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

Byron, Coralie:

While sifting recent Daimler truck data into averaging categories, I noticed some anomalies caused by the 

use of GVWR as 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 GVWR (most often, 19,500). Because 

the 40 CFR 1037.801 and 49 CFR 535.4 classifications go by the GVWR, 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 

make up for that failure. This may be a problem, or it may not.

2. Similarly, I found a couple dozen Cascadia vehicles (primarily a Class 8 model of vehicle) being 

built with sleepers and a GVWR of 33,000 lb or less. By the aforementioned definitions, these 

would be Class 7. However, there is no Class 7 sleeper category. These vehicles have GCWRs 

> 33,000 lb, which means they are used like Class 8 sleeper vehicles. Because there is no Class 

7 sleeper category, 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 possibly 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 vocational 

vehicles.

In the first two and perhaps in all three cases, these vehicles would be properly categorized if a 

manufacturer 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 GVWR of 19,500 lb instead of 19,501 lb, unnecessarily complicates 

compliance. Treating a sleeper-equipped tractor, which is obviously designed for heavy-heavy operation, 

as Class 7 because it has a GVWR of 33,000 lb exactly, and not 33,001, is problematic because of the 

lack of a Class 7 sleeper category. And the third category could be problematic, but I do not understand 

what these vehicles become when finally configured. I think that the effect on fuel consumption or 

emissions 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 

manufacturer may petition the agency to treat a vehicle as if it were in a higher weight class."

Regards,

Dave

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

David Kayes

Compliance and Regulatory Affairs --- Environmental Compliance

Daimler Trucks

(503) 745-9162 Office

(503) 265-9838 Mobile

David.Kayes@Daimler.com
If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail in 

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