UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

March 23, 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Record of Webinar on Vocational Custom Chassis

FROM: Lauren Steele, Environmental Engineer, OTAQ/ASD

TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-

0827

This memo documents a meeting held on March 22, 2016, in which multiple stakeholders 

connected via Adobe Connect web conference hosted by the EPA. Attachment 1 contains a copy 

of the meeting invitation dated March 4, 2016 with the initial list of invitees. Attachment 2

contains a list of attendees who registered and connected to the EPA-hosted web conference on 

March 22, 2016. Attachment 3 contains a copy of the material presented during the webinar. 

During the 1-hour meeting, EPA presented material for about 40 minutes, followed by about 20 

minutes of questions and answers.
Attachment 1

From: Steele, Lauren 

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 12:43 PM

Cc: Steele, Lauren steele.lauren@epa.gov

Bcc: 'ajump@indianaphoenix.com'; 'andrew.shaw@foretravel.com'; 'Andy.swanton@byd.com'; 

'bob.keefer@terex.com'; 'bruce.miles@blue-bird.com'; 'Bill Van Amburg 

(bvanamburg@calstart.org)'; 'Cortney.Guzlas@Navistar.com'; dan.kieffer@paccar.com; 

'david.kayes@daimler.com'; 'David_Warren@newflyer.com'; 'DCooke@ucsusa.org'; 

'dsrothe@oshkoshcorp.com'; 'eeyman@autocartruck.com'; 'fred.pearson@alliedsv.com'; 

'gary.harris@tiffinmotorhomes.com'; 'gary.oshnock@fcagroup.com'; 

'Greg.Vismara@gillig.com'; 'gregory.powell@dot.gov'; 'gstohler@kimblemixer.com'; 

'Jeff.Marsee@isza.com'; 'karlb@newellcoach.com'; 'Kenneth.whisnant@daimler.com'; 

'kkanabay@hmblaw.com'; 'kmcalind@ford.com'; 'LHotard@abc-companies.com'; 

'marc.miller@volvo.com'; 'matthew.rudnick@gm.com'; 'Mitzi.Magtoto@arb.ca.gov'; 

'psoukup@chbussales.com'; 'rene.allen@volvo.com'; 'ron.sorensen@alliedsv.com'; 

'rsmith@sutphencorp.com'; 'virgil.hoogestraat@mcicoach.com'; 

'Wes.Chestnut@spartanmotors.com'; 'yasuhiro.kagokura@daimler.com'; 

'YKudo@HMMUSA.COM'; 'jackie.m.yeager@cummins.com'

Subject: Adobe Connect - Meeting Invitation to "HD Phase 2 GHG & Fuel Efficiency 

Standards: Custom Chassis"

Dear Stakeholder:

In June 2015, EPA and NHTSA released proposed CO2 and fuel consumption regulations for 

heavy-duty vehicles, including vocational vehicles (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and 

Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2; 

Federal Register Vol. 80, Page 40138, July 13, 2015). The formal comment period closed in 

October of 2015, and since then both of our agencies have been considering the wide range of 

comments that we received on the proposed rules.

EPA and NHTSA invite you to join a webinar we are hosting on March 22, in which we will 

provide an update on issues raised in public comments regarding proposed regulations that 

would apply to manufacturers of heavy-duty custom chassis. The webinar will be from 2:00 pm 

to 3:00 pm (Eastern time). Information for joining the webinar is provided below.

Some of the updates we wish to provide are summarized in a memorandum titled, “Vocational 

Vehicle Technology Packages for Custom Chassis,” which can be downloaded from this link: 

Regulations.gov - Docket Browser. If you are interested in this topic but are unable to 

participate in this webinar, please feel free to contact me.

********************************************

Lauren P.M. Steele, P.E.

US EPA

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

734-214-4788

___________________________________________________

Please join me in an Adobe Connect Meeting.

Meeting Name: HD Phase 2 GHG & Fuel Efficiency Standards: 

Custom Chassis

Summary: EPA and NHTSA invite stakeholders to participate in 

this webinar, which will provide an update on issues raised in 

public comments regarding proposed regulations that would apply 

to manufacturers of heavy-duty custom chassis, including nondiversified vocational vehicle manufacturers.

Invited By: Lauren Steele (Steele.Lauren@epa.gov)

When: 03/22/2016 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM

Time Zone: (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US and Canada) (Please 

note that Daylight Saving Time (+01:00 hr) is in effect during 

this time)

Conference Number (for audio): 1-866-299-3188

Participant Code: 734 214 4788#

To join the meeting:

https://epawebconferencing.acms.com/r3cvluma2tj/

Note: This meeting is open to the public. The system will 

allow guests to join, so invitees are free to forward this 

invitation to others. However the host will refuse access to 

the meeting room to any guest who does not give his/her full 

name. This is for attendance purposes, and is not intended to 

exclude anyone.

----------------

If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before:

Test your connection: 

https://epawebconferencing.acms.com/common/help/en/support/meeti

ng_test.htm

Get a quick overview: 

http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html

Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat and Adobe Connect are either 

registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems 

Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
Attachment 2

participant-name

Aaron Birckett

Aida Tanaka

Alan Stout, EPA

Andy Swanton

Bob Keefer - Terex Corporation

Brad Schrock

Brian Tenace

Bruce Miles

Cortney Guzlas

Dale Kardos

Dan Kieffer

Dan Strahm

Darius Mehta

Dave Cooke

Dave Frerking

dave gardner

Dave Kayes & Gerald Freitag, Daimler Trucks

Dean Rumpel

Douglas McWilliams

Erin Luke

Fred Pearson

Gary Harris

Greg Powell, NHTSA

Greg Schulz

Greg Vismara

Houshun Zhang, EPA

Inderpal Singh _ Detroit Diesel

Jackie Yeager - Cummins

Jeffrey Leeb

Jessica Skerritt

Jon Krider, Thor Motor Coach

Joshua Pietak

Kate Kanabay

Katie Lannon

Kenneth McAlinden (Ford)

Kerry Kelly

Lauren Steele, EPA

lyle reed

Marc de Smidt
Marc Miller

Margaret Page, EPA

Mark Celio

Mark Siddall

Matt Psota - CMI

Michael Bartkowski

Mitzi Magtoto, CARB

Nicholas Rini

Ray Rees

Rod Walker

Stephen Healy, EPA

Steven Wolverton

Tim Blubaugh

William (Bill) Conway Jr.
Attachment 3

Material presented during web conference: 24 slides with 3-page appendix
Federal Fuel Efficiency and GHG 

Emission Standards for HeavyDuty Vehicles: Phase 2 Proposal

LAUREN STEELE

MARCH 22, 2016

CUSTOM CHASSIS VOCATIONAL VEHICLES

1
Outline

§Phase 1 Overview & Status

§Proposed Phase 2 for Vocational Vehicles

§Technologies Assessed

§Custom Chassis Analysis

§Next Steps

§Questions

2
Fed	er
alH
DRegulation:Phase1Over
view

§ Heavy-duty vehicles are responsible for about one fifth (20%) of the 

energy use and GHG emissions from U.S. transportation sources

§ Phase 1 (first-ever) heavy-duty fuel efficiency and GHG standards began in 

2014

§ Will be fully phased in by 2018 (another stringency step in MY 2017)

§ Manufacturers are complying with “off-the-shelf” technologies

§ Very cost-effective technologies lead to fuel-savings greater than the technology 

cost—all standards “pay back”

§ From 2014 data, Phase 1 implementation seems very successful

§ Market very accepting, no evidence of “pre-buy”

§ Sales generally higher than before Phase 1 began

3
VocationalPhase1Status

§ Beginning with MY 2014, chassis manufacturers (non-smalls) must meet GEMbased performance standard based on use of tires with rolling resistance of 7.7 

kg/ton, on average.

§ Compliance with separate engine standard is measured at engine level, not at chassis level.

§ One generic duty cycle, three weight classis (HHD, MHD, LHD)

§ Approximately 20 vocational chassis manufacturers have certified for MY 2014

§ A few have deferred as small businesses

§ Certificate holders have sold vehicles with a range of tire CRR

§ Many CRR reported significantly lower than 7.7 kg/ton, some much higher

§ Tire-based standard is staying the same for future years of Phase 1

§ Engines meeting 2014 standard are widely available

§ Engines meeting more stringent 2017 standard are expected to also be widely available.

4
5

Fed	er
alPhase2Pr
oposed	Stand	ar
d	s

Heavy-Duty

Large Pickups & Vans

14% of HD Fuel Consumption

and GHG Inventory

Standards in g/mile

and gallons/100 miles

Vocational Vehicles

21% of HD Fuel Consumption 

and GHG Inventory

Standards in g/ton-mile

and gallons/1000 ton-miles

Combination Tractors

65% of HD Fuel Consumption and 

GHG Inventory (together)

Standards in g/ton-mile

and gallons/1000 ton-miles

Trailers Pulled by 

Combination Tractors 

(currently unregulated 

Federally)

§ The Phase 2 program builds on the success of Phase 1, with similar design and vehicle 

categories – and, for the first time, including fuel efficiency standards for trailers 

NEW!
Pr
oposed	Phase2:Over
view

§ Phase 2 standards would phase in from 2018 to 2027

§ Trailer standards would begin in MY 2018; Other segments would begin in MY 2021

§ Long lead time important for ensuring reliability and durability

§ Proposing improvements to computer simulation compliance tool (GEM) to recognize new 

technologies and better reflect real-world driving

§ Phase 2 includes important compliance flexibilities to manufacturers, e.g., 

§ Averaging, baking and trading program (ABT) 

§ 1-year delay for small businesses

§For natural gas-fueled vehicles, largely continuing the Phase 1 approach

§ Proposed additional on-vehicle evaporative and refueling controls to prevent leaks

§We did not propose new NOx standards

6
Pr
oposed	Phase2Stand	ar
d	s:SegmentDetails

§Engines

§ Like Phase 1, proposed separate standards for tractor and vocational engines

§Vocational Vehicles

§ Proposed 9 subcategories based on 3 vehicle weight class groups and 3 duty 

cycles: Regional, Multi-Purpose, Urban

§ Proposed to require leak-tight air conditioning components

§Many more GEM inputs than in Phase 1

§ Actual engine and driveline simulated in GEM

§ Distinct vehicle standards for SI or CI engine

7
Air
C ond	itioningL!eak"age

§ In Phase 1, EPA did not adopt any requirements for use of low-leak air conditioning 

components for vocational

§ EPA did require this for all tractors and for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans

§ In Phase 2, we proposed that all vocational vehicles must meet a standard of less than 

1.5% leakage of HFC from air conditioning systems with refrigerant capacity > 733 g, as 

demonstrated using SAE procedure J2727, or <11 g/yr leakage on smaller systems.

§ Per-vehicle costs estimated at $20 for low permeation hoses and improved seals & fittings 

to reduce HFC leakage from air conditioning systems. 

§ New-vehicle leakage emissions can be reduced by 50 percent, reducing system 

maintenance costs.

8
VocationalPhase2Pr
oposal

§ Projected up to 16 percent improvement in CO2 and fuel consumption 

over baseline, on average, by MY 2027

§ Proposed simplified (Phase 1 style) GEM for emergency vehicles

§ Asked for comment on how to structure Phase 2 for other custom-built 

vehicles

§ Could offer simplified approach, delayed standards, less stringent standards

§ Left door open for variety of solutions

9
T#echnologiespotentially$applicab%lef&or
vocational

vehiclesinPhase2

§ Lower rolling resistance tires

§ Workday idle reduction technologies

§ Neutral-Idle

§ Engine stop start

§ Powertrain hybridization

§ Weight reduction

§ Aerodynamic devices 

§ Automatic tire inflation systems

10

§ Combustion optimization

§ Improved engine air handling

§ Reduced friction within the engine 

§ Improved emissions after-treatment 

technologies 

§ Other transmission and driveline 

improvements (including axles)

§ Electric vehicles
 Cy$cle-'Depend	enceof&T#echnology$

11

Not cycle-dependent: TPMS, Transmission gear efficiency, E-accessories

◦ Individual vehicles could see up to 1% improvement for each of these

Mildly cycle-dependent: Individual vehicles could see small ranges of improvement for:

◦ Weight reduction (0.5 to 1%), Tire CRR (1 to 3%),

◦ Driveline integration (3 to 7%), Axle efficiency (2 to 3%),

◦ Adding 2 trans gears (1 to 3%), Torque converter lockup (1 to 7%)

Highly cycle-dependent: Individual vehicles could see wide ranges of improvement for:

◦ Idle Reduction Technologies: Auto Engine Shutdown (0.7 to 3%), Neutral Idle (0.7 to 9%), Stopstart (0.2 to 16%)

◦ Hybrids (integrated & bolt-on) effectiveness estimated up to 18% without engine stop-start, up 

to 34% with integrated stop-start
(NRE)L!Duty$C y$cles

12
Pr
oposed	&*Revised	C ompositeT#estC y$cle

W+eightings

13

Subcategory Transient 55 mph Cruise 65 mph Cruise Idle

NPRM

Regional 50 28 22 10

Multi-Purpose 82 15 3 15

Urban 94 6 0 20

NODA

Regional 20 24 56 22

Multi-Purpose 54 29 17 40

Urban 92 7 1 33
C ompleteC ustomC hassis

14
,IncompleteC ustom

C hassis

15
Possib%leC ustomC hassisC ategor
ies

16

Vehicle Type Potentially Distinguishable Features

Coach (Intercity) Bus Front doors only, no standing passengers, high-backed seats, possibly restroom 

facilities, luggage compartment, no onboard fare-collection

Transit Bus Both front and center doors, low-back seating, passenger stop-request system,

possibly rear engine, low floors, standing passenger positions, wheelchair lifts, 

onboard fare-collection

Motor Home Primary purpose is temporary housing; both propulsion engine and sleeping

quarters

School Bus Primary purpose is pupil transport

Refuse Truck Low cab forward, primary purpose is collection of solid waste

Cement Mixer Primary purpose is delivery of freshly mixed concrete

Emergency Vehicle Fire truck or ambulance, defined at 40 CFR 86.1803
#TechnologiesPotentially$Availab%leinSimplif&ied	

-GE)M.

17

Technology Associated GEM Input

Low Rolling Resistance Tires CRR level (kg/ton)

Idle Reduction Technology (Stop-Start, Neutral Idle, or 

Automatic Engine Shutdown)

Yes or No

Part-time Axle Disconnect Yes or No

Automatic Tire Inflation System (ATIS) Yes or No

Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) Yes or No

Weight Reduction Pounds reduced

Coatings to manage solar loads Percent improvement
#TechnologiesPotentially$L!ock"ed	Outin

Simplif&ied	G-E)M.

18

Technology Associated GEM Input

Certified Engine Multi-point fuel map

Tire revs/mi Nearest cm

Driveline Integration or hybrid Powertrain test results

Rear axle ratio 2 decimal places

Axle efficiency Multi-point map from separate test

Transmission gear ratios 2 decimal places

Transmission gear efficiency 2 decimal places

Torque converter lockup Gear number

Electrified accessories Percent improvement

Aerodynamic drag reduction Delta CDA

Improved PTO operation A-B test results
Possib%leC ustomT#echnology$Pack"ages:

.MY/20021

Vehicle Type Technology-Based Packages Packages with Simplified GEM

Motor Home Combined CRR <= 6.7 kg/ton, Neutral

Idle if transmission has torque 

converter, either TPMS or ATIS

Combined tire CRR 6.1 kg/ton, 30% neutral idle,

60% TPMS

Coach Bus N/A HHD combined tire CRR 6.3 kg/ton, 30% neutral idle,

50% TPMS, 10% ATIS

Transit Bus N/A Combined tire CRR 7.7 kg/ton, 50%

neutral idle, 10% stop-start, 40% TPMS, 10% ATIS

School Bus N/A Combined tire CRR 6.9 kg/ton, 50% neutral idle,

5% stop-start, 70% TPMS

Refuse N/A Combined tire CRR 7.7 kg/ton, 50%

neutral idle, 10% stop-start, 40% TPMS, 10% ATIS

Emergency Combined tire CRR 8.7 kg/ton or less Combined tire CRR 8.4 kg/ton

Mixer Combined tire CRR 7.6 kg/ton or less Combined tire CRR 7.6 kg/ton

19
Possib%leC ustomT#echnology$Pack"ages:

M.Y/200241

Vehicle Type Technology-Based Packages Packages with Simplified GEM

Motor Home Combined CRR <= 6.7 kg/ton, Neutral 

Idle if transmission has torque 

converter, either TPMS or ATIS

Combined tire CRR 6.1 kg/ton, 30% neutral idle, 

60% TPMS

Coach Bus N/A Combined tire CRR 6.1 kg/ton, 40% neutral idle, 70% 

TPMS, 5% ATIS, 5% part time 6x2

Transit Bus N/A Combined tire CRR 7.7 kg/ton, 60% neutral idle, 30% 

stop-start, 45% TPMS, 10% ATIS

School Bus N/A Combined tire CRR 6.6 kg/ton, 60% neutral idle, 5% 

stop-start, 90% TPMS, 5% ATIS

Refuse N/A Combined tire CRR 7.7 kg/ton, 60% neutral idle, 30% 

stop-start, 45% TPMS, 10% ATIS

Emergency Combined tire CRR 8.7 kg/ton or less Combined tire CRR 8.0 kg/ton

Mixer Combined tire CRR 7.6 kg/ton or less Combined tire CRR 7.4 kg/ton

20
Possib%leC ustomT#echnology$Pack"ages:

.MY/200272

Vehicle Type Technology-Based Packages Packages with Simplified GEM

Motor Home Combined CRR <= 6.0 kg/ton, Neutral 

Idle if transmission has torque 

converter, either TPMS or ATIS

Combined tire CRR 5.8 kg/ton, 70% neutral idle, 

90% TPMS

Coach Bus N/A Combined tire CRR 5.8 kg/ton, 70% neutral idle, 75% 

TPMS, 25% ATIS, 30% part time 6x2

Transit Bus N/A Combined tire CRR 6.8 kg/ton, 50% neutral idle, 50% 

stop-start, 40% TPMS, 30% ATIS

School Bus N/A Combined tire CRR 6.2 kg/ton, 70% neutral idle, 15% 

stop-start, 80% TPMS, 20% ATIS

Refuse N/A Combined tire CRR 6.8 kg/ton, 50% neutral idle, 50% 

stop-start, 40% TPMS, 30% ATIS

Emergency Combined tire CRR 8.4 kg/ton or less Combined tire CRR 7.6 kg/ton

Mixer Combined tire CRR 7.1 kg/ton or less Combined tire CRR 7.1 kg/ton

21
(Nex3tSteps

§Notice of Data Availability comment period open through April 1, 

2016, for duty cycle analysis and other documents listed in Federal 

Register Notice

§ EPA and DOT/NHTSA will incorporate stakeholder and public 

feedback into the final program, as well as continue collaboration 

with CARB

22
4Questions&*Discussion

§ Custom chassis vehicle types

§ Technologies

§ Costs

§ Implementation issues

23
Ad	d	itionalI,nf&or
mation

§ EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

§ Details on Heavy-duty GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm

http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy

24
Appendix

25
(NRE)L!Duty$C y$cleAnaly$sis

Aerodynamic Speed (ft/s) 

Characteristic Acceleration (ft/s2)

Percent (%) of total cycle distance accumulated below 55 mph

Percent (%) of total cycle duration accumulated at 0 mph

Number of stops per mile

Mean (nonzero) driving speed (mph)

Maximum driving speed (mph)

Standard deviation of (nonzero) driving speed (mph)

26
FleetDN(AVehicles

withE)ngineData

Vocation Description Number of 

Vehicle

BeverageDeli	very
 40

Concrete3

Dray
age16

DumpTruck 4

FoodDeli	very
 44

Frei	ght 22

LIN E!H"A#U$L %73

Li	nenDeli	very
 30

LocalDeli	very
 7%

LongH"aul 12

&Mas's'Trans'i	t 27%

(ParcelDeli	very
 117%

R)ef*ri	geratedTruck 6

)Ref*us'eP(i	ckup +53

)RE!G,IO-N A#LH"A#U$L 1

.SchoolBus' 8/

.Snow0 P(low0 91

Tanker 25+

Telecom 17%

Tow0i	ng 3

Trans'f*ertruck2 14

$Uti	li	ty
 23

3Warehous'eDeli	very
 10

TO-TA#L 322 5+64
FleetDN(AvsM.OVE)SPopulations

Vehicle Type MOVES 

(% of Vehicles)

Fleet DNA 

(% of Vehicles, (#))

Fleet DNA Resampled to 

Match MOVES (% (#))

Short Haul 66 59 (631) 84 (631)

School Bus 8.5 24 (254) 11 (82)

Refuse 3 5 (57) 4 (29)

Transit Bus 1 2 (23) 1 (9)

Other* 21.5 10 (108) 0

Total Number (500,000) (1,073) (751)

• In MOVES, Other = Long haul straight trucks, motor homes, intercity buses

• In Fleet DNA, Other = vocational tractors, vehicles on previous slide