Vol. 76 Thursday, 

No. 179 September 15, 2011 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, et al. 

Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

DOT. 

ACTION: Final Rules. 

SUMMARY: 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. 

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 

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: 

Category NAICS Code a Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry .................................................... 336111 

336112 

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Engine and Truck Manufacturers. 

336120 

Industry .................................................... 541514 

811112 

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components. 

811198 

Industry .................................................... 336111 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters. 

336112 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57107 

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. 

2The 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 

Continued 

Category NAICS Code a Examples of potentially affected entities 

422720 

454312 

541514 

541690 

811198 

Industry .................................................... 333618 

336510 

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. 

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? 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57108 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

3References 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.’’ 

5Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule 75 FR 25323, May 7, 2010. 

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 

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 

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 ‘‘18- 

wheeler’’ combination tractors one sees 

on the highway to school and transit 

buses, to vocational vehicles such as 

utility service trucks, as well as the 

largest pickup trucks and vans. 

For purposes of this preamble, the 

term ‘‘heavy-duty’’ or ‘‘HD’’ is used to 

apply to all highway vehicles and 

engines that are not within the range of 

light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

and medium-duty passenger vehicles 

(MDPV) covered by the GHG and 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) standards issued for MY 2012– 

2016.5 It also does not include 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57109 

6The 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). 

8See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), Note 7 above. 

9 In 2009 Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 

2010 released May 11, 2010. 

10U.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. 

11U.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. 

12See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above, at pp. 

180–194. 

13U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: See Note 11, above. 

14Pursuant 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. 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

15However, 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. 

16Prior 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). 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57111 

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 

includes additional information about 

this analysis. 

TABLE I–1—ESTIMATED LIFETIME DISCOUNTED COSTS, FUEL SAVINGS, 

BENEFITS, AND NET BENEFITS FOR

2014–2018 MODEL YEAR HEAVYDUTY VEHICLES a b

[Billions, 2009$] 

Lifetime Present Value c—3% Discount 

Rate 

Program Costs .................................. $8.1 

Fuel Savings ..................................... 50 

Benefits ............................................. 7.3 

Net Benefitsd .................................... 49 

Annualized Value e—3% Discount Rate 

Annualized Costs .............................. 0.4 

Fuel Savings ..................................... 2.2 

Annualized Benefits .......................... 0.4 

Net Benefits d .................................... 2.2 

Lifetime Present Value c—7% Discount 

Rate 

Program Costs .................................. 8.1 

Fuel Savings ..................................... 34 

Benefits ............................................. 6.7 

Net Benefits d .................................... 33 

Annualized Value e—7% Discount Rate 

Annualized Costs .............................. 0.6 

Fuel Savings ..................................... 2.6 

Annualized Benefits .......................... 0.5 

Net Benefits d .................................... 2.5 

Notes: 

aThe 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. cPresent 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. eThe 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. 

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® 

Transport Partnership program, and 

extensive technical and engineering 

analyses done at the federal level. This 

section summarizes some of the most 

important of these precursors and 

foundations for this HD National 

Program. 

(1) EPA’s Traditional Heavy-Duty 

Regulatory Program 

Since the 1980s, EPA has acted 

several times to address tailpipe 

emissions of criteria pollutants and air 

toxics from heavy-duty vehicles and 

engines. During the last 18 years, these 

programs have primarily addressed 

emissions of particulate matter (PM) and 

the primary ozone precursors, 

hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX). These programs have 

successfully achieved significant and 

cost-effective reductions in emissions 

and associated health and welfare 

benefits to the nation. They have been 

structured in ways that account for the 

varying circumstances of the engine and 

truck industries. As required by the 

CAA, the emission standards 

implemented by these programs include 

standards that apply at the time that the 

vehicle or engine is sold as well as 

standards that apply in actual use. As a 

result of these programs, new vehicles 

meeting current emission standards will 

emit 98 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

18Factors 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 

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.’’ 

21Committee 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). 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57113 

22The 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

24Class 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. 

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 3 4 5 6 7 8 

GVWR (lb) ...... 8,501–10,000 10,001–14,000 14,001–16,000 16,001–19,500 19,501–26,000 26,001–33,000 > 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57115 

25The 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. 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57116 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

26Adapted 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. 

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. 

(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 

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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57117 

27The 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. 

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, 

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 

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 Sleeper cab 

Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 

2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile 

Low Roof .................................................................................................................... 104 80 66 

Mid Roof .................................................................................................................... 115 86 73 

High Roof ................................................................................................................... 120 89 72 

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

Low Roof .................................................................................................................... 10 .2 7 .8 6 .5 

Mid Roof .................................................................................................................... 11 .3 8 .4 7 .2 

High Roof ................................................................................................................... 11 .8 8 .7 7 .1 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57118 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

28EPA 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. 

29The 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). 

30EISA requires CAFE standards for passenger 

cars and light trucks to be attribute-based; See 49 

U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A). 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57119 

31See Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57120 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

32NHTSA’s final fuel consumption standards will 

not apply to recreational vehicles, as discussed in 

earlier in this preamble section. 33See 49 U.S.C. 567.5 and 568.4. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57121 

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 

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 

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 ........................................................................................................... 373 225 222

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57122 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

34See § 1036.150 and § 1037.150 

35Two 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. 

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 

Fuel Consumption ...................................................................................................... 36 .7 22 .1 21 .8 

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. 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57123 

36E85 is a blended fuel consisting of nominally 

15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57124 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

37Fuel 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). 

38EPA 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. 

39EO 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57125 

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 alternativelypowered 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 

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 ...................... $8.1 

Fuel Savings ......................... $50 

Benefits ................................. $7.3 

Net Benefitsd ........................ $49 

Annualized Valuee—3% Discount Rate 

Annualized Costs .................. $0.4 

Fuel Savings ......................... $2.2 

Annualized Benefits .............. $0.4 

Net Benefitsd ........................ $2.2 

Lifetime Present Valuec—7% Discount Rate 

Program Costs ...................... $8.1 

Fuel Savings ......................... $34 

Benefits ................................. $6.7 

Net Benefitsd ........................ $33 

Annualized Valuee—7% Discount Rate 

Annualized Costs .................. $0.6 

Fuel Savings ......................... $2.6 

Annualized Benefits .............. $0.5 

Net Benefitsd ........................ $2.5 

Notes: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

40Non-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. 

aThe 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. cPresent 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. eThe 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 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Total 

Fuel (billion gallons) ..................... 4 .0 3 .6 3 .6 5 .1 5 .8 22 .1 

Fuel (billion barrels) ..................... 0 .10 0 .09 0 .08 0 .12 0 .14 0 .53 

CO2 (MMT)a ................................. 50 .2 44 .8 44 .0 62 .8 71 .7 273 

Note: 

a Includes upstream and downstream CO2 reductions. 

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 VALUEabc

[billions of 2009 dollars] 

Discount rate 

(percent) 

Model year 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total 

3 ............................................................... $10.7 $9.4 $9.2 $13.2 $14.9 $57 

7 ............................................................... 8.3 6.9 6.6 9.2 10.1 41 

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 CO2 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, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57127 

41NHTSA 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). 

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 

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

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

2010.

273 MMT CO2 ....................................... $5.8 b. 

Notes: 

a Includes both upstream and downstream CO2 emission reductions. b Note that net present value of reduced CO2 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. 

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 

2015 

MY 

2016 

MY 

2017 

MY 

2018 

MY Total 

All Heavy-Duty Vehicles .................................................................................................. $1.6 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $2.0 $8.1 

Table I–10 shows the agencies’ 

estimated incremental cost increase of 

the average new heavy-duty vehicle for 

each model year 2014–2018. The values 

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 

2015 

MY 

2016 

MY 

2017 

MY 

2018 

MY 

Combination Tractors ................................................................................................... $6,019 $5,871 $5,677 $6,413 $6,215 

HD Pickups & Vans ..................................................................................................... 165 215 422 631 1,048 

Vocational Vehicles ...................................................................................................... 329 320 397 387 378 

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. 

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 

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 heavyduty 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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57129 

42See 49 U.S.C. 32902(h). 

43EO 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.’’ 

44See 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. 

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 

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 

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); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

45One 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57131 

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). 

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). 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

48State of Ohio v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 880 F.2d 

432, 439 (DC Cir. 1989). 

(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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57133 

49This 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.’’ 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

50Codified at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7). 

51EISA 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.) 

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 

‘‘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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57135 

52 33 FR 19703, December 25, 1968. 

53A dromedary is a box, deck or plate mounted 

behind the cab to carry freight or cargo. 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57137 

54The agencies have found based on standard 

truck specifications, that vehicles designed for 

significant off-road applications, such as concrete 

Continued 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

55See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, 

Recommendation 2–1. 

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? 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57139 

56The 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). 

57The 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. 

58Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA 

program it must stay in the program for all the 

optional MYs. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57140 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

59As 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. 

60See RIA Chapter 4 for the engine fuel maps 

used in GEM v2.0. 

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 Sleeper cab 

Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 

2014 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile 

Low Roof .............................................................................................................. 107 81 68

Mid Roof .............................................................................................................. 119 88 76

High Roof ............................................................................................................. 124 92 75

2014–2016 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile 59

Low Roof .............................................................................................................. 10.5 8.0 6.7 

Mid Roof .............................................................................................................. 11.7 8.7 7.4 

High Roof ............................................................................................................. 12.2 9.0 7.3 

2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile 

Low Roof .............................................................................................................. 104 80 66

Mid Roof .............................................................................................................. 115 86 73

High Roof ............................................................................................................. 120 89 72

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

Low Roof .............................................................................................................. 10.2 7.8 6.5 

Mid Roof .............................................................................................................. 11.3 8.4 7.2 

High Roof ............................................................................................................. 11.8 8.7 7.1 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57141 

61See 40 CFR 86.90–2. 

62The 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. 

63The 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/100- 

bhp-hr) in MY 2010. Further discussion of the 

derivation of the baseline can be found in Section 

III. 

64Once 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. 

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 

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 Effective 2017 Model Year 

CO2 standard 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Voluntary fuel 

consumption 

standard 

(gal/100 bhphr) 

CO2 standard 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Fuel consumption standard 

(gal/100 bhphr) 

MHD diesel engine .......................................................................................... 502 4.93 487 4.78 

HHD diesel engine ........................................................................................... 475 4.67 460 4.52 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 Effective 2017 model year 

CO2 standard 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Voluntary fuel 

consumption 

standard 

(gal/100 bhphr) 

CO2 standard 

(g/bhp-hr) 

Fuel consumption standard 

(gal/100 bhphr) 

MHD diesel engine .......................................................................................... 502 4.93 487 4.78 

HHD diesel engine ........................................................................................... 475 4.67 460 4.52 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57143 

65See 75 FR at 25467–68 for further discussion 

of the negative cost implications of establishing 

requirements outside of the redesign cycle. 

66See RIA Chapter 2.4.2.7. 67On-board diagnostics (OBD) is a computerbased emissions monitoring system that was first 

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). 

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

HHD Tractor engines MHD Tractor engines 

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) 

Difference 

in lifetime 

CO2 engine 

emissions 

(MMT) 

Baseline ........................................................................... 490 490 — 518 518 — 

2013 MY Engine .............................................................. 490 485 14 518 512 17 

2014 MY Engine .............................................................. 475 485 ¥28 502 512 ¥28 

2015 MY Engine .............................................................. 475 485 ¥28 502 512 ¥28 

2016 MY Engine .............................................................. 475 460 42 502 487 42 

2017 MY Engine .............................................................. 460 460 0 487 487 0 

Net Reductions (MMT) ..................................................... .................... .................... 0 .................... .................... 3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57144 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

68See § 1036.150(e). 69See 75 FR at 74178–74179. 

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 

Effective 2013 Through 2015 Model Year 

CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ......................................................................................................................... 512 485 

Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr) .................................................................... 5.03 4.76 

Effective 2016 Model Year and Later 

CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ......................................................................................................................... 487 460 

Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp-hr) .................................................................................................... 4.78 4.52 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57145 

70See 75 FR at 74178. 

71See 75 FR 25414–25419. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57146 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

72See 2010 NAS Report. Note 21, 

Recommendation 8–4. Page 190. 

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 Miles 

Medium Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines ...... 10 185,000 

Heavy Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines ...... 10 435,000 

Class 7 Tractors ....... 10 185,000 

Class 8 Tractors ....... 10 435,000 

(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. 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.001</GPH>
57148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57149 

73See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Finding 2–4 on 

page 39. 

74As explained in Section IV, there are no ABT 

implications to this change from proposal, since all 

Continued 

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 

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 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 

76NHTSA, 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). 

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 I .......................................................................................................................................................... ≥ 8.0 ≥ 8.0 ≥ 7.6 

Bin II ......................................................................................................................................................... 7.1–7.9 7.1–7.9 6.7–7.5 

Bin III ........................................................................................................................................................ 6.2–7.0 6.2–7.0 5.8–6.6 

Bin IV ....................................................................................................................................................... 5.6–6.1 5.6–6.1 5.2–5.7 

Bin V ........................................................................................................................................................ ≤ 5.5 ≤ 5.5 ≤ 5.1 

Aerodynamic Input to GEM (Cd) 

Bin I .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.79 0.79 0.75 

Bin II ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.72 0.72 0.68 

Bin III ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.63 0.63 0.60 

Bin IV ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.56 0.56 0.52 

Bin V ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.51 0.51 0.47 

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 Day Cab 

Low Roof Mid Roof Low Roof Mid Roof 

Aerodynamic Test Results (CdA in m2) 

Bin I .................................................................................. ≥ 5.1 ≥ 5.6 ≥ 5.1 ≥ 5.6 ≥ 5.1 ≥ 5.6 

Bin II ................................................................................. ≤ 5.0 ≤ 5.5 ≤ 5.0 ≤ 5.5 ≤ 5.0 ≤ 5.5 

Aerodynamic Input to GEM (Cd) 

Bin I .................................................................................. 0.77 0.87 0.77 0.87 0.77 0.87 

Bin II ................................................................................. 0.71 0.82 0.71 0.82 0.71 0.82 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57151 

77This 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). 

78U.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. 

79TIAX, 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. 

80Alcoa. ‘‘Improving Sustainability of Transport: 

Aluminum is Part of the Solution.’’ 2009. 

81Schutte, 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.’’ 

82American Iron and Steel Institute. ‘‘A Cost 

Benefit Analysis Report to the North American 

Continued 

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). 

(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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Steel Industry on Improved Materials and 

Powertrain Architectures for 21st Century Trucks.’’ 83Schutte, 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’’. 84Schutte, 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’’. 

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 ...................................................................................................................................................... 84 

Aluminum Wheel .............................................................................................................................................. 139 

Light Weight Aluminum Wheel ......................................................................................................................... 147 

Steer Tire or Dual Wide Drive Tire with: 

High Strength Steel Wheel ............................................................................................................................... 8 

Aluminum Wheel .............................................................................................................................................. 21 

Light Weight Aluminum Wheel ......................................................................................................................... 30 

Weight reduction technologies Aluminum 

weight 

reduction (lb.) 

High strength 

steel weight 

reduction (lb.) 

Door ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 6 

Roof ......................................................................................................................................................................... 60 18 

Cab rear wall ........................................................................................................................................................... 49 16 

Cab floor .................................................................................................................................................................. 56 18 

Hood Support Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 15 3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57153 

85For more information on the estimated safety 

effects of this rule, see Chapter 9 of the RIA. 

86Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

Hours of Service Regulations. Last accessed on 

August 2, 2010 at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregulations/topics/hos/. 

87The 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. 

TABLE II–9—WEIGHT REDUCTION VALUES—Continued 

Fairing Support Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 35 6 

Instrument Panel Support Structure ........................................................................................................................ 5 1 

Brake Drums—Drive (4) .......................................................................................................................................... 140 11 

Brake Drums—Non Drive (2) .................................................................................................................................. 60 8 

Frame Rails ............................................................................................................................................................. 440 87 

Crossmember—Cab ................................................................................................................................................ 15 5 

Crossmember—Suspension .................................................................................................................................... 25 6 

Crossmember—Non Suspension (3) ....................................................................................................................... 15 5 

Fifth Wheel ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 25 

Radiator Support ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 6 

Fuel Tank Support Structure ................................................................................................................................... 40 12 

Steps ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 6 

Bumper .................................................................................................................................................................... 33 10 

Shackles .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 3 

Front Axle ................................................................................................................................................................ 60 15 

Suspension Brackets, Hangers ............................................................................................................................... 100 30 

Transmission Case .................................................................................................................................................. 50 12 

Clutch Housing ........................................................................................................................................................ 40 10 

Drive Axle Hubs (8) ................................................................................................................................................. 160 4 

Non Drive Front Hubs (2) ........................................................................................................................................ 40 5 

Driveshaft ................................................................................................................................................................. 20 5 

Transmission/Clutch Shift Levers ............................................................................................................................ 20 4 

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

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

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57154 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

88See Gaines, L., A. Vyas, J. Anderson. 

‘‘Estimation of Fuel Used by Idling Commercial 

Trucks,’’ Page 9 (2006). 

89See 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. 

90One 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. 

91Commenters 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. 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57155 

92See 75 FR at page 74223. 93See § 1037.640. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

94 76 FR 78. 

95See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, Chapters 4 and 

8. 

96This situation does not typically occur for 

heavy-duty emission control technology designed to 

control criteria pollutants such as PM and NOX. 

97California 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. 

98EPA’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. 

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: 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57157 

100See Section IV.B.3.b below. 101The 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 

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 Heavyduty 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’’. 

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 

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 55 mph 

cruise 

65 mph 

cruise 

Day Cabs ................................................................................................................................................. 19% 17% 64% 

Sleeper Cabs ........................................................................................................................................... 5% 9% 86% 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

103M.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. 

104The 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. 

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 Regulatory subcategory Tractor tare 

weight (lbs) 

Trailer 

weight (lbs) 

Payload 

(lbs) 

Total weight 

(lbs) 

Class 8 ...................................................... Sleeper Cab High Roof ............................ 19,000 13,500 38,000 70,500 

Class 8 ...................................................... Sleeper Cab Mid Roof .............................. 18,750 10,000 38,000 66,750 

Class 8 ...................................................... Sleeper Cab Low Roof ............................. 18,500 10,500 38,000 67,000 

Class 8 ...................................................... Day Cab High Roof .................................. 17,500 13,500 38,000 69,000 

Class 8 ...................................................... Day Cab Mid Roof .................................... 17,100 10,000 38,000 65,100 

Class 8 ...................................................... Day Cab Low Roof ................................... 17,000 10,500 38,000 65,500 

Class 7 ...................................................... Day Cab High Roof .................................. 11,500 13,500 25,000 50,000 

Class 7 ...................................................... Day Cab Mid Roof .................................... 11,100 10,000 25,000 46,100 

Class 7 ...................................................... Day Cab Low Roof ................................... 11,000 10,500 25,000 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57159 

106As 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. 107See NAS Report, Note 21, at page 39. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57160 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

108For 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). 109See § 1036.150 and § 1037.150. 

110The agencies have identified Ottawa Truck, 

Inc. and Kalmar Industries USA as two potential 

small tractor manufacturers. 

111M.J. Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market 

Analysis. May 2009. 

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, 

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. 

(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. 

(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 

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. 

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. 

(1) What are the levels and timing of HD 

pickup and van standards? 

(a) Vehicle-Based Standards 

About 90 percent of Class 2b and 3 

vehicles are pickup trucks, passenger 

vans, and work vans that are sold by the 

original equipment manufacturers as 

complete vehicles, ready for use on the 

road. In addition, most of these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57161 

112Section 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. 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57162 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

114The 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). 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57163 

114The 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). 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.002</GPH>
57164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

115The 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). 

116The 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). 

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 ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0478 368 0.000470 3.61 

2015 ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0474 366 0.000466 3.60 

2016 ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0460 354 0.000452 3.48 

2017 ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0445 343 0.000437 3.37 

2018 and later .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0416 320 0.000409 3.14 

Gasoline Vehicles 

2014 ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0482 371 0.000542 4.17 

2015 ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0479 369 0.000539 4.15 

2016 ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0469 362 0.000528 4.07 

2017 ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0460 354 0.000518 3.98 

2018 and later .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0440 339 0.000495 3.81 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.003</GPH>
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 ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0478 368 0.000470 3.61 

2015 a ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0474 366 0.000466 3.60 

2016–2018 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0440 339 0.000432 3.33 

2019 and later .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0416 320 0.000409 3.14 

Gasoline Vehicles 

2014 a ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0482 371 0.000542 4.17 

2015 a ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.0479 369 0.000539 4.15 

2016–2018 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.0456 352 0.000513 3.96 

2019 and later .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0440 339 0.000495 3.81 

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 

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 

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 CO2- 

equivalent 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(d) Implementation Plan 

(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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57167 

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 

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 

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-tomstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

117See above for discussion of applicability of 

NHTSA’s standards to non-commercial vehicles. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57169 

118See 75 FR at 74241. 

119A recovery vehicle removes or recovers 

vehicles that are disabled (broken down). 

120See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, page 133. 121See 2010 NAS Report, Note 21, page 110. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

122Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to the Docket. 

Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. See Docket #EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0162. Pages 2–3 and Appendix B. 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57171 

123A 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. 124See 75 FR at 74241. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

125Records of these communications, and 

additional information submitted by the supplier 

companies and not CBI, are available at Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

126Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to the Docket. 

Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. July 2011. Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162, Pages 3–6. 

127More tire types and sizes have been developed 

for vocational vehicle applications than for longhaul applications. In some cases, suppliers offer up 

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. 

128After 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. 

129See 75 FR at 74244. 

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 

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 

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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57173 

130The CRR values for these applications ranged 

from 5.4 to 9.2 kg/metric ton. 

131See comments to docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0162–1761; Ford Motor Company 

132The 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. 

133Bachman, Joseph. Memorandum to Docket. 

Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. Docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0162. Pages 3–6. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

TABLE II–14—VOCATIONAL VEHICLE— 

TARGET CRR VALUES FOR GEM 

INPUT

2014 MY 2017 MY 

Tire Rolling Resistance (kg/metric 

ton).

7.7 kg/ 

metric 

ton.

7.7 kg/ 

metric 

ton 

These target values are being revised 

based on the significant availability of 

tires for vocational vehicles applications 

which have performance better than the 

originally proposed 8.1 kg/metric ton 

target. As just discussed, 63 of the 88 

tires tested for vocational applications 

had CRR values better than the 

proposed target. The tires tested covered 

fitment to a wide range of vocational 

vehicle types and classes; thus agencies 

believe the original target value of 8.1 

kg/metric ton was possibly too lenient 

after reviewing the testing data. 

Therefore, the agencies believe it is 

appropriate to reduce the proposed 

vehicle standard based on performance 

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 

by the 0.87 adjustment factor before 

entering the values in the GEM for 

compliance. 

Based on the tire rolling resistance 

inputs noted above, EPA is finalizing 

the following CO2 standards for the 

2014 model year for the Class 2b 

through Class 8 vocational vehicle 

chassis, as shown in Table II–15. 

Similarly, NHTSA is finalizing the 

following fuel consumption standards 

for the 2016 model year, with voluntary 

standards beginning in the 2014 model 

year. For the EPA GHG program, the 

standard applies throughout the useful 

life of the vehicle. The agencies note 

that both the baseline performance and 

standards derived for the final rules 

slightly differ from the values derived 

for the NPRM. The first difference is due 

to the change in the target rolling 

resistance from 8.1 to 7.7 kg/metric ton 

based on the agencies’ 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. 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 

Light Heavy-Duty Class 2b–5 ....... Medium Heavy-Duty Class 6–7 .... Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8 

CO2 Emissions ............................... 388 ................................................ 234 ................................................ 226 

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

Light Heavy-DutyClass 2b–5 ........ Medium Heavy-Duty Class 6–7 .... Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8 

Fuel Consumption .......................... 38.1 ............................................... 23.0 ............................................... 22.2 

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

Light Heavy-Duty Class 2b–5 ....... Medium Heavy-Duty Class 6–7 .... Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8 

CO2 Emissions ............................... 373 ................................................ 225 ................................................ 222 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57175 

134Manufacturers 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. 

135See 75 FR at 74199. 

136 Vehicles such as concrete mixers, off-road 

dump trucks, backhoes and wheel loaders. 

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 

Light Heavy-Duty Class 2b–5 ....... Medium Heavy-Duty Class 6–7 .... Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8 

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

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

137The 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. 

138See 40 CFR 1037.631. 

139Particular 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.’’ 

140Specifically, EPA is finalizing CO2, N2O, and 

CH4 emissions standards for new heavy-duty 

engines over an EPA specified useful life period 

(See Section 0 for the N2O and CH4 standards). 

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 

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? 

(b) Heavy-Duty Engine Standards for 

Engines Installed in Vocational Vehicles 

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 

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. 

TABLE II–16—ENGINE REGULATORY

SUBCATEGORIES

Engine category Intended application 

Light Heavyduty (LHD) 

Diesel.

Class 2b through Class 5 

trucks (8,501 through 

19,500 pounds GVWR). 

Medium 

Heavy-duty 

(MHD) Diesel.

Class 6 and Class 7 trucks 

(19,501 through 33,000 

pounds GVWR). 

Heavy Heavyduty (HHD) 

Diesel.

Class 8 trucks (33,001 

pounds and greater 

GVWR. 

Gasoline ......... 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57177 

141See generally 75 FR at 74200–201. 

142Once 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. 

143Calculated using the conversion 10,180 g CO2/ 

gallon for diesel fuel. 

installed in vocational vehicles, as 

shown in Table II–17. 

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

Model year Standard Light heavyduty diesel 

Medium 

heavy-duty 

diesel 

Heavy heavyduty diesel 

2014–2016 ............................. CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ......................................................... 600 600 567 

Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ... 5.89 5.89 5.57 

2017 and Later ....................... CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ........................................................ 576 576 555 

Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ................................... 5.66 5.66 5.45 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

144Calculated using the conversion 10,180 g CO2/ 

gallon for diesel fuel. 

145See generally 75 FR at 74201. 146See 75 FR at 25467–68. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57179 

147See 75 FR at 74202. 

148To be codified at 40 CFR 1036.620. 

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 

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) 

Difference 

in lifetime 

CO2 engine 

emissions 

(MMT) 

Baseline ........................................................................... 584 584 .................... 630 630 

2013 MY Engine .............................................................. 584 577 20 630 618 14 

2014 MY Engine .............................................................. 567 577 ¥28 600 618 ¥22 

2015 MY Engine .............................................................. 567 577 ¥28 600 618 ¥22 

2016 MY Engine .............................................................. 567 555 34 600 576 29 

2017 MY Engine .............................................................. 555 555 0 576 576 0 

Net Reductions (MMT) ..................................................... .................... .................... ¥3 .................... .................... 0 

Table II–19 presents the final HD 

diesel engine CO2 emission and fuel 

consumption standards under the 

optional ‘‘OBD phase-in’’ option. 

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

Model year Standard Light heavyduty diesel 

Medium 

heavy-duty 

diesel 

Heavy heavyduty diesel 

2013 ................................. CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ............................................................... 618 618 577 

Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ......... 6.07 6.07 5.67 

2016 and Later ................. CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) ............................................................... 576 576 555 

Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp-hr) ......................................... 5.66 5.66 5.45 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57180 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

149EPA’s heavy-duty engine certification database 

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm#largeng. 

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 

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 

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

Model 

year 

Gasoline 

engine 

standard 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57181 

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 

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 Miles 

Class 2b–5 Vocational Vehicles, Spark Ignited, and Light Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ........................................ 10 110,000 

Class 6–7 Vocational Vehicles and Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ............................................................. 10 185,000 

Class 8 Vocational Vehicles and Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines .................................................................... 10 435,000 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

150See RIA Chapter 4, Table 4–8. 

151See http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/ 

catalogue_tc/ 

catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44770. 

152 75 FR 15893, March 30,2010. 

153See http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 

2009publications/CEC–600–2009–010/CEC–600– 

2009–010–SD–REV.PDF (last accessed May 9, 2011). 

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. 

(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 

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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57183 

154 75 FR 15893, March 30, 2010. 

155See generally 75 FR at 74204. 

156 75 FR 15893, March 30, 2010. 

157See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:200:0001:

0024:EN:PDF (last accessed May 8, 2011). 

158See http://www.energy.ca.gov/

2009publications/CEC-600-2009-010/CEC-600-

2009-010-SD-REV.PDF (last accessed May 9, 2011). 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

159Bachman, Joseph. EPA Memorandum to the 

Docket. Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0162. July 2011. 160Bachman, Joseph. EPA Memorandum to the 

Docket. Heavy-Duty Tire Evaluation. Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0162. July 2011. 

161See 49 CFR 571.109. 

162See Note 157, above. 

163See Note 158, above. 

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 

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 

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’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57185 

164The 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. 

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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57186 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

165The 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. 

167The 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. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57187 

168See NAS Report, Note 21, at page 39. 

(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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57188 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

169The 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. 

170M.J. Bradley. Heavy-duty Vehicle Market 

Analysis. May 2009. 

171The agencies have identified Baytech 

Corporation, Clean Fuels USA, and BAF 

Technologies, Inc. as three potential small 

businesses. 

172NHTSA’s statutory responsibilities relating to 

reducing fuel consumption are directly related to 

reducing CO2 emissions, but not to the control of 

other GHGs. 

173The 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. 

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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57189 

174 Value adapted from ‘‘Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007’’. 

April 2009. 175Memorandum ‘‘N2O Data from EPA HeavyDuty Testing’’. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57190 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

176Memorandum ‘‘N2O Data from EPA HeavyDuty Testing.’’ 

177Coordinating 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). 

178Engine Manufacturers Association. EMA N2O 

Email 03_22_2011. See Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0162. 

(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. 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57191 

179 Value adapted from ‘‘Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. 

April 2009. 

180But See Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 604 F. 2d 685 

(DC Cir. 1979) (permissible for EPA to regulate CH4

under CAA section 202(b)). 

TABLE II–22—N2O DATA ANALYSIS

Engine family Rated power 

(HP) 

Composite 

FTP cycle N2O 

result 

(g/bhp-hr) 

EPA Data of 2007 Engine with SCR ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 0.042 

EPA Data of 2010 Production Intent Engine ........................................................................................................... ........................ 0.037 

A ............................................................................................................................................................................... 450 0.0181 

A ............................................................................................................................................................................... 600 0.0151 

B ............................................................................................................................................................................... 360 0.0326 

C .............................................................................................................................................................................. 380 0.0353 

D .............................................................................................................................................................................. 560 0.0433 

D .............................................................................................................................................................................. 455 0.0524 

E ............................................................................................................................................................................... 600 0.0437 

F ............................................................................................................................................................................... 500 0.0782 

G .............................................................................................................................................................................. 483 0.1127 

H .............................................................................................................................................................................. 385 0.0444 

H .............................................................................................................................................................................. 385 0.0301 

H .............................................................................................................................................................................. 385 0.0283 

J ............................................................................................................................................................................... 380 0.0317 

Mean 0.043 

2 * Mean 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 

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? 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57192 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

181Memorandum ‘‘CH4 Data from 2010 and 2011 

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Certification Tests’’. 182Coordinating Research Council Report: ACES 

Phase 1 of the Advanced Collaborative Emissions 

Study, 2009. 

183N2O has a GWP of 298 and CH4 has a GWP 

of 25 according to the IPCC AR4. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57193 

184 0.030 g/mile CH4 multiplied by a GWP of 25 

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 CO2- 

equivalent basis, or about 3 g/mile under the CO2- 

equivalent option. 

185The 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). 

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 

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 CO2- 

equivalent standard. For example, if a 

manufacturer is having trouble 

complying with the CH4 standard but 

not the N2O standard, the manufacturer 

could use the CO2 equivalent option 

including CH4, but choose to comply 

separately with the applicable N2O cap 

standard. 

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 CO2- 

equivalent 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57194 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

187The United States has submitted a proposal to 

the Montreal Protocol which, if adopted, would 

phasedown production and consumption of HFCs. 

188The U.S. EPA has reclamation requirements 

for refrigerants in place under Title VI of the Clean 

Air Act. 

189The 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). 

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 CO2- 

equivalent emissions fleet wide, making 

significant investments in existing 

vehicle technologies, or curtailing the 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57195 

190The Minnesota refrigerant leakage data can be 

found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ 

climatechange/mobileair.html#leakdata. 

191Team 1-Refrigerant Leakage Reduction: Final 

Report to Sponsors, SAE, 2007. 

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 

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 

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. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57197 

192See 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. 

193CBD cites the District Court’s opinion in Cent. 

Valley Chrysler-Jeep Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F. Supp. 

Continued 

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. 

(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 

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. 

(9) Corrections to 40 CFR Part 600 

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. 

(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 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57198 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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. 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57199 

194See 40 CFR 1036.620. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57200 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

195RTI International. Heavy-duty Truck Retail 

Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers. July 

2010. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57201 

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.’’ 

197Committee 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. 

198TIAX, LLC. ‘‘Assessment of Fuel Economy 

Technologies for Medium- and Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles,’’ Final Report to National Academy of 

Sciences, November 19, 2009. 

199U.S. EPA. Heavy-duty Lumped Parameter 

Model. 

200NESCCAF, 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. 

202MJ Bradley. Heavy-duty Market Analysis. May 

2009. Page 10. 

203U.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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57202 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

204See TIAX, Note 198, Page 4–50. 

205See SmartWay, Note 203, above. 206 Ibid. 207The 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57203 

208See the RIA Chapter 2 for details. 

209See the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, above, at 

128. 

210The 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. 

211See TIAX, Note 198, above at 4–70. 

212See the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 67. 213See the 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 128. 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57204 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

214See 2010 Model Year Engine Certification Data 

and 2011 Model Year Engine Certification Data files 

located in the Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

215See TIAX. Note 198, Page 4–13. 

216See TIAX Note 198, Page 4–2. 

217See TIAX, Note 198, Page 4–13. 

218TIAX, Note 198, pg 4–15 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57205 

219See TIAX. Note 198, Page 3–5. 

220Stanton, 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. 

221See TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4–9. 

222NESCCAF/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. 

224See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 57. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57206 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

225U.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. 

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 Day cab Sleeper cab 

Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof 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 

Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton) 

Baseline ... 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 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 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 

Weight Reduction (lb) 

Baseline ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

Baseline ... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 

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 

2010 MY 

15L Engine 

2010 MY 

15L 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 Day cab Sleeper cab 

Low roof Mid roof High roof Low 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57207 

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 

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 Day cab Sleeper cab 

Low/mid 

roof High roof Low/mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof 

Aerodynamics (Cd) 

Bin I .......................................................... 0.77/0.87 0.79 0.77/0.87 0.79 0.77 0.87 0.75 

Bin II ......................................................... 0.71/0.82 0.72 0.71/0.82 0.72 0.71 0.82 0.68 

Bin III ........................................................ .................... 0.63 .................... 0.63 .................... .................... 0.60 

Bin IV ....................................................... .................... 0.56 .................... 0.56 .................... .................... 0.52 

Bin V ........................................................ .................... 0.51 .................... 0.51 .................... .................... 0.47 

Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton) 

Baseline ................................................... 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 

Level I ...................................................... 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 

Level II ..................................................... 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 

Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton) 

Baseline ................................................... 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 

Level I ...................................................... 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 

Level II ..................................................... 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57208 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

226See TIAX, Note 198, Page 4–40. 

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

Class 7 Class 8 

Day cab Day cab Sleeper cab 

Low/mid 

roof High roof Low/mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof 

Weight Reduction (lb) 

Control ...................................................... 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 

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

Control ...................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 

Vehicle Speed Limiter b

Control ...................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Notes: 

aWhile 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. bVehicle 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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57209 

227U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation 

Energy Data Book, Edition 28–2009. Table 5.7. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57210 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

228 Gaines, L., A. Vyas, J. Anderson. Estimation of 

Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks. January 

2006. 

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). 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57211 

230See Section III.A.2.b below explaining the 

derivation of the engine standards. 

231As explained further in Section V below, EPA 

would use these inputs in GEM even for engines 

electing to use the alternative engine standard. 

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 

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 Day cab Sleeper cab 

Low/mid 

roof High roof Low/mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof 

Aerodynamics (Cd) 

Bin I .......................................................... 40 0 40 0 30 30 0 

Bin II ......................................................... 60 30 60 30 70 70 10 

Bin III ........................................................ .................... 60 .................... 60 .................... .................... 70 

Bin IV ....................................................... .................... 10 .................... 10 .................... .................... 20 

Bin V ........................................................ .................... 0 .................... 0 .................... .................... 0 

Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton) 

Baseline ................................................... 40 30 40 30 30 30 10 

Bin I .......................................................... 50 60 50 60 60 60 70 

Bin II ......................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 

Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton) 

Baseline ................................................... 40 30 40 30 30 30 10 

Bin I .......................................................... 50 60 50 60 60 60 70 

Bin II ......................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 

Weight Reduction (lb) 

400 lb. Weight Reduction ........................ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

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

AES .......................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 100 

Vehicle Speed Limiter 

VSL .......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(iv) Derivation of the Final Tractor 

Standards 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 Day cab Sleeper cab 

Low roof Mid roof High roof Low roof 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 

Steer Tires (CRR kg/metric ton) 

6.99 .................................. 6.99 6.87 6.99 6.99 6.87 6.87 6.87 6.54 

Drive Tires (CRR kg/metric ton) 

7.38 .................................. 7.38 7.26 7.38 7.38 7.26 7.26 7.26 6.92 

Weight Reduction (lb) 

400 ................................... 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 

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

N/A ................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 5 5 

Vehicle Speed Limiter 

— ...................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Engine 

2014/17 MY 11L Engine .. 2014/17 MY 

11L Engine 

2014/17 MY 

11L Engine 

2014/17 MY 

15L Engine 

2014/17 MY 

15L Engine 

2014/17 MY 

15L Engine 

2014/17 MY 

15L Engine 

2014/17 MY 

15L Engine 

2014/17 MY 

15L Engine 

The level of the 2014 and 2017 model 

year final standards and percent 

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 

Low Roof ...................................................................................................................................... 107 81 68 

Mid Roof ...................................................................................................................................... 119 88 76 

High Roof ..................................................................................................................................... 124 92 75 

2014–2016 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile 232

Day cab Sleeper 

cab 

Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 

Low Roof ...................................................................................................................................... 10.5 8.0 6.7 

Mid Roof ...................................................................................................................................... 11.7 8.7 7.4 

High Roof ..................................................................................................................................... 12.2 9.0 7.3 

2017 Model Year CO2 Grams per Ton-Mile 

Day cab Sleeper 

cab 

Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 

Low Roof ...................................................................................................................................... 104 80 66 

Mid Roof ...................................................................................................................................... 115 86 73 

High Roof ..................................................................................................................................... 120 89 72 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57213 

232Manufacturers may voluntarily opt-in to the 

NHTSA fuel consumption program in 2014 or 2015. 

If a manufacturer opts-in, the program becomes 

mandatory. 

233See Section VIII.D below. 

234The 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. 

TABLE III–6—FINAL 2014 AND 2017 MODEL YEAR TRACTOR REDUCTIONS—Continued 

Day cab Sleeper 

cab 

Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 

Low Roof ...................................................................................................................................... 10.2 7.8 6.5 

Mid Roof ...................................................................................................................................... 11.3 8.4 7.2 

High Roof ..................................................................................................................................... 11.8 8.7 7.1 

A summary of the final technology 

package costs is included in Table III– 

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 Day cab Sleeper cab 

Low/mid 

roof High roof Low/mid roof High roof Low roof Mid roof High roof 

Aerodynamics .......................................... $675 $924 $675 $924 $962 $983 $1,627 

Steer Tires ............................................... 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 

Drive Tires ................................................ 63 63 126 126 126 126 126 

Weight Reduction ..................................... 1,536 1,536 1,980 1,980 3,275 3,275 1,980 

Idle Reduction with Auxiliary Power Unit .................... .................... .................... .................... 3,819 3,819 3,819 

Air Conditioningc ...................................... 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 

Total .................................................. 2,364 2,612 2,871 3,119 8,271 8,291 7,641 

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). cEPA’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 

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). 

(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 offmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57214 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

235See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, Page 146. 

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) 

Fuel 

consumption 

(gallon/100 

bhp-hr) 

Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel—SET .......................................................................................................................... 518 5.09 

Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel—SET ............................................................................................................................. 490 4.81 

(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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57215 

236National 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. 

237NAS 2010, page 53 cites Detroit Diesel 

Corporation, DD15 Brochure, DDC–EMC–BRO– 

0003–0408, April 2008. 238See TIAX, Note 198, Page 4–29. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57216 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

240Cooper, 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. 

241Nelson, 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. 

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

Model year MHD diesel 

engine 

HHD diesel 

engine 

2014–2016 ........................................ CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) .......................................................................... 502 475 

Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp-hr) .................... 4.93 4.67 

2017 and later ................................... CO2 Standard (g/bhp-hr) .......................................................................... 487 460 

Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp-hr) .................................................... 4.78 4.52 

(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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57217 

242Sample 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. 

243See Tractor CO2 savings and technology costs 

in Table 7–5 in RIA chapter 7. 

244The 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. 

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 

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 2017 

Cylinder Head .......................................................................................................................................................... $6 $6 

Turbo efficiency ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 17 

EGR cooler .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 3 

Water pump ............................................................................................................................................................. 91 84 

Oil pump .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 4 

Fuel pump ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 4 

Fuel rail .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 9 

Fuel injector ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 10 

Piston ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 3 

Engine Friction Reduction of Valvetrain .................................................................................................................. 82 76 

Turbo-compounding (engines placed in combination tractors only) ....................................................................... 0 875 

MHHD and HHDD Total (combination tractors) ...................................................................................................... 234 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. 

(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 

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). 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57218 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

245http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm. 

246Memorandum 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. 

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 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57219 

247Memorandum from Anthony Neam and Jeff 

Cherry, U.S.EPA, to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0162, October 18, 2010. 

248See 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. 

249The 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57220 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57221 

250See RIA Chapter 2.3 for more detailed 

technology descriptions. 

251U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Draft 

Report—Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis Pilot 

Study,’’ Contract No. EP–C–07–069, Work 

Assignment 1–3, September 3, 2009. 

252NHTSA 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. 

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 

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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57222 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

253Note 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) 

254Note 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. 

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). 

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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57223 

256Burning one gallon of diesel fuel produces 

about 15 percent more carbon dioxide than gasoline 

due to the higher density and carbon to hydrogen 

ratio. 

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. 

(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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57224 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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/ 2008- 

powertrain- lineup- 082707.jsp (last accessed Sept. 

18, 2008). 

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 

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. 

Some manufacturers are replacing 4- 

and 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 8- 

speed 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57225 

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. 

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. 

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. 

(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 

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. 

(e) Vehicle Technologies 

(i) Mass Reduction 

Reducing a vehicle’s mass, or downweighting the vehicle, decreases fuel 

consumption by reducing the energy 

demand needed to overcome forces 

resisting motion, and rolling resistance. 

Manufacturers employ a systematic 

approach to mass reduction, where the 

net mass reduction is the addition of a 

direct component or system mass 

reduction plus the additional mass 

reduction taken from indirect ancillary 

systems and components, as a result of 

full vehicle optimization, effectively 

compounding or obtaining a secondary 

mass reduction from a primary mass 

reduction. For example, use of a 

smaller, lighter engine with lower 

torque-output subsequently allows the 

use of a smaller, lighter-weight 

transmission and drive line 

components. Likewise, the compounded 

weight reductions of the body, engine 

and drivetrain reduce stresses on the 

suspension components, steering 

components, wheels, tires and brakes, 

allowing further reductions in the mass 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57226 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57227 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57228 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

269See Table VI–4 of this preamble. 

270See Table 0–3 of this preamble. 

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$] 

Technology Class 2b 

gasoline 

Class 2b 

diesel 

Class 3 

gasoline 

Class 3 

diesel 

Low friction lubes ............................................................................................................. $4 $4 $4 $4 

Engine friction reduction .................................................................................................. 116 N/A 116 N/A 

Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection ........................................................................... 481 N/A 481 N/A 

Engine improvements ...................................................................................................... N/A 184 N/A 184 

8s automatic transmission (increment to 6s automatic transmission) ............................ 281 281 281 281 

Improved accessories ...................................................................................................... N/A 93 N/A 93 

Low rolling resistance tires .............................................................................................. 7 7 10 10 

Aerodynamic improvements ............................................................................................ 58 58 58 58

Electric (or electro/hydraulic) power steering .................................................................. 115 115 115 115

Aftertreatment improvements .......................................................................................... N/A 119 N/A 119 

Mass reduction (5%) ........................................................................................................ 108 121 115 127 

Air conditioning ................................................................................................................ 21 21 21 21 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 1,190 1,003 1,209 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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57229 

271Argonne National Lab. Evaluation of Fuel 

Consumption Potential of Medium and Heavy-duty 

Vehicles through Modeling and Simulation. 

October 2009. Page 89. 

272See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 146. 

273See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, pp 134 and 

137. 

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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57230 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

274 Gaines, Linda, A. Vyas, J. Anderson (Argonne 

National Laboratory). Estimation of Fuel Use by 

Idling Commercial Trucks. January 2006. 275Southwest Research Institute. Power Take Off 

Cycle Development and Testing. 2010. Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0162–3335. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57231 

276The 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. 

277Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future. 

‘‘Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from LightDuty Motor Vehicles.’’ September 2004. 

278Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 

‘‘Technology to Improve the Fuel Economy of Light 

Duty Trucks to 2015.’’ May 2006. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57232 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

279U.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. 280See TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4–15. 

281Stanton, 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. 

282See TIAX, Note 198, pg. 4–9 

283See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 56. 

284See TIAX. Note 198, Pages 3–5. 

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 

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 incylinder 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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57233 

285The 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. 

(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 

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 Medium 

heavy-duty 

Heavy 

heavy-duty 

Fuel Consumption Baseline (gallon/1,000 ton-mile) ......................................................................... 40 .0 24 .3 23 .2 

CO2 Baseline (grams CO2/ton-mile) .................................................................................................. 408 247 236 

(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 

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

2014 MY 2017 MY 

Engine ...................................................................................................................................... 2014 MY 7L for LHD/ 

MHD and 15L for HHD 

Trucks 

2017 MY 7L for LHD/ 

MHD and 15L for HHD 

Trucks. 

Tire Rolling Resistance (kg/metric ton) ................................................................................... 7.7 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57234 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

286See Section VIII.D. 

287As 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. 

TABLE III–14—FINAL VOCATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS AND PERCENT REDUCTIONS

Vocational vehicle 

Light heavyduty Medium 

heavy-duty 

Heavy heavyduty 

2016 MY Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/1,000 ton-mile) ................................................... 38.1 23.0 22.2 

2017 MY Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/1,000 ton-mile) ................................................... 36.7 22.1 21.8 

2014 MY CO2 Standard (grams CO2/ton-mile) ........................................................................... 388 234 226 

2017 MY CO2 Standard (grams CO2/ton-mile) ........................................................................... 373 225 222 

Percent Reduction from 2010 baseline in 2014 MY ................................................................... 5% 5% 4% 

Percent Reduction from 2010 baseline in 2017 MY ................................................................... 8% 9% 6% 

(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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57235 

288Sample 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. 

289See Vocational Vehicle CO2 savings and 

technology costs in Table 7–4 in RIA chapter 7. 

290The 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. 

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. 

(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. 

TABLE III–15—HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE

ENGINE TECHNOLOGY COSTS INCLUSIVE OF INDIRECT COST MARKUPS

[2009$] 

2016 MY 

Engine Friction Reduction ............ $95 

Coupled Cam Phasing ................. 46 

Stoichiometric Gas Direct Injection ............................................ 452 

Total ....................................... 594 

(iv) Reasonableness of the Final 

Standard 

The final engine standards are 

reasonable and consistent with the 

agencies’ respective authorities. With 

respect to the 2016 MY standard, all of 

the technologies on which the standards 

are predicated have been demonstrated 

and their effectiveness is well 

documented. The 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 0–15. Use of these technologies 

would add only a small amount to the 

cost of the vehicle,288 and the associated 

reductions are highly cost effective, an 

estimated $20 per ton of CO2eq per 

vehicle.289 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.290 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. 

Several commenters suggested that 

the lead time provided by the agencies 

for heavy-duty pickups and vans and by 

extension the 2016 gasoline engine 

standards were unnecessarily long. The 

agencies do not agree with this 

assessment. The technologies that we 

are considering here cannot simply be 

bolted on to an existing engine but can 

only be effectively applied through an 

integrated design and development 

process. The four years lead time 

provided here is short in the context of 

engine redesigns and is only possible in 

part because the standards align with 

engine manufacturers’ planned redesign 

processes that are either just starting or 

will be starting within the year. These 

standards set a clear metric of 

performance for those planned 

redesigns and we project will lead 

manufacturers to include a number of 

technologies that would not otherwise 

have been incorporated into those 

engines. 

(v) Alternative Gasoline Engine 

Standards Considered 

The agencies are not finalizing 

gasoline standards less stringent than 

the final standards because the agencies 

believe these standards are feasible in 

the lead time provided, inexpensive, 

and highly cost effective. 

The final rule reflects 100 percent 

penetration of the technology package 

on whose performance the standard is 

based, so some additional technology 

would need to be added to obtain 

further improvements. The agencies 

considered finalizing gasoline engine 

standards which are more stringent 

reflecting the inclusion of cylinder 

deactivation and other advanced 

technologies. However, the agencies are 

not finalizing this level of stringency 

because our assessment is that these 

technologies cannot be adapted to the 

higher average engine loads of heavyduty vehicles for production by the 

2017 model year. We intend to continue 

to evaluate the potential for further 

gasoline engine improvements building 

on the work done for light-duty 

passenger cars and trucks as we begin 

work on the next phase of heavy-duty 

regulations. 

(c) Diesel Engines 

(i) Baseline Diesel Engine Performance 

EPA and NHTSA developed the 

baseline heavy-duty diesel engines to 

represent a 2010 model year engine 

compliant with the 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX

standard for on-highway heavy-duty 

engines. 

The agencies utilized 2007 through 

2011 model year CO2 certification levels 

from the Heavy-duty FTP cycle as the 

basis for the baseline engine CO2

performance. The pre-2010 data are 

subsequently adjusted to represent 2010 

model year engine maps by using 

predefined technologies including SCR 

and other systems that are being used in 

current 2010 production. The engine 

CO2 results were then sales weighted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57236 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

291TIAX 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). 

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) 

Fuel consumption 

(gallon/100 bhp-hr) 

LHD Diesel ....................................................................................................................................... 630 6.19 

MHD Diesel ...................................................................................................................................... 630 6.19 

HHD Diesel ...................................................................................................................................... 584 5.74 

(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 

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 

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 2017 

LHD Diesel ....................... 5% 9% 

MHD Diesel ...................... 5 9 

HHD Diesel ....................... 3 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57237 

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 

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 2017 Model year 

Cylinder Head (flow optimized, increased firing pressure, improved 

thermal management).

$6 (MHD & HH), $11 (LHD) .......... $6 (MHD & HHD), $10 (LHD). 

Exhaust Manifold (flow optimized, improved thermal management) ...... $0 ................................................... $0. 

Turbocharger (improved efficiency) ........................................................ $18 ................................................. $17. 

EGR Cooler (improved efficiency) .......................................................... $4 ................................................... $3. 

Water Pump (optimized, variable vane, variable speed) ........................ $91 ................................................. $84. 

Oil Pump (optimized) ............................................................................... $5 ................................................... $4. 

Fuel Pump (higher working pressure, increased efficiency, improved 

pressure regulation).

$5 ................................................... $4. 

Fuel Rail (higher working pressure) ........................................................ $10 (MHD & HHD), $12 (LHD) ..... $9 (MHD & HHD), $11 (LHD). 

Fuel Injector (optimized, improved multiple event control, higher working pressure).$11 (MHD & HHD), $15 (LHD) ..... $10 (MHD & HHD), $13 (LHD). 

Piston (reduced friction skirt, ring and pin) ............................................. $3 ................................................... $3. 

Aftertreatment system (improved effectiveness SCR, dosing, dpf)a ....... $0 (MHD & HHD), $111 (LHD) ..... $0 (MHD & HHD), $101 (LHD). 

Valve Train (reduced friction, roller tappet) ............................................ $82 (MHD), $109 (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. 

The overall costs for each diesel 

engine regulatory subcategory are 

included in Table III–19. 

TABLE III–19—DIESEL ENGINE

TECHNOLOGY COSTS PER ENGINE

[2009$] 

2014 2017 

LHD Diesel ....................... $388 $358 

TABLE III–19—DIESEL ENGINE TECHNOLOGY COSTS PER ENGINE—Continued 

[2009$] 

2014 2017 

MHD Diesel ...................... 234 216 

HHD Diesel ....................... 234 216 

Reasonableness of the Final Standards 

The final engine standards appear to 

be reasonable and consistent with the 

agencies’ respective authorities. With 

respect to the 2014 and 2017 MY 

standards, all of the technologies on 

which the standards are based have 

already been demonstrated and their 

effectiveness is well documented. The 

final standards reflect a 100 percent 

application rate for these technologies. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57238 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

292Sample 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. 

293See RIA chapter 7, Table 7–4. 

294The 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. 

295Section 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). 

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. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57239 

296The 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. 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57241 

297Note, 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). 

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, 

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: 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57242 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

298This 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. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57243 

Additional flexibilities for engines, 

discussed later in Section IV.B, provide 

manufacturers the opportunity to 

generate early, advanced and innovative 

technology credits. 

(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 

¥ 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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) 

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. 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57245 

299There 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. 

300Although 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. 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57247 

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: 

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) 

55 mph 

(percent) 

65 mph 

(percent) 

Vocational Vehicles ......................................................................................................... 75% 9% 16% 

Day Cab Tractors ............................................................................................................ 19% 17% 64% 

Sleeper Cab Tractors ...................................................................................................... 5% 9% 86% 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57249 

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 

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 

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 55- 

mile-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 

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 

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 nonhybrid 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57251 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57252 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

301See 75 FR 25440. 

302Fuel 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57253 

303See 75 FR 25440. 

304The 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57254 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57255 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57256 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

305Memorandum from Don Kopinski, U.S. EPA to 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162, July 7, 2011. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57257 

306 Diesel engines are engine-certified with the 

option to chassis certification Federally and for 

California. 

307CAA Section 206(a)(1). 

308The 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. 

309EPA 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). 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57258 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

310EPA 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. 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57259 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57261 

(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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57262 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

311Corresponding to the compliance model year 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57263 

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 

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, 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57265 

312See discussion in RIA 3.1.2.3. 

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 

(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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57267 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57269 

313U.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. 

314See the Light-Duty 2012–2016 Vehicle Rule, 

Note 5, above. 

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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

315See EPA Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162 

for memos describing meetings held as a part of this 

outreach. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57271 

316California 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. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

317Corresponding to the compliance model year. 

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. 

(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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57273 

any credit deficits that might occur for 

a model year within a period of up to 

three model years after that deficit has 

occurred. 

(c) Additional Required Information 

Throughout the model year, 

manufacturers may be required to 

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 

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

Submission Applies to Required submissions date EPA regulation 

reference 

NHTSA 

regulation 

reference 

Small business exemptions Engine manufacturers meeting the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

size criteria of a small business as 

described in 13 CFR 121.201.

Before introducing any excluded vehicle into U.S. for commerce.§ 1036.150 § 535.8 

Incentives for early introduction.The provisions apply with respect to 

tractors and vocational vehicles produced in model years before 2014.

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1036.150 § 535.8 

Voluntary compliance for 

NHTSA standards.

Engine manufacturers seeking early 

compliance in model years 2014 to 

2016.

NHSAT must be notified before the 

manufacturer submits it applications 

for certificates of conformity.

NA § 535.8 

Model year 2014 N2O 

standards..

Manufacturers that choose to show 

compliance with the MY 2014 N2O 

standards requesting to use an engineering analysis.

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1036.150 NA 

Exemption from EOY reports.Manufacturers with surplus credits at 

the end of the model year.

90-days after the calendar year ends .. § 1036.730 § 535.8 

Alternative engine standards.Engine manufacturers not able to comply with 1036.104 and wanting to 

use the alternative engine standard.

EPA and NHTSA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for certificates of conformity.§ 1036.150 § 535.8 

Alternate phase-in ............. Engine manufacturers want to comply 

with alternate phase in standards.

EPA and NHTSA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for certificates of conformity.§ 1036.150 § 535.8 

D. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors 

(1) Compliance Approach 

In addition to requiring engine 

manufacturers to certify their engines, 

manufacturers of Class 7 and 8 

combination tractors must also certify 

that their vehicles meet the 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, 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57275 

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 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57276 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

‘‘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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57277 

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 

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). 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57279 

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 

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 ...................................................... 53 feet (636 inches) +/¥ 1 inch. 

Width ........................................................ 102 inches +/¥ 0.5 inches. 

Height ...................................................... 102 inches (162 inches or 13 feet, 6 inches (+ 0.0 inch/ ¥1 inch) from the ground). 

Capacity ................................................... 3800 cubic feet. 

Assumed trailer load/capacity ................. 45,000 lbs. 

Suspension .............................................. Any (see ‘‘trailer ride height’’ below). 

Corners .................................................... Rounded with a radius of 5.5 inches +/¥ 0.5 inches. 

Bogie/Rear Axle Position ......................... Tandem axle (std), 146 inches +/¥ 3.0 inches from rear axle centerline to rear of trailer. Set to California position. 

Skin .......................................................... Generally smooth with flush rivets. 

Scuff band ............................................... Generally smooth, flush with sides (protruding ≤ 1⁄8 inch). 

Wheels ..................................................... 22.5 inches. Duals. Std mudflaps. 

Doors ....................................................... Swing doors. 

Undercarriage/Landing Gear ................... Std landing gear, no storage boxes, no tire storage, 105 inches +/¥ 4.0 inches from centerline of 

king pin to centerline of landing gear. 

Underride Guard ...................................... 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. 

TABLE V–3—REFERENCE METHOD COASTDOWN TEST TRACK CONDITION SPECIFICATIONS

Parameter Range 

Coastdown speed range .......................................................................... 70 mph to 15 mph. 

Average wind speed at the test site (for each run in each direction) ...... <10 mph. 

Maximum wind speed (for each run in each direction) ............................ <12.3 mph. 

Average cross wind speed (for each run in each direction at the site) ... <5 mph. 

All valid coastdown runs in one direction ................................................. Within 2 standard deviations of the other valid coastdown runs in that 

same direction. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 ...................................................... 42 feet ± 1 foot, overall. 

40 feet ± 1 foot, tank. 

Width ........................................................ 96 inches ± 2. 

Height ...................................................... 140 inches (overall, from ground). 

Capacity ................................................... 7,000 gallons. 

Suspension .............................................. Any (see ‘‘trailer ride height’’ below). 

Tank ......................................................... Generally cylindrical with rounded ends. 

Bogie ........................................................ Tandem axle (std). Set to furthest rear position. 

Skin .......................................................... Generally smooth. 

Structures ................................................ (1) Centered, manhole (20 inch opening), (1) ladder generally centered on side, (1) walkway (extends 

lengthwise). 

Wheels ..................................................... 24.5 inches. Duals. 

Tanker Operation ..................................... Empty. 

TABLE V–5—STANDARD FLATBED REFERENCE TRAILER FOR SPECIAL TESTING

Flatbed 

Length ...................................................... 53 feet. 

Width ........................................................ 102 inches. 

Flatbed Deck Heights .............................. Front: 60 inches ± 1⁄2 inch. 

Rear: 55 inches ± 1⁄2 inch. 

Wheels/Tires ............................................ 22.5 inch diameter tire with steel or aluminum wheels. 

Bogie ........................................................ Tandem axles, may be in ‘‘spread’’ configuration up to 10 feet ± 2 inches. 

Air suspension. 

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 

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 

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; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57281 

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, 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57282 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57283 

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 

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 

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; 

• 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

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. 

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. 

(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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.005</GPH>
57284 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

318Corresponding to the compliance model year. 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57285 

• 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 

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

Submission Applies to Required submissions date EPA regulation 

reference 

NHTSA 

regulation 

reference 

Small business exemptions Vehicle manufacturers meeting the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

size criteria of a small business as 

described in 13 CFR 121.201.

Before introducing any excluded vehicle into U.S. commerce.§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Incentives for early introduction.The provisions apply with respect to 

tractors and vocational vehicles produced in model years before 2014.

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Voluntary compliance for 

NHTSA standards.

Vehicle manufacturers seeking early 

compliance in model years 2014 to 

2016.

NHSAT must be notified before the 

manufacturer submits its applications 

for certificates of conformity.

NA § 535.8 

Approval of alternate methods to determine drag 

coefficients.

Tractors meeting § 1037.106 ................ EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Off-road exemption ........... Manufacturers wanting to exclude tractors from vehicle standards.EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Vocational Tractor ............. Manufacturers wanting to reclassify 

tractor as vocational tractors making 

them applicable to vocational vehicle 

standards.

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Exemption from EOY reports.Manufactures with surplus credits at 

the end of the model year.

90-days after the calendar year ends .. § 1037.730 § 535.8 

E. Class 2b–8 Vocational Vehicles 

(1) Final Compliance Approach 

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 

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, 

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 

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 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57287 

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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57289 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

319A 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). 

TABLE V–7—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR COMPLIANCE

Submission Applies to Required submissions date EPA regulation 

reference 

NHTSA 

regulation 

reference 

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.

Before introducing any excluded vehicle into U.S. commerce.§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Incentives for early introduction.The provisions apply with respect to 

tractors and vocational vehicles produced in model years before 2014.

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Air condition leakage exemption for vocational 

vehicles.

Vocational Vehicles excluded from 

§ 1037.115.

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Model year 2014 N2O 

standards.

Manufacturers that choose to show 

compliance with the MY 2014 N2O 

standards requesting to use an engineering analysis.

EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Exemption for electric vehicles.All electric vehicles are deemed to 

have zero exhaust emissions of 

CO2, CH4, and N2O.

End of December prior to model year .. § 1037.150 § 535.8 

Off-road exemption ........... Manufacturers wanting to exclude vocational vehicles from vehicle standards.EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for 

certificates of conformity.

§ 1037.150 § 535.8 

Exemption from EOY reports.Manufactures with surplus credits at 

the end of the model year.

90-days after the calendar year ends .. § 1037.730 § 535.8 

G. Penalties 

(1) Overview 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57291 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

320MOVES 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 

directly from the MOVES homepage. To replicate 

results from this action, MOVES2010 must be used. 321Section II of this preamble discusses an 

alternative engine standard for the HD diesel 

engines in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 model years. 

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. 

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. 

TABLE VI–1—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN ENGINE CO2 EMISSION RATES 321

GVWR class Fuel Model years CO2 reduction 

from 2010 MY 

HHD (Class 8a–8b) ...................................................... Diesel ............................................................................ 2014–2016 3% 

2017+ 6% 

MHD (Class 6–7) and LHD (Class 4–5) ...................... Diesel ............................................................................ 2014–2016 5% 

2017+ 9% 

Gasoline ........................................................................ 2016+ 5% 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57293 

322Renewable 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. 

323MOVES2004 Energy and Emission Inputs. 

EPA420–P–05–003, March 2005. http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm/420p05003.pdf. 

TABLE VI–2—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT, AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT, AND

GROSS COMBINED WEIGHT

Truck type 

Reduction in tire 

CRR from 

baseline 

(percent) 

Reduction in Cd 

from baseline 

(percent) 

Weight reduction 

(lbs.) 

Combination long-haul ..................................................................................................... 9.6 12.1 400 

Combination short-haul .................................................................................................... 7.0 5.9 321 

Straight trucks, refuse trucks, motor homes, transit buses, and other vocational vehicles ............................................................................................................................... 5.0 0 0 

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 

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 

CO2 reduction 

from baseline 

(percent) 

HD Pickup Trucks and Vans .................................... Gasoline ................................................................... 2014 1.5 

2015 2 

2016 4 

2017 6 

2018+ 10 

Diesel ........................................................................ 2014 2.3 

2015 3 

2016 6 

2017 9 

2018+ 15 

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. 

(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

324U.S. EPA (2010) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. EPA–430–R– 

10–006, Washington, DC. 

325See Endangerment TSD, Note 10 above. 

TABLE VI–4—MODEL YEAR 2014 THROUGH 2018 LIFETIME GHG REDUCTIONS AND FUEL SAVINGS BY HEAVY-DUTY

TRUCK CATEGORY

Downstream GHG 

reductions 

(MMT CO2eq) 

Fuel Savings 

(billion gallons) 

HD pickups/vans .............................................................................................................................. 18 1.9 

Vocational ........................................................................................................................................ 24 2.4 

Combination short-haul (Day cabs) ................................................................................................. 50 4.9 

Combination long-haul (Sleeper cabs) ............................................................................................ 135 12.9 

TABLE VI–5—ANNUAL DOWNSTREAM GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND FUEL SAVINGS IN 2018, 2030, AND 2050 

Downstream GHG 

reductions 

(MMT CO2eq) 

Diesel Savings 

(million gallons) 

Gasoline Savings 

(million gallons) 

2018 ......................................................................................................... 22 2,123 59 

2030 ......................................................................................................... 61 5,670 349 

2050 ......................................................................................................... 89 8,158 522 

(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, 

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 

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) 

CH4

(MMT CO2eq) 

N2O 

(MMT CO2eq) 

Total GHG 

(MMT CO2eq) 

2018 ................................................................................................. 5.1 0.9 0.02 6.0 

2030 ................................................................................................. 12.2 1.9 0.06 14.2 

2050 ................................................................................................. 16.4 2.5 0.08 19.0 

(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. 

(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. 

TABLE VI–7—ANNUAL TOTAL GHG 

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN 2018, 

2030, AND 2050 

GHG reductions 

(MMT CO2eq) 

2018 .................................. 29 

2030 .................................. 76 

2050 .................................. 108 

D. Overview of Climate Change Impacts 

From GHG Emissions 

Once emitted, GHGs that are the 

subject of this regulation can remain in 

the atmosphere for decades to 

millennia, meaning that 1) their 

concentrations become well-mixed 

throughout the global atmosphere 

regardless of emission origin, and 2) 

their effects on climate are long lasting. 

GHG emissions come mainly from the 

combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and 

gas), with additional contributions from 

the clearing of forests and agricultural 

activities. Transportation activities, in 

aggregate, are the second largest 

contributor to total U.S. GHG emissions 

(27 percent of total emissions) despite a 

decline in emissions from this sector 

during 2008.324

This section provides a summary of 

observed and projected changes in GHG 

emissions and associated climate 

change impacts. The source document 

for the section below is the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) 325 for EPA’s 

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings Under the Clean Air Act (74 

FR 66496, December 15, 2009). Below is 

the Executive Summary of the TSD 

which provides technical support for 

the endangerment and cause or 

contribute analyses concerning GHG 

emissions under section 202(a) of the 

CAA. The TSD reviews observed and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57295 

326For 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. 

327National Research Council (NRC) (2010). 

Advancing the Science of Climate Change. National 

Academy Press. Washington, DC. 

328One teragram (Tg) = 1 million metric tons. 1 

metric ton = 1,000 kilograms = 1.102 short tons = 

2,205 pounds. 

329Long-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. 

330Source 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. 

331More 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. 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

332Hegerl, 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. 

333CCSP (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. 

334Meehl, 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. 

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 IPCC332 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 

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. 

(3) Projections of Future Climate Change 

With Continued Increases in Elevated 

GHG Concentrations 

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 IPCC335

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57297 

336Ebi, 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. 

337Field, 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. 

338Backlund, 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. 

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. 

(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 IPCC337 states with very 

high confidence that climate change 

impacts on human health in U.S. cities 

will be compounded by population 

growth and an aging population. 

Severe heat waves are projected to 

intensify in magnitude and duration 

over the portions of the United States 

where these events already occur, with 

potential increases in mortality and 

morbidity, especially among the elderly, 

young, and frail. 

Some reduction in the risk of death 

related to extreme cold is expected. It is 

not clear whether reduced mortality 

from cold will be greater or less than 

increased heat-related mortality in the 

United States due to climate change. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

339Northeast includes West Virginia, Maryland, 

Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, 

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, 

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. 

340Southeast includes Kentucky, Virginia, 

Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, southeast Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. 

341Southwest includes California, Nevada, Utah, 

western Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico (except the 

extreme eastern section), and southwest Texas. 

342The Midwest includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and 

Missouri. 

343The Northwest includes Washington, Idaho, 

western Montana, and Oregon. 

344The Great Plains includes central and eastern 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, 

Nebraska, eastern Colorado, Kansas, extreme 

eastern New Mexico, central Texas, and Oklahoma. 

345Parry, 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. 

346Using 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. 

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. 

(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

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 

United States. The IPCC345 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57299 

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. 

348Wigley, 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/. 

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 

Continued 

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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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/. 

350Meehl, 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. 

351National Research Council, 2011. Climate 

Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, 

and Impacts over Decades to Millenia. Washington, 

DC: National Academies Press. 

352Lewis, 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. 

353See NRC 2011, Note 351. 

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, 

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 

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. 

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 Year Projected change 

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration ..................................................................................... ppmv 2100 ¥0.691 to ¥0.787. 

Global Mean Surface Temperature ................................................................................. °C 2100 ¥0.0017 to ¥0.0042. 

Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................ cm 2100 ¥0.017 to ¥0.040. 

Ocean pH ......................................................................................................................... pH units 2100 0.0003 a. 

Note: 

aThe 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. 

(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 

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. 

VII. How will this final action impact 

non-GHG emissions and their 

associated effects? 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57301 

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 NOX VOC CO PM2.5

2018 ................................................................................................. ¥6,475 ¥1,765 ¥2,217 ¥971 

2030 ................................................................................................. ¥9,975 ¥4,367 ¥3,331 ¥1,379 

2050 ................................................................................................. ¥14,243 ¥6,379 ¥4,785 ¥1,998 

TABLE VII–2—OVERALL ESTIMATED UPSTREAM IMPACTS ON AIR TOXICS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2018, 2030, AND 2050 

[Short tons] 

Calendar year Benzene 1,3-butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein 

2018 ................................................................. ¥12 ¥0.6 ¥12 ¥1 ¥0.2 

2030 ................................................................. ¥19 ¥0.9 ¥26 ¥3 ¥0.5 

2050 ................................................................. ¥28 ¥1.2 ¥35 ¥5 ¥0.6 

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 

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 

(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] 

Calendar year Downstream 

NOX

Downstream 

VOC Downstream SO2 Downstream CO Downstream 

PM2.5 a

2018 ................................................................. ¥107,135 ¥12,951 ¥145 ¥25,614 803 

2030 ................................................................. ¥235,046 ¥25,502 ¥423 ¥52,212 1,751 

2050 ................................................................. ¥326,413 ¥35,126 ¥614 ¥72,049 2,441 

Note: 

aPositive number means emissions would increase from baseline to control case. PM2.5 from tire wear and brake wear is included. 

TABLE VII–4—OVERALL ESTIMATED DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ON AIR TOXICS

[Short tons] 

Calendar year Benzene 1,3-butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein 

2018 ................................................................. ¥158 ¥0.3 ¥2,853 ¥871 ¥120 

2030 ................................................................. ¥341 0.4 ¥6,255 ¥1,908 ¥263 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57302 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

354Although 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. 

355U.S. EPA (2009) Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F, Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

TABLE VII–4—OVERALL ESTIMATED DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS ON AIR TOXICS—Continued 

[Short tons] 

Calendar year Benzene 1,3-butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein 

2050 ................................................................. ¥472 0.8 ¥8,689 ¥2,650 ¥365 

(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 

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 

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.] 

CY 

NOX VOC SO2 CO PM2.5

short tons % short tons % short tons % short tons % short tons % 

2018 ................. ¥113,610 ¥6.2 ¥14,715 ¥5.6 ¥4,566 ¥4.5 ¥27,832 ¥1.0 ¥167 ¥0.2 

2030 ................. ¥245,129 ¥21.0 ¥29,932 ¥16.0 ¥6,888 ¥10.1 ¥55,579 ¥2.1 356 10.1 

2050 ................. ¥340,656 ¥23.7 ¥41,506 ¥18.3 ¥9,857 ¥11.0 ¥76,834 ¥2.2 443 10.1 

TABLE VII–6—OVERALL ESTIMATED TOTAL IMPACTS ON AIR TOXICS (UPSTREAM PLUS DOWNSTREAM) 

CY 

Benzene 1,3-butadiene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein 

short tons % short tons % short tons % short tons % short tons % 

2018 ......................... ¥170 ¥4.8 ¥0.9 ¥0.1 ¥2,865 ¥18.3 ¥873 ¥13.9 ¥120.0 ¥12.4 

2030 ......................... ¥359 ¥15.0 ¥0.5 ¥0.1 ¥6,282 ¥46.2 ¥1,912 ¥40.2 ¥263.0 ¥40.0 

2050 ......................... ¥500 ¥17.4 ¥0.4 ¥0.1 ¥8,725 ¥49.5 ¥2,655 ¥44.2 ¥365.4 ¥44.5 

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 

Particulate matter is a generic term for 

a broad class of chemically and 

physically diverse substances. It can be 

principally characterized as discrete 

particles that exist in the condensed 

(liquid or solid) phase spanning several 

orders of magnitude in size. Since 1987, 

EPA has delineated that subset of 

inhalable particles small enough to 

penetrate to the thoracic region 

(including the tracheobronchial and 

alveolar regions) of the respiratory tract 

(referred to as thoracic particles). 

Current National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) use PM2.5 as the 

indicator for fine particles (with PM2.5

referring to particles with a nominal 

mean aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to 2.5 μm), and use PM10 as the 

indicator for purposes of regulating the 

coarse fraction of PM10 (referred to as 

thoracic coarse particles or coarsefraction particles; generally including 

particles with a nominal mean 

aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 

μm and less than or equal to 10 μm, or 

PM10–2.5). Ultrafine particles are a subset 

of fine particles, generally less than 100 

nanometers (0.1 μm) in aerodynamic 

diameter. 

Fine particles are produced primarily 

by combustion processes and by 

transformations of gaseous emissions 

(e.g., SOX, NOX, and VOC) in the 

atmosphere. The chemical and physical 

properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly 

with time, region, meteorology, and 

source category. Thus, PM2.5 may 

include a complex mixture of different 

pollutants including sulfates, nitrates, 

organic compounds, elemental carbon 

and metal compounds. These particles 

can remain in the atmosphere for days 

to weeks and travel hundreds to 

thousands of kilometers. 

(b) Health Effects of PM 

Scientific studies show ambient PM is 

associated with a series of adverse 

health effects. These health effects are 

discussed in detail in EPA’s Integrated 

Science Assessment for Particulate 

Matter (ISA).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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57303 

356See U.S. EPA, 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, 

at Section 2.3.1.1. 

357See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, 

at page 2–12, Sections 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1. 

358See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, 

at Section 2.3.2. 

359See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, 

at Section 2.3.4, Table 2–6. 

360See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355, 

at Section 2.3.5, Table 2–6. 361U.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. 

362U.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. 

363National 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

364U.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. 

365U.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. 

366U.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 

367The 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. 

368Personal 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. 

ozone. The health effects of ozone are 

covered in Section 0. 

(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. 

(c) Health Effects of SO2

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57305 

369U.S. EPA. 2002 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

nata12002/risksum.html Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0162. 

370U.S. EPA 2009. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 2002. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

nata2002/ Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

371U.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. 

372See U.S. EPA (2002) Diesel HAD, Note 371, at 

pp. 1–1, 1–2. 

373Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998). 

Diesel exposure and lung cancer. Epidemiology, 

9(1), 84–91. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

374Lipsett, 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. 

oxidative injury. The ISA concludes that 

the evidence is suggestive of a causal 

relationship between short-term CO 

exposure and respiratory morbidity, and 

inadequate to conclude that a causal 

relationship exists between long-term 

exposure and respiratory morbidity. 

Finally, the ISA concludes that the 

epidemiologic evidence is suggestive of 

a causal relationship between short-term 

exposures to CO and mortality. 

Epidemiologic studies provide evidence 

of an association between short-term 

exposure to CO and mortality, but 

limited evidence is available to evaluate 

cause-specific mortality outcomes 

associated with CO exposure. In 

addition, the attenuation of CO risk 

estimates which was often observed in 

copollutant models contributes to the 

uncertainty as to whether CO is acting 

alone or as an indicator for other 

combustion-related pollutants. The ISA 

also concludes that there is not likely to 

be a causal relationship between 

relevant long-term exposures to CO and 

mortality. 

(5) Air Toxics 

Heavy-duty vehicle emissions 

contribute to ambient levels of air toxics 

known or suspected as human or animal 

carcinogens, or that have noncancer 

health effects. The population 

experiences an elevated risk of cancer 

and other noncancer health effects from 

exposure to the class of pollutants 

known collectively as ‘‘air toxics.’’ 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 1,3- 

butadiene. The diesel particulate matter 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57306 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

376Heinrich, 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. 

377Mauderly, 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. 

378Nikula, 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. 

379See U.S. EPA (2002), Diesel HAD at Note 371, 

at p. 9–9. 

380Zhu, 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. 

381Lena, 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. 

382Soliman, 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 

exposure in U.S. trucking terminals. Environ Sci 

Techol 40: 4226–4232. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0162. 

384Miller, 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. 

385Ramachandran, 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. 

386U.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. 

389See IARC, Note 387, above. 

390U.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. 

391Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and 

carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health 

Perspect. 82: 193–197. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0162. 

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

(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. 

(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

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57307 

392 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. 

Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 

541–554. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

393Rothman, 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. 

394U.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. 

395Qu, 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. 

396Qu, 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. 

397Lan, 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. 

398Turtletaub, 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. 

399U.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. 

400U.S. EPA (2002) Full IRIS Summary for 1,3- 

butadiene (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 

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. 

402U.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 

403Bevan, 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. 

404U.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. 

405Hauptmann, 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. 

406Hauptmann, 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. 

407Beane 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. 

408Pinkerton, 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. 

409Coggon, 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 

411Agency 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. 

412WHO (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. 

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. 

(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 

are numerous studies consistently 

demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is 

metabolized into genotoxic metabolites 

by experimental animals and humans. 

The specific mechanisms of 1,3- 

butadiene-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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57308 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

413U.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. 

414U.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. 

416See Integrated Risk Information System File of 

Acetaldehyde, Note 413, above. 

417Appleman, 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. 

418Appleman, 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. 

419Myou, 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. 

420U.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. 

421See U.S. EPA 2003 Toxicological review of 

acrolein, Note 420, above. 422See 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. 

424See U.S. 2003 Toxicological review of 

acrolein, Note 420, at p. 15. 425Morris 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. 

426U.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. 

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. 

428Agency 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. 

429U.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. 

430U.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. 

431Perera, 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. 

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. 

(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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57309 

432Perera, 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. 

433U. 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. 

434Oak 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. 

435National 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. 

437U. 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. 

438U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) database is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

iris. 

439Zhou, 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. 

] Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0162. 

441Salam, 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. 

442Holguin, F. (2008) Traffic, outdoor air 

pollution, and asthma. Immunol Allergy Clinics 

North Am 28: 577–588. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0162. 

443Adar, 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. 

(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

(i) Other Air Toxics 

In addition to the compounds 

described above, other compounds in 

gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions 

from heavy-duty vehicles will be 

affected by this 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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57310 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

444Raaschou-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. 

445U.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. 

446Lena, 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. 

447Wier, 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. 

448Forkenbrock, D.J. and L.A. Schweitzer, 

Environmental Justice and Transportation 

Investment Policy. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 

1997. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

449Appatova, 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. 

451Houston, 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. 

452Wu, 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. 

453National 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/. 454See U.S. EPA 2009 Final PM ISA, Note 355. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57311 

455U.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. 

456U.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. 

459Lu, 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. 

460Marvin, 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. 

461U.S. EPA. 1991. Effects of organic chemicals 

in the atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3– 

91/001. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

462Cape 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. 

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. 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57312 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

463Cape 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. 

465Ugrekhelidze 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. 

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 

Standard Number of 

counties Population a

1997 Ozone Standard: counties within the 54 areas currently designated as nonattainment (as of 1/6/10) ........ 266 122,343,799 

2008 Ozone Standard: additional counties that would not meet the 2008 NAAQS (based on 2006–2008 air 

quality data) b ....................................................................................................................................................... 156 36,678,478 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 422 159,022,277 

Notes: 

aPopulation numbers are from 2000 census data. 

bArea 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. 

(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 8- 

hour 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57313 

467U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). 

Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile 

Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007. 

468U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). 

Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile 

Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007. 

469U.S. EPA. (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

nata2005/. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162. 

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 

(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 

attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the 2014 to 2019 time frame and then 

be required to maintain the 2006 24- 

hour 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

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

470U.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. 

471U.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. 

472The 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. 

473This 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 

(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

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57315 

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. 

475See 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. 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57317 

476See NAS 2010, Note 197, at p. 188. 

477Akerlof, 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. 

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.’’ 

(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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

478See NAS 2010, Note 197, at p. 182. 

479Metcalf, 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. 

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. 

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, 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57319 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57320 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

482RTI International. Heavy-duty Truck Retail 

Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost Multipliers. July 

2010. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57321 

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. 

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 

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 Vocational Combination 

2014 ................................................................................................................................. $165 $329 $6,019 

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 215 320 5,871 

2016 ................................................................................................................................. 422 397 5,677 

2017 ................................................................................................................................. 631 387 6,413 

2018 ................................................................................................................................. 1,048 378 6,215 

2020 ................................................................................................................................. 985 366 6,004 

2030 ................................................................................................................................. 977 311 5,075 

2040 ................................................................................................................................. 977 305 5,075 

2050 ................................................................................................................................. 977 304 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. 

(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57322 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

484Helfand, 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. 

485NHTSA 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. 486The 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. 

TABLE VIII–2—ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGRAM

[$Millions, 2009$] 

Year HD Pickup 

and vans 

Vocational vehicles Combination 

tractors 

Other engineering costs Compliance 

program costs Annual costs 

2012 a ....................................................... $0 $0 $0 $170 $0 $170 

2013 ......................................................... 0 0 0 172 0 172 

2014 ......................................................... 130 185 1,078 170 6.5 1,569 

2015 ......................................................... 157 170 922 170 2.3 1,422 

2016 ......................................................... 300 202 820 170 2.3 1,495 

2017 ......................................................... 447 198 951 0 2.3 1,598 

2018 ......................................................... 751 201 1,000 0 2.3 1,955 

2020 ......................................................... 754 202 1,001 0 2.3 1,959 

2030 ......................................................... 918 216 1,076 0 2.3 2,212 

2040 ......................................................... 1,024 281 1,372 0 2.3 2,679 

2050 ......................................................... 1,156 354 1,777 0 2.3 3,290 

NPV, 3% .................................................. 17,070 4,950 24,487 793 52 47,352 

NPV, 7% .................................................. 8,467 2,588 12,855 724 30 24,665 

Note: 

aAs 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 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57323 

487Rogozhin, 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. 

488Helfand, 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. 

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 

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 Program cost Fuel savings 

(pre-tax) 

CO2eq 

Reduced 

Cost per ton 

(without fuel 

Savings) 

Cost per ton 

(with fuel 

savings) 

2020 ..................................................................................... $800 $900 3 $240 ¥$30 

2030 ..................................................................................... 900 3,000 10 90 ¥200 

2040 ..................................................................................... 1,000 4,300 14 70 ¥240 

2050 ..................................................................................... 1,200 5,500 16 80 ¥270 

TABLE VIII–4—ANNUAL COST PER METRIC TON OF CO2EQ REDUCED—VOCATIONAL VEHICLES a 

[2009 dollars] 

Year Program cost Fuel savings 

(pre-tax) 

CO2eq 

reduced 

Cost per ton 

(without fuel 

savings) 

Cost per ton 

(with fuel 

savings) 

2020 ..................................................................................... $200 $1,100 4 $50 ¥$210 

2030 ..................................................................................... 200 2,400 9 20 ¥250 

2040 ..................................................................................... 300 3,500 12 30 ¥270 

2050 ..................................................................................... 400 4,700 14 30 ¥310 

Note: 

aThe program costs, fuel savings, and CO2eq reductions of the engines installed in vocational vehicles are embedded in the vehicle standards 

and analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 Program cost Fuel savings 

(pre-tax) 

CO2eq 

reduced 

Cost per ton 

(without fuel 

savings) 

Cost per ton 

(with fuel 

savings) 

2020 ..................................................................................... $1,000 $7,700 32 $30 ¥$210 

2030 ..................................................................................... 1,100 15,300 57 20 ¥250 

2040 ..................................................................................... 1,400 20,200 68 20 ¥280 

2050 ..................................................................................... 1,800 26,400 78 20 ¥320 

Note: 

aThe program costs, fuel savings, and CO2eq reductions of the engines installed in tractors are embedded in the tractor standards and 

analysis. 

TABLE VIII–6—ANNUAL COST PER METRIC TON OF CO2EQ REDUCED—FINAL

[2009 dollars] 

Year Program cost Fuel savings 

(pre-tax) 

CO2eq 

reduced 

Cost per ton 

(without fuel 

savings) 

Cost per ton 

(with fuel 

savings) 

2020 ..................................................................................... $2,000 $9,600 39 $50 ¥$190 

2030 ..................................................................................... 2,200 20,600 76 30 ¥240 

2040 ..................................................................................... 2,700 28,000 94 30 ¥270 

2050 ..................................................................................... 3,300 36,500 108 30 ¥310 

E. Impacts of Reduction in Fuel 

Consumption 

(1) What are the projected changes in 

fuel consumption? 

The new CO2 standards will result in 

significant improvements in the fuel 

efficiency of affected trucks. Drivers of 

those trucks will see corresponding 

savings associated with reduced fuel 

expenditures. The agencies have 

estimated the impacts on fuel 

consumption for the tailpipe CO2

standards. To do this, fuel consumption 

is calculated using both current CO2

emission levels and the new CO2

standards. The difference between these 

estimates represents the net savings 

from the CO2 standards. Note that the 

total number of miles that vehicles are 

driven each year is different under the 

control case scenario than in the 

reference case due to the ‘‘rebound 

effect,’’ which is discussed in Section 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. 

TABLE VIII–7—FUEL CONSUMPTION

REDUCTIONS OF THE PROGRAM

[Million gallons] 

Year Gasoline Diesel 

2014 .......................... 1 473 

2015 .......................... 3 846 

2016 .......................... 14 1,171 

2017 .......................... 31 1,643 

2018 .......................... 58 2,123 

2020 .......................... 114 2,986 

2030 .......................... 348 5,670 

2040 .......................... 453 7,046 

2050 .......................... 522 8,158 

(2) Potential Impacts on Global Fuel Use 

and Emissions 

EPA’s quantified reductions in fuel 

consumption focus on the gains from 

reducing fuel used by heavy-duty 

vehicles within the United States. 

However, as discussed in Section VIII.I, 

EPA also recognizes that this regulation 

will lower the world price of oil (the 

‘‘monopsony’’ effect). Lowering oil 

prices could lead to an uptick in oil 

consumption globally, leading to a 

corresponding increase in GHG 

emissions in other countries. This global 

increase in emissions could slightly 

offset some of the emission reductions 

achieved domestically as a result of the 

regulation. 

(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 

corresponding estimated average fuel 

price in that year, using the reference 

case taken from the AEO 2011. These 

estimates do not account for the 

significant uncertainty in future fuel 

prices; the monetized fuel savings will 

be understated if actual fuel prices are 

higher (or overstated if fuel prices are 

lower) than estimated. AEO is a 

standard reference used by NHTSA and 

EPA and many other government 

agencies to estimate the projected price 

of fuel. This has been done using both 

the pre-tax and post-tax fuel prices. 

Since the post-tax fuel prices are the 

prices paid at fuel pumps, the fuel 

savings calculated using these prices 

represent the savings consumers would 

see. The pre-tax fuel savings are those 

savings that society would see. 

Assuming no change in fuel tax rates, 

the difference between these two 

columns represents the reduction in fuel 

tax revenues that will be received by 

state and federal governments—about 

$200 million in 2014 and $3 billion by 

2050. These results are shown in Table 

VIII–8. Note that in Section VIII.L, the 

overall benefits and costs of the rules 

are presented and, for that reason, only 

the pre-tax fuel savings are presented 

there. 

TABLE VIII–8—ESTIMATED MONETIZED

FUEL SAVINGS

[Millions, 2009$] 

Year 

Fuel 

savings 

(pre-tax) 

Fuel 

savings 

(post-tax) 

2014 .................. $1,200 $1,400 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57325 

TABLE VIII–8—ESTIMATED MONETIZED

FUEL SAVINGS—Continued 

[Millions, 2009$] 

Year 

Fuel 

savings 

(pre-tax) 

Fuel 

savings 

(post-tax) 

2015 .................. 2,200 2,600 

2016 .................. 3,300 3,800 

2017 .................. 4,800 5,500 

2018 .................. 6,400 7,400 

2020 .................. 9,600 10,900 

2030 .................. 20,600 23,000 

2040 .................. 28,000 30,600 

2050 .................. 36,500 39,500 

NPV, 3% ........... 375,300 415,300 

NPV, 7% ........... 166,500 185,400 

As shown in Table VIII–8, the 

agencies are projecting that truck 

consumers would realize very large fuel 

savings as a result of the final standards. 

As discussed further in the introductory 

paragraphs of Section VIII, it is a 

conundrum from an economic 

perspective that these large fuel savings 

have not been provided by 

manufacturers and purchased by 

consumers of these products. Unlike in 

the light-duty vehicle market, the vast 

majority of vehicles in the medium- and 

heavy-duty truck market are purchased 

and operated by businesses; for them, 

fuel costs may represent substantial 

operating expenses. Even in the 

presence of uncertainty and imperfect 

information—conditions that hold to 

some degree in every market—we 

generally expect firms to be costminimizing to survive in a competitive 

marketplace and to make decisions that 

are therefore in the best interest of the 

company and its owners and/or 

shareholders. 

A number of behavioral and market 

phenomena may lead to a disconnect 

between how businesses account for 

fuel savings in their decisions and the 

way in which we account for the full 

stream of fuel savings for these rules, 

including imperfect information in the 

original and resale markets, split 

incentives, uncertainty in future fuel 

prices, and adjustment or transactions 

costs (see Section VIII.A for a more 

detailed discussion). As discussed 

below in the context of rebound in 

Section VIII.E.5, the nature of the 

explanation for this gap may influence 

the actual magnitude of the fuel savings. 

(4) Payback Period and Lifetime Savings 

on New Truck Purchases 

Another factor of interest is the 

payback period on the purchase of a 

new truck that complies with the new 

standards. In other words, how long 

would it take for the expected fuel 

savings to outweigh the increased cost 

of a new vehicle? For example, a new 

2018 MY HD pickup truck and van is 

estimated to cost $1,048 more, a 

vocational vehicle $378 more, and a 

combination tractor $6,215 more (all 

values are on average, and relative to the 

reference case vehicle) due to the 

addition of new GHG reducing 

technology. This new technology will 

result in lower fuel consumption and, 

therefore, savings in fuel expenditures. 

But how many months or years would 

pass before the fuel savings exceed the 

upfront costs? Table VIII–9 shows the 

payback period analysis for HD pickup 

trucks and vans. The table shows fuel 

consumed under the reference case and 

fuel consumed by a 2018 model year 

truck under the 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$] 

Year of ownership 

Reduced fuel use 

(gallons) b

Fuel savings a

Increased 

cost 

Cumulative savings 

Gasoline Diesel 3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount 

1 ............................................................... 67 122 $627 $616 ¥$1,048 ¥$421 ¥$433 

2 ............................................................... 67 122 617 583 .................... 196 151 

3 ............................................................... 66 120 600 546 .................... 796 696 

4 ............................................................... 64 117 570 499 .................... 1,366 1,196 

5 ............................................................... 62 113 544 458 .................... 1,910 1,654 

6 ............................................................... 59 108 507 411 .................... 2,417 2,065 

7 ............................................................... 56 102 474 370 .................... 2,890 2,435 

Full Life .................................................... 894 1,617 7,187 5,507 ¥1,048 6,138 4,459 

Notes: 

aFuel 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. bGallons 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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

489See NAS Report, Note 197. 

490American Transportation Research Institute, 

An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking, 

December 2008 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010- 

0162-0007). 

TABLE VIII–10—PAYBACK PERIOD FOR A 2018 MODEL YEAR VOCATIONAL VEHICLE

[2009$] 

Year of ownership 

Reduced fuel use 

(gallons) b

Fuel savings a

Increased 

cost 

Cumulative savings 

Gasoline Diesel 3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount 

1 ............................................................... 51 161 $702 $690 ¥$378 $325 $312 

2 ............................................................... 47 146 637 602 .................... 962 914 

3 ............................................................... 44 134 576 524 .................... 1,538 1,438 

4 ............................................................... 41 122 516 452 .................... 2,054 1,889 

5 ............................................................... 38 110 463 390 .................... 2,516 2,279 

6 ............................................................... 34 98 404 328 .................... 2,921 2,607 

7 ............................................................... 31 87 359 280 .................... 3,279 2,887 

Full Life .................................................... 550 1,458 5,872 4,646 ¥378 5,494 4,268 

Notes: 

aFuel 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. bGallons under the control case include gallons consumed during rebound driving. 

TABLE VIII–11—PAYBACK PERIOD FOR A 2018 MODEL YEAR COMBINATION TRACTOR

[2009$] 

Year of ownership 

Reduced fuel use 

(gallons) b

Fuel savings a

Increased 

cost 

Cumulative savings 

Gasoline Diesel 3% discount 7% discount 3% discount 7% discount 

1 ............................................................... 0 3,223 $10,736 $10,539 ¥$6,215 $4,522 $4,324 

2 ............................................................... 0 2,897 9,619 9,089 .................... 14,141 13,413 

3 ............................................................... 0 2,619 8,564 7,790 .................... 22,705 21,203 

4 ............................................................... 0 2,359 7,532 6,595 .................... 30,237 27,797 

5 ............................................................... 0 2,096 6,626 5,585 .................... 36,863 33,382 

6 ............................................................... 0 1,842 5,684 4,611 .................... 42,546 37,993 

7 ............................................................... 0 1,617 4,951 3,867 .................... 47,497 41,860 

Full Life .................................................... 0 26,148 79,089 64,376 ¥6,215 72,875 58,162 

Notes: 

aFuel 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. bGallons 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57327 

491Transport 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. 

492Memo 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). 494Li, 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

495See 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). 

496Friedlaender, 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). 

497Christidis 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). 

498Christidis and Leduc, ‘‘Longer and Heavier 

Vehicles for freight transport,’’ European 

Commission Joint Research Center’s Institute for 

Prospective Technology Studies, 2009. 

499Winebrake, 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) 

500Winebrake, 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). 

501Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2009. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57329 

502NHTSA’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. 

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) 

Scenario 2 

(9.1 mpg, 

$71,630) 

‘‘First Rebound Effect’’ (increase in truck VMT resulting from decrease in operating costs) ................................. 11–31% 5–16% 

‘‘Second Rebound Effect’’ (net fuel savings when decreases from rail are taken into account) ........................... 9–13% 3–15% 

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 

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

Truck type 

National data State data 

Short run Long run Short run Long run 

Single Unit 13–22% 28–45% 3–8% 12–21% 

Combination N/A 12–14% N/A 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57330 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

503See 2010 NAS Report, Note 197, page 152. 

504A 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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57331 

505The average marginal cost difference between 

sleeper cabs and day cabs in the proposal is nearly 

$6,000. 

506The final rule projects the difference in costs 

between the HHD and MHD vocational vehicle 

technologies is approximately $30. 

507See NAS Report, Note 197, pp. 150–151 508See NAS Report, Note 197, page 151. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57332 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

509See 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. 511The 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). 512The 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. 

513National 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. 

G. Benefits of Reducing CO2 Emissions 

(1) Social Cost of Carbon 

EPA has assigned a dollar value to 

reductions in CO2 emissions using 

recent estimates of the social cost of 

carbon (SCC). The SCC is an estimate of 

the monetized damages associated with 

an incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services due to climate 

change. The SCC estimates used in this 

analysis were developed through an 

interagency process that included EPA, 

DOT/NHTSA, and other executive 

branch entities, and concluded in 

February 2010. We first used these SCC 

estimates in the benefits analysis for the 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57333 

515EPA 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. 

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. 

516The 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. 

TABLE VIII–14—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 2012—2050 a

[in 2009 dollars per metric ton] 

Year 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th 

percentile 

2012 ................................................................................................................................. $5.28 $23.06 $37.53 $70.14 

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 5.93 24.58 39.57 75.03 

2020 ................................................................................................................................. 7.01 27.10 42.98 83.17 

2025 ................................................................................................................................. 8.53 30.43 47.28 93.11 

2030 ................................................................................................................................. 10.05 33.75 51.58 103.06 

2035 ................................................................................................................................. 11.57 37.08 55.88 113.00 

2040 ................................................................................................................................. 13.09 40.40 60.19 122.95 

2045 ................................................................................................................................. 14.63 43.34 63.59 131.66 

2050 ................................................................................................................................. 16.18 46.27 66.99 140.37 

Note: 

aThe SCC values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. 

TABLE VIII–15—MONETIZED CO2 BENEFITS OF VEHICLE PROGRAM, CO2 EMISSIONS a

[Millions, 2009$] 

Year 

CO2 Emissions reduction (MMT) 

Benefits 

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

2020 ....................................................................................................... 37.7 $264 $1,021 $1,619 $3,133 

2030 ....................................................................................................... 73.1 734 2,467 3,770 7,532 

2040 ....................................................................................................... 90.3 1,182 3,650 5,437 11,108 

2050 ....................................................................................................... 103.9 1,682 4,810 6,963 14,590 

Net Present Valueb ......................................................................... .................... 9,045 46,070 78,037 140,432 

Notes: 

aExcept for the last row (net present value), the SCC values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. 

b Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently from other benefits. The same discount rate used to discount the value 

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. 

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. 

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

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

517U.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 

518U.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. 

519Final Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone. Signed July 6, 2011. Available at http:// 

epa.gov/airtransport/. 

520U.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. 

521U.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. 

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

Total Benefits (billions, 2009$, 7% 

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: $1.2–$2.2. 

PM: $0.67–$1.6. 

Ozone: $0.55. 

Huang et al., 2005 ............................. Total: $1.6–$2.7 ................................

PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................

Ozone: $0.91. ....................................

Total: $1.6–$2.5. 

PM: $0.67–$1.6 

Ozone: $0.91. 

Schwartz, 2005 .................................. Total: $1.6–$2.6 ................................

PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................

Ozone: $0.83. ....................................

Total: $1.5–$2.5. 

PM: $0.67–$1.6. 

Ozone: $0.83. 

Meta-analyses .................. Bell et al., 2005 ................................. Total: $2.4–$3.5 ................................

PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................

Ozone: $1.7. ......................................

Total: $2.4–$3.3. 

PM: $0.67–$1.6. 

Ozone: $1.7. 

Ito et al., 2005 ................................... Total: $3.1–$4.2 ................................

PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................

Ozone: $2.4. ......................................

Total: $3.0–$4.0. 

PM: $0.67–$1.6. 

Ozone: $2.4. 

Levy et al., 2005 ................................ Total: $3.1–$4.2 ................................

PM: $0.74–$1.8 .................................

Ozone: $2.4. ......................................

Total: $3.1–$4.0. 

PM: $0.67–$1.6. 

Ozone: $2.4. 

Notes: 

aTotal includes premature mortality-related and morbidity-related ozone and PM2.5 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57335 

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 

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 Effects not included in analysis—Changes in: 

Ozone Health a ................................................... Chronic respiratory damage b. 

Premature aging of the lungs b. 

Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits. 

Exposure to UVb (+/-) e. 

Ozone Welfare ................................................... 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. 

PM Health c ......................................................... 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. 

PM Welfare ......................................................... Residential and recreational visibility in non-Class I areas. 

Soiling and materials damage. 

Damage to ecosystem functions. 

Exposure to UVb (+/-) e. 

Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare ........... 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. 

CO Health ........................................................... Behavioral effects. 

HC/Toxics Health f .............................................. 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). 

HC/Toxics Welfare .............................................. Direct toxic effects to animals. 

Bioaccumulation in the food chain. 

Damage to ecosystem function. 

Odor. 

Notes: 

aThe 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. bThe 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. dWhile 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57336 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

523Science 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. 524U.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. 

525U.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. 

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. 

527Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. 

1997. ‘‘The Relationship Between Selected Causes 

e May result in benefits or disbenefits. 

f Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this action are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the CAA. 

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 

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 PM2.5- 

RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a

Health effect 

2030 Annual 

reduction in 

incidence 

(5th–95th 

percentile) 

Premature Mortality—Derived from epidemiology literature b

TABLE VIII–18—ESTIMATED PM2.5-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a—Continued 

Health effect 

2030 Annual 

reduction in 

incidence 

(5th–95th 

percentile) 

Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study (Pope et 

al., 2002) .................... 78 (30–130) 

Adult, age 25+, Six-Cities Study (Laden et 

al., 2006) .................... 200 (110–290) 

Infant, age <1 year 

(Woodruff et al., 1997) 0 (0–1) 

Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 

26 and over) ...................... 53 (10–97) 

Non-fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and 

over) .................................. 150 (54–240) 

Hospital admissions–respiratory (all ages) c ............ 20 (10–30) 

Hospital admissions–cardiovascular (adults, age 

>18) d ................................. 45 (32–52) 

Emergency room visits for 

asthma (age 18 years and 

younger) ............................ 81 (48–120) 

Acute bronchitis, (children, 

age 8–12) .......................... 130 (0–270) 

Lower respiratory symptoms 

(children, age 7–14) .......... 1,600 (750– 

2,400) 

Upper respiratory symptoms 

(asthmatic children, age 9– 

18) ..................................... 1,200 (370– 

2,000) 

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18) 1,400 (160– 

4,000) 

Work loss days ..................... 9,700 (8,500– 

11,000) 

Minor restricted activity days 

(adults age 18–65) ............ 57,000 

(48,000– 

66,000) 

Notes: 

a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 

48 contiguous United States. bPM-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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57337 

of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States.’’ Environmental 

Health Perspectives 105(6):608–612. 

TABLE VIII–19—ESTIMATED OZONERELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a

Health effect 

2030 Annual 

reduction in 

incidence 

(5th–95th 

percentile) 

Premature Mortality, All 

ages b Multi-City Analyses: 

Bell et al. (2004)—Nonaccidental ................... 54 (23–84) 

Huang et al. (2005)— 

Cardiopulmonary ........ 90 (43–140) 

Schwartz (2005)—Nonaccidental ................... 82 (34–130) 

Meta-analyses: 

Bell et al. (2005)—All 

cause ......................... 170 (96–250) 

Ito et al. (2005)—Nonaccidental ................... 240 (160–320) 

Levy et al. (2005)—All 

cause ......................... 240 (180–310) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (adult, 65 

and older) c ........................ 510 (69–870) 

TABLE VIII–19—ESTIMATED OZONERELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a—Continued 

Health effect 

2030 Annual 

reduction in 

incidence 

(5th–95th 

percentile) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (children, 

under 2) ............................. 320 (160–470) 

Emergency room visit for 

asthma (all ages) .............. 230 (0–630) 

Minor restricted activity days 

(adults, age 18–65) ........... 300,000 

(150,000– 

450,000) 

School absence days ........... 120,000 

(52,000– 

170,000 

Notes: 

a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 

48 contiguous U.S. 

bEstimates 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 

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 .............................................................................................................................................. $680 ($87–$1,800) 

7% discount rate .............................................................................................................................................. $620 ($79–$1,600) 

Adult, age 25+—Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006): 

3% discount rate .............................................................................................................................................. $1,800 ($250–$4,300) 

7% discount rate .............................................................................................................................................. $1,600 ($220–$3,900) 

Infant Mortality, <1 year–(Woodruff et al. 1997) ..................................................................................................... $2.5 ($0–$9.4) 

Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) ........................................................................................................................ $29 ($2.4–$96) 

Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions: 

3% discount rate ...................................................................................................................................................... $16 ($3.7–$38) 

7% discount rate ...................................................................................................................................................... $16 ($3.4–$38) 

Hospital admissions for respiratory causes .................................................................................................................... $0.31 ($0.15–$0.45) 

Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes ............................................................................................................. $1.3 ($0.83–$1.8) 

Emergency room visits for asthma ................................................................................................................................. $0.03 ($0.02–$0.05) 

Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) ............................................................................................................................. $0.01 ($0–$0.03) 

Lower respiratory symptoms (children, 7–14) ................................................................................................................ $0.03 ($0.01–$0.06) 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, 9–11) ................................................................................................................. $0.04 ($0.01–$0.08) 

Asthma exacerbations .................................................................................................................................................... $0.08 ($0.009–$0.23) 

Work loss days ............................................................................................................................................................... $1.6 ($1.4–$1.8) 

Minor restricted-activity days (MRADs) .......................................................................................................................... $3.6 ($2.1–$5.2) 

Ozone-related Health Effect 

Premature Mortality, All ages—Derived from Multi-city analyses: 

Bell et al., 2004 ....................................................................................................................................................... $520 ($69–$1,300) 

Huang et al., 2005 ................................................................................................................................................... $880 ($120–$2,200) 

Schwartz, 2005 ........................................................................................................................................................ $800 ($100–$2,000) 

Premature Mortality, All ages—Derived from Meta-analyses: 

Bell et al., 2005 ....................................................................................................................................................... $1,700 ($240–$4,100) 

Ito et al., 2005 ......................................................................................................................................................... $2,300 ($350–$5,500) 

Levy et al., 2005 ...................................................................................................................................................... $2,400 ($350–$5,500) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) ..................................................................................... $13 ($1.7–$22) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (children, under 2) ........................................................................................ $3.4 ($1.8–$5.0) 

Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) .................................................................................................................. $0.09 ($0–$0.23) 

Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18–65) ......................................................................................................... $19 ($8.6–$32) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57338 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

528National Research Council (NRC), 2008. 

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic 

Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The 

National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 

529National Research Council (NRC). 2002. 

Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed 

Air Pollution Regulations. The National Academies 

Press: Washington, DC. 

530U.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. 

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). 

cValuation 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. 

(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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57339 

531Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, as 

shown on June 24, 2009. 

532Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Annual 

Energy Review 2008, Report No. DOE/EIA– 

0384(2008), Tables 5.1 and 5.13c, June 26, 2009. 

533This figure is calculated as 0.50 + 0.50*0.9 = 

0.50 + 0.45 = 0.95. 

534Leiby, 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). 

535The 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). 

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). 

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 

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. 

TABLE VIII–21—U.S. OIL IMPORT REDUCTIONS FROM THE HD NATIONAL

PROGRAM FOR SELECTED YEARS

[Millions of barrels per day, mmbd] 

Year mmbd 

2020 .............................................. 0.202 

2030 .............................................. 0.393 

2040 .............................................. 0.489 

2050 .............................................. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

536AEO 2011 forecasts energy market trends and 

values only to 2035. The energy security premium 

estimates post-2035 were assumed to be the 2035 

estimate. 

537Based on data from the CIA, combining 

various recent years, https://www.cia.gov/library/

publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/

2176rank.html. 

538The other three are Norway, Canada, and the 

EU, an exporter of product. 

539 IEA 2011 ‘‘IEA Response System for Oil 

Supply Emergencies’’. 

540U.S. Department of Defense. 2010. 

Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Secretary of 

Defense: Washington, DC 128 pages. 

541The Department of the Navy’s Energy Goals 

(http://www.navy.mil/features/Navy_Energy

Security.pdf) (Last accessed May 31, 2011). 

542U.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). 

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 $7.11 $18.41 

($3.86–$21.32) ($3.50–$11.40) ($9.70–$28.94) 

2030 ............................................................................................. $11.17 $8.32 $19.49 

($3.92–$20.58) ($4.04–$13.33) ($10.49–$29.63) 

2035 ............................................................................................. $10.56 $8.71 $19.27 

($3.69–$19.62) ($3.86–$14.35) ($10.32–$29.13) 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57341 

543The White House, Blueprint for a Secure 

Energy Future (March 30, 2011) (http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint

_secure_energy_future.pdf) (Last accessed May 27, 

2011). 

544These 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). 

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 Benefits 

2020 .................................. $499 

2030 .................................. 1,132 

2040 .................................. 1,477 

2050 .................................. 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 

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

[2009$] 

External costs 

Pickup trucks 

and vans 

($/VMT) 

Vocational 

vehicles 

($/VMT) 

Combination 

tractors 

($/VMT) 

Congestion ....................................................................................................................... $0.049 $0.111 $0.108 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

545U.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). 

TABLE VIII–24—NOISE, ACCIDENT, AND CONGESTION COSTS PER MILE—Continued 

[2009$] 

External costs 

Pickup trucks 

and vans 

($/VMT) 

Vocational 

vehicles 

($/VMT) 

Combination 

tractors 

($/VMT) 

Accidents ......................................................................................................................... 0.027 0.019 0.022 

Noise ................................................................................................................................ 0.001 0.009 0.020 

In aggregate, the increased costs due 

to noise, accidents, and congestion from 

the additional truck driving are 

presented in Table VIII–25. 

TABLE VIII–25: ACCIDENT, NOISE, AND CONGESTION COSTS

[Millions, 2009$] 

Year Pickup trucks 

and vans 

Vocational 

vehicles 

Combination 

tractors Total costs 

2012 ................................................................................................. $0 $0 $0 $0 

2013 ................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

2014 ................................................................................................. 8 21 18 46 

2015 ................................................................................................. 15 38 31 84 

2016 ................................................................................................. 22 55 43 120 

2017 ................................................................................................. 29 71 54 153 

2018 ................................................................................................. 36 85 64 186 

2020 ................................................................................................. 51 112 83 246 

2030 ................................................................................................. 105 195 138 437 

2040 ................................................................................................. 130 256 166 551 

2050 ................................................................................................. 148 298 191 638 

NPV, 3% .......................................................................................... 1,818 3,620 2,492 7,929 

NPV, 7% .......................................................................................... 832 1,680 1,184 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57343 

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. 

TABLE VIII–26—LIFETIME REFUELING SAVINGS FOR A 2018 MY TRUCK OF EACH TYPE

[2009$] 

Pickup trucks 

and vans 

Vocational 

vehicles 

Combination 

tractor 

3% Discount Rate ............................................................................................................ $31 $34 $341 

7% Discount Rate ............................................................................................................ 19 22 223 

TABLE VIII–27—ANNUAL REFUELING SAVINGS

[Millions, 2009$] 

Year Pickup trucks 

and vans 

Vocational 

vehicles 

Combination 

tractor Total 

2012 ................................................................................................. $0 .0 $0 .0 $0 .0 $0 .0 

2013 ................................................................................................. 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 

2014 ................................................................................................. 0 .2 1 .4 8 .0 9 .6 

2015 ................................................................................................. 0 .5 2 .6 14 .3 17 .3 

2016 ................................................................................................. 1 .3 3 .8 19 .6 24 .6 

2017 ................................................................................................. 2 .7 6 .2 26 .7 35 .6 

2018 ................................................................................................. 5 .2 8 .5 33 .8 47 .5 

2020 ................................................................................................. 10 .5 12 .7 46 .2 69 .3 

2030 ................................................................................................. 32 .6 25 .8 82 .9 141 

2040 ................................................................................................. 43 .4 35 .1 100 .5 179 

2050 ................................................................................................. 50 .1 41 .3 116 .1 207 

NPV, 3% .......................................................................................... 541 468 1,467 2,476 

NPV, 7% .......................................................................................... 231 210 685 1,126 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57344 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

547Cost and Weight Analysis of Two Motorcoach 

Seating Systems: One With and One Without ThreePoint Lap/Shoulder Belt Restraints, Ludtke and Associates, July 2010. 

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

Standard No. 

Added weight in 

pounds MD/HD 

vehicle 

Added weight in 

kilograms MD/ 

HD vehicle 

119 ................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

121 ................................................................................................................................................................... a 0 a 0 

208 Motor coaches only .................................................................................................................................. 161–269 73–122 

MD/HD Vehicle Electronic Stability Control Systems ...................................................................................... 10 4.5 

Total Motor coaches ........................................................................................................................................ 171–279 77.5–126.5 

Total All other MD/HD vehicles ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.5 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57345 

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). 

549For 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. 

(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 

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

2020 2030 2040 2050 

NPV, Years 

2012–2050, 3% 

discount rate 

NPV, Years 

2012–2050, 7% 

discount rate 

Technology Costs ............................................................ $2,000 $2,200 $2,700 $3,300 $47,400 $24,700 

Note: 

aTechnology 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

2020 2030 2040 2050 

NPV, Years 

2012–2050, 3% 

discount rate 

NPV, Years 

2012–2050, 7% 

discount rate 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ..................................................... $9,600 $20,600 $28,000 $36,500 $375,300 $166,500 

Note: 

aFuel 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 2050 

NPV, Years 

2012–2050, 3% 

discount rate a

NPV, Years 

2012–2050, 7% 

discount rate a

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value b

5% (avg SCC) .................................................................. $300 $700 $1,200 $1,700 $9,000 $9,000 

3% (avg SCC) .................................................................. 1,000 2,500 3,600 4,800 46,100 46,100 

2.5% (avg SCC) ............................................................... 1,600 3,800 5,400 7,000 78,000 78,000 

3% (95th percentile) ......................................................... 3,100 7,500 11,100 14,600 140,400 140,400 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ............................ 500 1,100 1,500 1,700 19,800 8,800 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise f ........................................ ¥200 ¥400 ¥600 ¥600 ¥7,900 ¥3,700 

Refueling Savings ............................................................ 100 100 200 200 2,500 1,100 

Non-GHG Impacts c d ........................................................ B 2,800 2,800 2,800 25,300 9,100 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts e ................................................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Total Annual Benefits at each assumed SCC value b

5% (avg SCC) .................................................................. 700 4,300 5,100 5,800 48,700 24,300 

3% (avg SCC) .................................................................. 1,400 6,100 7,500 8,900 85,800 61,400 

2.5% (avg SCC) ............................................................... 2,000 7,400 9,300 11,100 117,700 93,300 

3% (95th percentile) ......................................................... 3,500 11,100 15,000 18,700 180,100 155,700 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the 

SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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 PM2.5 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. eThe monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this program (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 2030 2040 2050 NPV, 3% a NPV, 7% a

Technology Costs .................................... $2,000 $2,200 $2,700 $3,300 $47,400 $24,700 

Fuel Savings ............................................ 9,600 20,600 28,000 36,500 375,300 166,500 

Total Annual Benefits at each assumed SCC value b

5% (avg SCC) .......................................... 700 4,300 5,100 5,800 48,700 24,300 

3% (avg SCC) .......................................... 1,400 6,100 7,500 8,900 85,800 61,400 

2.5% (avg SCC) ....................................... 2,000 7,400 9,300 11,100 117,700 93,300 

3% (95th percentile) ................................. 3,500 11,100 15,000 18,700 180,100 155,700 

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value c

5% (avg SCC) .......................................... 8,300 22,700 30,400 39,000 376,600 166,100 

3% (avg SCC) .......................................... 9,000 24,500 32,800 42,100 413,700 203,200 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 2030 2040 2050 NPV, 3% a NPV, 7% a

2.5% (avg SCC) ....................................... 9,600 25,800 34,600 44,300 445,600 235,100 

3% (95th percentile) ................................. 11,100 29,500 40,300 51,900 508,000 297,500 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the 

SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum 

Technology Costs .................................... $1,600 $1,400 $1,500 $1,600 $2,000 $8,100 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ............................. 9,300 8,300 8,100 11,500 12,900 50,100 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) .... 500 400 400 600 700 2,700 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ................ ¥300 ¥300 ¥300 ¥300 ¥300 ¥1,500 

Refueling Savings .................................... 60 60 60 80 100 400 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG 

Impactsc d .............................................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b

5% (avg SCC) .......................................... 200 200 200 300 300 1,200 

3% (avg SCC) .......................................... 1,100 900 900 1,300 1,500 5,700 

2.5% (avg SCC) ....................................... 1,800 1,600 1,500 2,100 2,400 9,400 

3% (95th percentile) ................................. 3,300 2,900 2,800 4,000 4,500 17,000 

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a,b

5% (avg SCC) .......................................... 8,200 7,300 7,000 10,600 11,700 44,800 

3% (avg SCC) .......................................... 9,100 8,000 7,700 11,600 12,900 49,300 

2.5% (avg SCC) ....................................... 9,800 8,700 8,300 12,400 13,800 53,000 

3% (95th percentile) ................................. 11,300 10,000 9,600 14,300 15,900 60,600 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the 

SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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. cThe monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this action 

(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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum 

Technology Costs .................................... $1,600 $1,400 $1,500 $1,600 $2,000 $8,100 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ............................. 6,900 5,900 5,600 7,600 8,300 34,400 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) .... 400 300 300 400 400 1,800 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ................ ¥200 ¥200 ¥200 ¥200 ¥200 ¥1,000 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 2015 MY 2016 MY 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum 

Refueling Savings .................................... 50 40 40 60 60 200 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG 

Impacts c d ............................................. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b

5% (avg SCC) .......................................... 200 200 200 300 300 1,200 

3% (avg SCC) .......................................... 1,100 900 900 1,300 1,500 5,700 

2.5% (avg SCC) ....................................... 1,800 1,600 1,500 2,100 2,400 9,400 

3% (95th percentile) ................................. 3,300 2,900 2,800 4,000 4,500 17,000 

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC valuea b

5% (avg SCC) .......................................... 5,800 4,800 4,400 6,600 6,900 28,500 

3% (avg SCC) .......................................... 6,700 5,500 5,100 7,600 8,100 33,000 

2.5% (avg SCC) ....................................... 7,400 6,200 5,700 8,400 9,000 36,700 

3% (95th percentile) ................................. 8,900 7,500 7,000 10,300 11,100 44,300 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the 

SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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. cThe monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this action 

(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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum 

Technology Costs ............................................................................................ $1,500 $1,600 $1,700 $5,200 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ..................................................................................... 5,500 10,900 11,500 27,900 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ............................................................ 300 600 600 1,500 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ........................................................................ ¥300 ¥300 ¥300 ¥900 

Refueling Savings ............................................................................................ 40 80 80 200 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c d ......................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b

5% (avg SCC) .................................................................................................. 100 300 300 700 

3% (avg SCC) .................................................................................................. 600 1,200 1,300 3,100 

2.5% (avg SCC) ............................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 2,200 5,200 

3% (95th percentile) ........................................................................................ 1,900 3,800 4,000 9,700 

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a b

5% (avg SCC) .................................................................................................. 4,100 10,000 10,500 24,200 

3% (avg SCC) .................................................................................................. 4,600 10,900 11,500 26,600 

2.5% (avg SCC) ............................................................................................... 5,000 11,700 12,400 28,700 

3% (95th percentile) ........................................................................................ 5,900 13,500 14,200 33,200 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57349 

550Morgenstern, 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. 

bSection 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. cThe monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this program (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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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 2017 MY 2018 MY Sum 

Technology Costs ............................................................................................ $1,500 $1,600 $1,700 $5,200 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ..................................................................................... 3,800 7,200 7,300 18,300 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ............................................................ 200 400 400 1,000 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ........................................................................ ¥200 ¥200 ¥200 ¥600 

Refueling Savings ............................................................................................ 30 50 50 130 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c d ......................................... n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at each assumed SCC value a b

5% (avg SCC) .................................................................................................. 100 300 300 700 

3% (avg SCC) .................................................................................................. 600 1,200 1,300 3,100 

2.5% (avg SCC) ............................................................................................... 1,000 2,000 2,200 5,200 

3% (95th percentile) ........................................................................................ 1,900 3,800 4,000 9,700 

Monetized Net Benefits at each assumed SCC value a b

5% (avg SCC) .................................................................................................. 2,400 6,200 6,200 14,300 

3% (avg SCC) .................................................................................................. 2,900 7,100 7,200 16,700 

2.5% (avg SCC) ............................................................................................... 3,300 7,900 8,100 18,800 

3% (95th percentile) ........................................................................................ 4,200 9,700 9,900 23,300 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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, 2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the 

SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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. cThe monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this program (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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. e Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise. 

M. Employment Impacts 

(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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57350 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

551Schmalensee, 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. 

552Although 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. 

554U.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). 

555U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 Annual Survey of 

Manufactures, Published December 3, 2010. 

556Union 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. 

557Berck, Peter, and Sandra Hoffman. ‘‘Assessing 

the Employment Impacts of Environmental and 

Natural Resource Policy.’’ Environmental and 

Resource Economics 22 (2002): 133–156. 

558See Morgenstern et al (2002), Note 550, above. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57351 

559Tom 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]. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57352 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

560American 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. 

561Association 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. 

562North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) Code 32411. 

563EPA 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. 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57353 

564NEPA 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). 

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. 

(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 

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. 

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 

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 nomstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57354 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

565U.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. 

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 

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. 

(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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57355 

566TIAX. 2009. Note 198, Page 4–20. 

567See RIA chapter 2, Table 2.35. 

568Committee 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. 

569NAS Report. Page 146. 570NAS Report. Page 146. 571NAS Report. Page 146. 

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 

$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

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57356 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

572The Cd improvement of 10 percent for trailer 

improvements was derived from the TIAX report, 

Table 4–26 on page 4–50. 

573Assumed retail prices of $1,300 for side skirts 

and $850 for gap reducers based on the ICF Cost 

Report, page 90. 

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) 

Oil reductions 

(billion gallons) 

2030 2050 2030 2050 

Alt. 1 Baseline .................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline—Total .................................................................. 39 90 3.9 9.0 

Tractors ............................................................................................................ 29 73 2.9 7.1 

HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................ 9 16 0.9 1.7 

Vocational Vehicles ......................................................................................... 1 2 0.1 0.2 

Alt. 2 Less Stringent—Total ............................................................................. 54 78 5.4 7.7 

Tractors ............................................................................................................ 42 59 4.2 5.8 

HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................ 7 11 0.8 1.2 

Vocational Vehicles ......................................................................................... 5 7 0.4 0.7 

Alt. 3 Preferred—Total ..................................................................................... 61 88 6.0 8.7 

Tractors ............................................................................................................ 45 63 4.4 6.2 

HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................ 8 13 0.9 1.3 

Vocational Vehicles ......................................................................................... 7 11 0.7 1.1 

Alt. 4 More Stringent—Total ............................................................................ 74 107 7.4 10.7 

Tractors ............................................................................................................ 53 74 5.2 7.3 

HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................ 10 15 1.0 1.6 

Vocational Vehicles ......................................................................................... 11 18 1.1 1.8 

Alt. 5 Max Technology—Total ......................................................................... 99 146 9.8 14.5 

Tractors ............................................................................................................ 61 85 6.0 8.3 

HD Pickup Trucks ............................................................................................ 15 24 1.6 2.5 

Vocational Vehicles ......................................................................................... 23 37 2.2 3.6 

TABLE IX–2—TECHNOLOGY COST PROJECTIONS RELATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE 1 FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE

Technology costs a

(Millions, 2009$) 

2030 2050 

Alt. 1 Baseline .......................................................................................................................................................... $0 $0 

Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline—Total b ........................................................................................................................ — — 

Tractors .................................................................................................................................................................... — — 

HD Pickup Trucks .................................................................................................................................................... — — 

Vocational Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................. — — 

Alt. 2 Less Stringent—Total ..................................................................................................................................... $1,676 $2,440 

Tractors .................................................................................................................................................................... 743 1,227 

HD Pickup Trucks .................................................................................................................................................... 817 1,029 

Vocational Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................. 117 185 

Alt. 3 Preferred—Total ............................................................................................................................................. 2,210 3,287 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 2050 

Tractors .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,076 1,777 

HD Pickup Trucks .................................................................................................................................................... 918 1,156 

Vocational Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................. 216 354 

Alt. 4 More Stringent—Total .................................................................................................................................... 5,211+c 6,996+c 

Tractors .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,953+c 3,225+c 

HD Pickup Trucks .................................................................................................................................................... 1,442+c 1,816+c 

Vocational Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................. 1,816+c 1,954+c 

17,909+c 27,306+c 

Alt. 5 Max Technology—Total ................................................................................................................................. 2,747+c 4,292+c 

Tractors .................................................................................................................................................................... 5,669+c 7,142+c 

HD Pickup Trucks .................................................................................................................................................... 9,493+c 15,873+c 

Vocational Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................. 5,211+c 6,996+c 

Notes: 

aThe +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. bThe 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 CO PM2.5 VOC 

Alt. 1 Baseline .................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline .............................................................................. 8.8 1.0 ¥3.8 7.2 

Alt. 2 Less Stringent ........................................................................................ ¥21.9 ¥2.0 8.4 ¥19.0 

Alt. 3 Preferred ................................................................................................ ¥22.0 ¥2.0 8.5 ¥19.1 

Alt. 4 More Stringent ........................................................................................ ¥22.5 ¥2.0 8.7 ¥19.5 

Alt. 5 Max Technology ..................................................................................... ¥22.9 ¥2.1 8.4 ¥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 

Alt. 2 less 

stringent 

Alt. 3 

preferred 

Alt. 4 more 

stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

Truck Program Costs d ......................................................... $0 $5,900 $8,100 $20,700+c $37,200+c 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ......................................................... 0 45,000 50,100 63,900 79,100 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 1,100 1,200 1,600 1,900 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 5,100 5,700 7,200 9,000 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 8,400 9,400 12,000 15,000 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 16,000 17,000 22,000 27,000 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................ 0 2,400 2,700 3,400 4,200 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................ 0 ¥1,300 ¥1,500 ¥1,600 ¥1,600 

Refueling Savings ................................................................ 0 300 400 500 600 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 41,600 44,800 47,100+c 47,000+c 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 45,600 49,300 52,700+c 54,100+c 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 48,900 53,000 57,500+c 60,100+c 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 56,500 60,600 67,500+c 72,100+c 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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 

the SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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. cThe monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this rulemaking (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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 

Alt. 2 less 

stringent 

Alt. 3 

preferred 

Alt. 4 more 

stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

Truck Program Costs d ......................................................... $0 $5,900 $8,100 $20,700+c $37,200+c 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ......................................................... 0 30,900 34,400 43,800 53,900 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 1,100 1,200 1,600 1,900 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 5,100 5,700 7,200 9,000 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 8,400 9,400 12,000 15,000 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 16,000 17,000 22,000 27,000 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................ 0 1,600 1,800 2,300 2,900 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................ 0 ¥900 ¥1,000 ¥1,100 ¥1,100 

Refueling Savings ................................................................ 0 200 200 300 400 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 27,000 28,500 26,200+c 20,800+c 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 31,000 33,000 31,800+c 27,900+c 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 34,300 36,700 36,600+c 33,900+c 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 41,900 44,300 46,600+c 45,900+c 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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 

the SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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. cThe monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions expected under this rulemaking (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 Alt. 2 less 

stringent Alt. 3 preferred Alt. 4 more stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

Truck Program Costs d ......................................................... $0 $1,780 $1,970 $3,220+c $9,890+c 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ......................................................... 0 3,480 4,060 4,910 7,700 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................ 0 190 220 270 420 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................ 0 ¥330 ¥350 ¥370 ¥350 

Refueling Savings ................................................................ 0 40 50 60 90 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 100 100 100 200 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 500 500 600 900 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 800 900 1,100 1,500 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 1,400 1,600 1,900 2,800 

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 1,700 2,110 1,750+c ¥1,830+c 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 2,100 2,510 2,250+c ¥1,130+c 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 2,400 2,910 2,750+c ¥530+c 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 Alt. 2 less 

stringent Alt. 3 preferred Alt. 4 more stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 3,000 3,610 3,550+c 770+c 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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 

the SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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. 

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 Alt. 2 less 

stringent Alt. 3 preferred Alt. 4 more stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

Truck Program Costs d ......................................................... $0 $670 $1,140 $9,140+c $15,840+c 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ......................................................... 0 3,420 5,420 8,930 14,270 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................ 0 180 290 480 760 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................ 0 ¥540 ¥650 ¥670 ¥500 

Refueling Savings ................................................................ 0 40 60 110 170 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 100 100 200 300 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 400 600 1,000 1,500 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 700 1,100 1,700 2,600 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 1,300 1,900 3,100 4,700 

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 2,530 4,080 ¥90+c ¥840+c 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 2,830 4,580 710+c 360+c 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 3,130 5,080 1,410+c 1,460+c 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 3,730 5,880 2,810+c 3,560+c 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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 

the SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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. 

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$] 

Alt. 1 baseline Alt. 2 less 

stringent Alt. 3 preferred Alt. 4 more stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

Truck Program Costs d ......................................................... $0 $3,300 $4,950 $8,430+c $11,540+c 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ......................................................... 0 38,140 40,650 50,030 57,190 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................ 0 2,030 2,160 2,660 3,040 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................ 0 ¥450 ¥480 ¥590 ¥770 

Refueling Savings ................................................................ 0 230 250 300 350 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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) ...................................................................... 0 900 1,000 1,200 1,400 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 4,200 4,500 5,600 6,500 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 7,000 7,500 9,300 11,000 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 13,000 14,000 17,000 20,000 

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 37,550 38,630 45,170+c 49,670+c 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 40,850 42,130 49,570+c 54,770+c 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 43,650 45,130 53,270+c 59,270+c 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 49,650 51,630 60,970+c 68,270+c 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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 

the SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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. 

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 Alt. 2 less 

stringent Alt. 3 preferred Alt. 4 more stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

Truck Program Costs d ......................................................... $0 $1,780 $1,970 $3,220+c $9,890+c 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ......................................................... 0 2,180 2,550 3,090 4,830 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................ 0 120 140 170 260 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................ 0 ¥220 ¥230 ¥250 ¥230 

Refueling Savings ................................................................ 0 30 30 40 60 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 100 100 100 200 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 500 500 600 900 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 800 900 1,100 1,500 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 1,400 1,600 1,900 2,800 

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 430 620 ¥70+c ¥4,770+c 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 830 1,020 430+c ¥4,070+c 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 1,130 1,420 930+c ¥3,470+c 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 1,730 2,120 1,730+c ¥2,170+c 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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 

the SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 Alt. 2 less 

stringent Alt. 3 preferred Alt. 4 more stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

Truck Program Costs d ......................................................... $0 $670 $1,140 $9,140+c $15,840+c 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ......................................................... 0 2,280 3,630 5,970 9,410 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................ 0 120 190 320 500 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................ 0 ¥380 ¥450 ¥460 ¥350 

Refueling Savings ................................................................ 0 30 40 70 110 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 100 100 200 300 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 400 600 1,000 1,500 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 700 1,100 1,700 2,600 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 1,300 1,900 3,100 4,700 

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 1,480 2,370 ¥3,040+c ¥5,870+c 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 1,780 2,870 ¥2,240+c ¥4,670+c 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 2,080 3,370 ¥1,540+c ¥3,570+c 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 2,680 4,170 ¥140+c ¥1,470+c 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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 

the SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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. 

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 Alt. 2 less 

stringent Alt. 3 preferred Alt. 4 more stringent 

Alt. 5 max 

technology 

Truck Program Costs d ......................................................... 0 3,300 4,950 8,430+c 11,540+c 

Fuel Savings (pre-tax) ......................................................... 0 26,420 28,170 34,710 39,680 

Energy Security Impacts (price shock) ................................ 0 1,410 1,500 1,850 2,110 

Accidents, Congestion, Noise e ............................................ 0 ¥320 ¥340 ¥420 ¥550 

Refueling Savings ................................................................ 0 160 170 210 240 

Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG Impacts c ............... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 900 1,000 1,200 1,400 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 4,200 4,500 5,600 6,500 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 7,000 7,500 9,300 11,000 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 13,000 14,000 17,000 20,000 

Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b

5% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 25,270 25,550 29,120+c 31,340+c 

3% (avg SCC) ...................................................................... 0 28,570 29,050 33,520+c 36,440+c 

2.5% (avg SCC) ................................................................... 0 31,370 32,050 37,220+c 40,940+c 

3% (95th percentile) ............................................................. 0 37,370 38,550 44,920+c 49,940+c 

Notes: 

a Net present value of reduced CO2 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 

the SCC TSD for more detail. bSection 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, NO2 and SO2) were not estimated for this analysis. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57362 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

574The 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 Negative 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57363 

575NEPA 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. 

576The 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. 

577The 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. 

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. 

579See Section 2.3.2 of the FEIS. 

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 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57364 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

580Emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

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 

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). 

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. 

C. Factors Balanced by NHTSA in 

Making Its Decision 

For discussion of the factors balanced 

by NHTSA in making its decision, see 

Sections III, VIII and IX of this Final 

Rule. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57365 

581 40 CFR 1501.6. 

582See Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for New Mediumand Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement 

Program, 75 FR 33565 (June 14, 2010). 583Environmental 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). 

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 ............................................................................................................................................................................... $8.1 

Fuel Savings .................................................................................................................................................................................. 50 

Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7.3 

Net Benefits d ................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 

Annualized Value e—3% Discount Rate 

Annualized Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.4 

Fuel Savings .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.2 

Annualized Benefits ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.4 

Net Benefits d ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.2 

Lifetime Present Value c—7% Discount Rate 

Program Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8.1 

Fuel Savings .................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 

Benefits .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6.7 

Net Benefits d ................................................................................................................................................................................. $33 

Annualized Value e—7% Discount Rate 

Annualized Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 

Fuel Savings .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.6 

Annualized Benefits ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.5 

Net Benefits d ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2.5 

Notes: 

aThe 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. cPresent 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. 

eThe 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57366 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

584The 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). 

586NEPA 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. 

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. 

(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 

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 

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) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57367 

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 

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. 

(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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57368 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57369 

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 

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 ................................................................................................................................................. 34 

Annual Labor Hours for Each Manufacturer to Prepare and Submit Required Information ........................................................... Varies 

Total Annual Information Collection Burden .................................................................................................................................... 58,064 Hours 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57370 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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. 

(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57371 

587See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above. 

588 ICCT. ICCT Evaluation of Vehicle Simulation 

Tools. 2009. 

(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, 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57372 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

589See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above. 

590CCSP (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. 

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 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

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 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. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57373 

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 

(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 

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 

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 

(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 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. 

Subpart T—[Amended] 

■ 5. Section 85.1901 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 85.1901 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 

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. 

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: 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57375 

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 

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 

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 

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: 

(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, heavyduty vehicles, and heavy-duty engines 

in its product line (including all 

vehicles and engines imported under 

the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 and 

85.1509) 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. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57377 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 12. Section 86.144–94 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(11) and (c)(10) to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.144–94 Calculations; exhaust 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

(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)). 

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 F—[Amended] 

■ 13. Section 86.544–90 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(8) and (c)(8) to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.544–90 Calculations; exhaust 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

(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)). 

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: 

§ 86.1305–2010 Introduction; structure of 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(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] 

§ 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: 

§ 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 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. CO2- 

equivalent 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. 

* * * * * 

(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 

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 

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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57379 

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. 

(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: 

§ 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: 

Where: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.064</GPH> ER15SE11.065</GPH>
57380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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))] 

* * * * * 

(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: 

§ 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 

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 2- 

cycle 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) * * * 

* * * * * 

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: 

§ 600.302–12 Fuel economy label—general 

provisions. 

(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 

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 

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. 

* * * * * 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.066</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57381 

■ 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 

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. 

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] 

Subpart E—In-use Testing 

1036.401 In-use testing. 

Subpart F—Test Procedures 

1036.501 How do I run a valid emission 

test? 

1036.525 Hybrid engines. 

1036.530 Calculating greenhouse gas 

emission rates. 

Subpart G—Special Compliance Provisions 

1036.601 What compliance provisions 

apply to these engines? 

1036.610 Innovative technology credits 

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). 

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. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—Overview and Applicability 

§ 1036.1 Does this part apply for my 

engines? 

(a) Except as specified in § 1036.5, the 

provisions of this part apply to all new 

2014 model year and later heavy-duty 

engines. This includes engines fueled by 

conventional and alternative fuels. 

(b) This part does not apply with 

respect to exhaust emission standards 

for HC, CO, NOX, or PM except that the 

provisions of § 1036.601 apply. 

§ 1036.2 Who is responsible for 

compliance? 

The regulations in this part 1036 

contain provisions that affect both 

engine manufacturers and others. 

However, the requirements of this part 

are generally addressed to the engine 

manufacturer. The term ‘‘you’’ generally 

means the engine manufacturer, 

especially for issues related to 

certification. 

§ 1036.5 Which engines are excluded from 

this part’s requirements? 

(a) The provisions of this part do not 

apply to engines used in medium-duty 

passenger vehicles that are subject to 

regulation under 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart S, except as specified in 40 CFR 

part 86, subpart S, 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 

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): 

Model years Light heavyduty 

Medium 

heavyduty— 

vocational 

Heavy 

heavyduty— 

vocational 

Medium 

heavyduty— 

tractor 

Heavy 

heavyduty— 

tractor 

2014–2016 ............................................................................................... 600 600 567 502 475 

2017 and later .......................................................................................... 576 576 555 487 460 

(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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57383 

(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 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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) 

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. 

Tractors LHD 

Engines 

MHD 

Engines 

HHD 

Engines 

Model Years 

2013–2015.

NA ....... 512 g/ 

hp-hr.

485 g/ 

hp-hr. 

Model Years 

2016 and 

later a.

NA ....... 487 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57385 

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 

§ 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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57387 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 1036.255 What decisions may EPA make 

regarding my certificate of conformity? 

(a) If we determine your application is 

complete and shows that the engine 

family meets all the requirements of this 

part and the Act, we will issue a 

certificate of conformity for your engine 

family for that model year. We may 

make the approval subject to additional 

conditions. 

(b) We may deny your application for 

certification if we determine that your 

engine family fails to comply with 

emission standards or other 

requirements of this part or the Clean 

Air Act. We will base our decision on 

all available information. If we deny 

your application, we will explain why 

in writing. 

(c) In addition, we may deny your 

application or suspend or revoke your 

certificate if you do any of the 

following: 

(1) Refuse to comply with any testing 

or reporting requirements. 

(2) Submit false or incomplete 

information (paragraph (e) of this 

section applies if this is fraudulent). 

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. 

Subpart F—Test Procedures 

§ 1036.501 How do I run a valid emission 

test? 

(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/ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57389 

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.

(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. 

Fuel type 

Reference 

carbonspecific net 

energy content 

(Btu/lbC) 

Reference 

carbonspecific net 

energy content 

(MJ/kgC) 

Diesel fuel ................................................................................................................................................................ 21,200 49.3112 

Gasoline ................................................................................................................................................................... 21,700 50.4742 

Natural Gas .............................................................................................................................................................. 28,500 66.2910 

LPG .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24,300 56.5218 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.007</GPH>
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. 

§ 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. 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57391 

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 

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. 

§ 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 

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 

§ 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57393 

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. 

§ 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. 

(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 

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. 

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 

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 Restrictions for using emission 

credits. 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57395 

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. 

§ 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). 

§ 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. 

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, 

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 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57397 

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 

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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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, 

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 

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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57399 

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? 

Subpart D—[Reserved] 

Subpart E—In-Use Testing 

1037.401 General provisions. 

Subpart F—Test and Modeling Procedures 

1037.501 General testing and modeling 

provisions. 

1037.510 Duty-cycle 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? 

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. 

Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and 

Trading for Certification 

1037.701 General provisions. 

1037.705 Generating and calculating 

emission credits. 

1037.710 Averaging. 

1037.715 Banking. 

1037.720 Trading. 

1037.725 What must I include in my 

application for certification? 

1037.730 ABT reports. 

1037.735 Recordkeeping. 

1037.740 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 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q. 

Subpart A—Overview and Applicability 

§ 1037.1 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. 

§ 1037.5 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 

§ 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 

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. 

(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): 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57401 

(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, 

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 

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. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.008</GPH>
57402 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 5- 

cycle 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. 

(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 

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: 

(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. 

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 

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 

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. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.009</GPH> ER15SE11.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57403 

(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: 

(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) 

CO2 standard 

(g/ton-mile) for 

model years 

2014–2016 

CO2 standard 

(g/ton-mile) for 

model year 

2017 and later 

GVWR ≤ 19,500 ...................................................................................................................................................... 388 373 

19,500 < GVWR ≤ 33,000 ....................................................................................................................................... 234 225 

33,000 < GVWR ...................................................................................................................................................... 226 222 

(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), 

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 

CO2 standard 

(g/ton-mile) for 

model years 

2014–2016 

CO2 standard 

(g/ton-mile) for 

model year 

2017 and later 

26,000 < GVWR ≤ 33,000 ............................................ Low-Roof (all cab styles) ............................................. 107 104

Mid-Roof (all cab styles) .............................................. 119 115 

High-Roof (all cab styles) ............................................. 124 120 

GVWR > 33,000 ........................................................... Low-Roof Day Cab ....................................................... 81 80 

Low-Roof Sleeper Cab ................................................. 68 66 

Mid-Roof Day Cab ....................................................... 88 86 

Mid-Roof Sleeper Cab ................................................. 76 73 

High-Roof Day Cab ...................................................... 92 89 

High-Roof Sleeper Cab ................................................ 75 72 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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 

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: 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57405 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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 ............................................................................................. [0.0482 × (WF)] + 371 

2015 Spark-Ignition ............................................................................................. [0.0479 × (WF)] + 369 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 Alternate CO2 target (g/mile) 

2016 Spark-Ignition ............................................................................................. [0.0469 × (WF)] + 362 

2017 Spark-Ignition ............................................................................................. [0.0460 × (WF)] + 354 

2014 Compression-Ignition ................................................................................. [0.0478 × (WF)] + 368 

2015 Compression-Ignition ................................................................................. [0.0474 × (WF)] + 366 

2016 Compression-Ignition ................................................................................. [0.0460 × (WF)] + 354 

2017 Compression-Ignition ................................................................................. [0.0445 × (WF)] + 343 

(2) To implement the phase-in under 

this paragraph (b)(2), the standards in 

§ 1037.104 apply as specified for model 

year 2019, with compliance for vehicles 

in model years 2014 through 2018 based 

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) 

2014 Spark-Ignition ............................................................................................. [0.0482 × (WF)] + 371 

2015 Spark-Ignition ............................................................................................. [0.0479 × (WF)] + 369 

2016–2018 Spark-Ignition ................................................................................... [0.0456 × (WF)] + 352 

2014 Compression-Ignition ................................................................................. [0.0478 × (WF)] + 368 

2015 Compression-Ignition ................................................................................. [0.0474 × (WF)] + 366 

2016–2018 Compression-Ignition ....................................................................... [0.0440 × (WF)] + 339 

(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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57409 

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)). 

(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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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). 

§ 1037.225 Amending applications for 

certification. 

Before we issue you a certificate of 

conformity, you may amend your 

application to include new or modified 

vehicle configurations, subject to the 

provisions of this section. After we have 

issued your certificate of conformity, 

you may send us an amended 

application requesting that we include 

new or modified vehicle configurations 

within the scope of the certificate, 

subject to the provisions of this section. 

You must amend your application if any 

changes occur with respect to any 

information that is included or should 

be included in your application. 

(a) You must amend your application 

before you take any of the following 

actions: 

(1) Add a vehicle configuration to a 

vehicle family. In this case, the vehicle 

configuration added must be consistent 

with other vehicle configurations in the 

vehicle family with respect to the 

criteria listed in § 1037.230. 

(2) Change a vehicle configuration 

already included in a vehicle family in 

a way that may affect emissions, or 

change any of the components you 

described in your application for 

certification. This includes production 

and design changes that may affect 

emissions any time during the vehicle’s 

lifetime. 

(3) Modify an FEL for a vehicle family 

as described in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(b) To amend your application for 

certification, send the relevant 

information to the Designated 

Compliance Officer. 

(1) Describe in detail the addition or 

change in the vehicle model or 

configuration you intend to make. 

(2) Include engineering evaluations or 

data showing that the amended vehicle 

family complies with all applicable 

requirements. You may do this by 

showing that the original emission-data 

vehicle is still appropriate for showing 

that the amended family complies with 

all applicable requirements. 

(3) If the original emission-data 

vehicle or emission modeling for the 

vehicle family is not appropriate to 

show compliance for the new or 

modified vehicle configuration, include 

new test data or emission modeling 

showing that the new or modified 

vehicle configuration meets the 

requirements of this part. 

(c) We may ask for more test data or 

engineering evaluations. You must give 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57411 

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. 

§ 1037.241 Demonstrating compliance with 

exhaust emission standards for greenhouse 

gas pollutants. 

(a) For purposes of certification, your 

vehicle family is considered in 

compliance with the emission standards 

in § 1037.105 or § 1037.106 if all vehicle 

configurations in that family have 

modeled CO2 emission rates (as 

specified in subpart F of this part) at or 

below the applicable standards. See 40 

CFR part 86, subpart S, for showing 

compliance with the standards of 

§ 1037.104. Note that your FELs are 

considered to be the applicable 

emission standards with which you 

must comply if you participate in the 

ABT program in subpart H of this part. 

(b) Your vehicle family is deemed not 

to comply if any vehicle configuration 

in that family has a modeled CO2

emission rate that is above its FEL. 

(c) We may require you to provide an 

engineering analysis showing that the 

performance of your emission controls 

will not deteriorate during the useful 

life with proper maintenance. If we 

determine that your emission controls 

are likely to deteriorate during the 

useful life, we may require you to 

develop and apply deterioration factors 

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. 

(4) Production figures for each vehicle 

family divided by assembly plant. 

(5) Keep a list of vehicle identification 

numbers for all the vehicles you 

produce under each certificate of 

conformity. 

(c) Keep 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. 

§ 1037.255 What decisions may EPA make 

regarding my certificate of conformity? 

(a) If we determine your application is 

complete and shows that the vehicle 

family meets all the requirements of this 

part and the Act, we will issue a 

certificate of conformity for your vehicle 

family for that model year. We may 

make the approval subject to additional 

conditions. 

(b) We may deny your application for 

certification if we determine that your 

vehicle family fails to comply with 

emission standards or other 

requirements of this part or the Clean 

Air Act. We will base our decision on 

all available information. If we deny 

your application, we will explain why 

in writing. 

(c) In addition, we may deny your 

application or suspend or revoke your 

certificate if you do any of the 

following: 

(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

(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 

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: 

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. 

m = grams of CO2 emitted over the 

appropriate test cycle. 

D = miles driven over the appropriate test 

cycle. 

(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

Transient 

(%) 

55 mph cruise 

(%) 

65 mph cruise 

(%) 

Vocational ........................................................................................................................ 42 21 37 

Vocational Hybrid Vehicles .............................................................................................. 75 9 16

Day Cabs ......................................................................................................................... 19 17 64 

Sleeper Cabs ................................................................................................................... 5 9 86 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57413 

(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. 

(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

Bin level If your measured CDA (m2) 

is . . . Then your CD input is . . . 

High-Roof Day Cabs 

Bin I .................................................................................................................................. ≥ 8.0 0.79 

Bin II ................................................................................................................................. 7.1–7.9 0.72 

Bin III ................................................................................................................................ 6.2–7.0 0.63 

Bin IV ............................................................................................................................... 5.6–6.1 0.56 

Bin V ................................................................................................................................ ≤ 5.5 0.51 

High-Roof Sleeper Cabs 

Bin I .................................................................................................................................. ≥ 7.6 0.75 

Bin II ................................................................................................................................. 6.7–7.5 0.68 

Bin III ................................................................................................................................ 5.8–6.6 0.60 

Bin IV ............................................................................................................................... 5.2–5.7 0.52 

Bin V ................................................................................................................................ ≤ 5.1 0.47 

TABLE 2 TO § 1037.520— LOW-ROOF DAY AND SLEEPER CABS

Bin level If your measured CDA (m2) 

is . . . Then your CD input is . . . 

Low-Roof Day and Sleeper Cabs 

Bin I .................................................................................................................................. ≥ 5.1 0.77 

Bin II ................................................................................................................................. ≤ 5.0 0.71 

Mid-Roof Day and Sleeper Cabs 

Bin I .................................................................................................................................. ≥ 5.6 0.87 

Bin II ................................................................................................................................. ≤ 5.5 0.82 

(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 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 

Weight 

reduction 

(lb per tire or 

wheel) 

Single-Wide Drive Tire with 

Steel Wheel ................... 84 

Aluminum Wheel ........... 139 

Light-Weight Aluminum 

Wheel ......................... 147 

Steer Tire or Dual-wide Drive 

Tire with . . . 

High-Strength Steel 

Wheel ......................... 8 

Aluminum Wheel ........... 21 

Light-Weight Aluminum 

Wheel ......................... 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

Weight reduction technologies Aluminum weight 

reduction (lb) 

High-strength steel 

weight reduction 

(lb) 

Door ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 6 

Roof ......................................................................................................................................................... 60 18 

Cab rear wall ........................................................................................................................................... 49 16 

Cab floor .................................................................................................................................................. 56 18 

Hood Support Structure System .............................................................................................................. 15 3 

Fairing Support Structure System ........................................................................................................... 35 6 

Instrument Panel Support Structure ........................................................................................................ 5 1 

Brake Drums—Drive (4) .......................................................................................................................... 140 11 

Brake Drums—Non Drive (2) .................................................................................................................. 60 8 

Frame Rails ............................................................................................................................................. 440 87 

Crossmember—Cab ................................................................................................................................ 15 5 

Crossmember—Suspension .................................................................................................................... 25 6 

Crossmember—Non Suspension (3) ....................................................................................................... 15 5 

Fifth Wheel ............................................................................................................................................... 100 25 

Radiator Support ...................................................................................................................................... 20 6 

Fuel Tank Support Structure ................................................................................................................... 40 12 

Steps ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 6 

Bumper .................................................................................................................................................... 33 10 

Shackles .................................................................................................................................................. 10 3 

Front Axle ................................................................................................................................................ 60 15 

Suspension Brackets, Hangers ............................................................................................................... 100 30 

Transmission Case .................................................................................................................................. 50 12 

Clutch Housing ........................................................................................................................................ 40 10 

Drive Axle Hubs (8) ................................................................................................................................. 160 4 

Non Drive Front Hubs (2) ........................................................................................................................ 40 5 

Driveshaft ................................................................................................................................................. 20 5 

Transmission/Clutch Shift Levers ............................................................................................................ 20 4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57415 

(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. 

§ 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 

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). 

(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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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 

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

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

Parameter Pressure 

Slope, |a1| ................................................................................................................................................. 0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030. 

Absolute value of intercept, |a0| ............................................................................................................... ≤ 2.0% of maximum mapped pressure. 

Standard error of estimate, SEE .............................................................................................................. ≤ 10% of maximum mapped pressure. 

Coefficient of determination, r2 ............................................................................................................... ≥ 0.970. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.012</GPH>
57418 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. 

(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. 

§ 1037.550 Special procedures for testing 

post-transmission hybrid systems. 

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. 

(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: 

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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.013</GPH> ER15SE11.014</GPH>
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. 

Where: 

Ti = instantaneous measured torque at the 

transmission output shaft. 

fn,i = instantaneous measured angular speed 

of the transmission output shaft. 

(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: 

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: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1037.550—STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR VALIDATING DUTY CYCLES

Parameter Speed control Torque control 

Slope, a1 ............................................................. 0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................................... 0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030. 

Absolute value of intercept, a0 ........................... ≤2.0% of maximum test speed ........................ ≤2.0% of maximum torque. 

Standard error of estimate, SEE ........................ ≤5% of maximum test speed ........................... ≤10% of maximum torque. 

Coefficient of determination, r 2 .......................... ≥0.970 .............................................................. ≥0.850. 

(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. 

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 

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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.015</GPH> ER15SE11.016</GPH> ER15SE11.017</GPH> ER15SE11.018</GPH>
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. 

§ 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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57421 

(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. 

§ 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: 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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. 

(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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57423 

WAS EXEMPTED UNDER 40 CFR 

1037.631.’’. 

§ 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: 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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 

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 Automatic engine shutdown 

systems. 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57425 

(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 

§ 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57427 

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. 

§ 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 Restrictions for using emission 

credits. 

The following restrictions apply for 

using emission credits: 

(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. 

§ 1037.745 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 

§ 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. 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57429 

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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

(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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57431 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

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. 

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: 

(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57433 

(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. 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

1 ........................................... 0.00 0.00 

2 ........................................... 0.00 0.00 

3 ........................................... 0.00 0.00 

4 ........................................... 0.00 0.00 

5 ........................................... 0.00 0.00 

6 ........................................... 0.00 0.00 

7 ........................................... 0.41 0.18 

8 ........................................... 1.18 0.53 

9 ........................................... 2.26 1.01 

10 ......................................... 3.19 1.43 

11 ......................................... 3.97 1.77 

12 ......................................... 4.66 2.08 

13 ......................................... 5.32 2.38 

14 ......................................... 5.94 2.66 

15 ......................................... 6.48 2.90 

16 ......................................... 6.91 3.09 

17 ......................................... 7.28 3.25 

18 ......................................... 7.64 3.42 

19 ......................................... 8.02 3.59 

20 ......................................... 8.36 3.74 

21 ......................................... 8.60 3.84 

22 ......................................... 8.74 3.91 

23 ......................................... 8.82 3.94 

24 ......................................... 8.82 3.94 

25 ......................................... 8.76 3.92 

26 ......................................... 8.66 3.87 

27 ......................................... 8.58 3.84 

28 ......................................... 8.52 3.81 

29 ......................................... 8.46 3.78 

30 ......................................... 8.38 3.75 

31 ......................................... 8.31 3.71 

32 ......................................... 8.21 3.67 

33 ......................................... 8.11 3.63 

34 ......................................... 8.00 3.58 

35 ......................................... 7.94 3.55 

36 ......................................... 7.94 3.55 

37 ......................................... 7.80 3.49 

38 ......................................... 7.43 3.32 

39 ......................................... 6.79 3.04 

40 ......................................... 5.81 2.60 

41 ......................................... 4.65 2.08 

42 ......................................... 3.03 1.35 

43 ......................................... 1.88 0.84 

44 ......................................... 1.15 0.51 

45 ......................................... 1.14 0.51 

46 ......................................... 1.12 0.50 

47 ......................................... 1.11 0.50 

48 ......................................... 1.19 0.53 

49 ......................................... 1.57 0.70 

50 ......................................... 2.31 1.03 

51 ......................................... 3.37 1.51 

52 ......................................... 4.51 2.02 

53 ......................................... 5.56 2.49 

54 ......................................... 6.41 2.87 

55 ......................................... 7.09 3.17 

56 ......................................... 7.59 3.39 

57 ......................................... 7.99 3.57 

58 ......................................... 8.32 3.72 

59 ......................................... 8.64 3.86 

60 ......................................... 8.91 3.98 

61 ......................................... 9.13 4.08 

62 ......................................... 9.29 4.15 

63 ......................................... 9.40 4.20 

64 ......................................... 9.39 4.20 

65 ......................................... 9.20 4.11 

66 ......................................... 8.84 3.95 

67 ......................................... 8.35 3.73 

68 ......................................... 7.81 3.49 

69 ......................................... 7.22 3.23 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE—Continued 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

70 ......................................... 6.65 2.97 

71 ......................................... 6.13 2.74 

72 ......................................... 5.75 2.57 

73 ......................................... 5.61 2.51 

74 ......................................... 5.65 2.53 

75 ......................................... 5.80 2.59 

76 ......................................... 5.95 2.66 

77 ......................................... 6.09 2.72 

78 ......................................... 6.21 2.78 

79 ......................................... 6.31 2.82 

80 ......................................... 6.34 2.83 

81 ......................................... 6.47 2.89 

82 ......................................... 6.65 2.97 

83 ......................................... 6.88 3.08 

84 ......................................... 7.04 3.15 

85 ......................................... 7.05 3.15 

86 ......................................... 7.01 3.13 

87 ......................................... 6.90 3.08 

88 ......................................... 6.88 3.08 

89 ......................................... 6.89 3.08 

90 ......................................... 6.96 3.11 

91 ......................................... 7.04 3.15 

92 ......................................... 7.17 3.21 

93 ......................................... 7.29 3.26 

94 ......................................... 7.39 3.30 

95 ......................................... 7.48 3.34 

96 ......................................... 7.57 3.38 

97 ......................................... 7.61 3.40 

98 ......................................... 7.59 3.39 

99 ......................................... 7.53 3.37 

100 ....................................... 7.46 3.33 

101 ....................................... 7.40 3.31 

102 ....................................... 7.39 3.30 

103 ....................................... 7.38 3.30 

104 ....................................... 7.37 3.29 

105 ....................................... 7.37 3.29 

106 ....................................... 7.39 3.30 

107 ....................................... 7.42 3.32 

108 ....................................... 7.43 3.32 

109 ....................................... 7.40 3.31 

110 ....................................... 7.39 3.30 

111 ....................................... 7.42 3.32 

112 ....................................... 7.50 3.35 

113 ....................................... 7.57 3.38 

114 ....................................... 7.60 3.40 

115 ....................................... 7.60 3.40 

116 ....................................... 7.61 3.40 

117 ....................................... 7.64 3.42 

118 ....................................... 7.68 3.43 

119 ....................................... 7.74 3.46 

120 ....................................... 7.82 3.50 

121 ....................................... 7.90 3.53 

122 ....................................... 7.96 3.56 

123 ....................................... 7.99 3.57 

124 ....................................... 8.02 3.59 

125 ....................................... 8.01 3.58 

126 ....................................... 7.87 3.52 

127 ....................................... 7.59 3.39 

128 ....................................... 7.20 3.22 

129 ....................................... 6.52 2.91 

130 ....................................... 5.53 2.47 

131 ....................................... 4.36 1.95 

132 ....................................... 3.30 1.48 

133 ....................................... 2.50 1.12 

134 ....................................... 1.94 0.87 

135 ....................................... 1.56 0.70 

136 ....................................... 0.95 0.42 

137 ....................................... 0.42 0.19 

138 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

139 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

140 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

141 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

142 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

143 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

144 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

145 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

146 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

147 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

148 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

149 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

150 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

151 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

152 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

153 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

154 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

155 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

156 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

157 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

158 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

159 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

160 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

161 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

162 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

163 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

164 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

165 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

166 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

167 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

168 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

169 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

170 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

171 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

172 ....................................... 1.11 0.50 

173 ....................................... 2.65 1.18 

174 ....................................... 4.45 1.99 

175 ....................................... 5.68 2.54 

176 ....................................... 6.75 3.02 

177 ....................................... 7.59 3.39 

178 ....................................... 7.75 3.46 

179 ....................................... 7.63 3.41 

180 ....................................... 7.67 3.43 

181 ....................................... 8.70 3.89 

182 ....................................... 10.20 4.56 

183 ....................................... 11.92 5.33 

184 ....................................... 12.84 5.74 

185 ....................................... 13.27 5.93 

186 ....................................... 13.38 5.98 

187 ....................................... 13.61 6.08 

188 ....................................... 14.15 6.33 

189 ....................................... 14.84 6.63 

190 ....................................... 16.49 7.37 

191 ....................................... 18.33 8.19 

192 ....................................... 20.36 9.10 

193 ....................................... 21.47 9.60 

194 ....................................... 22.35 9.99 

195 ....................................... 22.96 10.26 

196 ....................................... 23.46 10.49 

197 ....................................... 23.92 10.69 

198 ....................................... 24.42 10.92 

199 ....................................... 24.99 11.17 

200 ....................................... 25.91 11.58 

201 ....................................... 26.26 11.74 

202 ....................................... 26.38 11.79 

203 ....................................... 26.26 11.74 

204 ....................................... 26.49 11.84 

205 ....................................... 26.76 11.96 

206 ....................................... 27.07 12.10 

207 ....................................... 26.64 11.91 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE—Continued 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

208 ....................................... 25.99 11.62 

209 ....................................... 24.77 11.07 

210 ....................................... 24.04 10.75 

211 ....................................... 23.39 10.46 

212 ....................................... 22.73 10.16 

213 ....................................... 22.16 9.91 

214 ....................................... 21.66 9.68 

215 ....................................... 21.39 9.56 

216 ....................................... 21.43 9.58 

217 ....................................... 20.67 9.24 

218 ....................................... 17.98 8.04 

219 ....................................... 13.15 5.88 

220 ....................................... 7.71 3.45 

221 ....................................... 3.30 1.48 

222 ....................................... 0.88 0.39 

223 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

224 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

225 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

226 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

227 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

228 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

229 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

230 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

231 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

232 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

233 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

234 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

235 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

236 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

237 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

238 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

239 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

240 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

241 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

242 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

243 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

244 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

245 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

246 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

247 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

248 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

249 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

250 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

251 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

252 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

253 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

254 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

255 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

256 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

257 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

258 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

259 ....................................... 0.50 0.22 

260 ....................................... 1.57 0.70 

261 ....................................... 3.07 1.37 

262 ....................................... 4.57 2.04 

263 ....................................... 5.65 2.53 

264 ....................................... 6.95 3.11 

265 ....................................... 8.05 3.60 

266 ....................................... 9.13 4.08 

267 ....................................... 10.05 4.49 

268 ....................................... 11.62 5.19 

269 ....................................... 12.92 5.78 

270 ....................................... 13.84 6.19 

271 ....................................... 14.38 6.43 

272 ....................................... 15.64 6.99 

273 ....................................... 17.14 7.66 

274 ....................................... 18.21 8.14 

275 ....................................... 18.90 8.45 

276 ....................................... 19.44 8.69 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE—Continued 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

277 ....................................... 20.09 8.98 

278 ....................................... 21.89 9.79 

279 ....................................... 24.15 10.80 

280 ....................................... 26.26 11.74 

281 ....................................... 26.95 12.05 

282 ....................................... 27.03 12.08 

283 ....................................... 27.30 12.20 

284 ....................................... 28.10 12.56 

285 ....................................... 29.44 13.16 

286 ....................................... 30.78 13.76 

287 ....................................... 32.09 14.35 

288 ....................................... 33.24 14.86 

289 ....................................... 34.46 15.40 

290 ....................................... 35.42 15.83 

291 ....................................... 35.88 16.04 

292 ....................................... 36.03 16.11 

293 ....................................... 35.84 16.02 

294 ....................................... 35.65 15.94 

295 ....................................... 35.31 15.78 

296 ....................................... 35.19 15.73 

297 ....................................... 35.12 15.70 

298 ....................................... 35.12 15.70 

299 ....................................... 35.04 15.66 

300 ....................................... 35.08 15.68 

301 ....................................... 35.04 15.66 

302 ....................................... 35.34 15.80 

303 ....................................... 35.50 15.87 

304 ....................................... 35.77 15.99 

305 ....................................... 35.81 16.01 

306 ....................................... 35.92 16.06 

307 ....................................... 36.23 16.20 

308 ....................................... 36.42 16.28 

309 ....................................... 36.65 16.38 

310 ....................................... 36.26 16.21 

311 ....................................... 36.07 16.12 

312 ....................................... 35.84 16.02 

313 ....................................... 35.96 16.08 

314 ....................................... 36.00 16.09 

315 ....................................... 35.57 15.90 

316 ....................................... 35.00 15.65 

317 ....................................... 34.08 15.24 

318 ....................................... 33.39 14.93 

319 ....................................... 32.20 14.39 

320 ....................................... 30.32 13.55 

321 ....................................... 28.48 12.73 

322 ....................................... 26.95 12.05 

323 ....................................... 26.18 11.70 

324 ....................................... 25.38 11.35 

325 ....................................... 24.77 11.07 

326 ....................................... 23.46 10.49 

327 ....................................... 22.39 10.01 

328 ....................................... 20.97 9.37 

329 ....................................... 20.09 8.98 

330 ....................................... 18.90 8.45 

331 ....................................... 18.17 8.12 

332 ....................................... 16.48 7.37 

333 ....................................... 15.07 6.74 

334 ....................................... 12.23 5.47 

335 ....................................... 10.08 4.51 

336 ....................................... 7.71 3.45 

337 ....................................... 7.32 3.27 

338 ....................................... 8.63 3.86 

339 ....................................... 10.77 4.81 

340 ....................................... 12.65 5.66 

341 ....................................... 13.88 6.20 

342 ....................................... 15.03 6.72 

343 ....................................... 15.64 6.99 

344 ....................................... 16.99 7.60 

345 ....................................... 17.98 8.04 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57435 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE—Continued 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

346 ....................................... 19.13 8.55 

347 ....................................... 18.67 8.35 

348 ....................................... 18.25 8.16 

349 ....................................... 18.17 8.12 

350 ....................................... 18.40 8.23 

351 ....................................... 19.63 8.78 

352 ....................................... 20.32 9.08 

353 ....................................... 21.43 9.58 

354 ....................................... 21.47 9.60 

355 ....................................... 21.97 9.82 

356 ....................................... 22.27 9.96 

357 ....................................... 22.69 10.14 

358 ....................................... 23.15 10.35 

359 ....................................... 23.69 10.59 

360 ....................................... 23.96 10.71 

361 ....................................... 24.27 10.85 

362 ....................................... 24.34 10.88 

363 ....................................... 24.50 10.95 

364 ....................................... 24.42 10.92 

365 ....................................... 24.38 10.90 

366 ....................................... 24.31 10.87 

367 ....................................... 24.23 10.83 

368 ....................................... 24.69 11.04 

369 ....................................... 25.11 11.23 

370 ....................................... 25.53 11.41 

371 ....................................... 25.38 11.35 

372 ....................................... 24.58 10.99 

373 ....................................... 23.77 10.63 

374 ....................................... 23.54 10.52 

375 ....................................... 23.50 10.51 

376 ....................................... 24.15 10.80 

377 ....................................... 24.30 10.86 

378 ....................................... 24.15 10.80 

379 ....................................... 23.19 10.37 

380 ....................................... 22.50 10.06 

381 ....................................... 21.93 9.80 

382 ....................................... 21.85 9.77 

383 ....................................... 21.55 9.63 

384 ....................................... 21.89 9.79 

385 ....................................... 21.97 9.82 

386 ....................................... 21.97 9.82 

387 ....................................... 22.01 9.84 

388 ....................................... 21.85 9.77 

389 ....................................... 21.62 9.67 

390 ....................................... 21.62 9.67 

391 ....................................... 22.01 9.84 

392 ....................................... 22.81 10.20 

393 ....................................... 23.54 10.52 

394 ....................................... 24.38 10.90 

395 ....................................... 24.80 11.09 

396 ....................................... 24.61 11.00 

397 ....................................... 23.12 10.34 

398 ....................................... 21.62 9.67 

399 ....................................... 19.90 8.90 

400 ....................................... 18.86 8.43 

401 ....................................... 17.79 7.95 

402 ....................................... 17.25 7.71 

403 ....................................... 16.91 7.56 

404 ....................................... 16.75 7.49 

405 ....................................... 16.75 7.49 

406 ....................................... 16.87 7.54 

407 ....................................... 16.37 7.32 

408 ....................................... 16.37 7.32 

409 ....................................... 16.49 7.37 

410 ....................................... 17.21 7.69 

411 ....................................... 17.41 7.78 

412 ....................................... 17.37 7.77 

413 ....................................... 16.87 7.54 

414 ....................................... 16.72 7.47 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE—Continued 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

415 ....................................... 16.22 7.25 

416 ....................................... 15.76 7.05 

417 ....................................... 14.72 6.58 

418 ....................................... 13.69 6.12 

419 ....................................... 12.00 5.36 

420 ....................................... 10.43 4.66 

421 ....................................... 8.71 3.89 

422 ....................................... 7.44 3.33 

423 ....................................... 5.71 2.55 

424 ....................................... 4.22 1.89 

425 ....................................... 2.30 1.03 

426 ....................................... 1.00 0.45 

427 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

428 ....................................... 0.61 0.27 

429 ....................................... 1.19 0.53 

430 ....................................... 1.61 0.72 

431 ....................................... 1.53 0.68 

432 ....................................... 2.34 1.05 

433 ....................................... 4.29 1.92 

434 ....................................... 7.25 3.24 

435 ....................................... 10.20 4.56 

436 ....................................... 12.46 5.57 

437 ....................................... 14.53 6.50 

438 ....................................... 16.22 7.25 

439 ....................................... 17.87 7.99 

440 ....................................... 19.74 8.82 

441 ....................................... 21.01 9.39 

442 ....................................... 22.23 9.94 

443 ....................................... 22.62 10.11 

444 ....................................... 23.61 10.55 

445 ....................................... 24.88 11.12 

446 ....................................... 26.15 11.69 

447 ....................................... 26.99 12.07 

448 ....................................... 27.56 12.32 

449 ....................................... 28.18 12.60 

450 ....................................... 28.94 12.94 

451 ....................................... 29.83 13.34 

452 ....................................... 30.78 13.76 

453 ....................................... 31.82 14.22 

454 ....................................... 32.78 14.65 

455 ....................................... 33.24 14.86 

456 ....................................... 33.47 14.96 

457 ....................................... 33.31 14.89 

458 ....................................... 33.08 14.79 

459 ....................................... 32.78 14.65 

460 ....................................... 32.39 14.48 

461 ....................................... 32.13 14.36 

462 ....................................... 31.82 14.22 

463 ....................................... 31.55 14.10 

464 ....................................... 31.25 13.97 

465 ....................................... 30.94 13.83 

466 ....................................... 30.71 13.73 

467 ....................................... 30.56 13.66 

468 ....................................... 30.79 13.76 

469 ....................................... 31.13 13.92 

470 ....................................... 31.55 14.10 

471 ....................................... 31.51 14.09 

472 ....................................... 31.47 14.07 

473 ....................................... 31.44 14.05 

474 ....................................... 31.51 14.09 

475 ....................................... 31.59 14.12 

476 ....................................... 31.67 14.16 

477 ....................................... 32.01 14.31 

478 ....................................... 32.63 14.59 

479 ....................................... 33.39 14.93 

480 ....................................... 34.31 15.34 

481 ....................................... 34.81 15.56 

482 ....................................... 34.20 15.29 

483 ....................................... 32.39 14.48 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE—Continued 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

484 ....................................... 30.29 13.54 

485 ....................................... 28.56 12.77 

486 ....................................... 26.45 11.82 

487 ....................................... 24.79 11.08 

488 ....................................... 23.12 10.34 

489 ....................................... 20.73 9.27 

490 ....................................... 18.33 8.19 

491 ....................................... 15.72 7.03 

492 ....................................... 13.11 5.86 

493 ....................................... 10.47 4.68 

494 ....................................... 7.82 3.50 

495 ....................................... 5.70 2.55 

496 ....................................... 3.57 1.60 

497 ....................................... 0.92 0.41 

498 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

499 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

500 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

501 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

502 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

503 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

504 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

505 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

506 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

507 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

508 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

509 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

510 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

511 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

512 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

513 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

514 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

515 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

516 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

517 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

518 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

519 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

520 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

521 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

522 ....................................... 0.50 0.22 

523 ....................................... 1.50 0.67 

524 ....................................... 3.00 1.34 

525 ....................................... 4.50 2.01 

526 ....................................... 5.80 2.59 

527 ....................................... 6.52 2.91 

528 ....................................... 6.75 3.02 

529 ....................................... 6.44 2.88 

530 ....................................... 6.17 2.76 

531 ....................................... 6.33 2.83 

532 ....................................... 6.71 3.00 

533 ....................................... 7.40 3.31 

534 ....................................... 7.67 3.43 

535 ....................................... 7.33 3.28 

536 ....................................... 6.71 3.00 

537 ....................................... 6.41 2.87 

538 ....................................... 6.60 2.95 

539 ....................................... 6.56 2.93 

540 ....................................... 5.94 2.66 

541 ....................................... 5.45 2.44 

542 ....................................... 5.87 2.62 

543 ....................................... 6.71 3.00 

544 ....................................... 7.56 3.38 

545 ....................................... 7.59 3.39 

546 ....................................... 7.63 3.41 

547 ....................................... 7.67 3.43 

548 ....................................... 7.67 3.43 

549 ....................................... 7.48 3.34 

550 ....................................... 7.29 3.26 

551 ....................................... 7.29 3.26 

552 ....................................... 7.40 3.31 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

553 ....................................... 7.48 3.34 

554 ....................................... 7.52 3.36 

555 ....................................... 7.52 3.36 

556 ....................................... 7.48 3.34 

557 ....................................... 7.44 3.33 

558 ....................................... 7.28 3.25 

559 ....................................... 7.21 3.22 

560 ....................................... 7.09 3.17 

561 ....................................... 7.06 3.16 

562 ....................................... 7.29 3.26 

563 ....................................... 7.75 3.46 

564 ....................................... 8.55 3.82 

565 ....................................... 9.09 4.06 

566 ....................................... 10.04 4.49 

567 ....................................... 11.12 4.97 

568 ....................................... 12.46 5.57 

569 ....................................... 13.00 5.81 

570 ....................................... 14.26 6.37 

571 ....................................... 15.37 6.87 

572 ....................................... 17.02 7.61 

573 ....................................... 18.17 8.12 

574 ....................................... 19.21 8.59 

575 ....................................... 20.17 9.02 

576 ....................................... 20.66 9.24 

577 ....................................... 21.12 9.44 

578 ....................................... 21.43 9.58 

579 ....................................... 22.66 10.13 

580 ....................................... 23.92 10.69 

581 ....................................... 25.42 11.36 

582 ....................................... 25.53 11.41 

583 ....................................... 26.68 11.93 

584 ....................................... 28.14 12.58 

585 ....................................... 30.06 13.44 

586 ....................................... 30.94 13.83 

587 ....................................... 31.63 14.14 

588 ....................................... 32.36 14.47 

589 ....................................... 33.24 14.86 

590 ....................................... 33.66 15.05 

591 ....................................... 34.12 15.25 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE—Continued 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

592 ....................................... 35.92 16.06 

593 ....................................... 37.72 16.86 

594 ....................................... 39.26 17.55 

595 ....................................... 39.45 17.64 

596 ....................................... 39.83 17.81 

597 ....................................... 40.18 17.96 

598 ....................................... 40.48 18.10 

599 ....................................... 40.75 18.22 

600 ....................................... 41.02 18.34 

601 ....................................... 41.36 18.49 

602 ....................................... 41.79 18.68 

603 ....................................... 42.40 18.95 

604 ....................................... 42.82 19.14 

605 ....................................... 43.05 19.25 

606 ....................................... 43.09 19.26 

607 ....................................... 43.24 19.33 

608 ....................................... 43.59 19.49 

609 ....................................... 44.01 19.67 

610 ....................................... 44.35 19.83 

611 ....................................... 44.55 19.92 

612 ....................................... 44.82 20.04 

613 ....................................... 45.05 20.14 

614 ....................................... 45.31 20.26 

615 ....................................... 45.58 20.38 

616 ....................................... 46.00 20.56 

617 ....................................... 46.31 20.70 

618 ....................................... 46.54 20.81 

619 ....................................... 46.61 20.84 

620 ....................................... 46.92 20.98 

621 ....................................... 47.19 21.10 

622 ....................................... 47.46 21.22 

623 ....................................... 47.54 21.25 

624 ....................................... 47.54 21.25 

625 ....................................... 47.54 21.25 

626 ....................................... 47.50 21.23 

627 ....................................... 47.50 21.23 

628 ....................................... 47.50 21.23 

629 ....................................... 47.31 21.15 

630 ....................................... 47.04 21.03 

APPENDIX I TO PART 1037—HEAVYDUTY TRANSIENT CHASSIS TEST

CYCLE—Continued 

Time 

sec. 

Speed 

mph 

Speed 

m/s 

631 ....................................... 46.77 20.91 

632 ....................................... 45.54 20.36 

633 ....................................... 43.24 19.33 

634 ....................................... 41.52 18.56 

635 ....................................... 39.79 17.79 

636 ....................................... 38.07 17.02 

637 ....................................... 36.34 16.25 

638 ....................................... 34.04 15.22 

639 ....................................... 32.45 14.51 

640 ....................................... 30.86 13.80 

641 ....................................... 28.83 12.89 

642 ....................................... 26.45 11.82 

643 ....................................... 24.27 10.85 

644 ....................................... 22.04 9.85 

645 ....................................... 19.82 8.86 

646 ....................................... 17.04 7.62 

647 ....................................... 14.26 6.37 

648 ....................................... 11.52 5.15 

649 ....................................... 8.78 3.93 

650 ....................................... 7.17 3.21 

651 ....................................... 5.56 2.49 

652 ....................................... 3.72 1.66 

653 ....................................... 3.38 1.51 

654 ....................................... 3.11 1.39 

655 ....................................... 2.58 1.15 

656 ....................................... 1.66 0.74 

657 ....................................... 0.67 0.30 

658 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

659 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

660 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

661 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

662 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

663 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

664 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

665 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

666 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

667 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

668 ....................................... 0.00 0.00 

APPENDIX II TO PART 1037—POWER TAKE-OFF TEST CYCLE

Cycle simulation Mode 

Start 

time of 

mode 

Normalized 

pressure, 

circuit 1 

(%) 

Normalized 

pressure, 

circuit 2 

(%) 

Utility ........................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0.0 0.0 

Utility ........................................................................................................................................ 1 33 80.5 0.0 

Utility ........................................................................................................................................ 2 40 0.0 0.0 

Utility ........................................................................................................................................ 3 145 83.5 0.0 

Utility ........................................................................................................................................ 4 289 0.0 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 5 361 0.0 13.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 6 363 0.0 38.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 7 373 0.0 53.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 8 384 0.0 73.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 9 388 0.0 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 10 401 0.0 13.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 11 403 0.0 38.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 12 413 0.0 53.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 13 424 0.0 73.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 14 442 11.2 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 15 468 29.3 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 16 473 0.0 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 17 486 11.2 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 18 512 29.3 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 19 517 0.0 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 20 530 12.8 11.1 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 21 532 12.8 38.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57437 

APPENDIX II TO PART 1037—POWER TAKE-OFF TEST CYCLE—Continued 

Cycle simulation Mode 

Start 

time of 

mode 

Normalized 

pressure, 

circuit 1 

(%) 

Normalized 

pressure, 

circuit 2 

(%) 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 22 541 12.8 53.4 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 23 550 12.8 73.5 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 24 553 0.0 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 25 566 12.8 11.1 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 26 568 12.8 38.2 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 27 577 12.8 53.4 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 28 586 12.8 73.5 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 29 589 0.0 0.0 

Refuse ...................................................................................................................................... 30 600 0.0 0.0 

Appendix III to Part 1037—Emission 

Control Identifiers 

This appendix identifies abbreviations for 

emission control information labels, as 

required under § 1037.135. 

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 

-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) 

Other Components 

-ADVH—Vehicle includes advanced hybrid 

technology components 

-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 

■ 35. The authority citation for part 

1039 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

■ 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: 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57438 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

* * * * * 

■ 40. Section 1065.20 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) introductory 

text, (a)(1), and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.20 Units of measure and overview 

of calculations. 

(a) System of units. The procedures in 

this part generally follow the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57439 

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 

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): 

Quantity 

Rounding increment 

10 1 0.1 0.01 

3.141593 .......................................................................................................... 0 3 3.1 3.14 

123,456.789 ..................................................................................................... 123,460 123,457 123,456.8 123,456.79 

5.500 ................................................................................................................ 10 6 5.5 5.50 

4.500 ................................................................................................................ 0 4 4.5 4.50 

Quantity 

Rounding increment 

25 3 0.5 0.02 

229.267 ............................................................................................................ 225 228 229.5 229.26 

62.500 .............................................................................................................. 50 63 62.5 62.50 

87.500 .............................................................................................................. 100 87 87.5 87.50 

7.500 ................................................................................................................ 0 6 7.5 7.50 

(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 

±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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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% ....................................................................................................................................................... ±3 °C ........... ±6 °C ........... ±12 °C 

50% ..................................................................................................................................................... ±0.3 °C ........ ±0.6 °C ........ ±1.2 °C 

100% ................................................................................................................................................... ±0.15 °C ...... ±0.3 °C ........ ±0.6 °C 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 45. Section 1065.205 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.205 Performance specifications for 

measurement instruments. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57441 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C ■ 46. Section 1065.220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read 

as follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.020</GPH>
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: 

§ 1065.250 Nondispersive infrared 

analyzer. 

(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 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57443 

■ 54. Section 1065.275 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.275 N2O measurement devices. 

* * * * * 

(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 

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. 

(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. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57444 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

■ 58. Section 1065.303 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.303 Summary of required 

calibration and verifications. 

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. 

§ 1065.307: Linearity verification ........................ 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. 

§ 1065.308: Continuous gas analyzer system 

response and updating-recording 

verification—for gas analyzers not continuously compensated for other gas species.

Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response. 

§ 1065.309: Continuous gas analyzer systemresponse and updating-recording 

verification—for gas analyzers continuously 

compensated for other gas species.

Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response. 

§ 1065.310: Torque ............................................. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.315: Pressure, temperature, dewpoint .... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.320: Fuel flow .......................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.325: Intake flow ....................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.330: Exhaust flow .................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.340: Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) ............. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.341: CVS and batch sampler 

verification b.

Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.342 Sample dryer verification ................. For thermal chillers: upon installation and after major maintenance. 

For osmotic membranes; upon installation, within 35 days of testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.345: Vacuum leak ................................... 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. 

§ 1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O interference ........... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and H2O interference.Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.360: FID calibrationn ............................... Calibrate all FID analyzers: upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

THC FID optimization, and THC FID verification 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. 

§ 1065.362: Raw exhaust FID O2 interference ... 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. 

§ 1065.365: Nonmethane cutter penetration ...... Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.370: CLD CO2 and H2O quench ............. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.372: NDUV HC and H2O interference .... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.375: N2O analyzer interference .............. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.376: Chiller NO2 penetration ................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.378: NO2-to-NO converter conversion .... Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 1065.395: Inertial PM balance and weighing .. Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after 

major maintenance. 

Other verifications: upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

aPerform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering 

judgment. bThe 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

Measurement system Quantity 

Linearity criteria 

⎢ xmin(a1-1)+a0 ⎢ a1 SEE r2

Speed ................................................................. ƒn ≤ 0.05% · ƒnmax 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · ƒnmax ≥ 0.990 

Torque ................................................................ T ≤ 1% · Tmax ................... 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · Tmax .................. ≥ 0.990 

Electrical power .................................................. P ≤ 1% · Pmax ................... 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · Pmax .................. ≥ 0.990 

Fuel flow rate ...................................................... m ̇ ≤ 1% · m ̇ max .................. 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · m ̇ max ≥ 0.990 

Intake-air flow rate .............................................. n ̇ ≤ 1% · n ̇max ................... 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · n ̇ max .................. ≥ 0.990 

Dilution air flow rate ........................................... n ̇ ≤ 1% · n ̇max ................... 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · n ̇ max .................. ≥ 0.990 

Diluted exhaust flow rate .................................... n ̇ ≤ 1% · n ̇max ................... 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · n ̇ max .................. ≥ 0.990 

Raw exhaust flow rate ........................................ n ̇ ≤ 1% · n ̇max ................... 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · n ̇ max .................. ≥ 0.990 

Batch sampler flow rates .................................... n ̇ ≤ 1% · n ̇max ................... 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · n ̇max .................. ≥ 0.990 

Gas dividers ....................................................... x/xspan ≤ 0.5% · xmax/xspan 0.98–1.02 ≤ 2% · xmax/xspan ≥ 0.990 

Gas analyzers for laboratory testing .................. x ≤ 0.5% · x ̇max ................ 0.99–1.01 ≤ 1% · x ̇max ................... ≥ 0.998 

Gas analyzers for field testing ........................... x ≤ 1% · x ̇max ................... 0.99–1.01 ≤ 1% · x ̇max ................... ≥ 0.998 

PM balance ........................................................ m ≤ 1% · mmax .................. 0.99–1.01 ≤ 1% · m ̇ max ................. ≥ 0.998 

Pressures ........................................................... p ≤ 1% · p ̇max ................... 0.99–1.01 ≤ 1% · p ̇max .................. ≥ 0.998 

Dewpoint for intake air, PM-stabilization and 

balance environments.

Tdew ≤ 0.5% · Tdewmax 0.99–1.01 ≤ 0.5% · Tdewmax ≥ 0.998 

Other dewpoint measurements .......................... Tdew ≤ 1% · Tdewmax 0.99–1.01 ≤ 1% · Tdewmax ≥ 0.998 

Analog-to-digital conversion of temperature signals.T ≤ 1% · T ̇ max 0.99–1.01 ≤ 1% · Tmax ≥ 0.998 

■ 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: 

§ 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 

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 

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. 

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 

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, n

Ôref. This may include 

several measurements of different 

quantities, such as reference meter 

pressures and temperatures, for 

calculating n

Ôref. 

(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. 

(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, n

Ôref. This may include 

several measurements of different 

quantities, such as reference meter 

pressures and temperatures, for 

calculating n

Ôref. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57447 

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 n

Ôref. This may include 

several measurements of different 

quantities, such as reference meter 

pressures and temperatures, for 

calculating n

Ôref. 

(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. 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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: 

§ 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 

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 

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 nomstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57449 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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 ........................................ 0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................ 0.830 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................ 0.830 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030. 

Absolute value of intercept, |a0| ..... ≤ 10% of warm idle ...................... ≤ 2% of maximum mapped torque ≤ 2% of maximum mapped power. 

Standard error of estimate, SEE ... ≤ 5% of maximum test speed ...... ≤ 10% of maximum mapped 

torque.

≤ 10% of maximum mapped 

power. 

Coefficient of determination, r2 ...... ≥ 0.970 .......................................... ≥ 0.850 .......................................... ≥ 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. 

* * * * * 

(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 

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), 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57451 

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. 

§ 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: 

§ 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57452 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 

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. 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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 

* * * * * 

(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 

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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.021</GPH> ER15SE11.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57453 

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 

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 

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 

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: 

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.

Example: 

(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) 

(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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.023</GPH> ER15SE11.024</GPH> ER15SE11.025</GPH> ER15SE11.026</GPH>
57454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

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 

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 

(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: 

Where: 

Ttest = maximum test torque. 

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) 

(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: 

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 

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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.027</GPH> ER15SE11.028</GPH> ER15SE11.029</GPH>
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: 

§ 1065.640 Flow meter calibration 

calculations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) PDP volume pumped per 

revolution, Vrev (m3/r): 

Example: 

n

Ô&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 

Ks = 0.006700 s/r 

* * * * * 

(5) The following example illustrates 

these calculations: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.640—EXAMPLE OF

PDP CALIBRATION DATA

f

 ̄

nPDP (r/min) a1 (m3/ 

min) a0 (m3/r) 

755.0 ......................... 50.43 0.056 

987.6 ......................... 49.86 ¥0.013 

1254.5 ....................... 48.54 0.028 

1401.3 ....................... 47.30 ¥0.061 

* * * * * 

(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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.030</GPH> ER15SE11.031</GPH> ER15SE11.032</GPH> ER15SE11.033</GPH> ER15SE11.034</GPH>
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: 

Where: 

Example: 

a1 = 50.43 (m3/min) = 0.8405 (m3/s) 

f

 ̄

nPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s 

pout = 99950 Pa 

pin = 98575 Pa 

a0 = 0.056 (m3/r) 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) 

Tin = 323.5 K 

Cp = 1000 (J/m3)/kPa 

Ct = 60 s/min 

Vrev = 0.06383 m3/r 

n

Ô = 29.428 mol/s 

* * * * * 

■ 78. Section 1065.645 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.645 Amount of water in an ideal 

gas. 

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 

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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.035</GPH> ER15SE11.036</GPH> ER15SE11.037</GPH> ER15SE11.038</GPH> ER15SE11.039</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57457 

Where: 

pH20 = vapor pressure of water at saturation 

temperature condition, kPa. 

Tsat = saturation temperature of water at 

measured conditions, K. 

Example: 

Tsat = 9.5 °C 

Tsat = 9.5 + 273.15 = 282.65 K 

log10(pH20) = 0.074297 

pH20 = 100.074297 = 1.186581 kPa 

(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). 

§ 1065.650 Emission calculations. 

* * * * * 

(c) Total mass of emissions over a test 

interval. To calculate the total mass of 

an emission, multiply a concentration 

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, 

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). 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.040</GPH> ER15SE11.041</GPH> ER15SE11.042</GPH> ER15SE11.043</GPH>
57458 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(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: 

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: 

Where: 

W = total work from the primary output shaft. 

Pi = instantaneous power from the primary 

output shaft over an interval i. 

Example: 

N = 9000 

ƒn1 = 1800.2 r/min 

ƒn2 = 1805.8 r/min 

T1 = 177.23 N·m 

T2 = 175.00 N·m 

Crev = 2·π rad/r 

Ct1 = 60 s/min 

Cp = 1000 (N·m·rad/s)/kW 

ƒrecord = 5 Hz 

Ct2 = 3600 s/hr 

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 

n

Ô = 1.530 mol/s 

f

 ̄

n = 3584.5 r/min = 375.37 rad/s 

T ̄ = 121.50 N · m 

m

Ô = 28.0101 · 0.01200 · 1.530 

m

Ô = 0.514 g/s = 1850.4 g/hr 

P ̄ = 121.5·375.37 

P ̄ = 45607 W 

P ̄ = 45.607 kW 

eCO = 1850.4/45.61 

eCO = 40.57 g/(kW·hr) 

(f) * * * 

(4) Example. The following example 

shows how to calculate mass of 

emissions using proportional values: 

N = 3000 

ƒrecord = 5 Hz 

efuel = 285 g/(kW·hr) 

wfuel = 0.869 g/g 

Mc = 12.0107 g/mol 

n

Õ1 = 3.922 mol/s = 14119.2 mol/hr 

xCcombdry1 = 91.634 mmol/mol = 

0.091634 mol/mol 

xH2Oexh1 = 27.21 mmol/mol = 0.02721 

mol/mol 

Using Eq. 1065.650–5, 

Dt = 0.2 s 

W ̄ = 5.09 (kW·hr) 

* * * * * 

■ 80. Section 1065.655 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (c)(5), (d), and 

(e)(3) and adding paragraph (f) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.655 Chemical balances of fuel, 

intake air, and exhaust. 

* * * * * 

(b) Procedures that require chemical 

balances. We require chemical balances 

when you determine the following: 

(1) A value proportional to total work, 

W ̄ when you choose to determine brakespecific 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 

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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.044</GPH> ER15SE11.045</GPH> ER15SE11.046</GPH> ER15SE11.047</GPH> ER15SE11.048</GPH> ER15SE11.049</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57459 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.050</GPH> ER15SE11.051</GPH>
57460 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. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.052</GPH> ER15SE11.053</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57461 

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. 

Example: 

α = 1.8 

β = 0.05 

γ = 0.0003 

δ = 0.0001 

MC = 12.0107 

MH = 1.01 

MO = 15.9994 

MS = 32.065 

MN = 14.0067 

wc = 0.8205 (2) You may use the default values in 

the following table to determine wc for 

a given fuel: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.655—DEFAULT VALUES OF α, β, γ, δ, AND wc, FOR VARIOUS FUELS

Fuel Atomic hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen-to-carbon ratios 

CHaObSgNd 

Carbon 

mass fraction, wc g/g 

Gasoline ........................................................................................ CH1.85O0S0N0 0.866 

E10 Gasoline ................................................................................ CH1.92O0.03S0N0 0.833 

E15 Gasoline ................................................................................ CH1.95O0.05S0N0 0.817 

E85 Gasoline ................................................................................ CH2.73O0.38S0N0 0.576 

#1 Diesel ....................................................................................... CH1.93O0S0N0 0.861 

#2 Diesel ....................................................................................... CH1.80O0S0N0 0.869 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas .............................................................. CH2.64O0S0N0 0.819 

Natural gas ................................................................................... CH3.78 O0.016S0N0 0.747 

E100 Ethanol ................................................................................ CH3O0.5S0N0 0.521 

M100 Methanol ............................................................................. CH4O1S0N0 0.375 

Residual fuel blends ..................................................................... Must be determined by measured fuel properties as described in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. 

(e) * * * (3) Fuel mass flow rate calculation. 

Based on m ̇ fuel, calculate n ̇ exh as follows: 

Where: 

n ̇ exh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from 

which you measured emissions. 

m ̇ fuel = fuel flow rate including humidity in 

intake air. 

Example: 

m ̇ fuel = 7.559 g/s 

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 

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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.054</GPH> ER15SE11.055</GPH> ER15SE11.056</GPH>
57462 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

§ 1065.659 Removed water correction. 

(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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

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): 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.057</GPH> ER15SE11.058</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57463 

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 

penetration fraction, according to 

§ 1065.365(d). 

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: 

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 

(iii) For penetration fractions 

determined using an NMC configuration 

as outlined in section § 1065.365(f), 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(f). 

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. 

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). 

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 

RFCH4[THC–FID] = 0.980 

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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.059</GPH> ER15SE11.060</GPH> ER15SE11.061</GPH> ER15SE11.062</GPH> ER15SE11.063</GPH> ER15SE11.067</GPH>
57464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 

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): 

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). 

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 

xCH4 = 7.69 μmol/mol 

(ii) For penetration fractions 

determined using an NMC configuration 

as outlined in § 1065.365(e), use the 

following equation: 

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. 

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 

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: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.068</GPH> ER15SE11.069</GPH> ER15SE11.070</GPH> ER15SE11.071</GPH> ER15SE11.072</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57465 

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). 

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 

xCH4 = 7.78 μmol/mol 

(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: 

§ 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 

sample, M ̄ PM, multiply it by the total 

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 

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 

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 

(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): 

Example: 

MNOx = 46.0055 g/mol 

xbkgnd = 0.05 μmol/mol = 0.05·10¥6 mol/ 

mol 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.073</GPH> ER15SE11.074</GPH> ER15SE11.075</GPH> ER15SE11.076</GPH>
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 

m ̇ bkgndNOxdexh = 

46.0055·0.05·10¥6·23280.5 

m ̇ bkgndNOxdexh = 0.0536 g/hr 

m ̇ bkgndNOx = 0.843 · 0.0536 

m ̇ bkgndNOx = 0.0452 g/hr 

■ 84. Section 1065.670 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.670 NOX intake-air humidity and 

temperature corrections. 

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 

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: 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

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% 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.077</GPH> ER15SE11.078</GPH> ER15SE11.079</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57467 

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

Measurement 

Measured 

quantity 

symbol 

Rise time, t10–90,

and 

fall time, t90–10

Recording update 

frequency Accuracy 1 Repeatability 1 Noise 1

Engine speed transducer.fn .......................... 1 s ....................... 1 Hz means ......... 5% of pt. or 1% of 

max.

2% of pt. or 1% of 

max.

0.5% of max. 

Engine torque estimator, BSFC 

(This is a signal 

from an engine’s 

ECM) 

T or BSFC ........... 1 s ....................... 1 Hz means ......... 8% of pt. or 5% of 

max.

2% of pt. or 1% of 

max.

1% of max. 

General pressure 

transducer (not a 

part of another instrument) 

p .......................... 5 s ....................... 1 Hz ..................... 5% of pt. or 5% of 

max.

2% of pt. or 0.5% 

of max.

1% of max. 

Atmospheric pressure meter patmos .................... 50 s ..................... 0.1 Hz .................. 250 Pa ................. 200 Pa ................. 100 Pa. 

General temperature sensor (not a 

part of another instrument) 

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. 

General dewpoint 

sensor.

Tdew ..................... 50 s ..................... 0.1 Hz .................. 3 K ....................... 1 K ....................... 1 K. 

Exhaust flow meter n .......................... 1 s ....................... 1 Hz means ......... 5% of pt. or 3% of 

max.

2% of pt ............... 2% of max. 

Dilution air, inlet air, 

exhaust, and 

sample flow meters 

n .......................... 1 s ....................... 1 Hz means ......... 2.5% of pt. or 

1.5% of max.

1.25% of pt. or 

0.75% of max.

1% of max. 

Continuous gas analyzer.x .......................... 5 s ....................... 1 Hz ..................... 4% of pt. or 4% of 

meas.

2% of pt. or 2% of 

meas.

1% of max. 

Gravimetric PM balance.mPM ..................... N/A ...................... N/A ...................... See § 1065.790 ... 0.5 μg .................. N/A. 

Inertial PM balance mPM ..................... N/A ...................... N/A ...................... 4% of pt. or 4% of 

meas.

2% of pt. or 2% of 

meas.

1% of max. 

1Accuracy, 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: 

§ 1065.925 PEMS preparation for field 

testing. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) Select the HC analyzer range for 

measuring the maximum concentration 

expected at the HC standard. 

(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. 

* * * * * 

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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1065.1001 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 

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. 

* * * * * 

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: 

Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Units in terms of SI base units 

a ................. atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio .... mole per mole ................................ mol/mol 1 

A ................. area ................................................ square meter ................................. m 2 m 2

A0 ................ intercept of least squares regression.........................................................

A1 ................ slope of least squares regression ........................................................

β .................. ratio of diameters ........................... meter per meter ............................. m/m 1 

β .................. atomic oxygen to carbon ratio ....... mole per mole ................................ mol/mol 1 

C# ................ number of carbon atoms in a molecule.........................................................

d .................. Diameter ........................................ meter .............................................. m m 

DR .............. dilution ratio ................................... mole per mol .................................. mol/mol 1 

e .................. error between a quantity and its 

reference.

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

e .................. brake-specific emission or fuel 

consumption.

gram per kilowatt hour ................... g/(kW·hr) g·3.6-1·106·m-2·kg·s2

F ................. F-test statistic ................................ ........................................................

f ................... frequency ....................................... hertz ............................................... Hz s-1

fn ................. angular speed (shaft) .................... revolutions per minute ................... r/min 2·π·60-1· m·m-1x·s-1

γ .................. ratio of specific heats .................... (joule per kilogram kelvin) per 

(joule per kilogram kelvin).

(J/(kg·K))/(J/(kg·K)) 1 

K ................. correction factor ............................. ........................................................ 1 

l ................... length ............................................. meter .............................................. m m 

μ ................. viscosity, dynamic .......................... pascal second ................................ Pa·s m-1·kg·s 

M ................. molar mass1 ................................... gram per mole ............................... g/mol 10-3·kg·mol-1

m ................. mass .............................................. kilogram ......................................... kg kg 

m ̇ ................. mass rate ....................................... kilogram per second ...................... kg/s kg·s-1

n .................. viscosity, kinematic ........................ meter squared per second ............ m-2/s m-2·s-1

N ................. total number in series .................... ........................................................

n .................. amount of substance ..................... mole ............................................... mol mol 

h« ................. amount of substance rate .............. mole per second ............................ mol/s mol·s-1

P ................. power ............................................. kilowatt ........................................... kW 103·m2·kg·s-3

PF ............... penetration fraction ........................ ........................................................

p .................. pressure ......................................... pascal ............................................ Pa m-1·kg·s-2

r .................. mass density .................................. kilogram per cubic meter ............... kg/m3 kg·m-3

r .................. ratio of pressures ........................... pascal per pascal .......................... Pa/Pa 1 

R2 ................ coefficient of determination ........... ........................................................

Ra ............... average surface roughness ........... micrometer ..................................... μm 10--6 m 

Re# .............. Reynolds number .......................... ........................................................

RF ............... response factor .............................. ........................................................

RH .............. relative humidity ............................. ........................................................

s ................. non¥biased standard deviation .... ........................................................

S ................. Sutherland constant ....................... kelvin .............................................. K K 

SEE ............ standard estimate of error ............. ........................................................

T ................. absolute temperature ..................... kelvin .............................................. K K 

T ................. Celsius temperature ...................... degree Celsius ............................... °C K¥273.15 

T ................. torque (moment of force) ............... newton meter ................................. N·m m-2·kg·s-2

t ................... time ................................................ second ........................................... s s 

Δt ................ time interval, period, 1/frequency .. second ........................................... s s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57469 

Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Units in terms of SI base units 

V ................. volume ........................................... cubic meter .................................... m3 m3

V ̇ ................. volume rate .................................... cubic meter per second ................. m3/s m3·s-1

W ................ work ............................................... kilowatt hour .................................. kW·hr 3.6·10-6·m2·kg·s-2

wc ................ carbon mass fraction ..................... gram per gram ............................... g/g 1 

x .................. amount of substance mole fraction 2.

mole per mole ................................ mol/mol 1 

x ̄ .................. flow-weighted mean concentration mole per mole ................................ mol/mol 1 

y .................. generic variable ............................. ........................................................

1See paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the values to use for molar masses. Note that in the cases of NOX and HC, the regulations specify effective molar masses 

based on assumed speciation rather than actual speciation. 2 Note that mole fractions for THC, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, and NOTHC are expressed on a C1 equivalent basis. 

* * * * * 

(e) Subscripts. This part uses the 

following subscripts to define a 

quantity: 

Subscript Quantity 

abs ..................... absolute quantity. 

act ...................... actual condition. 

air ....................... air, dry. 

atmos ................. atmospheric. 

cal ....................... calibration quantity. 

CFV .................... critical flow venturi. 

cor ...................... corrected quantity. 

dil ........................ dilution air. 

dexh ................... diluted exhaust. 

exh ..................... raw exhaust. 

exp ..................... expected quantity. 

Subscript Quantity 

hi,idle .................. condition at high¥idle. 

i .......................... an individual of a series. 

idle ...................... condition at idle. 

in ........................ quantity in. 

init ....................... initial quantity, typically 

before an emission test. 

j .......................... an individual of a series. 

max .................... the maximum (i.e., peak) 

value expected at the 

standard over a test interval; not the maximum 

of an instrument range. 

meas .................. measured quantity. 

out ...................... quantity out. 

part ..................... partial quantity. 

PDP .................... positive¥displacement 

pump. 

Subscript Quantity 

ref ....................... reference quantity. 

rev ...................... revolution. 

sat ...................... saturated condition. 

slip ...................... PDP slip. 

span ................... span quantity. 

SSV .................... subsonic venturi. 

std ...................... standard condition. 

test ..................... test quantity. 

test,alt ................. alternate test quantity. 

uncor .................. uncorrected quantity. 

zero .................... zero quantity. 

(f) * * * 

(2) This part uses the following molar 

masses or effective molar masses of 

chemical species: 

Symbol Quantity 

g/mol 

(10¥3.

kg.mol¥1) 

Mair ............................................................................ molar mass of dry air 1 ..................................................................................... 28.96559 

MAr ............................................................................ molar mass of argon ......................................................................................... 39.948 

MC ............................................................................. molar mass of carbon ....................................................................................... 12.0107 

MC3H8 ........................................................................ molar mass of propane ..................................................................................... 44.09562 

MCH4 ......................................................................... molar mass of methane .................................................................................... 16.043 

MCO ........................................................................... molar mass of carbon monoxide ...................................................................... 28.0101 

MCO2 ......................................................................... molar mass of carbon dioxide .......................................................................... 44.0095 

MH ............................................................................. molar mass of atomic hydrogen ....................................................................... 1.00794 

MH2 ........................................................................... molar mass of molecular hydrogen .................................................................. 2.01588 

MH2O ......................................................................... molar mass of water ......................................................................................... 18.01528 

MHe ........................................................................... molar mass of helium ....................................................................................... 4.002602 

MN ............................................................................. molar mass of atomic nitrogen ......................................................................... 14.0067 

MN2 ........................................................................... molar mass of molecular nitrogen .................................................................... 28.0134 

MNMHC ...................................................................... effective molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon 2 ........................................ 13.875389 

MNMHCE .................................................................... effective molar mass of nonmethane equivalent hydrocarbon 2 ...................... 13.875389 

MNOx ......................................................................... effective molar mass of oxides of nitrogen 3 .................................................... 46.0055 

MN2O ......................................................................... molar mass of nitrous oxide ............................................................................. 44.0128 

MO ............................................................................. molar mass of atomic oxygen .......................................................................... 15.9994 

MO2 ........................................................................... molar mass of molecular oxygen ..................................................................... 31.9988 

MS ............................................................................. molar mass of sulfur ......................................................................................... 32.065 

MTHC ......................................................................... effective molar mass of total hydrocarbon 2 ..................................................... 13.875389 

MTHCE ....................................................................... effective molar mass of total hydrocarbon equivalent 2 ................................... 13.875389 

1See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air. 

2The effective molar masses of THC, THCE, NMHC, and NMHCE are defined by an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, of 1.85. 3The 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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: 

§ 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 

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.

1065.20(a) 

and (e), 

1065.1005. 

NIST Technical Note 1297, 

1994 Edition, Guidelines 

for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of 

NIST Measurement Results, Barry N. Taylor and 

Chris E. Kuyatt.

1065.1001. 

* * * * * 

■ 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57471 

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 

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 Describes these specifications or procedures 

Subpart A ........................................................................................................................... Applicability and general provisions. 

Subpart B ........................................................................................................................... Equipment for testing. 

Subpart C ........................................................................................................................... Dynamometer specifications. 

Subpart D ........................................................................................................................... Coastdowns for testing. 

Subpart E ........................................................................................................................... How to prepare your vehicle and run an emission test. 

Subpart F ........................................................................................................................... How to test hybrid vehicles. 

Subpart G .......................................................................................................................... Test procedure calculations. 

Subpart H ........................................................................................................................... Definitions and reference material. 

§ 1066.10 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 

in this section. In some other sections in 

this part, we allow you to use other 

procedures (such as less precise or less 

accurate procedures) if they do not 

affect your ability to show that your 

vehicles comply with the applicable 

emission standards. This generally 

requires emission levels to be far 

enough below the applicable emission 

standards so that any errors caused by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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 

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. 

§ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57473 

concentration is the sum of the products 

of each recorded concentration times its 

respective exhaust flow rate, divided by 

the sum of the recorded flow rates. As 

another example, the bag concentration 

from a CVS system is the same as the 

flow-weighted mean concentration, 

because the CVS system itself flowweights the bag concentration. Refer to 

40 CFR 1065.602 for information needed 

to estimate and calculate flow-weighted 

means. 

§ 1066.25 Recordkeeping. 

The procedures in this part include 

various requirements to record data or 

other information. Refer to the standardsetting part regarding recordkeeping 

requirements. If the standard-setting 

part does not specify recordkeeping 

requirements, store these records in any 

format and on any media and keep them 

readily available for one year after you 

send an associated application for 

certification, or one year after you 

generate the data if they do not support 

an application for certification. You 

must promptly send us organized, 

written records in English if we ask for 

them. We may review them at any time. 

Subpart B—Equipment, Fuel, and Gas 

Specifications 

§ 1066.101 Overview. 

(a) This subpart addresses equipment 

related to emission testing, as well as 

test fuels and analytical gases. This 

section addresses emission sampling 

and analytical equipment, test fuels, and 

analytical gases. 

(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 Dynamometer overview. 

This subpart addresses chassis 

dynamometers and related equipment. 

§ 1066.210 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. 

(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: 

Where: 

FR = total road-load force to be applied at the 

surface of the roll. The total force is the 

sum of the individual tractive forces 

applied at each roll surface. 

i = a counter to indicate a point in time over 

the driving schedule. For a dynamometer 

operating at 10-Hz intervals over a 600- 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.080</GPH>
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. 

§ 1066.225: Roll runout and diameter ................ Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.230: Time ................................................ Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.235: Speed measurement ....................... Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.240: Torque (load) transducer ................ Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.245: Response time ................................ Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.250: Base inertia ..................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.255: Parasitic loss ................................... Upon initial installation, within 7 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.260: Parasitic friction compensation 

evaluation.

Upon initial installation, within 7 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.265: Acceleration and deceleration ........ Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.270: Unloaded coastdown ...................... Upon initial installation, within 7 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

aPerform 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57475 

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. 

(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

Measurement system Quantity 

Linearity criteria 

a1 SEE r2

⎢ xmin(a1-1)+a0 ⎢ 

Speed ............................. S ≤0.05% · Smax ................................ 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · Smax ..................................... ≥0.990 

Torque (load) .................. T ≤1% · Tmax ...................................... 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · Tmax ...................................... ≥0.990 

§ 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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

§ 1066.230 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: 

(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 

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%. 

§ 1066.235 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: 

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 

Sact = 8.3053 m/s 

(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: 

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) 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.081</GPH> ER15SE11.082</GPH> ER15SE11.083</GPH> ER15SE11.084</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57477 

of this section may not exceed ±0.02 

m/s. 

§ 1066.240 Torque transducer verification 

and calibration. 

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. 

(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 

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. 

§ 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 

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: 

Where: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.085</GPH> ER15SE11.086</GPH>
57478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 

Ib = 32.90 lbm 

(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: 

Example: 

Ibref = 32.96 lbm 

I

 ̄

bact = 33.01 lbm 

Iberror = ¥0.15% 

(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. 

§ 1066.255 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). 

§ 1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation 

evaluation. 

(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. 

(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: 

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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.087</GPH> ER15SE11.088</GPH> ER15SE11.089</GPH> ER15SE11.090</GPH> ER15SE11.091</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57479 

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: 

Where: 

S = the target roll speed, in inches per second 

(corresponding to drive speeds of 10 

mph or 40 mph). 

n = the number of pulses from the 

dynamometer’s roll-speed sensor per roll 

revolution. 

droll = roll diameter, in inches. 

(2) Program the dynamometer to 

accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 

1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. 

Measure the elapsed time to reach the 

target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. 

Repeat this measurement for a total of 

five runs. Determine the actual 

acceleration rate for each run, aact, using 

the following equation: 

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.

Example: 

Sinal = 40 mph 

Sinit = 10 mph 

t = 30.003 s 

aact = 0.999 mph/s 

(3) Program the dynamometer to 

decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 

1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. 

Measure the elapsed time to reach the 

target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. 

Repeat this measurement for a total of 

five runs. Determine the actual 

acceleration rate, aact, using Equation 

1066.265–2. 

(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: 

Example: 

a ̄ act = 0.999 mph/s 

aref = 1 mph/s 

aerror = ¥0.100% 

(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: 

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 

a = 1 mph/s = 1.4667 ft/s2

F = 135.25 lbf 

(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%. 

§ 1066.270 Unloaded coastdown 

verification. 

(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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.092</GPH> ER15SE11.093</GPH> ER15SE11.094</GPH> ER15SE11.095</GPH> ER15SE11.096</GPH>
57480 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

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. 

Example: 

I = 2000 lbm = 65.17 lbf·s2/ft 

Ssi = 10 mph = 14.66 ft/s 

t = 5.00 s 

F = 191 lbf 

(5) Calculate the target value of 

coastdown force, Fref, based on the 

applicable dynamometer parameters for 

each speed and inertia setting. 

(6) Compare the mean value of the 

coastdown force measured for each 

speed and inertia setting, F ̄ act, to the 

corresponding Fref to determine values 

for coastdown force error, Ferror, using 

the following equation: 

Example: 

Fref = 192 lbf 

F ̄ act = 191 lbf 

Ferror = ¥0.5% 

(7) The maximum allowable error, 

Ferrormax, for all speed and inertia settings 

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 

§ 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. 

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 

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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.097</GPH> ER15SE11.098</GPH> ER15SE11.099</GPH> ER15SE11.100</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57481 

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: 

Where: 

v = Vehicle speed at the beginning and end 

of the measurement interval. Let v0 = 0. 

Dt = Elapsed time over the measurement 

interval. 

(iv) Plot the data from all the 

coastdown runs on a single plot of Fi vs. 

vi

2 to determine the slope correlation, D, 

based on the following equation: 

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. 

(v) Calculate drag area, CDA, in m2

using the following equation: 

Where: 

r = Air density at reference conditions = 1.17 

kg/m3. 

T ̄ = Average ambient temperature during 

testing, in K. 

P ̄ B = Average ambient pressuring during the 

test, in kPa. 

(8) Determine the A, B, and C 

coefficients identified in § 1066.210 as 

follows: 

A = Am

B = 0 

C = Dadj

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 

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. 

§ 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. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.101</GPH> ER15SE11.102</GPH> ER15SE11.103</GPH> ER15SE11.104</GPH>
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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57483 

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. 

(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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57484 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57485 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–c 

(g) Start testing as follows: 

(1) If a vehicle is already running and 

warmed up, and starting is not part of 

the test cycle, operate the vehicle as 

follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.105</GPH>
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. 

(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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57487 

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 

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: 

Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Unit in terms of SI base 

units 

a .......... acceleration ..................................... feet per second squared or meters 

per second squared.

ft/s2 or m/s2 m·s¥2

d .......... diameter .......................................... meters ............................................. m m 

F .......... force ................................................ pound force or newton .................... lbf or N kg·s¥2

f ........... frequency ........................................ hertz ................................................ Hz s¥1

I ........... inertia .............................................. pound mass or kilogram ................. lbm or kg kg 

i ........... indexing variable ............................. .........................................................

M ......... mass ............................................... pound mass or kilogram ................. lbm or kg kg 

N ......... total number in series ..................... .........................................................

n .......... total number of pulses in a series .. .........................................................

R ......... dynamometer roll revolutions ......... revolutions per minute .................... rpm 2·π·60¥1· m·m¥1·s¥1

RL ....... road-load coefficient ....................... horsepower or kilowatt .................... hp or kW 103·m2·kg·s¥3

S .......... speed .............................................. miles per hour or meters per second.mph or m/s m·s¥1

T .......... Celsius temperature ........................ degree Celsius ................................ °C K–273.15 

T .......... torque (moment of force) ................ newton meter .................................. N·m m2·kg·s¥2

t ........... time ................................................. second ............................................ s s 

Δt ......... time interval, period, 1/frequency ... second ............................................ s s 

y .......... generic variable .............................. .........................................................

(b) Symbols for chemical species. This 

part uses the following symbols for 

chemical species and exhaust 

constituents: 

Symbol Species 

CH4 ................ methane 

CO .................. carbon monoxide 

CO2 ................ carbon dioxide 

NMHC ............ nonmethane hydrocarbon 

NMHCE .......... nonmethane hydrocarbon 

equivalent 

NO .................. nitric oxide 

NO2 ................ nitrogen dioxide 

NOX ................ oxides of nitrogen 

N2O ................ nitrous oxide 

O2 ................... molecular oxygen 

PM .................. particulate mass 

THC ................ total hydrocarbon 

THCE ............. total hydrocarbon equivalent 

(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: 

Subscript Quantity 

int ................... speed interval 

abs ................. absolute quantity 

act .................. actual or measured condition 

actint .............. actual or measured condition 

over the speed interval 

atmos ............. atmospheric 

b ..................... base 

c ..................... coastdown 

Subscript Quantity 

e ..................... effective 

error ............... error 

exp ................. expected quantity 

i ...................... an individual of a series 

final ................ final 

init .................. initial quantity, typically before an emission test 

max ................ the maximum (i.e., peak) 

value expected at the 

standard over a test interval; not the maximum of 

an instrument range 

meas .............. measured quantity 

ref ................... reference quantity 

rev .................. revolution 

roll .................. dynamometer roll 

s ..................... settling 

sat .................. saturated condition 

si .................... speed interval 

span ............... span quantity 

test ................. test quantity 

uncor .............. uncorrected quantity 

zero ................ zero quantity 

(e) Other acronyms and abbreviations. 

This part uses the following additional 

abbreviations and acronyms: 

CFR ...... Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA ...... Environmental Protection Agency 

FID ....... flame-ionization detector 

GVWR .. gross vehicle weight rating 

NIST ..... National Institute for Standards 

and Technology 

RESS ... rechargeable energy storage system 

SAE ...... Society of Automotive Engineers 

U.S.C. .. United States Code 

§ 1066.710 Reference materials. 

(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) 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 J1263, Road Load 

Measurement and Dynamometer 

Simulation Using Coastdown 

Techniques, Revised March 2010, IBR 

approved for §§ 1066.301(b) and 

1066.310(b). 

(2) SAE J2263, Road Load 

Measurement Using Onboard 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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: 

§ 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 

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 

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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57489 

(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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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: 

§ 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 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57491 

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 

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 

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 Heavy-duty pickup trucks and 

vans. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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. 

§ 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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57493 

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: 

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. 

§ 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 

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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57495 

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 

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, 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57497 

(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 

Where: 

WF = Work Factor = [0.75 × (Payload 

Capacity + Xwd)] + [0.25 × Towing 

Capacity] 

Xwd = 4wd Adjustment = 500 lbs if the 

vehicle group is equipped with 4wd and 

all-wheel drive, otherwise equals 0 lbs 

for 2wd. 

Payload Capacity = GVWR (lbs)¥Curb 

Weight (lbs) (for each vehicle group) 

Towing Capacity = GCWR (lbs)¥GVWR (lbs) 

(for each vehicle group) 

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 

2016–2018 ........ 0.000432 3.33 

2019 and later .. 0.000409 3.14 

Spark-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for Model 

Years 2016 and later 

2016–2018 ........ 0.000513 3.96 

2019 and later .. 0.000495 3.81 

Alternative 2—Phased-in Target Standards 

Compression-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for 

Model Years 2016 and later 

2016 .................. 0.000452 3.48 

2017 .................. 0.000437 3.37 

2018 and later .. 0.000409 3.14 

TABLE 1—EQUATION COEFFICIENTS

FOR SUBCONFIGURATION TARGET

STANDARDS—Continued 

Model year c d 

-Spark-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for Model 

Years 2016 and later 

2016 .................. 0.000528 4.07 

2017 .................. 0.000518 3.98 

2018 and later .. 0.000495 3.81 

(3) Fleet average fuel consumption 

standard. (i) Calculate each 

manufacturer’s fleet average fuel 

consumption standard for conventional 

and advanced technology fleets 

separately based on the 

subconfiguration target standards 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, weighted to production 

volumes and averaged using the 

following equation combining all the 

applicable vehicles in a manufacturer’s 

U.S. directed fleet (compressionignition, spark-ignition and advanced 

technology vehicles) for a given model 

year, rounded to the nearest 0.01 gallons 

per 100 miles: 

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 

(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 

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. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.106</GPH>
57498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE

EQUATION COEFFICIENTS FOR VEHICLE FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS

Model Year c d 

Compression-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for 

Voluntary Compliance in Model Years 

2013 through 2015 

2013 and 14 ..... 0.000470 3.61 

2015 .................. 0.000466 3.60 

Spark-ignition Vehicle Coefficients for Voluntary Compliance in Model Years 2013 

through 2015 

2013 and 14 ..... 0.000542 4.17 

2015 .................. 0.000539 4.15 

(iv) Calculate the fleet average fuel 

consumption standards for model years 

2013 through 2015 using the equation in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(5) Exclusion of vehicles not certified 

as complete vehicles. The vehicle 

standards § 535.5(a) do not apply for 

vehicles that are chassis-certified with 

respect to EPA’s criteria pollutant test 

procedure in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. 

Any chassis-certified vehicles must 

comply with the vehicle standards and 

requirements of § 535.5(b) and the 

engine standards of § 535.5(d) for 

engines used in these vehicles. A 

vehicle manufacturer choosing to 

comply with this paragraph and that is 

not the engine manufacturer is required 

to notify the engine manufacturers that 

their engines are subject to § 535.5(d) 

and that it intends to use their engines 

in excluded vehicles. 

(6) Optional certification under this 

section. Manufacturers may certify any 

complete or cab-complete Class 2b 

through 5 vehicles weighing at or below 

19,500 pounds GVWR and any 

incomplete vehicles approved by EPA 

for inclusion under this paragraph to the 

same testing and standard that applies 

to a comparable complete sister vehicles 

as determined in accordance in 40 CFR 

1037.150(l). Calculate the target 

standard value under paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section based on the same work 

factor value that applies for the 

complete sister vehicle. 

(7) Loose engines. This paragraph 

applies for spark-ignition engines 

identical to engines used in vehicles 

certified to the standards of this section 

§ 535.5(a), where manufacturers sell 

such engines as loose engines or 

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 

have fuel consumption target values and 

test results based upon the complete 

vehicle in the applicable test group with 

the highest equivalent test weight in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1037.150(m). 

The fuel consumption subconfiguration 

standard for a loose engines equals the 

test group result of the complete vehicle 

as specified in 40 CFR 1037.150(m)(6) 

multiplied by 1.10 and rounded to the 

nearest 0.01 gallon per 100 miles. The 

U.S.-directed production volume of 

engines manufactured for sale 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 the 

manufacturer produces for heavy-duty 

applications for that model year, 

including engines the manufacturer 

produces for complete vehicles, cabcomplete vehicles, and other incomplete 

vehicles. The total number of engines a 

manufacturer may certify under this 

paragraph (a)(7), of all engine designs, 

may not exceed 15,000 in any model 

year as specified in 40 CFR 

1037.150(m). Engines produced in 

excess of the number cannot be certified 

to the standard in this paragraph (a)(7). 

(b) Heavy-duty vocational vehicles. 

Each chassis manufacturer of heavyduty vocational vehicles shall comply 

with the fuel consumption standards in 

this paragraph (b) expressed in gallons 

per 1,000 ton-miles. Manufacturers of 

engines used in heavy-duty vocational 

vehicles shall comply with the 

standards in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(1) Mandatory standards. For model 

years 2016 and later, each chassis 

manufacturer of heavy-duty vocational 

vehicles must comply with the fuel 

consumption standards in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section. 

(i) The heavy-duty vocational vehicle 

chassis category is subdivided by GVWR 

into three regulatory subcategories as 

defined in § 535.4, each with its own 

assigned standard. 

(ii) For purposes of certifying vehicles 

to fuel consumption standards, 

manufacturers must divide their 

product lines into vehicle families that 

have similar emissions and fuel 

consumption features, as specified by 

EPA in 40 CFR part 1037, subpart C, and 

these families will be subject to the 

applicable standards. Each vehicle 

family is limited to a single model year. 

(iii) 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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57499 

TABLE 3—HEAVY-DUTY VOCATIONAL VEHICLE FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS

Regulatory subcategories Light Heavy vehicles 

Class 2b–5 

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 

Effective for Model Years 2016 

Fuel Consumption Standard ........................................................ 38.1 23.0 22.2 

Fuel Consumption Voluntary Standards (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles) Effective for Model Years 2013 to 2015 

Fuel Consumption Standard ........................................................ 38.1 23.0 22.2 

(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. 

(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 

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

Regulatory subcategories 

Day cab Sleeper cab 

Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 

Fuel Consumption Mandatory Standards (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles) Effective for Model Years 2017 and later 

Low Roof ...................................................................................... 10.2 7.8 6.5 

Mid Roof ...................................................................................... 11.3 8.4 7.2 

High Roof ..................................................................................... 11.8 8.7 7.1 

Effective for Model Years 2016 

Low Roof ...................................................................................... 10.5 8.0 6.7 

Mid Roof ...................................................................................... 11.7 8.7 7.4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57500 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4—TRUCK TRACTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION STANDARDS—Continued 

Regulatory subcategories 

Day cab Sleeper cab 

Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 

High Roof ..................................................................................... 12.2 9.0 7.3 

Fuel Consumption Voluntary Standards (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles) Effective for Model Years 2013 to 2015 

Low Roof ...................................................................................... 10.5 8.0 6.7 

Mid Roof ...................................................................................... 11.7 8.7 7.4 

High Roof ..................................................................................... 12.2 9.0 7.3 

(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; 

(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 

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: 

TABLE 5—PRIMARY HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE STANDARDS

Fuel Consumption Mandatory Standards (gallons per 100 bhp-hr) 

Regulatory 

Subcategory 

Light Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Engine Medium Heavy-Duty CompressionIgnition Engine Heavy Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Engine Spark-Ignition 

Engines 

Truck Application ...... Vocational Vocational Tractor Vocational Tractor All 

Effective Model Years 2017 and later 2016 and later 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57501 

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 Medium Heavy-Duty CompressionIgnition Engine Heavy Heavy-Duty Compression-Ignition Engine Spark-ignition 

Engine 

Truck Application ...... Vocational Vocational Tractor Vocational Tractor All 

Effective Model Years 2013 through 2016 2015 

Voluntary Fuel Consumption Standard.5.89 5.89 4.93 5.57 4.67 7.06 

(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, 

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 

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 HHD Engines 

Model Years 2013–2015 ............... NA ................................................. 5.03 gals/100 hp-hr ...................... 4.76 gals./100 hp-hr 

Model Years 2016 and later† ......... NA ................................................. 4.78 gals./100 hp-hr ..................... 4.52 gals/100 hp-hr 

Vocational ...................................... LHD Engines ................................ MHD Engines ............................... HHD Engines 

Model Years 2013–2015 ............... 6.07 gals/100 hp-hr ...................... 6.07 gals/100 hp-hr ...................... 5.67 gals/100 hp-hr 

Model Years 2016 and later† ......... 5.66 gals/100 hp-hr ...................... 5.66 gals/100 hp-hr ...................... 5.45 gals/100 hp-hr 

†Note: 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. 

(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 

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 

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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

57502 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. 

(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 

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. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15SE11.107</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57503 

(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 

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, 

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 

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)); 

(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 

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 Payload 

(Tons) 

LHD Vocational Vehicles ............ 2 .85 

MHD Vocational Vehicles ........... 5 .60 

HHD Vocational Vehicles ........... 7 .5 

Class 7 Tractor ........................... 12 .50 

Class 8 Tractor ........................... 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 UL 

(miles) 

LHD Vocational Vehicles .............. 110,000 

MHD Vocational Vehicles ............. 185,000 

HHD Vocational Vehicles ............. 435,000 

Class 7 Tractor ............................. 185,000 

Class 8 Tractor ............................. 435,000 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57505 

(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 

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 

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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

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: 

Regulatory subcategory UL 

(miles) 

Class 2b–5 Vocational Vehicles, 

Spark Ignited (SI), and Light 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ...... 110,000 

Class 6–7 Vocational Vehicles 

and Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Engines ..................................... 185,000 

Class 8 Vocational Vehicles and 

Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines .......................................... 435,000 

Class 7 Tractors and Medium 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ...... 185,000 

Class 8 Tractors and Heavy 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines ...... 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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57507 

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 

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. 

(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; 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57509 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57511 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57513 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2