From: david.kayes@daimler.com

To: Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Coralie.Cooper@dot.gov Cc: brian.burton@daimler.com, donald.keski

- hynnila@daimler.com Date: 04/08/2011 02:51 PM Subject: GHG / FE regulation: additional suggestion

By ron, Coralie: Wh ile sifting recent Daimler truck data into averaging categories, I noticed some anomalies caused by the use of GV

WRas the sole determinant of a vehicle's class. These are vehicles that I would intuitively classify as one type of vehicle but that the regulations classify as another. For example: 1. I found about 100 of our M2 vehicle (which is primarily a Class 6, 7, or 8 model of vehicle) being built with components that lead to an 18,000 to 19,500 lb GVW R (m ost often, 19,500). Because the 40 CFR 10 37.801 and 49 CFR 535.4 classifications go by the GVW R, those vehicles fall into the Class 2b

- 5 vocational category. These vehicles are essentially like our more numerous Class 6 to 7 vocational vehicles, except that they fall in the Class 2b

- 5 category. If vehicles like these, alone in an averaging category, fail to meet the tire standards, then we will not have any credits to ma ke up for that failure. This may be a problem, or it may not. 2. Sim ilarly, I found a couple dozen Cascadia vehicles (primaril y a Class 8 model of vehicle) being built with sleepers and a GV WRof 33,000 lb or less. By the aforementioned definitions, these would be Class 7. However, there is no Class 7 sleeper categor y. These vehicles have GC WR s > 33,000 lb, which means they ar e used like Class 8 sleeper vehicles. Because there is no Class 7 sleeper categor y, there is definitely a problem here. 3. I even found nineteen Class 6 vehicles built with a hole in the back of the cab, likely for installation of a sleeper. These are po ssibly configured to be a tractor (although it is hard to tell based upon the data available in our truck specifications). I think I would have to dig into these vehicles' final configurations to understand if they should be treated as tractors or vocation al vehicles. In the first two and perhaps in all three cases, these vehicles would be properly categorized if a ma nufacturer could petition the agencies to treat the vehicles as being in the next higher class (or two classes up in the case of the Class 6 vehicles if they get sleepers). Orphaning an ostensibly Class 6 vehicle in Class 5, just because it has GV WRof 19,500 lb instead of 19,501 lb, unnecessarily complicates com pliance. Treating a sleeper

- equipped tractor, which is obviously designed for hea vy - heavy operation, as Class 7 because it has a GV WRof 33,000 lb exactly, and not 33,001, is problematic because of the lack of a Class 7 sleeper categor y. And the third category could be problematic, but I do not understand what these vehicles become wh en finally configured. I think that the effect on fuel consumption or em issions would be the same or better if a vehicle were treated as being in higher weight class, and the effect on our certification processes would be to ease our burden. In short, I recommend that both agencies adopt in 1037.230 and 535.7 this language: "A vehicle ma nufacturer may

petition the agenc y to treat a vehicle as if it were in a higher weight class." Regards, Dave

------------------------- David Kayes Compliance and Regulat ory Affairs

--- Environmental Compliance Daim ler Trucks (503) 745

- 9162 Office (503) 265

- 9838 Mobile David.Kayes@Daimler.comIf you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e

- ma il in

error, and delete it. We thank you for your cooperation.