Mandatory standards. For model
years 2016 and later, each manufacturer
must comply with the fleet average
standard derived from the unique
subconfiguration target standards (or
groups of subconfigurations approved
by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR
1037.104) of the model types that make
up the manufacturer’s fleet in a given
model year. Each subconfiguration 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) Subconfiguration target standards.
(i) Two alternatives exist for
determining the subconfiguration 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.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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)

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Where:
Subconfiguration Target Standardi = fuel
consumption standard for each group of
vehicles with same payload, towing
capacity and drive configuration (gallons
per 100 miles).
Volumei = production volume of each unique
subconfiguration of a model type based
upon payload, towing capacity and drive
configuration.

(A) A manufacturer may group
together subconfigurations that have the
same test weight (ETW), GVWR, and
GCWR. Calculate work factor and target
value assuming a curb weight equal to
two times ETW minus GVWR.
(B) A manufacturer may group
together other subconfigurations if it
uses the lowest target value calculated
for any of the subconfigurations.
(C) The fleet average shall also be
derived in accordance with 40 CFR
86.1865 and 40 CFR 1037.104(d).
(ii) A manufacturer complies with the
requirements of this part if it provides
reports, as specified in § 535.8, 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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Towing Capacity = GCWR (lbs)¥GVWR (lbs)
(for each vehicle group)

TABLE 1—EQUATION COEFFICIENTS
FOR SUBCONFIGURATION TARGET
STANDARDS
Model year

c

d

Alternative 1—Fixed Target Standards
Compression-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for
Model Years 2016 and later

TABLE 1—EQUATION COEFFICIENTS
FOR SUBCONFIGURATION TARGET
STANDARDS—Continued
Model year

c

d

-Spark-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for Model
Years 2016 and later
2016 ..................
2017 ..................
2018 and later ..

0.000528
0.000518
0.000495

4.07
3.98
3.81

(3) Fleet average fuel consumption
standard. (i) Calculate each
manufacturer’s fleet average fuel
consumption standard for conventional
Spark-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for Model
and advanced technology fleets
Years 2016 and later
separately based on the
2016–2018 ........
0.000513
3.96 subconfiguration target standards
2019 and later ..
0.000495
3.81 specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, weighted to production
Alternative 2—Phased-in Target Standards
volumes and averaged using the
following equation combining all the
Compression-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for
applicable vehicles in a manufacturer’s
Model Years 2016 and later
U.S. directed fleet (compression2016 ..................
0.000452
3.48 ignition, spark-ignition and advanced
2017 ..................
0.000437
3.37 technology vehicles) for a given model
2018 and later ..
0.000409
3.14 year, rounded to the nearest 0.01 gallons
per 100 miles:
2016–2018 ........
2019 and later ..

0.000432
0.000409

3.33
3.14

(B) The manufacturer uses one or
more of the credit flexibilities provided
under NHTSA’s Averaging, Banking and
Trading Program, as specified in § 535.7,
to comply with standards.
(iii) Manufacturers must select an
alternative for subconfiguration target
standards at the same time they submit
the model year 2016 Pre-Model year
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)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this section, for
example, in order to begin accumulating
credits through over-compliance with
the applicable standard. A manufacturer
choosing early compliance must comply
with all the vehicles and engines it

PO 00000

Frm 00393

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

manufactures in each regulatory
category for a given model year.
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its
intent to voluntarily comply with fuel
consumption standards at the same time
it submits a Pre-Model 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 for all
the vehicles and engines it
manufactures in each regulatory
category for a given model year.
(iii) Calculate separate
subconfiguration target standards for
compression-ignition and spark-ignition
vehicles for model years 2013 through
2015 using the equation in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii) of this section, substituting the
appropriate values for the coefficients in
Table 2 of this section as appropriate.

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.106

(ii) Calculate the subconfiguration
target standards as specified in this
paragraph (a)(2)(ii), using the
appropriate coefficients from Table 1
choosing between the alternatives in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section. For electric or fuel cell heavyduty vehicles, use compression-ignition
vehicle coefficients ‘‘c’’ and ‘‘d’’ and for
hybrid (including plug-in hybrid),
dedicated and dual-fueled vehicles, use
coefficients ‘‘c’’ and ‘‘d’’ appropriate for
the engine type used. Round each
standard to the nearest 0.01 gallons per
100 miles and specify all weights in
pounds rounded to the nearest pound.
Calculate the subconfiguration target
standards using the following equation:
Subconfiguration Target Standard
(gallons per 100 miles) = [c × (WF)] +
d

57497

57498

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2—VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE § 535.5(a), where manufacturers sell
EQUATION COEFFICIENTS FOR VEHI- such engines as loose engines or
CLE FUEL CONSUMPTION STAND- installed in incomplete vehicles that are

not cab-complete vehicles in accordance
with 40 CFR 1037.150(m). A
manufacturer’s engines are deemed to
Model Year
c
d
have fuel consumption target values and
test results based upon the complete
Compression-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for
vehicle in the applicable test group with
Voluntary Compliance in Model Years
2013 through 2015
the highest equivalent test weight in
accordance with 40 CFR 1037.150(m).
2013 and 14 .....
0.000470
3.61 The fuel consumption subconfiguration
2015 ..................
0.000466
3.60 standard for a loose engines equals the
test group result of the complete vehicle
Spark-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for Volas specified in 40 CFR 1037.150(m)(6)
untary Compliance in Model Years 2013
multiplied by 1.10 and rounded to the
through 2015
nearest 0.01 gallon per 100 miles. The
2013 and 14 .....
0.000542
4.17 U.S.-directed production volume of
2015 ..................
0.000539
4.15 engines manufactured for sale as loose
engines or installed in incomplete
(iv) Calculate the fleet average fuel
heavy-duty vehicles that are not cabconsumption standards for model years
complete vehicles in any given model
2013 through 2015 using the equation in year may not exceed ten percent of the
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
total U.S-directed production volume of
(5) Exclusion of vehicles not certified
engines of that design that the
as complete vehicles. The vehicle
manufacturer produces for heavy-duty
standards § 535.5(a) do not apply for
applications for that model year,
vehicles that are chassis-certified with
including engines the manufacturer
respect to EPA’s criteria pollutant test
produces for complete vehicles, cabprocedure in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
complete vehicles, and other incomplete
Any chassis-certified vehicles must
vehicles. The total number of engines a
comply with the vehicle standards and
manufacturer may certify under this
requirements of § 535.5(b) and the
paragraph (a)(7), of all engine designs,
engine standards of § 535.5(d) for
may not exceed 15,000 in any model
engines used in these vehicles. A
year as specified in 40 CFR
vehicle manufacturer choosing to
1037.150(m). Engines produced in
comply with this paragraph and that is
excess of the number cannot be certified
not the engine manufacturer is required to the standard in this paragraph (a)(7).
to notify the engine manufacturers that
(b) Heavy-duty vocational vehicles.
their engines are subject to § 535.5(d)
Each chassis manufacturer of heavyand that it intends to use their engines
duty vocational vehicles shall comply
in excluded vehicles.
with the fuel consumption standards in
(6) Optional certification under this
this paragraph (b) expressed in gallons
section. Manufacturers may certify any
per 1,000 ton-miles. Manufacturers of
complete or cab-complete Class 2b
engines used in heavy-duty vocational
through 5 vehicles weighing at or below vehicles shall comply with the
19,500 pounds GVWR and any
standards in paragraph (d) of this
incomplete vehicles approved by EPA
section.
for inclusion under this paragraph to the
(1) Mandatory standards. For model
same testing and standard that applies
years 2016 and later, each chassis
to a comparable complete sister vehicles manufacturer of heavy-duty vocational
as determined in accordance in 40 CFR
vehicles must comply with the fuel
1037.150(l). Calculate the target
consumption standards in paragraph
standard value under paragraph (a)(2) of (b)(3) of this section.
this section based on the same work
(i) The heavy-duty vocational vehicle
factor value that applies for the
chassis category is subdivided by GVWR
complete sister vehicle.
into three regulatory subcategories as
(7) Loose engines. This paragraph
defined in § 535.4, each with its own
applies for spark-ignition engines
assigned standard.
identical to engines used in vehicles
(ii) For purposes of certifying vehicles
certified to the standards of this section
to fuel consumption standards,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

ARDS

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00394

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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) A manufacturer complies with
the requirements of this part, if it
provides information as specified in
§ 535.8, 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.
(iv) A manufacturer failing to comply
with the provisions specified in
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) 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 (b)(3)
of this section. For example, a
manufacturer may choose to comply
early in order to begin accumulating
credits through over-compliance with
the applicable standards. A
manufacturer choosing early
compliance must comply with all the
vehicles and engines it manufacturers in
each regulatory category for a given
model year.
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its
intent to voluntarily comply with fuel
consumption standards and identify its
plans to comply before it submits its
first application for a certificate of
conformity for the respective model year
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 for all the vehicles and
engines it manufacturers in each
regulatory category for a given model
year.
(3) Regulatory subcategory standards.
The fuel consumption standards for
heavy-duty vocational vehicles are
given in the following table:

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

57499

TABLE 3—HEAVY-DUTY VOCATIONAL VEHICLE FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS
Light Heavy vehicles
Class 2b–5

Regulatory subcategories

Medium heavy vehicles
Class 6—7

Heavy heavy vehicles
Class 8

Fuel Consumption Mandatory Standards (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles) Effective for Model Years 2017 and later
Fuel Consumption Standard ........................................................

36.7

22.1

21.8

23.0

22.2

Effective for Model Years 2016
Fuel Consumption Standard ........................................................

38.1

Fuel Consumption Voluntary Standards (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles) Effective for Model Years 2013 to 2015
Fuel Consumption Standard ........................................................

(4) Certifying across service classes. A
manufacturer may optionally certify a
vocational vehicle to the standards and
useful life applicable to a higher vehicle
service class (or regulatory subcategory
changes such as complying with the
heavy heavy-duty standard instead of
medium heavy-duty standard), provided
the manufacturer does not generate
credits with the vehicle. If a
manufacturer includes smaller vehicles
in a credit-generating subfamily (with
an FEL below the standard), exclude
their production volume from the credit
calculation.
(5) Off-road operation. Heavy-duty
vocational vehicles including vocational
tractors meeting the off-road criteria in
49 CFR 523.2 are exempted from the
requirements in this paragraph (b), but
the engines in these vehicles must meet
the requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section.
(c) Truck tractors. Each manufacturer
of truck tractors, except vocational
tractors, with a GVWR above 26,000
pounds shall comply with the fuel
consumption standards in this
paragraph (c) expressed in gallons per
1,000 ton-miles.
(1) Mandatory standards. 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.

38.1

(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, 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.
(v) A manufacturer failing to comply
with the provisions specified in

23.0

22.2

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 example, a
manufacturer may choose to comply
early in order to begin accumulating
credits through over-compliance with
the applicable standards. A
manufacturer choosing early
compliance must comply with all the
vehicles and engines it manufacturers in
each regulatory category for a given
model year.
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its
intent to voluntarily comply with fuel
consumption standards and identify its
plans to comply before it submits its
first application for a certificate of
conformity for the respective model year
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 for all the vehicles and
engines it manufacturers in each
regulatory category for a given model
year.
(3) Regulatory subcategory standards.
The fuel consumption standards for
truck tractors, except for vocational
tractors, are given in the following table:

TABLE 4—TRUCK TRACTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS
Day cab

Sleeper cab

Regulatory subcategories
Class 7

Class 8

Class 8

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Fuel Consumption Mandatory Standards (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles) Effective for Model Years 2017 and later
Low Roof ......................................................................................
Mid Roof ......................................................................................
High Roof .....................................................................................

10.2
11.3
11.8

7.8
8.4
8.7

6.5
7.2
7.1

8.0
8.7

6.7
7.4

Effective for Model Years 2016
Low Roof ......................................................................................
Mid Roof ......................................................................................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00395

10.5
11.7

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57500

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—TRUCK TRACTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS—Continued
Day cab

Sleeper cab

Regulatory subcategories
Class 7
High Roof .....................................................................................

Class 8
12.2

Class 8
9.0

7.3

Fuel Consumption Voluntary Standards (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles) Effective for Model Years 2013 to 2015
Low Roof ......................................................................................
Mid Roof ......................................................................................
High Roof .....................................................................................

(4) Certifying across service classes. A
manufacturer may optionally certify a
tractor to the standards and useful life
applicable to a higher vehicle service
class (or regulatory subcategory changes
such as complying with the Class 8 daycab tractor standard instead of Class 7
day-cab tractor), provided the
manufacturer does not generate credits
with the vehicle. If a manufacturer
includes smaller vehicles in a creditgenerating subfamily (with an FEL
below the standard), exclude their
production volume from the credit
calculation.
(5) Vocational tractors. Tractors
meeting the definition of vocational
tractors in 49 CFR 523.2 must comply
with requirements for heavy-duty
vocational vehicles specified in
paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.
Class 7 and Class 8 tractors certified or
exempted as vocational tractors are
limited in production to no more than
21,000 vehicles in any three consecutive
model years. If a manufacturer is
determined as not applying this
allowance in good faith by the EPA in
its applications for certification in
accordance with 40 CFR 1037.205 and
1037.610, a manufacturer must comply
with the tractor fuel consumption
standards in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(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. Each engine must be
certified to the primary intended service
class that it is designed for in
accordance with 40 CFR 1036.108;

10.5
11.7
12.2

8.0
8.7
9.0

(1) Mandatory standards. Each
manufacturer must comply with the fuel
consumption standard in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section for model years
2017 and later compression-ignition
engines and for model years 2016 and
later spark-ignition engines.
(i) The heavy-duty engine regulatory
category is divided into six regulatory
subcategories, five compression-ignition
subcategories and one spark-ignition
subcategory, as shown in Table 5 of this
section.
(ii) Separate standards exist for
engines manufactured for use in heavyduty vocational vehicles and in truck
tractors.
(iii) For purposes of certifying engines
to fuel consumption standards,
manufacturers must divide their
product lines into engine families that
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, 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.
(v) A manufacturer failing to comply
with the provisions specified in

6.7
7.4
7.3

paragraph (d)(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 2016 for
compression-ignition engines, and for
model year 2015 for spark-ignition
engines, a manufacturer may choose
voluntarily to comply with the fuel
consumption standards provided in
paragraph (d)(3) through (5) of this
section. For example, a manufacturer
may choose to comply early in order to
begin accumulating credits through
over-compliance with the applicable
standards. A manufacturer choosing
early compliance must comply with all
the vehicles and engines it
manufacturers in each regulatory
category for a given model year except
in model year 2013 the manufacturer
may comply with individual engine
families as specified in 40 CFR
1036.150(a)(2).
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its
intent to voluntarily comply with fuel
consumption standards and identify its
plans to comply before it submits its
first application for a certificate of
conformity for the respective model year
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 for all the vehicles and
engines it manufacturers in each
regulatory category for a given model
year.
(3) Regulatory subcategory standards.
The fuel consumption standards for
heavy-duty engines are given in the
following:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

TABLE 5—PRIMARY HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE STANDARDS
Fuel Consumption Mandatory Standards (gallons per 100 bhp-hr)
Regulatory
Subcategory

Light Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Engine

Truck Application ......

Vocational

Medium Heavy-Duty CompressionIgnition Engine
Vocational

Effective Model Years

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Tractor

Heavy Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Engine
Vocational

Tractor

2017 and later

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00396

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Spark-Ignition
Engines
All
2016 and later

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57501

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 5—PRIMARY HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE STANDARDS—Continued
Fuel Consumption
Standard.

5.66

5.66

4.78

5.45

4.52

7.06

Fuel Consumption Standards for Voluntary Compliance (gallons per100 bhp-hr)
Regulatory Subcategory.

Light Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Engine

Truck Application ......

Medium Heavy-Duty CompressionIgnition Engine

Vocational

Vocational

Effective Model Years

Tractor

Heavy Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Engine
Vocational

Spark-ignition
Engine

Tractor

All

2013 through 2016

Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard.

5.89

5.89

(4) Alternate subcategory standards.
The alternative fuel consumption
standards for heavy-duty compressionignition engines are as follows:
(i) Manufacturers entering the
voluntary program in model years 2014
through 2016, may choose to certify
compression-ignition engine families
unable to meet standards provided in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section to the
alternative fuel consumption standards
of this paragraph (d)(4).
(ii) Manufacturers may not certify
engines to these alternate standards if
they are part of an averaging set in
which they carry a balance of banked
credits. For purposes of this section,

4.93

2015
5.57

manufacturers are deemed to carry
credits in an averaging set if they carry
credits from advance technology that are
allowed to be used in that averaging set
in accordance with § 535.7(d)(12).
(iii) The emission standards of this
section are determined as specified in
EPA 40 CFR 1036.620(a) through (c) and
should be converted to equivalent fuel
consumption values.
(5) Alternate Phase-In Standards.
Manufacturers have the option to
comply with EPA emissions standards
for compression-ignition engines using
an alternative phase-in schedule that
correlates with the EPA OBD standards.
If a manufacturer chooses to use the

4.67

7.06

alternative phase-in schedule for
meeting EPA standards and optionally
chooses to comply early with the
NHTSA fuel consumption program, it
must use the same phase-in schedule
beginning in model year 2013 for fuel
consumption standards and must
remain in the program for each model
year thereafter. The fuel consumption
standard for each model year of the
alternative phase-in schedule is
provided in Table 6 of this section. Note
that engines certified to these standards
are not eligible for early credits under
§ 535.7.

TABLE 6—ALTERNATIVE PHASE-IN COMPRESSION IGNITION ENGINE STANDARDS
Tractors

LHD Engines

MHD Engines

Model Years 2013–2015 ...............
Model Years 2016 and later† .........
Vocational ......................................
Model Years 2013–2015 ...............
Model Years 2016 and later† .........

NA .................................................
NA .................................................
LHD Engines ................................
6.07 gals/100 hp-hr ......................
5.66 gals/100 hp-hr ......................

5.03 gals/100 hp-hr ......................
4.78 gals./100 hp-hr .....................
MHD Engines ...............................
6.07 gals/100 hp-hr ......................
5.66 gals/100 hp-hr ......................

†Note:

4.76 gals./100 hp-hr
4.52 gals/100 hp-hr
HHD Engines
5.67 gals/100 hp-hr
5.45 gals/100 hp-hr

these alternate standards for 2016 and later are the same as the otherwise applicable standards for 2017 and later.

§ 535.6 Measurement and calculation
procedures.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

HHD Engines

(a) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and
vans. This section describes the testing
a manufacturer must perform for each
model year and the method for
determining the fleet fuel consumption
performance to show compliance with
the fleet average fuel consumption
standard for heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans in § 535.5(a).
(1) For each model year, the heavyduty pickup trucks and vans selected by
a manufacturer to comply with fuel
consumption standards in § 535.5(a)
must be used to determine the
manufacturer’s fleet average fuel
consumption performance. If the
manufacturer’s fleet includes
conventional and advanced technology
heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the
fleet should be sub-divided into two
separate vehicle fleets, with all of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

conventional vehicles in one fleet and
all of the advanced technology vehicles
in the other fleet.
(2) Vehicles in each fleet should be
divided into test groups or
subconfigurations according to EPA in
40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and 40 CFR
1037.104.
(3) Test and measure the CO2
emissions test results for the selected
vehicles and determine the CO2
emissions test group result, in grams per
mile in accordance with 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S.
(i) Perform exhaust testing on vehicles
fueled by conventional and alternative
fuels, including dedicated and dual
fueled (multi-fueled and flexible fueled)
vehicles and measure the CO2 emissions
test result.
(ii) Adjust the CO2 emissions test
result of dual fueled vehicles using a
weighted average of your emission

PO 00000

Frm 00397

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

results as specified in 40 CFR 600.510–
12(k) for light-duty trucks.
(iii) All electric vehicles are deemed
to have zero emissions of CO2, CH4, and
N2O. No emission testing is required for
such electric vehicles. Assign the fuel
consumption test group result to a value
of zero gallons per 100 miles in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(iv) Test cab-complete and incomplete
vehicles using the applicable complete
sister vehicles as determined in 40 CFR
1037.104(g).
(v) Test loose engines using
applicable complete vehicles as
determined in 40 CFR 1037.104(h).
(vi) Manufacturers can choose to
analytically derive CO2 emission rates
(ADCs) for test groups or
subconfigurations. Calculate the ADCs
for test groups or subconfigurations in
accordance with 40 CFR 1037.104(g).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Calculate equivalent fuel
consumption test group results, in
gallons per 100 miles, from CO2
emissions test group results, in grams
per miles, and round to the nearest 0.01
gallon per 100 miles.
(i) Calculate the equivalent fuel
consumption test group results as
follows for compression-ignition
vehicles and alternative fuel
compression-ignition vehicles. CO2

emissions test group result (grams per
mile)/10,180 grams per gallon of diesel
fuel) × (102) = Fuel consumption test
group result (gallons per 100 mile).
(ii) Calculate the equivalent fuel
consumption test group results as
follows for spark-ignition vehicles and
alternative fuel spark-ignition vehicles.
CO2 emissions test group result (grams
per mile)/8,877 grams per gallon of
gasoline fuel) × (102) = Fuel

consumption test group result (gallons
per 100 mile).
(5) Calculate the fleet average fuel
consumption result, in gallons per 100
miles, from the equivalent fuel
consumption test group results and
round the fuel consumption result to the
nearest 0.01 gallon per 100 miles.
Calculate the fleet average fuel
consumption result using the following
equation.

Where:
Fuel Consumption Test Group Resulti = fuel
consumption performance for each test
group as defined in 49 CFR 523.4.
Volumei = production volume of each test
group.

accordance with 40 CFR 1037.520 and
1037.650.
(iv) Drive tire rolling resistance for
low rolling resistance tires in
accordance with 40 CFR 1037.520 and
1037.650.
(v) Vehicle speed limit as governed by
vehicles speed limiters in accordance
with 40 CFR 1037.520 and 1037.640. Do
not use for vocational vehicles.
(vi) Vehicle weight reduction as
provided in accordance with 40 CFR
1037.520. Do not use for vocational
vehicles.
(vii) Extended idle reduction credit
using automatic engine shutdown
systems in accordance with 40 CFR
1037.520 and 1037.660. Do not use for
vehicles other than Class 8 sleeper cabs.
(3) From the GEM results, select the
CO2 family emissions level (FEL) and
equivalent fuel consumption values for
vocational vehicle and tractor families
in each regulatory subcategories for each
model year. Equivalent fuel
consumption FELs are derived in GEM
and expressed to the nearest 0.1 gallons
per 1000 ton-mile. For families
containing multiple subfamilies,
identify the FELs for each subfamily.
(4) Paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section address vocational vehicle
and tractor chassis testing only. Engine
performance and the advanced
technologies equipped on vocational
vehicles and tractors are tested
separately as follows:
(i) Vocational vehicle and tractor
engine test results for conventional and
alternative fueled vehicles are
determined in accordance with
§ 535.6(c).
(ii) Improvements for advanced
technologies are determined as follows:
(A) Test hybrid vehicles with power
take-off in accordance with 40 CFR
1037.525 and vehicles with posttransmission hybrid systems in
accordance with 40 CFR 1037.550.
(B) All electric vehicles are deemed to
have zero CO2 emissions and fuel

consumption. No emission testing is
required for such electric vehicles.
Assign the vehicle family with a fuel
consumption FEL result to a value of
zero gallons per 1000-ton miles in
paragraph (3) of this section.
(c) Heavy-duty engines. This section
describes the testing a manufacturer
must perform and the method for
determining fuel consumption
performance to show compliance with
the fuel consumption standards for
engines in § 535.5(d). Each engine must
be tested to the primary intended
service class that it is designed for in
accordance with 40 CFR 1036.108
(1) Select emission-data engines and
engine family configurations to test as
specified in 40 CFR part 86 and part
1036, subpart C for engines installed in
vehicles that make up each of the
manufacture’s regulatory subcategory.
(2) Test the CO2 emissions for each
emissions-data engine subject to the
standards in § 535.5(d) using the
procedures and equipment specified in
40 CFR part 1036, subpart F. Measure
the CO2 emissions in grams per bhp-hr
as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart
N, and part 1036, subpart C.
(i) Perform exhaust testing on each
fuel type for conventional, dedicated,
dual fuel (multi-fuel, and flexible fuel)
vehicles and measure the CO2 emissions
level.
(ii) Adjust the CO2 emissions result of
dual fueled vehicles using a weighted
average of the demonstrated emission
results as specified in 40 CFR 1036.225.
If EPA disapproves a manufacturer’s
dual fuel vehicle demonstrated use
submission, NHTSA will require the
manufacturer to only use the test results
with 100 percent conventional fuel to
determine the fuel consumption of the
engine.
(iii) All electric vehicles are deemed
to have zero emissions of CO2 and zero
fuel consumption. No emission or fuel
consumption testing is required for such
electric vehicles.

(6) Compare the fleet average fuel
consumption standard to the fleet
average fuel consumption performance.
The fleet average fuel consumption
performance must be less than or equal
to the fleet fuel consumption standard
to comply with standards in § 535.5(a).
(b) Heavy-duty vocational vehicles
and tractors. This section describes the
testing a manufacturer must perform
and the method for determining fuel
consumption performance to show
compliance with the fuel consumption
standards for vocational vehicles and
tractors in § 535.5(b) and (c).
(1) Select vehicles and vehicle family
configurations to test as specified in 40
CFR 1037.230 for vehicles that make up
each of the manufacture’s regulatory
subcategories of vocational vehicles and
tractors.
(2) Determine the CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption results for all vehicle
chassis (conventional, alternative fueled
and advanced technology vehicles)
using the Greenhouse Emissions Model
(GEM) in accordance with 40 CFR part
1037, subpart F. Vocational vehicles and
tractor chassis are modeled using the
following inputs in the GEM model. All
seven of the following inputs apply for
sleeper cab tractors, while some do not
apply for vocational vehicles and other
tractor regulatory subcategories:
(i) Identification of vehicles using
regulatory subcategories (such as ‘‘Class
8 Combination—Sleeper Cab—High
Roof’’).
(ii) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag in
accordance with 40 CFR 1037.520 and
1037.521. Do not use for vocational
vehicles.
(iii) Steer tire rolling resistance for
low rolling resistance tires in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

PO 00000

Frm 00398

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

ER15SE11.107

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57502

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Determine the CO2 emissions for
the family certification level (FCL) from
the emissions test results in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section for engine families
within the heavy-duty engine regulatory
subcategories for each model year.
(i) 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 in
accordance with 40 CFR 1036.230. The
manufacturer may assign the numbers
and configurations of engines within the
respective subfamilies at any time prior
to the submission of the end-of-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.
(ii) 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 credits
under the ABT provisions provided in
§ 535.7(e):
(A) Engines certified as hybrid
engines or power packs.
(B) Engines certified as hybrid engines
designed with PTO capability and that
are sold with the engine coupled to a
transmission.
(C) Engines with Rankine cycle waste
heat recovery.
(4) Calculate equivalent fuel
consumption values for emissions FCLs
and the CO2 levels for certified engines,
in gallons per 100 bhp-hr and round
each fuel consumption value to the
nearest 0.01 gallon per 100 bhp-hr.
(i) Calculate equivalent fuel
consumption FCL values for
compression-ignition engines and
alternative fuel compression-ignition
engines. CO2 FCL value (grams per bhphr)/10,180 grams per gallon of diesel
fuel) × (10 2) = Fuel consumption FCL
value (gallons per 100 bhp-hr).
(ii) Calculate equivalent fuel
consumption FCL values for sparkignition engines and alternative fuel
spark-ignition engines. CO2 FCL value
(grams per bhp-hr)/8,877 grams per
gallon of gasoline fuel) × (10 2) = Fuel
consumption FCL value (gallons per 100
bhp-hr).
(iii) Manufacturers may carryover fuel
consumption data from a previous
model year if allowed to carry over
emissions data for EPA in accordance
with 40 CFR 1036.235.
(iv) If a manufacturer uses an alternate
test procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10
and subsequently the data is rejected by

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

the EPA, NHTSA will also reject the
data.
§ 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
heavy-duty vehicles and engines
exceeding the fuel consumption
standards in § 535.5 or by using one or
more of the flexibilities in this
paragraph (a) to gain credits.
Manufacturers may average, bank, and
trade fuel consumption credits for
purposes of complying with fuel
consumption standards. The following
criteria and restrictions apply to
averaging, banking and trading FCC
(hereafter reference as the NHTSA ABT
program).
(1) Averaging. Averaging is the
exchange of FCC among a
manufacturer’s engines or vehicle
families or test groups within an
averaging set. With the exception of FCC
earned for advance technologies as
further clarified below, a manufacturer
may average FCC only within the same
averaging set. The principle averaging
sets are defined in § 535.4.
(2) Banking. Banking is the retention
of surplus FCC by the manufacturer
generating the credits for use in future
model years for averaging or trading.
Banked FCC retain the designation from
the averaging set and model year in
which they were generated and expire
after five model years.
(3) Trading. Trading is a transaction
that transfers FCC between
manufacturers or other entities. A
manufacturer may use traded FCC for
averaging, banking, or further trading
transactions. Traded FCC, other than
advanced technology credits, may be
used only within the averaging set in
which they were generated.
(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. This one
regulatory subcategory makes up one
averaging set.
(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 (b)(8) of this
section. If the manufacturer’s fleet
includes conventional vehicles
(gasoline, diesel and alternative fuel)
and advanced technology vehicles
(hybrids with regenerative braking,

PO 00000

Frm 00399

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57503

vehicles equipped with Rankine-cycle
engines, electric and fuel cell vehicles)
it should be divided into two separate
fleets each with its own final average
fleet fuel consumption standard and
final average fleet fuel consumption
performance value. Credits shall be
calculated for each of the two fleets.
(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, other than
advanced technology credits, generated
and calculated within this averaging set
may only be used to offset a credit
shortfall in this same averaging set.
(5) Advanced technology credits can
be used to offset a credit shortfall in this
same averaging set or other averaging
sets. However, a manufacturer must first
apply advanced technology credits to
any deficits in the same averaging set
before applying them to other averaging
sets.
(6) Surplus credits, other than
advanced technology credits, may be
traded among credit holders but must
stay within the same averaging set.
Advanced technology credits can be
traded across averaging sets.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) Calculate the value of credits
generated in a model year for this
regulatory subcategory or averaging set
using the following equation:
Total MY Fleet FCC (gallons) = (Std ¥
Act) × (Volume) × (UL) × (10 2)
Where:
Std = Fleet average fuel consumption
standard (gal/100 mile).
Act = Fleet average actual fuel consumption
value (gal/100 mile).
Volume = the total U.S.-directed production
of vehicles in the regulatory subcategory.
UL = the useful life for the regulatory
subcategory (120,000 miles).

(10) If a manufacturer generates
credits from its fleet of advanced
technology vehicles in accordance with
535.7(e)(1) a multiplier of 1.5 can be
used. Advanced technology credits can
be used in other averaging sets different

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57504

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

from the one they are generated within
with the following restrictions.
(i) The maximum amount of credits a
manufacturer may bring into the service
class group that contains the heavy-duty
pickup and van averaging set is 5.89
Mgallons (for advanced technology
credits based upon compression ignition
engines) or 6.76 Mgallons (for advanced
technology credits based upon sparkignition engines) per model year as
specified in 40 CFR 1037.104.
(ii) The limit specified in paragraph
(b)(10)(i) of this section does not limit
the amount of advanced technology
credits that can be used across averaging
sets within the same service class group.
(11) If a manufacturer chooses to
generate CO2 emission credits under
EPA provisions of 40 CFR 1037.150(a),
it may also voluntarily generate early
credits under the NHTSA fuel
consumption program. Fuel
consumption credits may be generated
for vehicles certified in model year 2013
to the model year 2014 standards in
§ 535.5(a). To do so a manufacturer must
certify its entire U.S. directed
production volume of vehicles in its
fleet. The same production volume
restrictions specified in 40 CFR
1037.150(a)(2) relating to when test
groups are certified apply to the NHTSA
early credit provisions. Credits are
calculated as specified in paragraph
(b)(9) of this section relative to the fleet
standard that would apply for model
year 2014 using the model year 2013
production volumes. Surplus credits
generated under this paragraph are
available credits for banking or trading.
Credit deficits for an averaging set prior
to model year 2014 do not carry over to
model year 2014. These credits may be
used to show compliance with the
standards of this part for 2014 and later
model years. Once a manufacturer opts
into the NHTSA program they must stay
in the program for all of the optional
model years and remain standardized
with the same implementation approach
being followed to meet the EPA CO2
emission program.
(c) ABT provisions for vocational
vehicles and tractors. (1) The two
regulatory categories for vocational
vehicles and tractors consist of 12
regulatory subcategory as follows:
(i) Vocational vehicles with a GVWR
up to and including 19,500 pounds
(Light Heavy-Duty (LHD));
(ii) Vocational vehicles with a GVWR
above 19,500 pounds and no greater
than 33,000 pounds (Medium HeavyDuty (MHD));
(iii) Vocational vehicles with a GVWR
over 33,000 pounds (Heavy Heavy-Duty
(HHD));

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

(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;
(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) The 12 regulatory subcategories
consist of three averaging sets as
follows:
(i) Vocational light-heavy vehicles at
or below 19,500 pounds GVWR.
(ii) Vocational and tractor mediumheavy vehicles above 19,500 pounds
GVWR but at or below 33,000 pounds
GVWR.
(iii) Vocational and tractor heavyheavy vehicles above 33,000 pounds
GVWR.
(3) 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
applicable averaging set 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
averaging set.
(4) 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 a ‘‘credit
shortfall.’’
(5) Manufacturers shall sum all
shortfalls and surplus credits for each
vehicle family within each applicable
averaging set 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.
(6) Surplus credits, other than
advanced technology credits, generated
and calculated within this averaging set
may only be used to offset a credit
shortfall in this same averaging set.
(7) Advanced technology credits can
be used to offset a credit shortfall in this

PO 00000

Frm 00400

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

same averaging set or other averaging
sets. However, a manufacturer must first
apply advanced technology credits to
any deficits in the same averaging set
before applying them to other averaging
sets.
(8) Surplus credits, other than
advanced technology credits, may be
traded among credit holders but must
stay within the same averaging set.
Advanced technology credits can be
traded across averaging sets.
(9) 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.
(10) 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.
(11) 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 an averaging set
using the following equation:
Vehicle Family FCC (gallons) = (Std ¥
FEL) × (Payload) × (Volume) × (UL)
× (10 3)
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:
Regulatory subcategory
LHD Vocational Vehicles ............
MHD Vocational Vehicles ...........
HHD Vocational Vehicles ...........
Class 7 Tractor ...........................
Class 8 Tractor ...........................

Payload
(Tons)
2.85
5.60
7.5
12.50
19.00

Volume = the number of U.S.-directed
production volume of vehicles in the
corresponding vehicle family.
UL = the useful life for the regulatory
subcategory (miles) as shown in the
following table:
Regulatory subcategory
LHD Vocational Vehicles ..............
MHD Vocational Vehicles .............
HHD Vocational Vehicles .............
Class 7 Tractor .............................
Class 8 Tractor .............................

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

UL
(miles)
110,000
185,000
435,000
185,000
435,000

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Calculate the value of credits
generated in a model year for each
vehicle family for advanced technology
vehicles within an averaging set using
the equation above, the guidelines
provided in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this
section, and the 1.5 credit multiplier.
(iii) Calculate the total credits
generated in a model year for each
averaging set using the following
equation:
Total averaging set MY credits
= S Vehicle family credits within
each average set
(12) If a manufacturer chooses to
generate CO2 emission credits under
EPA provisions of 40 CFR 1037.150(a),
it may also voluntarily generate early
credits under the NHTSA fuel
consumption program as follows:
(i) Fuel consumption credits may be
generated for vehicles certified in model
year 2013 to the model year 2014
standards in § 535.5(b) and (c). To do so
a manufacturer must certify its entire
U.S. directed production volume of
vehicles. The same production volume
restrictions specified in 40 CFR
1037.150(a)(1) relating to when test
groups are certified apply to the NHTSA
early credit provisions. Credits are
calculated as specified in paragraph
(c)(11) of this section relative to the
standards that would apply for model
year 2014. Surplus credits generated
under this paragraph (c)(12) may be
increased by a factor of 1.5 for
determining total available credits for
banking or trading. For example, if you
have 10 gallons of surplus credits for
model year 2013, you may bank 15
gallons of credits. Credit deficits for an
averaging set prior to model year 2014
do not carry over to model year 2014.
These credits may be used to show
compliance with the standards of this
part for 2014 and later model years.
Once a manufacturer opts into the
NHTSA program they must stay in the
program for all of the optional model
years and remain standardized with the
same implementation approach being
followed to meet the EPA CO2 emission
program.
(ii) A tractor manufacturer may
generate fuel consumption credits for
the number of additional SmartWay
designated tractors (relative to its MY
2012 production), provided that credits
are not generated for those vehicles
under paragraph (c)(12)(i) of this
section. Calculate credits for each
regulatory sub-category relative to the
standard that would apply in model
year 2014 using the equations in
paragraph (c)(11) of this section. Use a
production volume equal to the number
of verified model year 2013 SmartWay

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

tractors minus the number of verified
model year 2012 SmartWay tractors. A
manufacturer may bank credits equal to
the surplus credits generated under this
paragraph multiplied by 1.50. A
manufacturer’s 2012 and 2013 model
years must be equivalent in length.
Once a manufacturer opts into the
NHTSA program they must stay in the
program for all of the optional model
years and remain standardized with the
same implementation approach being
followed to meet the EPA CO2 emission
program.
(13) If a manufacturer generates
credits from vehicles certified for
advanced technology in accordance
with § 535.7(e)(1), a multiplier of 1.5
can be used, but this multiplier cannot
be used on the same credits for which
the early credit multiplier is used.
Advanced technology credits can be
used in other averaging sets different
from the one they are generated, but the
maximum amount of credits a
manufacturer may bring into a service
class group that contains the vocational
vehicle and tractor averaging sets is 5.89
Mgallons (for advanced technology
credits based upon compression ignition
engines) or 6.76 Mgallons (for advanced
technology credits based upon sparkignition engines) per model year as
specified in 40 CFR 1037.740. However,
this does not limit the amount of
advanced technology credits that can be
used across averaging sets within the
same service class group.
(d) ABT provisions for heavy-duty
engines. (1) Heavy-duty engines consist
of six regulatory subcategories as
follows:
(i) Spark-ignition engines.
(ii) Light heavy-duty compressionignition engines.
(iii) Medium heavy-duty vocational
compression-ignition engines.
(iv) Medium heavy-duty tractor
compression-ignition engines.
(v) Heavy heavy-duty vocational
compression-ignition engines.
(vi) Heavy heavy-duty tractor
compression-ignition engines.
(2) The six regulatory subcategories
consist of four averaging sets as follows:
(i) Compression-ignition light heavyduty engines.
(ii) Compression-ignition medium
heavy-duty engines.
(iii) Compression-ignition heavy
heavy-duty engines.
(iv) Spark-ignition engines.
(3) Manufacturers that manufacture
engines within one or more of the
regulatory subcategories, shall calculate
a total credit balance within each
applicable averaging set at the end of
each model year based upon final
production volumes and the sum of the

PO 00000

Frm 00401

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57505

credit balances derived for each of the
engine families within each averaging
set.
(4) Each designated engine family has
a ‘‘family certification level’’ (FCL)
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 a ‘‘credit shortfall.’’
(5) Manufacturers shall sum all
surplus and shortfall credits for each
engine family within the applicable
averaging set to obtain the total credit
balance for the model year before
rounding. Round the sum of fuel
consumptions credits to the nearest
gallon.
(6) Surplus credits, other than
advanced technology credits, generated
and calculated within this averaging set
may only be used to offset a credit
shortfall in this same averaging set.
(7) Advanced technology credits can
be used to offset a credit shortfall in this
same averaging set or other averaging
sets. However, a manufacturer must first
apply advanced technology credits to
any deficits in the same averaging set
before applying them to other averaging
sets.
(8) Surplus credits, other than
advanced technology credits, may be
traded among credit holders but must
stay within the same averaging set.
Advanced technology credits can be
traded across averaging sets.
(9) 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.
(10) 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.
(11) 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) ×
(10 2)
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).

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

57506

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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:
UL
(miles)

Regulatory subcategory

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Class 2b–5 Vocational Vehicles,
Spark Ignited (SI), and Light
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ......
Class 6–7 Vocational Vehicles
and Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines .....................................
Class 8 Vocational Vehicles and
Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ..........................................
Class 7 Tractors and Medium
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ......
Class 8 Tractors and Heavy
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ......

110,000
185,000
435,000
185,000
435,000

(ii) Calculate the total credits
generated in a model year for each
averaging set using the following
equation:
Total averaging set MY credits = S
Engine family credits within each
averaging set
(12) The provisions of this section
apply to manufacturers utilizing the
compression-ignition engine voluntary
alternate standard provisions specified
in § 535.5(d)(4) as follows.
(i) Manufacturers may not certify
engines to the alternate standards if they
are part of an averaging set in which
they carry a balance of banked credits.
For purposes of this section,
manufacturers are deemed to carry
credits in an averaging set if they carry
credits from advance technology that are
allowed to be used in that averaging set.
(ii) Manufacturers may not bank fuel
consumption credits for any engine
family in the same averaging set and
model year in which it certifies engines
to the alternate standards. This means a
manufacturer may not bank advanced
technology credits in a model year it
certifies any engines to the alternate
standards.
(iii) Note that the provisions of
paragraph (d)(10) of this section apply
with respect to credit deficits generated
while utilizing alternate standards.
(13) Where a manufacturer has chosen
to comply with the EPA alternative
compression ignition engine phase-in
standard provisions in 40 CFR
1036.150(e), and has optionally decided

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

to follow the same path under the
NHTSA fuel consumption program, it
must certify all of its model year 2013
compression-ignition engines within a
given averaging set to the applicable
alternative standards in § 535.5(d)(5).
Engines certified to these standards are
not eligible for early credits under
paragraph (d)(14) of this section. Credits
are calculated using the same equation
provided in paragraph (d)(11) of this
section.
(14) If a manufacturer chooses to
generate early CO2 emission credits
under EPA provisions of 40 CFR
1036.150, it may also voluntarily
generate early credits under the NHTSA
fuel consumption program. Fuel
consumption credits may be generated
for engines certified in model year 2013
(2015 for spark-ignition engines) to the
standards in § 535.5(d). To do so a
manufacturer must certify its entire U.
S.-directed production volume of
engines except as specified in 40 CFR
1036.150(a)(2). Credits are calculated as
specified in paragraph (d)(11) of this
section relative to the standards that
would apply for model year 2014 (2016
for spark-ignition engines). Surplus
credits generated under this paragraph
may be increased by a factor of 1.5 for
determining total available credits for
banking or trading. For example, if you
have 10 gallons of surplus credits for
model year 2013, you may bank 15
gallons of credits. Credit deficits for an
averaging set prior to model year 2014
(2016 for spark-ignition engines) do not
carry over to model year 2014 (2016 for
spark-ignition engines). These credits
may be used to show compliance with
the standards of this part for 2014 and
later model years. Once a manufacturer
opts into the NHTSA program they must
stay in the program for all of the
optional model years and remain
standardized with the same
implementation approach being
followed to meet the EPA CO2 emission
program.
(15) If a manufacturer generates
credits from engines certified for
advanced technology in accordance
with § 535.7(e)(1), a multiplier of 1.5
can be used, but this multiplier cannot
be used on the same credits for which
the early credit multiplier is used.
Advanced technology credits can be
used in other averaging sets different
from the one they are generated, but the
maximum amount of credits a
manufacturer may bring into a service
class group that contains the heavy-duty
engine averaging sets is 5.89 Mgallons
(for advanced technology credits based
upon compression ignition engines) or
6.76 Mgallons (for advanced technology
credits based upon spark-ignition

PO 00000

Frm 00402

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

engines) per model year as specified in
40 CFR 1036.740. However, this does
not limit the amount of advanced
technology credits that can be used
across averaging sets within the same
service class group.
(e) Additional credit provisions. (1)
Advanced technology credits.
Manufacturers of heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans, vocational vehicles,
tractors and associated engines showing
improvements in CO2 emissions and
fuel consumption using hybrid vehicles
with regenerative braking, vehicles
equipped with Rankine-cycle engines,
electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles
are eligible for advanced technology
credits. Advanced technology credits
may be increased by a 1.5 multiplier
and applied to any heavy-duty vehicle
or engine subcategory consistent with
sound engineering judgment.
(i) Heavy-duty vehicles. (A) For
advanced technology system (hybrid
vehicles with regenerative braking,
vehicles equipped with Rankine-cycle
engines and fuel cell vehicles), calculate
the advanced technology credits as
follows:
(1) Measure the effectiveness of the
advanced system by chassis testing a
vehicle equipped with the advanced
system and an equivalent conventional
system in accordance with 40 CFR
1037.615.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph (e),
a conventional vehicle is considered to
be equivalent if it has the same
footprint, intended vehicle service class,
aerodynamic drag, and other relevant
factors not directly related to the
advanced system 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
advanced technology vehicle is
considered Vehicle B.
(3) The benefit associated with the
advanced 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/1,000 ton mile) =
Improvement Factor × GEM Fuel
Consumption Result_B
Where:
Improvement Factor = (Fuel
Consumption_A—Fuel Consumption_B)/
(Fuel Consumption_A)
Fuel Consumption Rates A and B are the
gallons per 1,000 ton-mile of the
conventional and advanced vehicles,
respectively, as measured under the test
procedures specified by EPA.
GEM Fuel Consumption Result B is the
estimated gallons per 1,000 ton-mile rate
resulting from emission modeling of the

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

advanced vehicle as specified in 40 CFR
1037.520 and § 535.6(b).

(4) Calculate the benefit in credits
using the equation in paragraph (c)(11)
of this section and replacing the term
(Std-FEL) with the benefit.
(B) For electric vehicles calculate the
fuel consumption credits using an FEL
of 0 g/1000ton-mile.
(ii) Heavy-duty engines. (A) This
section specifies how to generate
advanced technology-specific fuel
consumption credits for hybrid
powertrains that include energy storage
systems and regenerative braking
(including regenerative engine braking)
and for engines that include Rankinecycle (or other bottoming cycle) exhaust
energy recovery systems.
(1) Pre-transmission hybrid
powertrains are those engine systems
that include features that recover and
store energy during engine motoring
operation but not from the vehicle
wheels. These powertrains are tested
using the hybrid engine test procedures
of 40 CFR part 1065 or using the posttransmission test procedures.
(2) Post-transmission hybrid
powertrains are those powertrains that
include features that recover and store
energy from braking at the vehicle
wheels. These powertrains are tested by
simulating the chassis test procedure
applicable for hybrid vehicles under 40
CFR 1037.550.
(3) Test engines that include Rankinecycle exhaust energy recovery systems
according to the test procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 1036, subpart
F, unless EPA approves the
manufacturer’s alternate procedures.
(B) Calculate credits as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. Credits
generated from engines and powertrains
certified under this section may be used
in other averaging sets as described in
40 CFR 1036.740(d).
(2) Innovative technology credits. This
provision allows engine and vehicle
manufacturers to generate CO2 emission
credits consistent with the provisions of
40 CFR 1036.610 (for engines), 40 CFR
1037.104(d)(13) (for heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans) and 40 CFR 1037.610
(for vocational vehicles and tractors) for
introducing innovative technology in
heavy-duty engines and vehicles for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
fuel consumption. Upon identification
and approval from EPA of a
manufacturer seeking to obtain
innovative technology credits in a given
model year, NHTSA may adopt an
equivalent amount of fuel consumption
credits into its program. Such credits
must remain within the same regulatory
subcategory in which the credits were

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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.
Manufacturers producing heavy-duty
vehicles and engines applicable to fuel
consumption standards in § 535.5, for
each given model year, must submit the
required information as specified in
paragraphs (b) through (h) of this
section.
(1) The information required by this
part 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 submitting information.
(2) Manufacturers must submit
information electronically through the
EPA database system as the single point
of entry for all information required for
this national program and both agencies
will have access to the information. The
format for the required information is
specified by EPA.
(3) If by model year 2012 the agencies
are not prepared to receive information
through the EPA database system,
manufacturers are required to submit
information to EPA using an approved
information format. A manufacturer can
use a different format, if it sends EPA a
written request with justification for a
waiver.
(b) Pre-model year reports.
Manufacturers producing heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans must submit
reports in advance of the model year
providing early estimates demonstrating
how their fleet(s) would comply with
GHG emissions and fuel consumption
standards. Note, the agencies
understand that early model year
reports contain estimates that may
change over the course of a model year
and that compliance information
manufactures submit prior to the
beginning of a new model year may not
represent the final compliance outcome.
The agencies view the necessity for
requiring early model reports as a
manufacturer’s good faith projection for
demonstrating compliance with
emission and fuel consumption
standards.

PO 00000

Frm 00403

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57507

(1) Report deadlines. For model years
2013 and later, manufacturer of heavyduty pickup trucks and vans complying
with voluntary and mandatory
standards must submit a pre-model year
report for the given model year as early
as the date of the manufacturer’s annual
certification preview meeting with EPA
and NHTSA, or prior to submitting its
first application for a certificate of
conformity to EPA in accordance with
40 CFR 1037.104(d). For example, a
manufacturer choosing to comply in
model year 2014 could submit its premodel year report during its
precertification meeting which could
occur before January 2, 2013, or could
provide its pre-model year report any
time prior to submitting its first
application for certification for the given
model year.
(2) Contents. Each pre-model year
report must be submitted including the
following information for each model
year.
(i) A list of each unique
subconfiguration in the manufacturer’s
fleet describing the make and model
designations, attribute based-values (i.e.,
GVWR, GCWR, Curb Weight and drive
configurations) and standards;
(ii) The emission and fuel
consumption fleet average standard
derived from the unique vehicle
configurations;
(iii) The estimated vehicle
configuration, test group and fleet
production volumes;
(iv) The expected emissions and fuel
consumption test group results and fleet
average performance;
(v) If complying with MY 2013 fuel
consumption standards, a statement
must be provided declaring that the
manufacturer is voluntarily choosing to
comply early with the EPA and NHTSA
programs. The manufacturers must also
acknowledge that once selected, the
decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer will continue to comply
with the fuel consumption standards for
subsequent model years for all the
vehicles it manufacturers in each
regulatory category for a given model
year;
(vi) If complying with MYs 2014,
2015 or 2016 fuel consumption
standards, a statement must be provided
declaring whether the manufacturer will
use fixed or increasing standards in
accordance with § 535.5(a). The
manufacturer must also acknowledge
that once selected, the decision cannot
be reversed and the manufacturer must
continue to comply with the same
alternative for subsequent model years
for all the vehicles it manufacturers in
each regulatory category for a given
model year;

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57508

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(vii) If complying with MYs 2014 or
2015 fuel consumption standards, a
statement must be provided declaring
that the manufacturer is voluntarily
choosing to comply with NHTSA’s
voluntary fuel consumption standards
in accordance with § 535.5(a)(4). The
manufacturers must also acknowledge
that once selected, the decision cannot
be reversed and the manufacturer will
continue to comply with the fuel
consumption standards for subsequent
model years for all the vehicles it
manufacturers in each regulatory
category for a given model year;
(viii) The list of Class 2b and 3
incomplete vehicles (cab-complete or
chassis complete vehicles) and the
method used to certify these vehicles as
complete pickups and vans identifying
the most similar complete sister- or
other complete vehicles used to derive
the target standards and performance
test results;
(ix) The list of Class 4 and 5
incomplete and complete vehicles and
the method use to certify these vehicles
as complete pickups and vans
identifying the most similar complete or
sister vehicles used to derive the target
standards and performance test results;
(x) List of loose engines included in
the heavy-duty pickup and van category
and the list of vehicles used to derive
target standards and performance test
results;
(xi) Copy of any notices a vehicle
manufacturer sends to the engine
manufacturer to notify the engine
manufacturers that their engines are
subject to emissions and fuel
consumption standards and that it
intends to use their engines in excluded
vehicles;
(xii) A credit plan identifying the
manufacturers estimated credit
balances, planned credit flexibilities
(i.e., credit balances, planned credit
trading, innovative, advanced and early
credits and etc.) and if needed a credit
deficit plan demonstrating how it plans
to resolve any credit deficits that might
occur for a model year within a period
of up to three model years after that
deficit has occurred; and
(xiii) The supplemental information
specified in paragraph (h) of this
section. [Note: NHTSA may also ask a
manufacturer to provide additional
information if necessary to verify
compliance with the fuel consumption
requirements of this regulation.]
(c) Applications for certificate of
conformity. Manufacturers producing
vocational vehicles, tractors and heavyduty engines are required to submit
applications for certificates of
conformity to EPA in accordance with
40 CFR 1036.205 and 1037.205 in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

advance of introducing vehicles for
commercial sale. Applications contain
early model year information
demonstrating how manufacturers plan
to comply with GHG emissions. For
model years 2013 and later,
manufacturers of vocational vehicles,
tractors and engine complying with
NHTSA’s voluntary and mandatory
standards must submit applications for
certificates of conformity in accordance
through the EPA database including
both GHG emissions and fuel
consumption information for each given
model year.
(1) Submission deadlines.
Applications are primarily submitted in
advance of the given model year to EPA
but cannot be submitted any later than
December 31 of the given model year.
(2) Contents. Each application for
certificates of conformity submitted to
EPA must include the following
equivalent fuel consumption.
(i) Equivalent fuel consumption
values for emissions CO2 FCLs values
used to certify each engine family in
accordance with 40 CFR 1036.205(e).
This provision applies only to
manufacturers producing heavy-duty
engines.
(ii) Equivalent fuel consumption
values for emission CO2 data engines
used to comply with emission standards
in 40 CFR 1036.108. This provision
applies only to manufacturers
producing heavy-duty engines.
(iii) Equivalent fuel consumption
values for emissions CO2 FELs values
used to certify each vehicle families or
subfamilies in accordance with 40 CFR
1037.205(k). This provision applies only
to manufacturers producing vocational
vehicles and tractors.
(iv) Report modeling results for ten
configurations in terms of CO2
emissions and equivalent fuel
consumption results in accordance with
40 CFR 1037.205(o). Include modeling
inputs and detailed descriptions of how
they were derived. This provision
applies only to manufacturers
producing vocational vehicles and
tractors.
(3) Additional supplemental
information. Manufacturers are required
to submit additional information as
specified in paragraph (h) of this section
for the NHTSA program before or at the
same time it submits its first application
for a certificate of conformity to EPA.
Under limited conditions, NHTSA may
also ask a manufacturer to provide
additional information directly to the
Administrator if necessary to verify the
fuel consumption requirements of this
regulation.
(d) End-of-the-year-report. Both
manufacturers participating and not

PO 00000

Frm 00404

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

participating in the ABT program are
required to submit year end reports;
end-of-the-year (EOY) reports in
accordance with 40 CFR 1036.730 and
1037.730. The EOY reports are used to
review a manufacturer’s preliminary
final estimates and to identify
manufacturers that might have a credit
deficit for the given model year. For
model years 2013 and later, heavy-duty
vehicle and engine manufacturers
complying with NHTSA’s voluntary and
mandatory standards must submit EOY
reports through the EPA database
including both GHG emissions and fuel
consumption information for each given
model year.
(1) Report deadlines. For model year
2013 and later, heavy-duty vehicle and
engine manufacturers complying with
NHTSA voluntary and mandatory
standards must submit EOY reports
through the EPA database including
both GHG emissions and fuel
consumption information 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
EOY report for model year 2014 must be
submitted no later than April 1, 2015.
(i) If a manufacturer expects
differences in the information reported
between the EOY and the final year
report specified in 40 CFR 1036.730 and
1037.730, it must provide the most upto-date fuel consumption projections in
its EOY report and indentify the
information as preliminary.
(ii) 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.
(2) Contents. Each EOY report must be
submitted including the following fuel
consumption information for each
model year.
(i) Engine and vehicle family
designations and averaging sets.
(ii) Engine and vehicle regulatory
subcategory and fuel consumption
standards including any alternative
standards used.
(iii) Engine and vehicle family FCLs
and FELs in terms of fuel consumption.
(iv) Production volumes for engines
and vehicles.
(v) A credit plan (for manufacturers
participating in the ABT program)
identifying the manufacturers actual
fuel consumption credit balances, credit
flexibilities, credit trades and a credit
deficit plan if needed demonstrating
how it plans to resolve any credit

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
deficits that might occur for a model
year within a period of up to three
model years after that deficit has
occurred
(vi) A plan describing the vocational
vehicles and vocational tractors that
were exempted as heavy-duty off-road
vehicles.
(vii) A final plan describing any
advanced technology engines or
vehicles including alternative fueled
vehicles that were produced for the
model year identifying the approaches
used to determinate compliance and the
production volumes.
(viii) A final list of each unique
subconfiguration included in a
manufacturers fleet of heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans describing the
designations, attribute based-values
(GVWR, GCWR, Curb Weight and drive
configurations) and standards. This
provision applies only to manufacturers
producing heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans.
(ix) The final fuel consumption fleet
average standard derived from the
unique vehicle configurations. This
provision applies only to manufacturers
producing heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans.
(x) The preliminary final
subconfiguration and test group
production volumes. This provision
applies only to manufacturers
producing heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans.
(xi) The preliminary final fuel
consumption test group results and fleet
average performance. This provision
applies only to manufacturers
producing heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans.
(xii) Under limited conditions,
NHTSA may also ask a manufacturer to
provide additional information directly
to the Administrator if necessary to
verify the fuel consumption
requirements of this part.
(e) Final reports. Both manufacturers
participating and not participating in
the ABT program are required to submit
year end final reports in accordance
with 40 CFR 1036.730 and 1037.730.
The final reports are used to review a
manufacturer’s final data and to identify
manufacturers that might have a credit
deficit for the given model year. For
model years 2013 and later, heavy-duty
vehicle and engine manufacturers
complying with NHTSA’s voluntary and
mandatory standards must submit final
reports through the EPA database
including both GHG emissions and fuel
consumption information for each given
model year.
(1) Report deadlines. For model year
2013 and later, heavy-duty vehicle and
engine manufacturers complying with

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

NHTSA voluntary and mandatory
standards must submit final reports
through the EPA database including
both GHG emissions and fuel
consumption information within 270
days after the end of the given model
year and no later than October 1 of the
next calendar year. For example, the
final reports for model year 2014 must
be submitted no later than October 1,
2015.
(2) Contents. Each final report must be
submitted including the following fuel
consumption information for each
model year.
(i) Final engine and vehicle family
designations and averaging sets.
(ii) Final engine and vehicle fuel
consumption standards including any
alternative standards used.
(iii) Final engine and vehicle family
FCLs and FELs in terms of fuel
consumption.
(iv) Final production volumes for
engines and vehicles.
(v) A final credit plan identifying the
manufacturers actual fuel consumption
credit balances, credit flexibilities,
credit trades and a credit deficit plan if
needed demonstrating how it plans to
resolve any credit deficits that might
occur for a model year within a period
of up to three model years after that
deficit has occurred
(vi) A final plan describing the
vocational vehicles and vocational
tractors that were exempted as heavyduty off-road vehicles.
(vii) A final plan describing any
advanced technology engines or
vehicles including alternative fueled
vehicles that were produced for the
model year identifying the approaches
used to determinate compliance and the
production volumes.
(viii) A final list of each unique
subconfiguration included in a
manufacturers fleet of heavy-duty
pickup trucks and vans describing the
designations, attribute based-values
(GVWR, GCWR, Curb Weight and drive
configurations) and standards. This
provision applies only to manufacturers
producing heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans.
(ix) The final fuel consumption fleet
average standard derived from the
unique vehicle configurations. This
provision applies only to manufacturers
producing heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans.
(x) The final subconfiguration and test
group production volumes. This
provision applies only to manufacturers
producing heavy-duty pickup trucks
and vans.
(xi) The final fuel consumption test
group results and fleet average
performance. This provision applies

PO 00000

Frm 00405

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57509

only to manufacturers producing heavyduty pickup trucks and vans.
(xii) Under limited conditions,
NHTSA may also ask a manufacturer to
provide additional information directly
to the Administrator if necessary to
verify the fuel consumption
requirements of this regulation.
(f) Amendments to applications for
certification. At any time, a
manufacturer modifies an application
for certification in accordance with 40
CFR 1036.225 and 1037.225, it must
submit GHG emissions changes with
equivalent fuel consumption values for
the information required in paragraphs
(b) through (e) and (h) of this section.
(g) Confidential information.
Manufacturers must submit a request for
confidentiality with each electronic
submission specifying any part of the
for information or data in a report that
it believes should be withheld from
public disclosure as trade secret or other
confidential business information.
Information submitted to EPA should
follow EPA guidelines for treatment of
confidentiality. Confidential
information submitted to NHTSA shall
be treated according to paragraph (g)(1)
of this section. 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:
(1) The item is within the scope of 5
U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C.
2005(d)(1);
(2) The disclosure of such an item
would result in significant competitive
damage;
(3) The period during which the item
must be withheld to avoid that damage;
and
(4) How earlier disclosure would
result in that damage.
(h) Additional required information.
The following additional information is
required to be submitted through the
EPA database. NHTSA reserves the right
to ask a manufacturer to provide
additional information if necessary to
verify the fuel consumption
requirements of this regulation.
(1) Small business exemptions.
Vehicles and engines produced by small
business manufacturers meeting the
criteria in 13 CFR 121.201 are exempted
from the requirements of this part.
Qualifying small business
manufacturers must notify the EPA and
NHTSA Administrators before
importing or introducing into U.S.
commerce exempted vehicles or
engines. This notification must include
a description of the manufacturer’s
qualification as a small business under

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57510

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

13 CFR 121.201 and must be submitted
to EPA. The agencies may review a
manufacturer’s qualification as a small
business manufacturer under 13 CFR
121.201.
(2) Early introduction. The provision
applies to manufacturers seeking to
comply early with the NHTSA’s fuel
consumption program prior to model
year 2014. The manufacturer must send
the request to EPA before submitting its
first application for a certificate of
conformity.
(3) NHTSA voluntary compliance
model years. Manufacturers must
submit a statement declaring whether
the manufacturer chooses to comply
voluntarily with NHTSA’s fuel
consumption standards for model years
2014 through 2015. The manufacturers
must acknowledge that once selected,
the decision cannot be reversed and the
manufacturer will continue to comply
with the fuel consumption standards for
subsequent model years. The
manufacturer must send the statement
to EPA before submitting its first
application for a certificate of
conformity.
(4) Alternative engine standards.
Manufacturers choosing to comply with
the alternative engine standards must
notify EPA and NHTSA of their choice
and include in that notification a
demonstration that it has exhausted all
available credits and credit
opportunities. The manufacturer must
send the statement to EPA before
submitting its EOY report.
(5) Alternate phase-in. Manufacturers
choosing to comply with the alternative
engine phase-in must notify EPA and
NHTSA of their choice. The
manufacturer must send the statement
to EPA before submitting its first
application for a certificate of
conformity.
(6) Off-road exclusion (tractors and
vocational vehicles only). (i) Vehicles
intended to be used extensively in offroad environments such as forests, oil
fields, and construction sites may be
exempted without request from the
requirements of this regulation as
specified in 49 CFR 523.2 and
§ 535.5(b). Within 90 days after the end
of each model year, manufacturers must
send EPA and NHTSA through the EPA
database a report with the following
information:
(A) A description of each excluded
vehicle configuration, including an
explanation of why it qualifies for this
exclusion.
(B) The number of vehicles excluded
for each vehicle configuration.
(ii) A manufacturer having an off-road
vehicle failing to meet the criteria under
the agencies’ off-road exclusions will be

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

allowed to submit a petition describing
how and why their vehicles should
qualify for exclusion. The process of
petitioning for an exclusion is explained
below. For each request, the
manufacturer will be required to
describe why it believes an exclusion is
warranted and address the following
factors which the agencies will consider
in granting its petition:
(A) The agencies will provide an
exclusion based on off road capability of
the vehicle or if the vehicle is fitted
with speed restricted tires. A
manufacturer should explain which
exclusion does its vehicle qualify under;
and
(B) A manufacturer should verify if
there are any comparable tires that exist
in the market to carry out the desired
application both on and off road for the
subject vehicle(s) of the petition which
have LLR values that would enable
compliance with the standard.
(7) Vocational tractor. Tractors
intended to be used as vocational
tractors may comply with vocational
vehicle standards in § 535.5(b) of this
regulation. Manufacturers classifying
tractor as vocational tractors must
provide a description of how they meet
the qualifications in their applications
for certificates of conformity as
specified in 40 CFR 1037.205.
(8) Approval of alternate methods to
determine drag coefficients (tractors
only). Manufacturers seeking to use
alternative methods to determine
aerodynamic drag coefficients must
provide a request and gain approval by
EPA. The manufacturer must send the
request to EPA before submitting its first
application for a certificate of
conformity.
(9) Innovative technology credits.
Manufacturers pursuing innovative
technology credits must submit
information to the agencies and may be
subject to a public evaluation process in
which the public would have
opportunity for comment if not using a
test procedure in accordance with 40
CFR 1037.610(c). Whether the approach
involves on-road testing, modeling, or
some other analytical approach, the
manufacturer would be required to
present a final methodology to EPA and
NHTSA. EPA and NHTSA would
approve the methodology and credits
only if certain criteria were met.
Baseline emissions and fuel
consumption and control emissions and
fuel consumption would need to be
clearly demonstrated over a wide range
of real world driving conditions and
over a sufficient number of vehicles to
address issues of uncertainty with the
data. Data would need to be on a vehicle
model-specific basis unless a

PO 00000

Frm 00406

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

manufacturer demonstrated modelspecific data was not necessary. The
agencies may publish a notice of
availability in the Federal Register
notifying the public of a manufacturer’s
proposed alternative off-cycle credit
calculation methodology and provide
opportunity for comment. Any notice
will include details regarding the
methodology, but not include any
Confidential Business Information.
(10) Credit trades. If a manufacturer
trades fuel consumption credits, it must
send EPA a report within 90 days after
the transaction, as follows:
(i) As the seller, the manufacturer
must include the following information
in its report:
(A) The corporate names of the buyer
and any brokers.
(B) A copy of any contracts related to
the trade.
(C) The fleet, vehicle or engine
families that generated fuel
consumption credits for the trade,
including the number of fuel
consumption credits from each family.
(ii) As the buyer, the manufacturer or
entity must include the following
information in its report:
(A) The corporate names of the seller
and any brokers.
(B) A copy of any contracts related to
the trade.
(C) How the manufacturer or entity
intends to use the fuel consumption
credits, including the number of fuel
consumption credits it intends to apply
to each vehicle family (if known).
(i) Public information. Based upon
information submitted by manufacturers
and EPA, NHTSA will publish fuel
consumption standards and
performance results.
(j) Information received from EPA.
NHTSA will receive information from
EPA as specified in 40 CFR 1036.755
and 1037.755.
§ 535.9

Enforcement approach.

(a) Compliance. (1) NHTSA will
assess compliance with fuel
consumption standards each year, based
upon EPA final verified data submitted
to NHTSA for its heavy-duty vehicle
fuel efficiency program established
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32902(k). NHTSA
may conduct verification testing
throughout a given model year in order
to validate data received from
manufacturers and will discuss any
potential issues with EPA and the
manufacturer.
(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) NHTSA will verify a
manufacturer’s credit balance in each

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
averaging set for each given model year.
The average set balance is based upon
the engines or vehicles performance
above or below the applicable regulatory
subcategory standards in each
respective averaging set and any credits
that are traded into or out of an
averaging set during the model year.
(i) If the balance is positive, the
manufacturer is designated as having a
credit surplus.
(ii) If the balance is negative, the
manufacturer is designated as having a
credit deficit.
(4) NHTSA will provide written
notification to the manufacturer that has
a negative balance for any averaging set
for each model year. The manufacturer
will be required to confirm the negative
balance and submit a plan indicating
how it will allocate existing credits or
earn, and/or acquire by trade credits, or
else 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 an
averaging set 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.
(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 regulation,
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

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

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 may initiate civil penalty
proceedings.
(10) In the event that a manufacturer
fails to report accurate fuel consumption
data for vehicles or engines covered
under this rule, noncompliance will be
assumed until corrected by submission
of the required data, and NHTSA may
initiate civil penalty proceedings.
(b) Civil penalties. (1) Generally.
NHTSA may assess a civil penalty for
any violation of this part under 49
U.S.C. 32902(k). This section states the
procedures for assessing civil penalties
for violations of § 535.5. The provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 554, 556, and 557 do not
apply to any proceedings conducted
pursuant to this section.
(2) Initial determination of
noncompliance. An action for civil
penalties is commenced by the
execution of a Notice of Violation. A
determination by NHTSA’s Office of
Enforcement of noncompliance 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,
underlies a Notice of Violation. If
NHTSA Enforcement determines that a
manufacturer’s averaging set of vehicles
or engines fails to comply with the
applicable fuel consumption standard(s)
by generating a credit shortfall, the
chassis, vehicle or engine manufacturer,
as relevant, shall be subject to a civil
penalty.
(3) Numbers of violations and
maximum civil penalties. Any violation
shall constitute a separate violation with
respect to each vehicle or engine within
the applicable regulatory averaging set.
The maximum civil penalty is not more
than $37,500.00 per vehicle or engine.
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

PO 00000

Frm 00407

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

57511

production volume for the model year
in question within the regulatory
averaging set. NHTSA may adjust this
civil penalty amount to account for
inflation.
(4) Factors for determining penalty
amount. In determining the amount of
any civil penalty proposed to be
assessed or assessed under this section,
NHTSA 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 standards, the estimated cost
to comply with the regulation and
applicable standards, the quantity of
vehicles or engines not complying, and
the effect of the penalty on the violator’s
ability to continue in business. The
‘‘estimated cost to comply with the
regulation and applicable standards,’’
will be used to ensure that penalties for
non-compliance will not be less than
the cost of compliance.
(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 report 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) The Notice
of Violation will contain the following
information:
(A) The name and address of the
party;
(B) The alleged violation(s) and the
applicable fuel consumption standard(s)
violated;
(C) The amount of the proposed
penalty and basis for that amount;
(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
within 30 days of the date shown on the
Notice of Violation, the party has the
right to a hearing, if requested within 30
days of the date shown on the Notice of

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57512

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Violation, 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.
(ii) 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 party or an
employee of the party.
(iii) At any time after the Notice of
Violation is issued, NHTSA and the
party may agree to reach a compromise
on the payment amount.
(iv) Once a penalty amount is paid in
full, 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
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, a Hearing Officer
shall hear the case.
(ii) The Hearing Officer will be
appointed by the NHTSA
Administrator, and is solely responsible
for the case referred to him or her. The
Hearing Officer shall have no other
responsibility, direct or supervisory, for
the investigation of cases referred for the
assessment of civil penalties. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

Hearing Officer shall have no duties
related to the light-duty fuel economy or
medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency
programs.
(iii) The Hearing Officer decides each
case on the basis of the information
before him or her.
(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 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 may be held telephonically. In
Washington, 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.
(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 business days
before the hearing.

PO 00000

Frm 00408

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(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. In the case of witness
testimony, both parties have the right of
cross-examination.
(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.
(vii) The Hearing Officer may allow
the party to respond to any rebuttal
evidence submitted.
(viii) 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, it need
not be considered by the Hearing
Officer.
(ix) 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) Determination of violations and
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.
This may be extended by the Hearing
officer if the submissions by the Chief
Counsel or the party are voluminous.
The decision shall address each alleged
violation, and may do so collectively.
For each alleged violation, the decision
shall find a violation or no violation and
provide a basis for the finding. The
decision 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 penalty, the gravity of the
violation, the size of the violator’s

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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, and
the effect of the penalty on the violator’s
ability to continue in business. The
assessment of a civil penalty by the
Hearing Officer shall be set forth in an
accompanying final order. The Hearing
Officer’s written final order is a final
agency action.
(ii) If the Hearing Officer assesses civil
penalties in excess of $1,000,000, the
Hearing Officer’s decision shall contain
a statement advising the party of the
right to an administrative appeal to the
Administrator within a specified period
of time. 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, which shall no longer be a final
agency action.
(iv) There shall be no administrative
appeals of civil penalties assessed by a
Hearing Officer of less than $1,000,000.
(13) Appeals of civil penalties in
excess of $1,000,000. (i) A party may
appeal the Hearing Officer’s order
assessing civil penalties over $1,000,000
to the Administrator within 21 days of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:47 Sep 14, 2011

Jkt 223001

the date of the issuance of the Hearing
Officer’s order.
(ii) The Administrator will review the
decision of the Hearing Officer de novo,
and may affirm the decision of the
hearing officer and assess a civil
penalty, or
(iii) The Administrator may:
(A) 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
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

PO 00000

Frm 00409

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

57513

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
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: August 9, 2011.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary, Department of Transportation.
Dated: August 9, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011–20740 Filed 9–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

E:\FR\FM\15SER2.SGM

15SER2