### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 1 

# Chapter 11: **Results of the**  **Pre ferr** **ed and Alternative** 

**Standards** 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 proposed standards are largely shaped to optimize the environmental and fuel savings benefits of the program, while balancing the relevant statutory

factors and respecting the unique and varied nature of the sector . In developing this proposed rulemaking , we considered a number of alternatives that could result in fewer or potentially greater GHG and fuel consumption reductions than the preferred alternative . This section summarizes the alternatives we considered and presents assessments of technology costs, CO 2 

### reductions, and fuel savings associated with each alternative. See the preamble for a discussion of how the agencies balanced the relevant statutory factors to select the preferred alternative. For this rule, the agencies conducted coordinated and complementary analyses by employing both DOT’s CAFE model and EPA’s MOVES model. These models were used to project fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts resulting from the proposed standards. The agencies used EPA’s MOVES model to estimate fuel consumption and emissions impacts for tractor-trailers (inc luding the engines which power the vehicle), and vocational vehicles (including the engine which powers the vehicle). For heavy- duty pickups and vans, the agencies performed complementary analyses using the CAFE model (“Method A”) and the MOVES model (“Method B”) to estimate fuel consumption and emissions from these vehicles. For both methods, the agencies analyzed the impact of the proposed rules, relative to two different reference cases

– less dy namic and more dy

namic. The less dy

namic baseline projects very little improvement in new vehicles in the absence of new Phase 2 standards. In contrast, the more dy namic baseline projects more improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. See Chapter 5 for a discussion of the EPA ’s MOVES model (which was used for both methods) and Chapter 10 for discussion of the DOT ’s CAFE model (which was used for Method A). 

## 11.1 **What Are**  **the A** **lternatives that the Agencies Considered**  **?** The five alternatives below represent a broad range of potential stringency levels, and thus a broad range of associated technologies, costs and benefits for a HD vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions program. In developing alternatives, NHTSA must consider EI SA'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 ye ars of regulatory stability. In considering these various requirements, NHTSA will also account for relevant environmental and safety considerations.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -2 Each of the alternatives presented b y NHTSA and EPA represents, in part, a different way the agencies could establish a HD program pursuant to EI SA and the CAA . The agencies are proposing Alternative 3 . The alternatives below represent a broad range of approaches under consideration for finalizing the HD vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards. Sections 11.1.1 through 11.2 summarize the alternatives that were analyz ed and how they were modeled. See Section 11.3 for details about the technology mix projected for each alternative and each regulatory category. 

### 11.1.1 **Alternative 1: No Action (the Baseline for Phase 2)**  OMB gui dance regarding regulatory analys is indicates that proper evaluation of the benefits and costs of regulations and their alternatives requires agencies to identify a baseline: “You need to measure the benefits and costs of a rule against a baseline. This baseline should be the best assessment of the way the world would look absent the proposed action. The choice of an appropriate baseline may require consideration of a wide range of potential factors, including: • evolution of the market, • changes in external factors affecting expected benefits and costs, • changes in regulations promulgated by the agency or other government entities, and • the degree of compliance by regulated entities with other regulations. It may be reasonable to forecast that the world absent the regulation will resemble the present. If this is the case, however, your baseline should reflect the future effect of current government programs and policies. For review of an existing regulation, a baseline assuming no change in the regulatory program generally provides an appropriate basis for evaluating regulatory alternatives. Wh en more than one baseline is reasonable and the choice of baseline will significantly affect estimated benefits and costs, you should consider measuring benefits and costs against alternative baselines. In doing so you can analyze the effects on benefits and costs of making different assumptions about other agencies ’ regulations, or the degree of compliance with your own existing rules. In all cases, you must evaluate benefits and costs against the same baseline. You should also discuss the reasonableness of the baselines used in the sensitivity analyses. For each baseline you use, you should identify the key uncerta inties in your forecast.” 1 

### A no - action alternative is also required as a baseline against which to measure environmental impacts of the proposed standards and alternatives. NHTSA, as required b y the National Environmental Policy Act, is documenting these estimated impacts in the draft EI S published with this NPRM. 2

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 3 The No Action Alternative for today ’s analys is, alternatively referred to as the “baseline” or “reference case ,” assumes that the agencies would not issue new rules regarding MD/HD fuel efficiency and GHG emissions. That is , this alternative assumes that the Phase 1 MD/HD fuel efficiency and GHG emissions program’s model year 2018 standards would be extended inde finitely

and without change. The agencies recognize that there are a number of factors that create uncertainty in projecting a baseline against which to compare the future effects of the proposed action and the remaining alternatives. The composition of the future fleet

—such as the relative position of individual manufacturers and the mix of products they each offer

—cannot be predicted with certainty at this time . As reflected, in part, b y the market forecast underlying the agencies’ analys is, we anticipate that the baseline market for medium- and heavy- duty vehicles will continue to evolve within a competitive market that responds to a range of factors. Additionally, the heavy- duty vehicle market is diverse, as is the range of vehicle purchasers. Heavy- duty vehicle manufacturers have reported that their customers’ purchasing decisions are influenced by their customers’ own determinations of minimum total cost of ownership, which can be unique to a particular customer’s circumstances. For example, some customers (e.g., less -than-truckload or package delivery operators) operate their vehicles within a limited geographic region and ty pically own their own vehicle maintenance and repair centers within that region. These operators tend to own their vehicles for long time periods, and sometimes for the entire service life of the vehicle. Their total cost of ownership is influenced by their ability

to better control their own maintenance costs, and thus they can afford to consider fuel efficiency

technologies that have longer pay back periods, outside of the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty period. Other customers (e.g. truckload or long-haul operators) tend to operate cross - country, and thus must depend upon truck dealer service centers for repair and maintenance. Some of these customers tend to own their vehicles for about four to seven ye ars, so that they

typically do not have to pay for repair and maintenance costs outside of either the manufacturer’s warranty period or some other extended warranty period . Many of these customers tend to require seeing evidence of fuel efficiency technology payback periods on the order of 18 to 24 months before seriously considering evaluating a new technology for potential adoption within their fleet (NAS 2010, Roeth et al . 2013, Klemick et al. 2014) . Purchasing decisions, however, are not based exclusively on pay back period, but also include the considerations discussed in this section. For the baseline analys is, the agencies use pay back period as a proxy for all of these considerations, and therefore the pay back period for the baseline analys is is shorter than the pay back period industry

uses as a threshold for the further consideration of a technology. Purchasers of HD pickups and vans that want better fuel efficiency will demand that fuel consumption improvements pay back within approximately one to three years, but not all purchasers fall into this category. S ome HD pickup and van owners accrue relatively few vehicle miles traveled per year, such that they may be less likely to adopt new fuel efficiency technologies , while other owners who use their vehicle(s) with greater intensity may be even more willing to pay

for fuel efficiency

improvements . Regardless of the type of customer, their determination of minimum total cost of ownership involves the customer balancing their own unique circumstances with a heavy- duty vehicle’s initial purchase price, availability of credit and lease options, expectations of vehicle reliability, resale value and fuel efficiency technology

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -4 pay back periods. The degree of the incentive to adopt additional fuel efficiency technologies also depends on customer expectations of future fuel prices, which directly impacts customer expectations of the pay

back period . Another factor the agencies considered is that other federal and state - level policies and programs are specifically aimed at stimulating fuel efficiency technology

development and deploy ment. Particularly relevant to this sector are DOE’s 21 st 

### Century Truck Partnership, EPA’s voluntary

SmartWay

Transport program, and California’s AB32 fleet requirements. 3 ,4 , 5 

### The future availability

of more cost- effective technologies to reduce fuel consumption could provide manufacturers an incentive to produce more fuel- efficient medium- and heavy- duty vehicles, which in turn could provide customers an incentive to purchase these vehicles. The availability

of more cost- effective technologies to reduce fuel consumption could also lead to a substitution of less cost- effective technologies, where overall fuel efficiency could remain fairly flat if buyers are less interested in fuel consumption improvements than in reduced vehicle purchase prices and/or improved vehicle performance and/or utility. Although we have estimated the cost and effic acy of fuel - saving technologies assuming performance and utility

will be held constant, some uncertainty remains regarding whether these conditions will actually

be observed. In particular, we have assumed payload will be preserved (and possibly

improved via reduced vehicle curb weight); however, some fuel - saving technologies , such as natural gas fueled vehicles and hy brid electric vehicles, could reduce payload via increased curb weight due to the fuel tanks or added electrical machine, batteries and controls. Itis also possible that under extended high power demand resulting from a vehicle towing up a road grade, certain ty pes of hy brid powertrains could experience a temporary loss of towing capacity if the capacity of the hybrid’s energy storage device (e.g., batteries, hydraulic accumulator) is insufficient for the extended power demand . We have also assumed that fuel saving technologies will be no more or less reliable than technologies already in production. However, if manufacturers pursue risky techno lo gies or if the agencies provide insufficient leadtime to fully

develop new technologies, they could prove to be less reliable, perhaps leading to increased repair costs and out- of - service time. This was observed as an unintended consequence of certain manufacturers’ initial introduction of certain emissions control technologies to meet EPA’s most stringent heavy- duty engine standards. If the fuel - saving technologies considered here ultimately involve similar reliability problems, overall costs will be greater than we have estimated. We have assumed drivers will be as accepting of new fuel - saving technologies as they are of technologies already in service. However, drivers could be less accepting of newer technologies -- particularly any which must be deployed manually. Except for increased costs to replace more e fficient tires, we have assumed that routine maintenance costs will not increase or decrease . However, maintenance of new technologies could involve unique tools and parts. Therefore, maintenance costs could increase, and maintenance could involve increas ed vehicle out- of - service time. On the other hand new technologies can sometimes prove to be more reliable and require less maintenance than the technologies they replace. One example of this is the auxiliary

power unit (APU) frequently installed on heavy- duty sleeper cab tractors. In the past these have been typi cally powered by

small nonroad diesel engines that can require more frequent maintenance than the main engine of the tractor itself. However, more recently, as electric battery

technology

has advanced, some tractor manufacturers have introduced battery APUs instead of engine - driven APUs. A comparison of recent sales of small engine driven APUs versus battery

APUs suggests that customers may prefer battery

APUs 6 

### , and some

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 5 operators and tractor dealerships have also told the agencies that the decrease in routine maintenance was an important factor in purchase decisions in favor of battery APUs. Again, insofar as these unaccounted- for costs or savings actually occur, overall costs could be larger or smaller than we have estimated. We have also applied the EIA’s AEO estimates of future fuel prices; however, heavy- duty vehicle customers could have different expectations about future fuel prices , and could therefore be more inclined or less inclined to apply new technology

to reduce fuel consumption than might be expected based on EIA’s forecast. We expect that vehicle customers will be uncertain about future fuel prices , and that this uncertainty will be reflected in the degree of enthusiasm to apply new technology to reduce fuel consumption . Considering all of these factors, the agencies have approached the definition of the No Action Alternative separately for each vehicle and engine category covered by today ’s proposal . For trailers, the agencies considered two No Action alternatives to cover a nominal range of uncertainty. The trailer c ategory is unique in the context of this rulemaking because it is the only heavy- duty category not regulated under Phase 1. In both No Action cases , the agencies projected that the combination of EPA’s voluntary SmartWay program, DOE’s 21 st 

### Century Truck Partnership, California’s AB32 trailer requirements for fleets, and the potential for significantly reduced operating costs should result in continuing improvement to new trailers. Taking this into account, the agencies project that in 2018, 50 percent of new 53’ dry van and reefer trailers would have technologies qualifying for the SmartWay label (5 percent aerodynamic improvements and lower rolling resistance tires) and 50 percent would have automatic tire inflation systems to maintain optimal tire pressure. We also project that adoption of those same technologies would increase 1 percent per ye ar until each technology is being used on 60 percent of new trailers. In the first case, Alternative 1a, this means that the agencies project that in the absence of new standards, the new trailer fleet technology would stabilize in 2027 to a level of 60 percent adoption in 2027 for the No Action alternative. In the second case, Alternative 1b, the agencies projected that the fraction of the in-use fleet qualifying for SmartWay

would continue to increase beyond 2027 as older trailers are replaced by newer trailers. We projected that these improvements would continue until 2040 when 75 percent of new trailers would be assumed to include skirts. For vocational vehicles, the agencies considered one No Action alternative. For the vocational vehicle category the agencies recognized that these vehicles tend to operate over fewer vehicle miles travelled per year. Therefore, the projected pay back periods for fuel efficiency technologies available for vocational vehicles are generally longer than the pay

back periods the agencies consider likely to lead to their adoption based solely on market forces. This is especially true for vehicles used in applications in which the vehicle operation is secondary to the primary

business of the company using the vehicle. For example, since the fuel consumption of vehicles used b y utility companies to repair power lines would generally be a smaller cost relative to the other costs of repairing lines, fuel saving technologies would generally not be as strongly demanded for such vehicles. Thus, the agencies project that fuel - saving technologies would either not be applied or only be applied as a substitute for more expensive fuel efficiency technologies, except as necessitated by the Phase 1 fuel consumption and GHG standards. For tractors, the agencies considered two No Action alternatives to cover a nominal range of uncertainty. For Alternative 1a the agencies project that fuel - saving technologies would either

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 6 not be applied or only be applied as a substitute for more expensive fuel efficiency technologies to tractors (thereb y enabling manufacturers to offer tractors that are less expensive to purchase) , except as necessitated b y the Phase 1 fuel consumption and GHG standards. InAlternative 1b the agencies estimated that some available technologies would save enough fuel to pay back fairly quickly – within the first six months of ownership. The agencies considered a range of informati on to formulate these two baselines for tractors. Both public 7 

### and confidential historical information shows that tractor trailer fuel efficiency improved steadily

through improvements in engine efficiency and vehicle aero dy namics over the past 40 years, except for engine efficiency which decreased or was flat between 2000 and approximately 2007 as a consequence of incorporating technologies to meet engine emission regulations. Today vehicle manufacturers, the Federal Government, academia and others continue to invest in research to develop fuel efficiency improving technologies for the future. There is also evidence that manufacturers have, in the past, applied technologies to improve fuel efficiency

absent a regulatory

requirement to do so. Some manufacturers have even taken regulatory risk in order to increase fuel efficiency; in the 1990s, when fuel was comparatively inexpensive, some tractor manufacturers designed tractor engine controls to determine when the vehicle was not being emissions tested and, under such conditions, shift to more fuel - efficient operation even though doing so caused the vehicles to violate federal standards for NO X 

### emissions. Also, some manufacturers have recently expressed concern that the Phase 1 tractor standards do not credit them for fuel - saving technologies they had already implemented before the Phase 1 standards were adopted. In public meetings and in meetings with the agencies, the trucking industry stated that fuel cost for tractors is the number one or number two expense for many operators, and therefore is a very important factor for their business. However, the pre -Phase 1 market suggests that, tractor manufacturers and operators could be slow to adopt some new technologies , even where the agencies have estimated that the technology would have paid for itself within a few months of operation. Tractor operators have told the agencies they generally require technologies to be demonstrated in their fleet before widespread adoption so they can assess the actual fuel savings for their fleet and any increase in cost associated with effects on vehicle operation, maintenance, reliability, mechanic training, maintenance and repair equipment, stocking unique parts and driver acceptance, as well as effects on vehicle resale value. Tractor operators have publicly stated they would consider conducting an assessment of technologies when provided with data that show the technologies may pay back costs through fuel savings within 18 to 24 months, based on their assumptions about future fuel costs. In these cases, an operator may first conduct a detailed paper study of anticipated costs and benefits. If that study shows likely pay back in 18 to 24 months for their business, the fleet may acquire one or several tractors with the technology to directly

measure fuel savings, costs and driver acceptance for their fleet. Small fleets may not have resources to conduct assessments to this degree and may rely on information from larger fleets or observations of widespread acceptance of the technology within the industry

before adopting a technology. This uncertainty over the actual fuel savings and costs and the lengthy process to assess technologies significantly slows the pace at which fuel efficiency technologies are adopted.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 7 The agencies believe that using the two baselines addresses the uncertainties we have identified for tractors . The six -month pay back period of Alternative 1b reflects the agencies’ consideration of factors, discussed above, that could limit

—yet not eliminate

—

manufacturers’ tendencies to voluntarily improve fuel consumption. In contrast, Alternative 1a reflects a baseline for vehicles other than trailers wherein manufacturers either do not apply fuel efficiency technologies or only apply them as a substitute for more expensive fuel efficiency technologies, except as necessitated b y the Phase 1 fuel consumption and GHG standards. For HD pickups and vans, the agencies considered two No Action alternatives to cover a nominal range of uncertainty : a less - dy namic base line (designated Alternative 1a) where no improvements are modeled beyond those needed to meet Phase 1 standards and a dy namic baseline (designated Alternative 1b) where certain cost- effective technologies (i.e., those that pay back within a 6 month period) are assumed to be applied by manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency beyond the Phase 1 requirements in the abs ence of new Phase 2 standards . In Alternative 1b the agencies considered additional technology application, which involved the explicit estimation of the potential to add specific fuel- saving technologies to each specific vehicle model included in the agencies’ HD pickup and van fleet analys is, as discussed in Section VI of the Preamble . Estimated technology application and corresponding impacts depend on the modeled inputs. Also, under this approach a manufacturer that has improved fuel consumption and GHG emissions enough to achieve compliance with the standards is assumed to apply further improvements, provided those improvements reduce fuel outlays by enough (within a specified amount of time, the pay back period) to offset the additional costs to purchase the new vehicle. These calculations explicitly account for and respond to fuel prices, vehicle survival and mileage accumulation, and the cost and efficacy of available fuel - saving technologies. Therefore, all else being equal, more technology is applied when fuel prices are higher and/or technology is more cost- effective. Manufacturers of HD pickups and vans have reported to the agencies that buyers of these vehicles consider the total cost of vehicle ownership, not just new vehicle price, and that manufacturers plan as i f buyers will expect fuel consumption improvements to “pay

back” within periods ranging from approximately one to three years. For example, some manufacturers made decisions to introduce more efficient HD vans and HD pickup transmissions before such vehicles were subject to fuel consumption and/or GHG standards. However, considering factors discussed above that could limit manufacturers’ tendency to voluntarily improve HD pickup and van fuel consumption, Alternative 1b applies a 6 -month pay

back period. In contrast for Alternative 1a the agencies project that fuel - saving technologies would either not be applied or only be applied as a substitute for more expensive fuel efficiency

technologies, except as necessitated by the Phase 1 fuel consumption and GHG standards. The Method A sensitivity analys is presented Chapter 10 of this draft RIA also examines other pay

back periods . In terms of impacts under reference case fuel prices, the pay back period input plays a more significant role under the No -Action Alternatives (defined b y a continuation of model year 2018 standards) than under the more stringent regulatory alternatives described next. 

### 11.1.1.1 Alternative 1a For an explanation of analy tical Methods A and B identified in some of the following tables , please see Preamble Section I .D; for an explanation of the less dy namic baseline, 1a, and more dy namic baseline, 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 . The estimated reductions in

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 8 CO 2 

### emission rates 8 

### used in MOVES for Alternative 1a are presented inChapter 10 discusses the agencies’ use of the CAFE model in greater detail. Table **11 -**  **1** 

### The projected use of auxiliary power units (APU) during extended idling for Alternative 1a is presented in Table 11 -2 . The reductions in aerody namic and tire rolling resistance coefficients, and the absolute changes in average vehicle weight are presented in Table 11 - 3 . Chapter 10 discusses the agencies’ use of the CAFE model in greater detail. **Table 11**  **- 1**  **Estim ated Reductions in CO**  **2 Emission Rates**  **for Method B**  **Alternative 1a Modeling in MOVES**

VEHICLE TYPE FUEL MODEL YEARS FUEL/CO 2

REDUCTION Long -haul Tractor-Trailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018 -2024 0.5% 2025+ 0.6% Short-haul Tractor-Trailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018+ 0.2% Single -Frame Vocational 9 Diesel and CNG 2021 -2023 0% 2024+ 0% Gasoline 2021 -2023 0%

2024+ 0% HD P ickup Trucks and Vans a Diesel and

Gasoline 2021 0%

2022 0% 2023 0% 2024 0% 2025+ 0% Note: a Chapter 10 presents CAFE model inputs for the Method A analysis. **Table 11**  **- 2**  **Assumed APU Use during Extended Idling for Com bination Long** **- haul Tractor** **- Trailers for**  **Alternative 1a Modeling in MOVES**  VEHICLE TYPE MODEL YEARS APU PENETRATION Combination LongHaul Tractors 2010+ 30%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 9 **Table 11**  **- 3**  **Estim ated**  **Reductions in Road Load Factors for Alternative 1a Modeling in MOVES** VEHICLE TYPE MODEL YEARS REDUCTION IN

TIRE ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT REDUCTION IN

AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT WEIGHT REDUCTION (LB) a Combination Long-haul Tractor-Trailers 2018 2.1% 3.0% - 129 2019 -2020 2.2% 3.1% - 129 2021 2.2% 3.2% - 129 2022 -2023 2.3% 3.3% - 129 2024 2.4% 3.4% - 129 2025 2.4% 3.5% - 129 2026 2.5% 3.5% - 129 2027+ 2.5% 3.6% - 129 Combination Shorthaul Tractor-Trailers 10 2018 0.8% 1.1% -49 2019 -2020 0.8% 1.2% -49 2021 -2022 0.9% 1.2% -49 2023 -2026 0.9% 1.3% -49 2027+ 1.0% 1.4% -49 Intercity Buses 2021 -2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Transit and School Buses 2021 -2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Refuse Trucks 2021 -2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Single Unit Short-haul Trucks 2021 -2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Single Unit Long-haul Trucks 2021 -2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Motor Homes 2021 -2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Note: a Negative weight reductions reflect an expected weight increase as a byproduct of the other vehicle and engine im provements. 

### 11.1.1.2 Alternative 1b The estimated reductions in CO 2 

### emission rates used in MOVES and the projected use of auxiliary power units (APU) during extended idling for Alternative 1b are presented in Table 11 -4 and Table 11 - 5 , respectively. The reductions in aerody namic and tire rolling resistance coefficients, and the absolute changes in average vehicle weight are presented in Table 11 - 6 .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 10 **Table 11**  **- 4**  **Estim ated**  **Reductions in CO 2**  **Emission Rates for**  **Method B Alternative 1b Modeling in MOVES** 

VEHICLE TYPE FUEL MODEL YEARS FUEL/CO 2

REDUCTION Long - and ShortHaul TractorTrailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018+ 0% Single -Frame Vocational 11 Diesel and CNG 2021 -2023 0% 2024+ 0% Gasoline 2021 -2023 0%

2024+ 0% HD pickup trucks and vans a Diesel and

Gasoline 2021 -2022 2.18%

2023 2.71% 2024+ 2.86% Note: a Chapter 10 presents CAFE model inputs for the Method A analysis. **Table 11**  **- 5**  **Assumed APU Use during**  **Extended Idling for Com bination Long** **- haul Tractor** **- Trailers for**  **Alternative 1b Modeling in MOVES** VEHICLE TYPE MODEL YEARS APU

PENETRATION Combination Long-Haul Tractors 2010+ 30%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 11 **Table 11**  **- 6**  **Estim ated Reductions in Road Load Factors for Alternative 1b Modeling in MOVES**  TRUCK TYPE MODEL

YEARS REDUCTION IN T IRE

ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT REDUCTION IN AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT WEIGHT REDUCTION (LB) a Combination Long -haul Tractor-Trailers 2019 0.2% 0.5% 0

2020 0.2% 0.7% 0 2021 0.4% 1.2% 0 2022 0.6% 1.7% 0 2023 0.8% 2.5% 0 2024 1.1% 3.4% 0 2025 1.4% 4.4% 0 2026 1.7% 5.3% 0 2027 2.0% 6.1% 0 2028 2.1% 6.6% 0 Combination Short-haul Tractor-Trailers 12 2019 0.3% 0.4% 0

2020 0.4% 0.7% 0 2021 0.7% 1.0% 0 2022 1.0% 1.6% 0 2023 1.5% 2.2% 0 2024 2.0% 3.1% 0 2025 2.6% 3.9% 0 2026 3.1% 4.8% 0 2027 3.6% 5.4% 0 2028 3.9% 6.0% 0 Intercity Buses 2021 -

2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Transit and School Buses 2021 -

2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Refuse Trucks 2021 -

2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Single Unit Short-haul Trucks 2021 -

2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Single Unit Long -haul Trucks 2021 -

2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Motor Homes 2021 -

2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 0% 0% 0 Note: a Negative weight reductions reflect an expected weight increase as a byproduct of the other vehicle and engine im provements.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 12 

### 11.1.2 **Alternative 2**  **: Less Stringent than the Preferred Alternative**  For vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers, Alternative 2 represents a stringency

level which is approximately half as stringent overall as the preferred alternative. The agencies developed Alternative 2 to reflect a continuation of the Phas e 1 approach of

– applying off -the - shelf technologies rather than requiring the development of new technologies or fundamental improvements to existing technologies. For tractors and vocational vehicles, this also involved less integrated optimization of the vehicles and engines. Alternative 2 would not set standards for MY 2027. The agencies’ decisions regarding which technologies could be applied to comply with Alternative 2 considered not only assuming the use of off

-the shelf technologies, but also considered other factors , as well , such as how broadly certain technologies fit in-use applications and regulatory

structure. The resulting Alternative 2 could be met with most of the same technologies the agencies project could be used to meet the proposed standards, although at lower application rates. Alternative 2 is estimated to be achievable without the application of some technologies, at any level. These and other differences are described below by category. The agencies project that Alternative 2 c ombination tractor standards could be met by applying lower adoption rates of the projected technologies for Alternative 3. This includes a projection of slightly lower per-technology effectiveness for Alternative 2 versus 3. Alternative 2 also assumes that there would be little optimization of combination tractor powertrains. The agencies project that the Alternative 2 vocational vehicle standard could be met without any

use of strong hy

brids. Rather, it could be met with lower adoption rates of the other technologies that could be used to meet Alternative 3, our proposed standards. This includes a projection of slightly lower per-technology effectiveness for Alternative 2 versus 3 and little optimization of vocational vehicle powertrains . The Alter native 2 trailer standards would apply to only 53 - foot dry

and refrigerated box trailers and could be met through the use of less effective aerody namic technologies and higher rolling resistance tires versus what the agencies projected could be used to meet Alternative 3. As discussed above in Chapter 5 , the HD pickup truck and van alternatives are characterized b y an annual required percentage change (decrease) in the functions defining attribute -based targets for per-mile fuel consumption and GHG emissions. Under the HD pickup and van standards in Alternative 2 and each other alternative, a manufacturer’s fleet would, setting aside any changes in production mix, be required to achieve average fuel consumption/GHG levels that increase in stringency every year relative to the standard defined for MY2018 (and held constant through 2020) that establishes fuel consumption/GHG targets for individual vehicles. A manufacturer’s specific fuel consumption/GHG requirement is the sales weighted average of the targets defined by the work- factor curve in each ye ar. Therefore, although the alternatives involve steady increases in the functions defining the targets, stringency increases faced b y any individual manufacturer may not be steady

if changes in the manufacturer ’s product mix cause fluctuations in the average fuel consumption and GHG levels required of the manufacturer. See Section VI .D. of the Preamble for additional discussion of this topic. Alternative 2 represents a 2.0 percent annual improvement in the target curve through

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 13 2025 in fuel consumption/GHG emissions relative to the work- factor curve in 2020. This would be 0.5 percent less stringent per ye ar compared to the proposed standards of Alternative 3 and would not increase in stringency for MYs 2026 or 2027 . For HD pickups and vans the agencies project that most manufacturers could comply with the standards defining Alternative 2 by applying technologies similar to those that could be applied in order to comply with the proposed standards, but at lower application rates than could be necessitated by the proposed standards. The biggest technology

difference the agencies project between Alternative 2 and the proposed standards of Alternative 3 would be that we project that most manufacturers could meet the Alternative 2 standards without any use of stop - start or other mild or strong hy brid technologies. **The analytical inputs for Alternative 2 are shown in the following tables. The estimated reductions in CO**  **2 em** **ission rates used in MOVES**  **and the proj ected use of auxiliary power units (APU) during extended idling**  **are presented in** 

### Table 11 - 7 **and Table**  **11 -**  **8 , respectively**  **. The reductions in aerodynamic and tire rolling**  **resistance coefficients, and the absolute changes in average vehicle weight are presented in** 

### Table 11 - 9 . **Table 11**  **- 7**  **Estim ated Reductions in CO**  **2 Emission Rates**  **for Method B**  **Alternative 2 Modeling in MOVES**

VEHICLE TYPE FUEL MODEL YEARS FUEL/CO 2

REDUCTION Long -haul Tractor-Trailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018 -2020 0. 9 % 2021 -2023 3 .9% 2024+ 6. 9 % Short-haul Tractor-Trailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018 -2020 0.3% 2021 -2023 3.2 % 2024+ 6. 4 % Single -Frame Vocational 13 Diesel and CNG 2021 -2023 2. 1 % 2024+ 5 . 1 % Gasoline 2021 -2023 1. 1 %

2024+ 2 . 1 % HD pickup trucks and vans a Diesel and

Gasoline 2021 2.0 0 %

2022 3.96 % 2023 5.88 % 2024 7.76 % 2025+ 9.61 % Note: a Chapter 10 presents CAFE model inputs for the Method A analysis.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 14 **Table 11**  **- 8**  **Assumed APU Use during Extended Idling for Com bination Long** **- haul Tractor** **- Trailers for**  **Alternative 2 Modeling in MOVES** VEHICLE TYPE MODEL YEARS APU

PENETRATION Combination Long-Haul Tractors 2010 -2020 30% 2021 -2023 60% 2024+ 80% **Table 11**  **- 9**  **Estim ated Reductions in Road Load Factors for Alternative 2 Modeling in MOVES**  VEHICLE TYPE MODEL

YEARS REDUCTION IN T IRE

ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT REDUCTION IN AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT WEIGHT REDUCTION (LB) a Combination Long -haul Tractor-Trailers 2018 -

2020 4.0 % 5.1 % - 131 2021 - 2023 5.8 % 11.0 % - 1 35 2024+ 9.0 % 12.4 % - 140 Combination Short-haul Tractor-Trailers 14 2018 -

2020 1.2 % 1.6 % -4 1 2021 - 2023 5.3 % 6.4 % -42 2024+ 6.6 % 7.4 % -4 3 Intercity Buses 2021 -

2023 6.5% 0% 0 2024+ 7.6% 0% 0 Transit and School Buses 2021 -

2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 2.7% 0% 0 Refuse Trucks 2021 -

2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 2.7% 0% 0 Single Unit Short-haul Trucks 2021 -

2023 4.8% 0% 0 2024+ 5.6% 0% 0 Single Unit Long -haul Trucks 2021 -

2023 6.5% 0% 0 2024+ 7.6% 0% 0 Motor Homes 2021 -

2023 3.0% 0% 0 2024+ 5.9% 0% 0 Note: a Negative weight reductions reflect an expected weight increase as a byproduct of the other vehicle and engine im provements.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 15 

### 11.1.3 **Alternative 3**  **: Preferred Alternative**  **and Proposed Standards** Alternative 3 represents the agencies’ preferred approach. This alternative consists of the preferred fuel efficiency

and GHG standards for HD engine s, HD p ickup trucks and vans, Class 2b through Class 8 vocational vehicles, and Class 7 and 8 combination tractors . Details regarding modeling of this preferred alternative are included in Chapter 5 of this draft RIA as the control case (Section 5.3.2.3.1). Note that the impacts of this alternative are summarized in RIA Chapter 0 , along with the impacts of the other alternatives. 

### 11.1.4 **Alternative 4**  **: Achieving Proposed Stan**  **dards with Less Lead -**  **Time** Alternative 4 represents standards that are effective on a more accelerated timeline in comparison to the timeline of the proposed standards in Alternative 3. Alternatives 3 and 4 were both designed to achieve similar fuel effici ency and GHG emission levels in the long term but with Alternative 4 being accelerated in its implementation timeline. Specifically, Alternative 4 reflects the same or similar standard stringency levels as Alternative 3, but 3 years sooner (2 ye ars for he avy- duty pickups and vans), so that the final phase of the standards would occur in MY 2024, or (for heavy duty pickups and vans) 2025. The estimated reductions in CO 2 

### emission rates used in MOVES and the projected use of auxiliary power units (APU) during extended idling for Alternative 4 are presented in Table 11 - 10 and Table 11 - 11 , respectively. The reductions in aerody namic and tire rolling resistance coefficients, and the absolute changes in average vehicle weight are presented in Table 11 - 12 .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 16 **Table 11**  **- 10**  **Estim ated Reductions in CO**  **2 Emission Rates**  **for Method B**  **Alternative 4 Modeling in MOVES** VEHICLE TYPE FUEL MODEL YEARS FUEL/CO 2

REDUCTION Long -haul Tractor-Trailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018 -2020 1.3% 2021 -2023 6. 6 % 2024+ 10. 4 % Short-haul Tractor-Trailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018 -2020 0.9 % 2021 -2023 6.9 % 2024+ 10.4 % Single -Frame Vocational 15 Diesel and CNG 2021 -2023 7 . 7 % 2024+ 1 3 . 3 % Gasoline 2021 -2023 5 . 2 %

2024+ 1 0 . 3 % HD pickup trucks and vans a Diesel and Gasoline 2021 3. 50 %

2022 6. 88 % 2023 10 . 14 % 2024 1 3 . 28 % 2025+ 1 6 . 32 % Note: a Chapter 10 presents CAFE model inputs for the Method A analysis. **Table 11**  **- 11**  **Assumed APU Use during Extended Idling for Com bination Long** **- haul Tractor** **- Trailers for**  **Alternative 4 Modeling in MOVES** VEHICLE TYPE MODEL

YEARS APU PENETRATION Combination Long -Haul Tractors 2010 -2020 30%

2021 -2023 80% 2024+ 90 %

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 17 **Table 11**  **- 12**  **Estim ated Reductions in Road Load Factors for Alternative 4 Modeling in MOVES**  VEHICLE TYPE MODEL

YEARS REDUCTION IN T IRE

ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT REDUCTION IN AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT WEIGHT REDUCTION (LB) a Combination Long -haul Tractor-Trailers 2018 -

2020 5. 5 % 5 .1% - 1 31 2021 - 2023 12.6% 19.3 % -246 2024+ 17. 9 % 26.9 % - 3 04 Combination Short-haul TractorTrailers 16 2018 -

2020 4.0 % 1.6 % -41 2021 - 2023 13.0 % 11.6 % - 100 2024+ 17.6 % 15.9 % - 127 Intercity Buses 2021 -

2023 6.5% 0% 0 2024+ 1 6 . 5 % 0% 0 Transit Buses 2021 -

2023 0 % 0% 0 2024+ 3 . 0 % 0% 0 School Buses 2021 -

2023 0 % 0% 0 2024+ 4 . 0 % 0% 0 Refuse Trucks 2021 -

2023 0 % 0% 20 2024+ 3.0 % 0% 25 Single Unit Short-haul Trucks 2021 -

2023 4.8% 0% 5.8 2024+ 1 3 . 0 % 0% 7 Single Unit Long -haul Trucks 2021 -

2023 6.5% 0% 20 2024+ 1 6 . 5 % 0% 25 Motor Homes 2021 -

2023 3.0% 0% 0 2024+ 7. 4 % 0% 0 Note: a Negative weight reductions reflect an expected weight increase as a byproduct of the other vehicle and engine improvements. 

### 11.1.5 **Alternative 5**  **: More Stringent Standards**  Alternative 5 represents even more stringent standards compared to Alternatives 3 and 4, as well as the same implementation timeline as Alternative 4. As discussed in the feasibility discussions in the preamble , we are not proposing Alternative 5 because we cannot project that manufacturers can develop and introduce in sufficient quantities the technologies that could be used to meet Alternative 5 standards. We believe that for some or all of the categories, the Alternative 5 standards are technically inf easible within the lead time allowed. We have not

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 18 fully estimated costs for this alternative for tractors and vocational vehicles because we believe that there would be such substantial additional costs related to pulling ahead the development of so many additional technologies that we cannot accurately predict these costs. We also believe this alternative could result in a decrease in the in-use reliability and durability

of new heavyduty vehicles and that we do not have the ability to accurately quanti fy

the costs that would be associated with such problems. Instead we merely note that costs would be significantly greater than the estimated costs for Alternative s 3 and 4. The tractor and vocational vehicle standards would be based on higher adoption rates of the projected technologies and higher effectiveness. In addition, it assumes some adoption of all electric vocational vehicles. The trailer standards in Alternative 5 are more stringent than Alternative s 3 and 4, but rely on the same technologie s. The greater reductions would be projected to be achieved through a combination of slightly higher effectiveness and higher adoption rates. The Alternative 5 HD pickup truck and van standards would be based on more extensive use of mild and strong hybrid technology and its use by

more manufacturers. The result would be that over half of the HD gasoline pickup fleet would need to incorporate some form of strong hy brid technology. If achievable, Alternative 5 would require the average pickup truck or van fuel consumption and GHG emissions to decrease by approximately 4 .0 percent per year relative to Phase 1 for model years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 . This is more aggressive than Alternative 3 b y 1.50 percent per ye ar over the same model years. The estimated reductions in CO 2 

### emission rates used in MOVES and the projected use of auxiliary power units (APU) during extended idling for Alternative 5 are presented in Table 11 - 13 and Table 11 - 14 , respectively. The reductions in aerodynamic and tire rolling resistance coefficients, a nd the absolute changes in average vehicle weight are presented in Table 11 - 15 .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 19 **Table 11**  **- 13**  **Estim ated Reductions in CO**  **2 Emission Rates**  **for Method B**  **Alternative 5 Modeling in MOVES**

VEHICLE TYPE FUEL MODEL YEARS FUEL/CO 2

REDUCTION Long -haul Tractor-Trailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018 -2020 1.3% 2021 -2023 10.3 % 2024+ 13.5 % Short-haul Tractor-Trailer and HHD Vocational Diesel 2018 -2020 0.9 % 2021 -2023 11. 3 % 2024+ 14.9 % Single -Frame Vocational 17 Diesel and CNG 2021 -2023 1 4 . 0 % 2024+ 1 8 .5% Gasoline 2021 -2023 1 1 .0%

2024+ 1 5 . 0 % HD pickup trucks and vans a Diesel and

Gasoline 2021 4.00 %

2022 7. 84 % 2023 1 1 .5 3 % 2024 1 5 .0 7 % 2025+ 1 8 . 46 % Note: a Chapter 10 presents CAFE model inputs for the Method A analysis.

**Table 11**  **- 14**  **Assumed APU Use during Extended Idling for Com bination Long** **- haul Tractor** **- Trailers for**  **Alternative 5 Modeling in MOVES** VEHICLE TYPE MODEL YEARS APU PENETRATION Combination Long Haul Tractors 2010 -2020 30% 2021+ 100%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -20 **Table 11**  **- 15**  **Estim ated Reductions in Road Load Factors for Alternative 5 Modeling in MOVES**  VEHICLE TYPE MODEL YEARS REDUCTION IN

TIRE ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT REDUCTION IN

AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT WEIGHT

REDUCTION (LB) a Combination Long-haul Tractor-Trailers 2018 -2020 5. 4 % 7. 3 % - 170 2021 -2023 14.3% 24.6 % 936 2024+ 19. 2 % 31.4 % 850 Combination Short-haul Tractor-Trailers 18 2018 -2020 3.9 % 2. 3 % - 53 2021 -2023 14.5 % 15.0 % 997 2024+ 18.8 % 19.0 % 943 Intercity Buses 2021 -2023 6.5% 0% 0 2024+ 16.5% 0% 0 Transit Buses 2021 -2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 8.0% 0% 0 School Buses 2021 -2023 0% 0% 0 2024+ 9.1% 0% 0 Refuse Trucks 2021 -2023 0% 0% 255 2024+ 8.0% 0% 255 Single Unit Short-haul Trucks 2021 -2023 4.8% 0% 58 2024+ 15.2% 0% 95 Single Unit Long-haul Trucks 2021 -2023 6.5% 0% 185 2024+ 16.5% 0% 185 Motor Homes 2021 -2023 3.0% 0% 0 2024+ 12.4% 0% 0 Note: a Negative weight reductions reflect an expected weight increase as a byproduct of the other vehicle and engine im provements . 

## 11.2 **How D**  **o These Alternatives Compare**  **in Overall**  **GHG Emissions**  **Reductions and**  **Fuel Efficiency and**  **Cost?** As noted earlier, the agencies analyz ed the impact of each alternative on both downstream and upstream emissions using two complementary methods. The results of Method A are shown in section 11.2.1 . The results of Method B are shown in section 11.2.2 . 

### 11.2.1 **Comparison of Alternatives Using Method A** The following tables compare the overall fuel consumption and GHG emissions reductions and benefits and costs of each of the regulatory alternatives the agencies considered. Note that for tractors, trailers, pickups and vans the agencies compared overall fuel consumption and GHG emissions reductions and benefits and costs relative to two different baselines, described above in the section on the No Action alternative. Therefore, for tractors, trailers, pickups and vans two results are listed; one relative to each baseline, namely Alternative 1a and Alternative 1b.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -21 Al so note that the agencies analyz ed pickup and van overall fuel consumption and emissions reductions and benefits and costs using the NHTSA CAFE model (Method A). In addition, the agencies used EPA’s MOVES model to estimate pickup and van fuel consumption and emissions and a cost methodology that applied vehicle costs in different model years (Method B). In both cases, the agencies used the CAFE model to estimate average per vehicle cost, and this analys is extended through model year 2030. A 

### The agencies concluded that in these instances the choice of baseline and the choice of modeling approach (Method A versus Method B) did not impact the agencies’ decision to propose Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative and hence the proposed standards for HD pickups and vans. Table 11 - 16 compares the fuel savings, technology costs, avoided GHG emissions, costs, and benefits (at three percent) for the above regulatory alternatives , as estimated under Method A. Table 11 - 17 provides the same comparisons for the alternative relative to baseline 1b . Table 11 - 18 and Table 11 - 19 show the same summary, discounted at seven percent. Subsequent tables (Table 11 -20 and Table 11 -21 ) summarize segment- specific impacts on fuel consumption and GHG emissions .

A Although the agencies have considered regulatory alternatives involving standards increasing in stringency through, at the latest, 2027, the agencies extended the CAFE modeling analysis through model year 2030 rather than mo del year 2027 in order to obtain more fully stabilized results given projected product cadence, multiyear planning, and application of earned credits.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -22 **Table 11**  **- 16**  **Summary of Costs a** **nd Benefits through MY 2029 by Alternative, Discounted at 3% (Relative to**  **Baseline 1a), Me** **thod A a**  VEHICLE SEGMENT ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 Discounted pre- tax fuel savings ($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 11.7 18.3 22.3 24.8 Vocational Vehicles 

### 5.6 18.4 24.3 38.5 Tractors/Trailers 

### 88.1 138.4 151.7 196.8 Total 

### 105.4 175.1 198.3 260.2 Discounted Total technology costs ($billion) HD pickups and Vans 3.0 5.0 8.2 9.9 Vocational Vehicles 1. 2 7. 6 10. 8 26.0 Tractors/Trailers 9.2 12.8 15.3 34.8 Total 13 .4 25.4 34.3 70.6 Discounted value of emissions reductions ($billon) HD pickups and Vans 

### 3.1 5.0 6.1 6.8 Vocational Vehicles 

### 0.6 2.6 3.5 5.7 Tractors/Trailers 

### 21.5 32.7 35.1 45.1 Total 

### 25.2 40.3 44.7 57.7 Total costs($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 3.5 5.7 9.1 15.2 Vocational Vehicles 

### 3.0 9.5 12.8 28.1 Tractors/Trailers 

### 11.5 15.5 18.1 37.5 Total 

### 18.0 30.8 40.0 80.8 Total benefits($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 17.2 27.0 33.0 36.7 Vocational Vehicles 

### 12.7 31.2 39.7 60.2 Tractors/Trailers 

### 142.5 217.5 236.7 304.2 Total 

### 172.4 275.8 309.4 401.1 Net benefits($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 13.7 21.3 23.9 21.5 Vocational Vehicles 

### 9.6 21.7 26.9 32.1 Tractors/Trailers 

### 131.0 202.0 218.7 266.7 Total 

### 154.3 245.0 269.4 320.3 Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -23 **Table 11**  **- 17**  **Summary of Program Benefits and Costs through MY 2029, Discounted at 3% (Relative**  **to Baseline 1b** **) Method A**  **a** VEHICLE SEGMENT ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 Discounted pre- tax fuel savings ($billion) HD pickups and Vans 9.6 15.9 19.1 22.2 Vocational Vehicles 5.6 18.4 24.3 38.5 Tractors/Trailers 80.5 130.8 144.0 189.2 Total 95.6 165.1 187.4 250.0 Discounted Total technology costs ($billion) HD pickups and Vans 2.5 5.0 7.2 9.7 Vocational Vehicles 1.2 7.6 10.8 25.9 Tractors/Trailers 8.9 12.5 15.0 34.4 Total 12.5 25.0 32.9 70.0 Discounted value of emissions reductions ($billon) HD pickups and Vans 

### 2.8 4.5 5.4 6.3 Vocational Vehicles 

### 1.7 6.1 8.1 13.1 Tractors/Trailers 

### 37.5 59.4 64.6 84.4 Total 

### 41.9 70.1 78.2 103.8 Total costs($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 2.8 5.5 7.8 10.4 Vocational Vehicles 

### 3.0 9.5 12.8 28.0 Tractors/Trailers 

### 11.2 15.2 17.7 37.2 Total 

### 17.0 30.3 38.4 75.7 Total benefits($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 14.1 23.5 28.3 32.9 Vocational Vehicles 

### 12.7 31.2 39.7 60.2 Tractors/Trailers 

### 131.1 206.2 225.4 292.8 Total 

### 157.9 260.9 293.3 385.9 Net benefits($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 11.3 18.0 20.4 22.5 Vocational Vehicles 

### 9.6 21.7 26.9 32.1 Tractors/Trailers 

### 119.9 191.0 207.6 255.6 Total 

### 140.9 230.7 254.9 310.3 Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1. 

### The following two tables summarize results for each of the segments covered by today ’s proposal , discounted at 7 percent .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -24 **Table 11**  **- 18**  **Summary of Program Benefits and**  **Costs through MY 2029, discounted at 7% (Relative to Baseline 1a** **) Me** **thod A a**  VEHICLE SEGMENT ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 Discounted pre- tax fuel savings ($billion) HD pickups and Vans 6.4 9.9 12.2 13.6 Vocational Vehicles 2.9 9.7 13.0 20.9 Tractors/Trailers 47.7 74.6 82.3 107.3 Total 57.0 94.2 107.5 141.8 Discounted Total technology costs ($billion) HD pickups and Vans 2.1 3.4 5.7 6.9 Vocational Vehicles 0.8 5.0 7.3 17.8 Tractors/Trailers 6.3 8.7 10.5 23.9 Total 9.1 17.1 23.5 48.6 Discounted value of emissions reductions ($billon) HD pickups and Vans 

### 2.7 4.3 5.3 5.9 Vocational Vehicles 

### 1.4 5.0 6.6 10.6 Tractors/Trailers 

### 29.9 46.3 50.4 65.4 Total 

### 34.0 55.6 62.3 81.8 Total costs($billion) HD pickups and Vans 2.4 3.8 6.2 10.1 Vocational Vehicles 1.8 6.1 8.4 19.0 Tractors/Trailers 7.6 10.3 12.1 25.5 Total 11.8 20.2 26.7 54.6 Total benefits($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 10.4 16.3 20.1 22.3 Vocational Vehicles 

### 7.3 18.3 23.6 36.2 Tractors/Trailers 

### 85.1 130.0 142.2 183.5 Total 

### 102.9 164.6 185.8 242.1 Net benefits($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 8.1 12.4 13.9 12.2 Vocational Vehicles 

### 5.5 12.2 15.2 17.2 Tractors/Trailers 

### 77.5 119.7 130.1 158.0 Total 

### 91.1 144.4 159.1 187.5 Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -25 **Table 11**  **- 19**  **Summary of Program Benefits and**  **Costs through MY 2029, discounted at 7% (Relative to Baseline 1b** **) Method A**  **a** VEHICLE SEGMENT ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 Discounted pre- tax fuel savings ($billion) HD pickups and Vans 5.2 8.5 10.4 12.2 Vocational Vehicles 2.9 9.7 13.0 20.9 Tractors/Trailers 44.0 71.0 78.6 103.7 Total 52.2 89.2 102.0 136.8 Discounted Total technology costs ($billion) HD pickups and Vans 1.7 3.4 4.9 6.7 Vocational Vehicles 0.8 5.0 7.3 17.8 Tractors/Trailers 6.0 8.4 10.3 23.7 Total 8.5 16.8 22.5 48.2 Discounted value of emissions reductions ($billon) HD pickups and Vans 

### 2.5 4.0 4.8 5.5 Vocational Vehicles 

### 1.4 5.0 6.6 10.6 Tractors/Trailers 

### 27.5 43.9 48.0 63.0 Total 

### 31.4 52.9 59.4 79.1 Total costs($billion) HD pickups and Vans 1.9 3.7 5.3 7.1 Vocational Vehicles 1.8 6.1 8.4 19.0 Tractors/Trailers 7.3 10.0 11.9 25.3 Total 11.1 19.8 25.6 51.4 Total benefits($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 8.6 14.1 17.1 20.0 Vocational Vehicles 

### 7.3 18.3 23.6 36.2 Tractors/Trailers 

### 78.9 123.7 135.9 177.3 Total 

### 94.8 156.2 176.6 233.5 Net benefits($billion) HD pickups and Vans 

### 6.7 10.5 11.9 12.9 Vocational Vehicles 

### 5.5 12.2 15.2 17.2 Tractors/Trailers 

### 71.5 113.7 124.0 152.0 Total 

### 83.7 136.4 151.1 182.2 Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1. 

### While the agencies’ explicit analys is of manufacturers’ potential responses to today ’s standards extends through model year 2030, the resulting fuel savings and avoided emissions summarized in the following two tables occur as those vehicles .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -26 **Table 11**  **- 20**  **Fuel Savings and GHG Emissions Reductions by Vehicle Seg ment, Relative to Baseline 1a,**  **Me thod A**  **a** 

### MY 2018 - 2029 TOTAL FUEL REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM &

DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCTIONS (billion gallons) (MMT) Alternative 2 HD Pickup Trucks/Vans 5.5 67.5 Vocational Vehicles 2.5 33.6 32 .2 Tractors and Trailers 37.8 518.8 493 .0 Total 45.8 619.9 592 .7

Alt. 3 - Preferred Alternative HD Pickup Trucks/Vans 8.8 107.6 Vocational Vehicles 8.3 110.3 107 .0 Tractors and Trailers 59.5 816.4 775 .7 Total 76.7 1,034.3 990 .4 Alt. 4 HD Pickup Trucks/Vans 10.7 130.5 Vocational Vehicles 10.9 143 139 .8 Tractors and Trailers 65.0 892.1 847 .7 Total 86.7 1, 166.4 118 .0 Alt. 5 HD Pickup Trucks/Vans 12.0 145.4 Vocational Vehicles 17.3 226.9 221 .0 Tractors and Trailers 84.2 1, 155.1 097 .6 Total 113.4 1, 527.4464 .1 Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -27 **Table 11**  **- 21**  **Fuel Savings and GHG Emissions Reductions by Vehicle Seg ment, Relative to Baseline 1b**  **Me thod A**  **a** 

### MY 2018 - 2029 TOTAL FUEL

REDUCTIONS UPSTREAM &

DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCTIONS (billion gallons) (MMT) Alternative 2 HD Pickup Trucks/Vans 4.5 55.5 Vocational Vehicles 2.5 33.6 Tractors and Trailers 34.4 471.9 Total 41.4 561 .0

Alt. 3 - Preferred Alternative HD Pickup Trucks/Vans 7.8 94.1 Vocational Vehicles 8.3 110.3 Tractors and Trailers 56.1 769.4 Total 72.2 973.8 Alt. 4 HD Pickup Trucks/Vans 9.3 112.8 Vocational Vehicles 10.9 143 .8 Tractors and Trailers 61.6 845.2 Total 81.8 1, 101 .8 Alt. 5 HD Pickup Trucks/Vans 10.8 130.5 Vocational Vehicles 17.3 226.9 Tractors and Trailers 80.7 1, 108.2 Total 108.8 1, 465 .6 Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -28 

### 11.2.2 **Comparison of Alternatives Using Method B**  Method B analyzed the impact of each alternative on both downstream and upstream emissions , as shown in Table 11 -22 . The table contains the annual GHG and fuel consumption impacts and technology

costs in 2035 and 2050 for each alternative (relative to the reference scenario of Alternative 1 a), presenting both the total impacts across all regulatory categories and for each individual regulatory category. Note that by

2050 when all the alternative would be almost completely

phased in, Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide essentially the same annual benefits . **Table 11**  **- 22**  **Annual GHG**  **& Fuel Reductions**  **and Technology Costs vs**  **. the Less Dynamic Baseline**  **and using Me** **thod B :**  **Calendar Years 203**  **5 and 2050**  **a** UPSTREAM +DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCT IONS (MMT) FUEL REDUCTIONS

(BILLION GALLONS) TECHNOLOGY COST (MILLIONS OF 2012$) 2035 2050 2035 2050 2035 2050 Alternative 1a (relative to itself) 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 Alt. 2 Less StringentTotal 

### 72 101 5.2 7.3 $2,559 $3,090

Tractors 

### 59 84 4.2 6.0 $1,855 $2,279 HD Pickups & Vans 

### 8 11 0.7 0.9 $471 $541 Vocational Vehicles 

### 5 7 0.3 0.5 $233 $271 Alt. 3 Preferred

– Total 

### 127 183 9.3 13.4 $5,856 $6,987

Tractors 

### 97 141 7.0 10.1 $2,888 $3,548 HD Pickups & Vans 

### 14 19 1.1 1.6 $892 $1,024 Vocational Vehicles 

### 16 23 1.2 1.7 $2,076 $2,414 Alt. 4 More Stringent

– Total 

### 132 184 9.7 13.5 $6,180 $7,358

Tractors 

### 100 141 7.2 10.1 $2,888 $3,548 HD Pickups & Vans 

### 15 19 1.2 1.6 $1,215 $1,395 Vocational Vehicles 

### 17 23 1.3 1.7 $2,077 $2,415 Alt. 5 More Stringent

– Total 

### 168 232 12.4 17.0 N/A N/A

Tractors 

### 126 176 9.0 12.6 N/A N/A HD Pickups & Vans 

### 17 22 1.4 1.8 N/A N/A Vocational Vehicles 

### 26 34 1.9 2.5 N/A N/A Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 

### Table 11 -23 presents a summary of all costs and benefits for each program alternative relative to the Alternative 1a baseline case. Table 11 -24 shows cost per ton of GHG reduced.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -29 **Table 11**  **- 23**  **Monetized Net Benefits Associated with Each Alternative**  **Relative to the Less Dynamic Baseline**  **and using Method B**  **(B illion**  **s of 2012$, Except GHG**  **Reductions )**  **a ,**  **b** Alt.1 Baseline Alt.2 Less

Stringent Alt.3

Preferred Alt.4 More

Stringent Alt. 5 More

Stringent 203 5 Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $2.6 - $5.9 - $6.2 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.06 - $0.13 - $0.14 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pre -tax) $0 $20.9 $37.2 $38.7 $49.4 Benefits $0 $12.8 $20.5 $21.1 $26.3 Net Benefits $0 $31.1 $51.7 $53.5 N/A GHG reductions (MMT) 0 71.9 127.1 132.0 168.3 205 0 Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $3.1 - $7.0 - $7.4 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.06 - $0.13 - $0.14 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pre -tax) $0 $31.5 $57.5 $57.6 $72.7 Benefits $0 $19.9 $32.9 $32.9 $40.6 Net Benefits $0 $48.3 $83.2 $83.0 N/A GHG Reductions (MMT) 0 101.2 183.4 183.8 231.8 NP V, 3% Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $39.8 - $86.8 - $98.6 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.88 - $1.80 - $1.91 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pre -tax) $0 $280.0 $495.6 $517.6 $664.3 Benefits $0 $175.2 $279.7 $289.7 $361.5 Net Benefits $0 $414.5 $686.8 $706.8 N/A NP V, 7% Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $19.3 - $41.1 - $48.4 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.42 - $0.86 - $0.92 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pre -tax) $0 $118.1 $206.7 $219.0 $283.0 Benefits $0 $105.5 $173.5 $180.7 $228.0 Net Benefits $0 $203.8 $338.1 $350.5 N/A Notes: a Benefits and net benefits calculated using the 3% average Social Cost of CO 2 value. The net present value of reduced CO 2 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. b For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 c Vehicle program costs include compliance costs and R&D .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 30 **Table 11**  **- 24**  **Annual Cost per Metric Ton of CO**  **2 eq Em** **issions Reduced in Each Control Case Alternative**  **Vs. the Less Dynamic Baseline**  **and using Method B** 

**( Dollar Values**  **are 2012$) a**  YEAR ALT.2 LESS STRINGENT ALT.3

PREFERRED ALT.4

MORE STRINGENT ALT. 5

MORE STRINGENT 2035 $/metric ton w/o fuel $36 $47 $48 N/A $/metric ton w/ fuel - $250 - $250 - $250 N/A 2050 $/metric ton w/o fuel $31 $39 $41 N/A $/metric ton w/ fuel - $280 - $270 - $270 N/A Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 

### 11.2.2.1 Tractors and Trailers Table 11 -25 presents a summary of all costs and benefits for each tractor/trailer program Alternative relative to the alternative 1a baseline case. Table 11 -26 shows cost per ton of GHG reduced.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 31 **Table 11**  **- 25**  **Monetized Net Benefits Associated with Each Alternative Relative to**  **the Less Dynamic Baseline and using**  **Me thod B**  **Tractor/Trailers (B**  **illion s of 2012$,**  **E xcept**  **GHG Reductions )**  **b**

ALT.1 BASELI NE ALT.2

LESS STRING ENT ALT.3

PREFER RED ALT.4

MORE STRINGE NT ALT. 5

MORE STRINGE NT 2035 Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $1.9 - $2.9 - $2.9 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.03 - $0.08 - $0.08 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pre -tax) $0 $17.2 $28.4 $29.2 $36.8 Benefits $0 $10.3 $15.7 $16.0 $19.7 Net Benefits $0 $25.6 $41.0 $42.2 N/A GHG Reductions (MMT) 0 59.1 97.2 100.0 125.9 2050 Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $2.3 - $3.6 - $3.6 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.03 - $0.08 - $0.08 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pre -tax) $0 $26.1 $44.0 $44.0 $54.8 Benefits $0 $16.1 $25.2 $25.2 $30.7 Net Benefits $0 $39.9 $65.5 $65.6 N/A GHG Reductions (MMT) 0 83.8 140.9 141.1 175.7 NPV, 3% Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $28.8 - $43.7 - $46.2 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.47 - $1.19 - $1.22 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pre -tax) $0 $231.7 $381.5 $394.5 $499.5 Benefits $0 $141.7 $215.7 $221.6 $274.2 Net Benefits $0 $344.1 $552.3 $568.8 N/A NPV, 7% Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $13.9 - $20.9 - $22.7 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.23 - $0.59 - $0.60 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pre -tax) $0 $98.1 $160.1 $167.5 $213.4 Benefits $0 $85.8 $133.8 $138.1 $172.4 Net Benefits $0 $169.8 $272.4 $282.3 N/A Notes: a Benefits and net benefits calculated using the 3% average Social Cost of CO 2 value applied only to CO 2 reductions . The net present value of reduced CO 2 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. b For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 c Vehicle program costs include compliance costs and R&D .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 32 **Table 11**  **- 26**  **Annual Cost per Metric Ton of CO**  **2 eq Em** **issions Reduced in Each Control Case Alternative Vs.**  **the Less Dynamic Baseline and using**  **Method B**

**Tractor/Trailers (** **Dollar Values are 2012$)**  **a** YEAR ALT.2 LESS STRINGENT ALT.3

PREFERRED ALT.4

MORE STRINGENT ALT. 5

MORE STRINGENT 2035 $/metric ton w/o fuel $32 $31 $30 N/A $/metric ton w/ fuel - $260 - $260 - $260 N/A 2050 $/metric ton w/o fuel $28 $26 $26 N/A $/metric ton w/ fuel - $280 - $290 - $290 N/A Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 

### 11.2.2.2 Vocational Vehicles Table 11 -27 presents a summary of all costs and benefits for each vocational program alternative relative to the Alternative 1a baseline case. Table 11 -28 shows cost per ton of GHG reduced.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 33 **Table 11**  **- 27**  **Monetized Net Benefits Associated with Each Alternative Relative to**  **the Less Dynamic Baseline and using**  **Method B Voc**  **ational Vehicles**  **(B illion**  **s of 2012$, Except**  **GHG R** **eductions )**  **a ,**  **b** ALT.1 BASELI NE ALT.2

LESS STRING ENT ALT.3

PREFER RED ALT.4 ALT. 5 MORE STRINGE NT 2035 Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $0.2 - $2.1 - $2.1 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.02 - $0.03 - $0.04 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pretax) $0 $1.3 $4.7 $5.1 $7.6 Benefits $0 $1.1 $2.6 $2.8 $3.9 Net Benefits $0 $2.2 $5.2 $5.8 GHG Reductions (MMT) 0 4.7 16.1 17.4 25.8 2050 Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $0.3 - $2.4 - $2.4 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.02 - $0.03 - $0.04 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pretax) $0 $2.0 $7.3 $7.3 $10.7 Benefits $0 $1.7 $4.2 $4.2 $5.9 Net Benefits $0 $3.4 $9.0 $9.1 N/A GHG Reductions (MMT) 0 6.5 23.2 23.3 33.9 NPV, 3% Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $3.6 - $29.6 - $32.8 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.22 - $0.42 - $0.52 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pretax) $0 $16.9 $60.6 $66.3 $99.9 Benefits $0 $14.8 $34.8 $37.4 $52.7 Net Benefits $0 $27.9 $65.4 $70.3 N/A NPV, 7% Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $1.7 - $13.8 - $16.0 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.10 - $0.19 - $0.24 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pretax) $0 $6.9 $24.7 $27.9 $42.5 Benefits $0 $8.3 $21.5 $23.4 $33.8 Net Benefits $0 $13.4 $32.2 $35.0 N/A Notes: a Benefits and net impacts calculated using the 3% average Social Cost of CO 2 value. The net present value of reduced CO 2 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 cons istency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail. b For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 c Vehicle program costs include compliance costs and R&D .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 34 **Table 11**  **- 28**  **Annual Cost per Metric Ton of CO**  **2 eq Em** **issions Reduced in Each Control Case Alternative Vs.**  **the Less Dynamic Baseline and using**  **Method B**

**Vocational Vehicles (** **Dollar Values are 2012$)**  **a** YEAR ALT.2 LESS STRINGENT ALT.3

PREFERRED ALT.4 ALT. 5 MORE STRINGENT 2035 $/metric ton w/o fuel $53 $130 $120 N/A $/metric ton w/ fuel - $230 - $160 - $170 N/A 2050 $/metric ton w/o fuel $44 $110 $110 N/A $/metric ton w/ fuel - $260 - $210 - $210 N/A Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 

### 11.2.2.3 HD Pickups and Vans Table 11 -29 presents a summary of all costs and benefits for each HD pickup and van program alternative relative to the Alternative 1a baseline case. Table 11 - 30 shows cost per ton of GHG reduced.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 35 **Table 11**  **- 29**  **Monetized Net Benefits Associated with Each Alternative Relative to**  **the Less Dynamic Baseline and using**  **Method B**  **HD Pickups and Vans (B**  **illion s of 2012$,**  **Except GHG Reductions** **) a**  **, b**  ALT.1 BASELI NE ALT.2

LESS STRING ENT ALT.3

PREFER RED ALT.4

MORE STRINGE NT ALT. 5

MORE STRINGE NT 2035 Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $0.5 - $0.9 - $1.2 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.01 - $0.01 - $0.01 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pretax) $0 $2.5 $4.2 $4.4 $5.0 Benefits $0 $1.4 $2.2 $2.3 $2.6 Net Benefits $0 $3.4 $5.5 $5.5 N/A GHG Reductions (MMT) 0 8.1 13.9 14.6 16.6 2050 Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $0.5 - $1.0 - $1.4 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.01 - $0.01 - $0.01 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pretax) $0 $3.5 $6.3 $6.3 $7.2 Benefits $0 $2.1 $3.5 $3.5 $4.0 Net Benefits $0 $5.1 $8.7 $8.4 N/A GHG Reductions (MMT) 0 10.8 19.3 19.4 22.1 NPV, 3% Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $7.5 - $13.5 - $19.6 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.18 - $0.18 - $0.18 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pretax) $0 $31.4 $53.5 $56.8 $64.9 Benefits $0 $18.7 $29.2 $30.7 $34.6 Net Benefits $0 $42.4 $69.1 $67.7 N/A NPV, 7% Vehicle Program Costs c $0 - $3.7 - $6.5 - $9.7 N/A Maintenance costs $0 - $0.08 - $0.08 - $0.08 N/A Fuel Expenditures (pretax) $0 $13.1 $21.9 $23.7 $27.1 Benefits $0 $11.4 $18.2 $19.3 $21.8 Net Benefits $0 $20.7 $33.5 $33.2 N/A Notes: a Benefits and net impacts calculated using the 3% average Social Cost of CO 2 value. The net present value of reduced CO 2 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. b For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 c Vehicle program costs include compliance costs and R&D.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 36 **Table 11**  **- 30**  **Annual Cost per Metric Ton of CO**  **2 eq Em** **issions Reduced in Each Control Case Alternative Vs.**  **the Less Dynamic Baseline and using**  **Method B**

**HD Pickups and Vans (** **Dollar Values are 2012$)**  **a** YEAR ALT.2 LESS STRINGENT ALT.3

PREFERRED ALT.4

MORE STRINGENT ALT. 5

MORE STRINGENT 2035 $/metric ton w/o fuel $59 $65 $84 N/A $/metric ton w/ fuel - $240 - $240 - $220 N/A 2050 $/metric ton w/o fuel $51 $53 $73 N/A $/metric ton w/ fuel - $270 - $270 - $250 N/A Note: a For an explanation of analytical Methods A and B, please see Preamble Section I.D; for an explanation of the less dynamic baseline, 1a, and more dynamic baseline , 1b, please see Preamble Section X.A.1 

## 11.3 **Detailed Technology Projections for Each Category**  The alternatives were developed to reflect different levels of technology (in terms of effectiveness, adoption rate, and timing) that would be required to meet increasing levels of stringency. For each of these alternatives, the agencies projected a fleet mix of technologies that would be capable of meeting the standards. These projections are summarized below for each category. Note that for trailers, the alternatives differ in terms of which trailers would be subject to the standards, in addition to the level of technology necessary

to the meet the standards. Note also that the same technology projections applied for both Method A and Method B. Details regarding the preferred alternative are included in Chapter 2 of this draft RIA (Sections 2.5 - 2.10).

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 37 

### 11.3.1 **Tractor Technology**

**Table 11**  **- 31**  **Alternative 2 2021MY Technology Adoption Rates for Tractors** CLASS 7 CLASS 8 Day Cab Day Cab Sleeper Cab Lo w Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof **Alternative 2 Engine**  **Technology Package** 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% **Aerodynam ics**  Bin I 10% 10% 0% 10% 10% 0% 10% 10% 0% Bin II 80% 80% 0% 80% 80% 0% 80% 80% 0% Bin III 10% 10% 45% 10% 10% 45% 10% 10% 45% Bin IV 0% 0% 35% 0% 0% 35% 0% 0% 35% Bin V 20% 20% 20% Bin VI 0% 0% 0% Bin VII 0% 0% 0% **Steer Tires** Base 15% 15% 5% 15% 15% 5% 15% 15% 15% Level 1 60% 60% 65% 60% 60% 65% 60% 60% 65% Level 2 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 20% Level 3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% **Drive Tires** Base 15% 15% 5% 15% 15% 5% 15% 15% 5% Level 1 60% 60% 65% 60% 60% 65% 60% 60% 60% Level 2 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 30% 25% 25% 35% Level 3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% **Extended Idle Reduction**  APU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 30% 30% 30% Other N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% 0% 0% **Transmission Type**  Manual 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% AMT 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Auto 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Dual Clutch 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% **Driveline** Axle Lubricant 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 6x2 or 4x2 Axle 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 10% Downspeed 20% 20% 0% 0% 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% **Accessory Improvements** A/C 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Electric Access. 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 38 **Other Technologies**  Predictive Cruise Control 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Automated Tire Inflation System 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 39 **Table 11**  **- 32**  **Alternative 2 2024MY Technology Adoption Rates for Tractors** CLASS 7 CLASS 8 Day Cab Day Cab Sleeper Cab Lo w Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof **Alternative 2 Engine**  **Technology Package** 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% **Aerodynam ics**  Bin I 10% 10% 0% 10% 10% 0% 10% 10% 0% Bin II 70% 70% 0% 70% 70% 0% 70% 70% 0% Bin III 20% 20% 35% 20% 20% 35% 20% 20% 35% Bin IV 0% 0% 45% 0% 0% 45% 0% 0% 45% Bin V 20% 20% 20% Bin VI 0% 0% 0% Bin VII 0% 0% 0% **Steer Tires** Base 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 10% Level 1 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% Level 2 30% 30% 35% 30% 30% 35% 30% 30% 30% Level 3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% **Drive Tires** Base 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 5% Level 1 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 50% Level 2 30% 30% 35% 30% 30% 35% 30% 30% 45% Level 3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% **Extended Idle Reduction**  APU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40% 40% 40% Other N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10% 10% 10% **Transmission Type**  Manual 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% AMT 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Auto 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Dual Clutch 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% **Driveline** Axle Lubricant 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 6x2 or 4x2 Axle 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Downspeed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% **Accessory Improvements** A/C 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Electric Access. 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% **Other Technologies**  Predictive Cruise Control 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Automated 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -40 Tire Inflation System

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -41 **Table 11**  **- 33**  **Alternative 4Adoption Rates for 2021 MY** CLASS 7 CLASS 8 Day Cab Day Cab Sleeper Cab Lo w Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof **Alternative 4 2021MY**  **Engine Technology Package** 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% **Aerodynam ics**  Bin I 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bin II 65% 65% 0% 65% 65% 0% 65% 65% 0% Bin III 30% 30% 35% 30% 30% 35% 30% 30% 35 % Bin IV 5% 5% 30% 5% 5% 30% 5% 5% 3 0 % Bin V 25% 25% 25% Bin VI 10% 10% 10% Bin VII 0% 0% 0% **Steer Tires** Base 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Level 1 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% Level 2 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% Level 3 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% **Drive Tires** Base 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Level 1 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% Level 2 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% Level 3 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% **Extended Idle Reduction** APU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 0% 8 0% 8 0% **Transmission Type** Manual 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% AMT 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Auto 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Dual Clutch 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% **Driveline** Axle Lubricant 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 6x2 Axle 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 30% Downspeed 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Direct Drive 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% **Accessory Improvements** A/C 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Electric Access. 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% **Other Technologies**  Predictive Cruise Control 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Automated Tire 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -42 Inflation System

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -43 **Table 11**  **- 34**  **Alternative 4**  **Adoption Rates for 2024 MY** CLASS 7 CLASS 8 Day Cab Day Cab Sleeper Cab Lo w Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof **Alternative 4 2024 MY**  **Engine Technology Package**  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% **Aerodynam ics**  Bin I 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bin II 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% Bin III 40% 40% 20% 40% 40% 20% 40% 40% 20% Bin IV 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 20% Bin V 35% 35% 35% Bin VI 20% 20% 20% Bin VII 5% 5% 5% **Steer Tires** Base 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Level 1 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Level 2 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Level 3 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% **Drive Tires** Base 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Level 1 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Level 2 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Level 3 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% **Extended Idle Reduction**  APU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 0% 10 0% 10 0% **Transmission Type**  Manual 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% AMT 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Auto 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Dual Clutch 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% **Driveline** Axle Lubricant 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 6x2 Axle 20% 20% 60% 20% 20% 60% Downspeed 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 6 0% 6 0% 6 0% Direct Drive 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% **Accessory Improvements** A/C 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Electric Access. 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% **Other Technologies**  Predictive Cruise Control 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Automated Tire Inflation System 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -44 **Table 11**  **- 35**  **Alternative 5 Adoption Rates for 2021 MY**  CLASS 7 CLASS 8 Day Cab Day Cab Sleeper Cab Lo w Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof **Alternative 5 2021 MY**  **Engine Technology Package**  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Additional Waste Heat Recovery 10% 10% 10% **Aerodynam ics**  Bin I 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bin II 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% Bin III 40% 40% 20% 40% 40% 20% 40% 40% 20% Bin IV 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 20% Bin V 35% 35% 35% Bin VI 20% 20% 20% Bin VII 5% 5% 5% **Steer Tires** Base 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Level 1 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 2 0% Level 2 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Level 3 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 3 5% **Drive Tires** Base 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Level 1 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 20% Level 2 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Level 3 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 35% **Extended Idle Reduction**  APU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 0% 100 % 10 0% **Transmission Type**  Manual 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% AMT 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Auto 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Dual Clutch 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% **Driveline** Axle Lubricant 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 6x2 Axle 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 3 0% Downspeed 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 6 0% 6 0% 6 0% Direct Drive 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% **Accessory Improvements** A/C 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Electric Access. 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% **Other Technologies**  Predictive Cruise 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -45 Control Automated Tire Inflation System 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Hy brid Powertrain with Electrified Accessories 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 2 0% 2 0% Weight Reduction (lbs) 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

**Table 11**  **- 36**  **Alternative 5 Adoption Rates for 2024 MY** CLASS 7 CLASS 8 Day Cab Day Cab Sleeper Cab Lo w Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof Lo w

Roof Mid

Roof High

Roof **Alternative 5 2024 MY**  **Engine Technology Package**  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Additional Waste Heat Recovery 10% 10% 10% **Aerodynam ics**  Bin I 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bin II 40% 40% 0% 40% 40% 0% 40% 40% 0% Bin III 50% 50% 15% 50% 50% 15% 50% 50% 15% Bin IV 10% 10% 15% 10% 10% 15% 10% 10% 15% Bin V 35% 35% 35% Bin VI 25% 25% 25% Bin VII 10% 10% 10% **Steer Tires** Base 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Level 1 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Level 2 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Level 3 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% **Drive Tires** Base 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Level 1 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% Level 2 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Level 3 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% **Extended Idle Reduction**  APU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 0% 10 0% 10 0% **Transmission Type**  Manual 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% AMT 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Auto 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -46 Dual Clutch 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% **Driveline** Axle Lubricant 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 6x2 Axle 20% 20% 60% 20% 20% 60% Downspeed 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 6 0% 6 0% 6 0% Direct Drive 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% **Accessory Improvements** A/C 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Electric Access. 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% **Other Technologies**  Predictive Cruise Control 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Automated Tire Inflation System 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Hy brid Powertrain with Electrified Accessories 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 4 0% 40 % Weight Reduction (lbs) 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -47 

### 11.3.2 **Trailer Technology Table**  **11 -** **37 Alternative 1 Trailer Adoption Rates**  TECHNOLOGY LONG BOX

DRY & REFRIGERATED VANS SHORT BOX, NON-AERO BOX, & NON -BOX TRAILERS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2027 2040 a 2018+ Aerodynamics Bin I 45% 41% 38% 35% 20% 100% Bin II - - - - - Bin III 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% - Bin IV 30% 34% 37% 40% 55% - Bin V 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% - Bin VI - - - - - - Bin VII - - - - - Bin VIII - - - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires 50% 47% 43% 40% 25% 100% Level 2 tires 50% 53% 57% 60% 75% - Level 3 tires - - - - - - Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.3 6.0 Tire Inflation AT I 50% 53% 57% 60% 75% 0% Avg % Reduction 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.0% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: a Considered in Alternative 1b only

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -48 **Table 11**  **- 38**  **Alternative 2 Trailer Adoption Rates** TECHNOLOGY LONG BOX

DRY & REFRIGERATED VANS SHORT BOX, NON-AERO BOX, & NON -BOX TRAILERS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2018+ Aerodynamics Bin I 5% 5% 5% 100% Bin II - Bin III 30% 20% 10% - Bin IV 60% 70% 75% - Bin V 5% 5% 10% - Bin VI - - - - Bin VII - - - - Bin VIII - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires 15% 10% 5% 100% Level 2 tires 85% 90% - Level 3 tires 95% - Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.2 5.2 4.8 6.0 Tire Inflation AT I 85% 90% 95% 0% Avg % Reduction 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0

**Table 11**  **- 39**  **Alternative 3 Long Box Trailer Adoption Rates**  TECHNOLOGY LONG BOX DRY VANS LONG BOX REFRIGERATED VANS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2027 2018 2021 2024 2027 Aerodynamic Technologies Bin I 5% - - - 5% - - - Bin II - - - - - - - - Bin III 30% 5% - - 30% 5% - - Bin IV 60% 55% 25% - 60% 55% 25% - Bin V 5% 10% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 20% Bin VI - 30% 65% 50% - 30% 65% 60% Bin VII - - - 40% - - - 20% Bin VIII - - - - - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.0 Trailer Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires 15% 5% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% 5% Level 2 tires 85% 95% - - 85% 95% - - Level 3 tires - - 95% 95% - - 95% 95% Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.8 Tire Inflation System AT I 85% 95% 95% 95% 85% 95% 95% 95% Avg ATI Reduction (%) 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 -49 **Table 11**  **- 40**  **Alternative 3 Short Box Trailer Adoption Rates** TECHNOLOGY SHORT BOX DRY VANS SHORT BOX REFRIGERATED VANS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2027 2018 2021 2024 2027 Aerodynamic Technologies Bin I 100% 5% - - 100% 5% - - Bin II - 95% 70% 30% - 95% 70% 55% Bin III - - 30% 60% - - 30% 40% Bin IV - - - 10% - - - 5% Bin V - - - - - - - - Bin VI - - - - - - - - Bin VII - - - - - - - - Bin VIII - - - - - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.0 Trailer Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires 15% 5% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% 5% Level 2 tires 85% 95% - - 85% 95% - - Level 3 tires - - 95% 95% - - 95% 95% Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.8 Tire Inflation System AT I 85% 95% 95% 95% 85% 95% 95% 95% Avg ATI Reduction (%) 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 **Table 11**  **- 41**  **Alternative 3 Non -** **Aero Box and Non -** **Box Trailer Adoption Rates**

TECHNOLOGY NON-AERO BOX & NON -BOX TRAILERS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2027 Aerodynamic Technologies Bin I 100% 100% 100% 100% Bin II - - - - Bin III - - - - Bin IV - - - - Bin V - - - - Bin VI - - - - Bin VII - - - - Bin VIII - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trailer Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires **- -**  **- -**  Level 2 tires 100% 100% - - Level 3 tires - - 100% 100% Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 Tire Inflation System AT I 100% 100% 100% 100% Avg ATI Reduction (%) 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 50 **Table 11**  **- 42**  **Alternative 4 Long Box Trailer Adoption Rates** TECHNOLOGY LONG BOX DRY VANS LONG BOX

REFRIGERATED VANS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2018 2021 2024 Aerodynamic Technologies Bin I 5% - - 5% - - Bin II - - - - - - Bin III 30% - - 30% - - Bin IV 60% 25% - 60% 25% - Bin V 5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 20% Bin VI - 65% 50% - 65% 60% Bin VII - - 40% - - 20% Bin VIII - - - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.8 1.0 Trailer Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires 15% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% Level 2 tires 85% 95% - 85% 95% - Level 3 tires - - 95% - - 95% Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.2 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 Tire Inflation System AT I 85% 95% 95% 85% 95% 95% Avg ATI Reduction (%) 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0 0 0 **Table 11**  **- 43**  **Alternative 4 Short Box Trailer Adoption Rates** TECHNOLOGY SHORT BOX DRY VANS SHORT BOX

REFRIGERATED VANS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2018 2021 2024 Aerodynamic Technologies Bin I 100% - - 100% - - Bin II - 70% 30% - 70% 55% Bin III - 30% 60% - 30% 40% Bin IV - - 10% - - 5% Bin V - - - - - - Bin VI - - - - - - Bin VII - - - - - - Bin VIII - - - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.8 1.0 Trailer Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires 15% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% Level 2 tires 85% 95% - 85% 95% - Level 3 tires - - 95% - - 95% Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.2 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 Tire Inflation System AT I 85% 95% 95% 85% 95% 95% Avg ATI Reduction (%) 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0 0 0

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 51 **Table 11**  **- 44**  **Alternative 4 Non -** **Aero Box and Non -** **Box Trailer Adoption Rates**

TECHNOLOGY NON-AERO BOX & NON -BOX TRAILERS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 Aerodynamic Technologies Bin I 100% 100% 100% Bin II - - - Bin III - - - Bin IV - - - Bin V - - - Bin VI - - - Bin VII - - - Bin VIII - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trailer Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires **- -**  **-** Level 2 tires 100% 100% - Level 3 tires - - 100% Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.1 5.1 4.7 Tire Inflation System AT I 100% 100% 100% Avg ATI Reduction (%) 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 **Table 11**  **- 45**  **Alternative 5 Box Trailer Adoption Rates** TECHNOLOGY LONG BOX DRY VANS LONG BOX

REFRIGERATED VANS SHORT BOX DRY & REFRIGERATED VANS Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2018 2021 2024 2018 2021 2024 Aerodynamic Technologies Bin I 5% - - 5% 0% 0% 100% - - Bin II - - - - - - - 65% 10% Bin III 5% - - 5% - - - 25% 90% Bin IV 55% 15% - 55% 15% - - - - Bin V 10% - 10% - - - - - Bin VI 25% 85% 10% 25% 85% 100% - - - Bin VII - - 90% - - - - - - Bin VIII - - - - - - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.6 0.9 1.4 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 Trailer Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires 15% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% Level 2 tires 85% 95% - 85% 95% - 85% 95% - Level 3 tires - - 95% - - 95% - - 95% Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.2 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 Tire Inflation System AT I 85% 95% 95% 85% 95% 95% 85% 95% 95% Avg ATI Reduction (%) 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 52 **Table 11**  **- 46**  **Alternative 5 Non -** **Box Trailer Adoption Rates** TECHNOLOGY CONTAINER CHASSIS FLATBED TA NKS NON-AERO BOX

& OTHER NON BOX Model Year 2018 2021 2024 2018 2021 2024 2018 2021 2024 2018 2021 2024 Aerodynamic Technologies Bin I 100% 80% 30% 100% 80% 30% 100% 67% 0% 100% 100% 100% Bin II - - - - - - - - - - - - Bin III - 20% 55% - 20% 55% - 33% - - - - Bin IV - - 15% - - 15% - - 100% - - - Bin V - - - - - - - - - - - - Bin VI - - - - - - **- -**  **-** - - - Bin VII - - - - - - - - - - - - Bin VIII - - - - - - - - - - - - Avg Delta CdA (m 2

) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trailer Tire Rolling Resistance Level 1 tires 15% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% **- -**  **-** Level 2 tires 85% 95% - 85% 95% - 85% 95% - 100% 100% - Level 3 tires - - 95% - - 95% - - 95% - - 100% Avg CRR (kg/ton) 5.2 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 5.1 5.1 4.7 Tire Inflation System AT I 85% 95% 95% 85% 95% 95% 85% 95% 95% 100% 100% 100% Avg ATI Reduction (%) 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% Weight Reduction (pounds) We ight 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### 11.3.3 **Vocational Vehicle Technology Table**  **11 -** **47 Alternative 2 Technology Adoption Rates for All Vocational Subcategories** 

TECH NOLOGY 2021 2024 HFC Leakage 100% 100% Axle - L ow F riction Lubes 40% 75% Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 30% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 10% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 70% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 60% 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 30% Neutral - idle 43% 80%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 53 **Table 11**  **- 48**  **Alternative 3 Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: LHD**  **, MHD, HHD**  **Multipurpose & Urban** TECH NOLOGY 2021 2024 2027 Add Two Trans Gears 5% 5% 5% HFC Leakage 100% 100% 100 % Axle - Low Friction Lubes 75% 75% 75 % Strong Hybrid 4% 7% 18 % Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 20% 10 % Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 10% 0 % 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 50% 25 % 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 30% 50 % 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 30% 20 % 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 0% 15 % 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 60 % 30 % 20 % better Steer Tire CRR 0 % 0 % 50 % Neutral - idle 70% 85% 30 % Stop - start 5% 15% 70 % D ual Clutch Trans mission 5% 15% 5 % Trans_Improved 15% 30% 70 % 200 Pounds Lightweighting 4 % 4 % 5 % Note: a Idle reduction values in MY 2027 are for multipurpose vehicles . For Urban vehicles , Neutral Idle is 25% and Stop Start is 75% in MY 2027.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 54 **Table 11**  **- 49**  **Alternative 3 Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: LHD &**  **M HD Regional** 

TECH NOLOGY 2021 2024 2027 Add Two Trans Gears 5% 5% 5% HFC Leakage 100% 100% 100% Axle - Low Friction Lubes 75% 75% 75% Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 20% 1 0% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 10% 0% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 50% 25 % 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 30% 5 0% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 30% 2 0% 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 0% 15 % 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 60% 30% 20 % better Steer Tire CRR 0% 0% 50% Neutral - idle 70% 85% 30 % Stop - start 5% 15% 70 % D ual Clutch Trans mission 5% 15% 5% Trans_Improved 15% 30% 7 0% 200 Pounds Lightweighting 7% 7% 8% Note: a Weight reduction values are given for LHD. For MHD , adoption rates are 6 % in MYs 2021 & 2024, and 7 % in MY 2027.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 55 **Table 11**  **- 50**  **Alternative 3 Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: HHD Regional**

TECH NOLOGY 2021 2024 2027 HFC Leakage 100% 100% 100% Axle 6x2 4 5 % 6 0 % 6 0 % Axle - Low Friction Lubes 75% 75% 75% Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 20% 1 0% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 10% 0% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 50% 25 % 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 30% 5 0% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 30% 2 0% 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 0% 15 % 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 60% 30% 20 % better Steer Tire CRR 0% 0% 50% Auto matic Trans mission 22% 33% 25% Stop - start 0% 15% 70% A utomated Manual Trans mission 22% 33% 25% D ual Clutch Trans mission 22% 33% 25% Trans_Improved 15% 30% 70% 200 Pounds Lightweighting 5% 5% 6% Notes: a Adoption rates of Automatic, AMT, and DCT transmissions include those that would certify using GEM plus those that would certify using the powertrain test as improved/integrated .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 56 **Table 1**  **1 -**  **51 Alternative 4**  **Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: LHD , MHD, HHD**  **Multipurpose & Urban**  Technology 2021 2024 Add Two Trans Gears 11% 1 0 % HFC Leakage 100% 100% Axle - Low Friction Lubes 75 % 75 % Strong Hybrid 9% 18% Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 10% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 0% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 25 % 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 50% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 20% 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 1 5 % 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 3 0% 20% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 5 0% Neutral - idle 88% 3 0% Stop - start 12% 7 0% D ual Clutch Trans mission 10% 10% Trans_improved 25% 7 0% 200 Pounds Lightweighting 4% 5% Note : 1 Idle reduction values in MY 2024 are for multipurpose vehicles. For Urban vehicles, Neutral Idle is 25% and Stop Start is 75% in MY 2024 .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 57 **Table 11**  **- 52**  **Alternative 4 Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: LHD &**  **MHD Regional** TECH NOLOGY 2021 2024 Add Two Trans Gears 11% 1 0 % HFC Leakage 100% 100% Axle - Low Friction Lubes 75 % 75 % Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 10% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 0% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 25 % 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 50% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 20% 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 1 5 % 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 3 0% 20% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 5 0% Neutral - idle 88% 3 0% Stop - start 12% 7 0% D ual Clutch Trans mission 10% 10% Trans_improved 25% 7 0% 2 00 Pounds Lightweighting 7 % 8% Note : 1 Weight reduction values are given for LHD. For MHD, adoption rates are 6% in MY 2021 & 7% in MY 2024.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 58 **Table 11**  **- 53**  **Alternative 4 Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: HHD Regional**

TECH 2021 2024 HFC Leakage 100% 100% Axle 6x2 6 0 % 6 0 % Axle - Low Friction Lubes 75 % 75 % Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 10% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 0% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 25 % 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 50% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 20% 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 1 5 % 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 3 0% 20% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 5 0% Auto matic Trans mission 15% 2 5 % Stop - start 0% 7 0% A utomated Manual Trans mission 15% 2 5 % D ual Clutch Trans mission 15% 2 5 % Trans_improved 25% 7 0% 2 00 Pounds Lightweighting 5 % 6 % Notes: 1 Adoption rates of Automatic, AMT, and DCT transmissions include those that would certify using GEM plus those that would certify using the powertrain test as improved/integrated .

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 59 **Table 11**  **- 54**  **Alternative 5 Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: LHD Regional, LHD & HHD Multipurpose, LHD & HHD Urban**  TECH 2021 2024 Add Two Trans Gears 16% 11% HFC Leakage 100% 100% Axle - Low Friction Lubes 100% 100% Electric Vehicle 3% 3% Strong Hybrid 27% 36% Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 0% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 0% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 10% 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 45% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 0% 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 45% 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 20% 20% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 80% Neutral - idle 60% 40% Stop - start 40% 60% D ual Clutch Trans mission 10% 5% Trans_improved 35% 60% Notes: 1 Strong Hybrid is zero for the LHD Regional subcategory

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 60 **Table 11**  **- 55**  **Alternative 5 Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: MHD Regional, MHD Multipurpose, & MHD Urban**  TECH NOLOGY 2021 2024 Add Two Trans Gears 16% 11% HFC Leakage 100% 100% Axle - Low Friction Lubes 100% 100% Electric Vehicle 3% 3% Strong Hybrid 27% 36% Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 0% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 0% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 10% 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 45% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 0% 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 45% 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 20% 20% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 80% Neutral - idle 60% 40% Stop - start 40% 60% D ual Clutch Trans mission 10% 5% Trans_improved 35% 60% 1,000 Pounds Lightweighting 28% 42% Note : 1 Strong Hybrid is zero for the MHD Regional subcategory

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 61 **Table 11**  **- 56**  **Alternative 5 Technology Adoption Rates for Vocational Subcategories: HHD Regional**

TECH NOLOGY 2021 2024 HFC Leakage 100% 100% Axle_disconnect 61% 61% Axle - Low Friction Lubes 100% 100% Baseline Drive Tire CRR 50% 0% Baseline Steer Tire CRR 20% 0% 5% better Drive Tire CRR 50% 10% 10% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 45% 10% better Steer Tire CRR 80% 0% 15% better Drive Tire CRR 0% 45% 15% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 20% 20% better Steer Tire CRR 0% 80% Auto matic Trans mission 33% 33% Stop - start 40% 60% A utomated Manual Trans mission 33% 33% D ual Clutch Trans mission 33% 33% Trans_improved 29% 34% Note : 1 Adoption rates of Automatic, AMT, and DCT transmissions include those that would certify using GEM plus those that would certify using the powertrain test as improved/integrated . 

### 11.3.4 **Pick up**  **and Van Technology** 11.3.4.1 Pickup and Van Technology for Method A This secti on describes the penetration of selected technologies across the whole fleet, as well as across the fleet of the manufacturers as a percentage of the respective fleet. The model ye ar represented for the Method A technology penetration is 2030. Table 11 - 57 presents the fleet profile for the total industry as well as for each manufacturer showing total sales of HD vans and pickups, as well as share of different vehicle ty pes within that total.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 62 **Table 11**  **- 57**  **Fleet Profile for Model Year 2030 under Method A using the Dynamic Baseline**

Overall Fleet Daimler Fiat Ford General Motors Nissan Total Vehicles Sales 755,787 24,188 110,622 335,385 272,441 13,152 Van Share 39.3% 100.0% 20.6% 41.4% 35.9% 100.0% Pickup Share 60.7% 0.0% 79.4% 58.6% 64.1% 0.0% Gasoline Share 56.4% 0.0% 40.1% 57.8% 64.3% 100.0% Diesel Share 43.6% 100.0% 59.9% 42.2% 35.7% 0.0% Gasoline Van Share 32.3% 0.0% 17.2% 34.0% 35.9% 100.0% Diesel Van Share 6.9% 100.0% 3.3% 7.4% 0.0% 0.0% Gasoline Pickup Share 24.1% 0.0% 22.8% 23.7% 28.4% 0.0% Diesel Pickup Share 36.6% 0.0% 56.6% 34.9% 35.7% 0.0% **Table 11**  **- 58**  **presents the total penetration rates for select technologies in 2030 for the entire fleet. Table**  **11 -**  **59 through** 

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 63 Table 11 - 63 present the penetration rates for the same technologies for each manufacturer .

**Table 11**  **- 58**  **Technology Penetration Rates for the O verall Fleet in Model Year 2030 under Method A using**  **the Dynam ic Baseline**  Alternative 1a ( 0% per year ) Alternative

2 2% per year Alternative

3 ( 2.5% per year) Alternative

4 (3 .5 % per year) Alternative

5 ( 4% per year ) Low friction lubricants 25% 56% 56% 49% 49% Engine friction reduction 29% 94% 94% 87% 87% Cylinder deactivation 10% 29% 21% 21% 21% Variable valve timing 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% Gasoline direct injection 14% 17% 25% 31% 32% Turbo Machinery Improvements 38% 38% 38% 38% 53% 8 speed transmission 33% 67% 96% 96% 97% Low rolling resistance tires 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 23% 78% 78% 75% Mass reduction and materials 0% 36% 38% 65% 65% Electric power steering 24% 50% 92% 78% 76% Improved accessories 22% 23% 63% 58% 73% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 3% 14% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 12% 34% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 8% 13% 16%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

1 1 - 64 **Table 11**  **- 59**  **Technology Penetration Rates for the Daimler in Model Year 2030 under Method A using the**  **Dynam ic Baseline**  Alternative 1a ( 0% per year ) Alternative

2 2% per year Alternative

3 ( 2.5% per year) Alternative

4 (3 .5 % per year) Alternative

5 ( 4% per year ) Low friction lubricants 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Engine friction reduction 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% Cylinder deactivation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Variable valve timing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Gasoline direct injection 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turbo Machinery Improvements 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 8 speed transmission 0% 0% 44% 44% 100% Low rolling resistance tires 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mass reduction and materials 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Electric power steering 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Improved accessories 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 65 **Table 11**  **- 60**  **Technology Penetration Rates for the Fiat in Model Year 2030 under Method A using the Dynam** **ic Baseline** Alternative 1a ( 0% per year ) Alternative

2 2% per year Alternative

3 ( 2.5% per year) Alternative

4 (3 .5 % per year) Alternative

5 ( 4% per year ) Low friction lubricants 0% 40% 40% 40% 40% Engine friction reduction 18% 97% 97% 97% 97% Cylinder deactivation 13% 23% 23% 23% 23% Variable valve timing 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% Gasoline direct injection 0% 17% 17% 17% 17% Turbo Machinery Improvements 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 8 speed transmission 48% 65% 88% 88% 88% Low rolling resistance tires 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 0% 100% 100% 79% Mass reduction and materials 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% Electric power steering 0% 0% 100% 100% 83% Improved accessories 0% 0% 63% 63% 72% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 3% 3% 12%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 66 **Table 11**  **- 61**  **Technology Penetration Rates for the Ford in Model Year 2030 under Method A using the Dynam** **ic Baseline** Alternative 1a ( 0% per year ) Alternative

2 2% per year Alternative

3 ( 2.5% per year) Alternative

4 (3 .5 % per year) Alternative

5 ( 4% per year ) Low friction lubricants 0% 58% 58% 41% 41% Engine friction reduction 0% 93% 93% 76% 76% Cylinder deactivation 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% Variable valve timing 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% Gasoline direct injection 16% 16% 34% 34% 34% Turbo Machinery Improvements 35% 35% 35% 35% 69% 8 speed transmission 59% 100% 100% 100% 100% Low rolling resistance tires 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 0% 59% 59% 59% Mass reduction and materials 0% 0% 0% 59% 59% Electric power steering 0% 30% 90% 59% 59% Improved accessories 0% 0% 66% 59% 59% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 0% 32% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 2% 12% 18%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 67 **Table 11**  **- 62**  **Technology Penetration Rates for the General Motors in Model Year 2030 under Method A using the Dynamic Baseline**  Alternative 1a ( 0% per year ) Alternative

2 2% per year Alternative

3 ( 2.5% per year) Alternative

4 (3 .5 % per year) Alternative

5 ( 4% per year ) Low friction lubricants 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% Engine friction reduction 64% 100% 100% 100% 100% Cylinder deactivation 18% 47% 47% 47% 47% Variable valve timing 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Gasoline direct injection 18% 18% 18% 36% 36% Turbo Machinery Improvements 36% 36% 36% 36% 36% 8 speed transmission 0% 36% 100% 100% 100% Low rolling resistance tires 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 64% 100% 100% 100% Mass reduction and materials 0% 100% 64% 64% 64% Electric power steering 66% 100% 100% 100% 100% Improved accessories 61% 63% 69% 63% 100% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 34% 82% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 19% 20% 18%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 68 **Table 11**  **- 63**  **Technology Penetration Rates for the Nissan in Model Year 2030 under Method A using the Dynam** **ic Baseline** Alternative 1a ( 0% per year ) Alternative

2 2% per year Alternative

3 ( 2.5% per year) Alternative

4 (3 .5 % per year) Alternative

5 ( 4% per year ) Low friction lubricants 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Engine friction reduction 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Cylinder deactivation 100% 49% 49% 49% 49% Variable valve timing 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Gasoline direct injection 0% 51% 51% 51% 100% Turbo Machinery Improvements 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8 speed transmission 0% 0% 51% 51% 51% Low rolling resistance tires 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% Mass reduction and materials 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% Electric power steering 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% Improved accessories 0% 0% 0% 0% 28% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 27% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 

### 11.3.4.2 Pickup and Van Technology for Method B This section describes the penetration of selected technologies as separated by pickups and vans, as well as separated by fuel type (gasoline or diesel) using Method B. The model ye ar represented for the technology penetration is 2030.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 69 The technology mix that is projected to be sufficient to meet the 2025 /27 standards for each pickup and van alternative in the Method B analysis is shown in Table 11 - 65 through Table 11 - 67 . **Table 11**  **- 64**  **Technology Penetration Rates for Gasoline Pickups**  **using Method B**

ALTERNATIVE 1A ( 0% PER YEAR ) ALTERNATIVE

2 2% PER Y EAR ALTERNATIVE

3 ( 2.5% PER YEAR) ALTERNATIVE

4 (3 .5 % PER YEAR) ALTERNATIVE

5 ( 4% PER YEAR ) Low friction lubricants 42% 100% 100% 100% 100% Engine friction reduction 42% 100% 100% 100% 100% Cylinder deactivation 8% 56% 56% 56% 56% Variable valve timing 0% 56% 56% 56% 56% Gasoline direct injection 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8 speed transmission 44% 86% 100% 100% 100% Low rolling resistance tires 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 42% 100% 100% 100% Mass reduction and materials 0% 42% 56% 100% 100% Electric power steering 42 % 86% 100% 100% 100% Improved accessories 41% 41% 86% 86% 92% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 20% 7% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 18% 20% Strong hybrid 0% 1% 25% 48% 66%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 70 **Table 11**  **- 65**  **Technology Penetration Rates for Gasoline Vans**  **using Method B** ALTERNATIVE 1A ( 0% PER YEAR ) ALTERNATIVE

2 2% PER Y EAR ALTERNATIVE

3 ( 2.5% PER YEAR) ALTERNATIVE

4 (3 .5 % PER YEAR) ALTERNATIVE

5 ( 4% PER YEAR ) Low friction lubricants 45% 100% 100% 100% 100% Engine friction reduction 45% 100% 100% 100% 100% Cylinder deactivation 23% 23% 23 % 23 % 23% Variable valve timing 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% Gasoline direct injection 42% 52% 77 % 97 % 100% 8 speed transmission 0% 95% 97 % 97 % 97 % Low rolling resistance tires 8% 60% 100 % 60% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 40% 53 % 53 % 53% Mass reduction and materials 0% 0% 8% 13% 13% Electric power steering 3% 41% 55 % 53 % 53% Improved accessories 0% 20% 7 % 20% 42 % Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 2 % 0% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 18 % 38% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 7 % 0% 4%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 71 **Table 11**  **- 66**  **Technology Penetration Rates for Diesel Pickups**  **using Method B** ALTERNATIVE 1A ( 0% PER YEAR ) ALTERNATIVE

2 2% PER Y EAR ALTERNATIVE

3 ( 2.5% PER YEAR) ALTERNATIVE

4 (3 .5 % PER YEAR) ALTERNATIVE

5 ( 4% PER YEAR ) Low friction lubricants 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Engine friction reduction 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% Turbo machinery improvements 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 8 speed transmission 61% 97% 97% 97% 97% Low rolling resistance tires 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 35% 100 % 100 % 100% Mass reduction and materials 0% 35% 58 % 100 % 100% Electric power steering 35% 53% 100 % 100% 100% Improved accessories 33% 35% 100 % 100% 100% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 11 % 31% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 36 % 47% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 72 **Table 11**  **- 67**  **Technology Penetration Rates for Diesel Vans**  **using Method B** ALTERNATIVE 1A ( 0% PER YEAR ) ALTERNATIVE

2 2% PER Y EAR ALTERNATIVE

3 ( 2.5% PER YEAR) ALTERNATIVE

4 (3 .5 % PER YEAR) ALTERNATIVE

5 ( 4% PER YEAR ) Low friction lubricants 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Engine friction reduction 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turbo machinery improvements 0% 20% 20% 20% 20% 8 speed transmission 0% 47% 67 % 67% 93% Low rolling resistance tires 7% 80% 54% 54% 100% Aerodynamic drag reduction 0% 0% 7 % 7 % 7% Mass reduction and materials 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% Electric power steering 0% 11% 21 % 12 % 12% Improved accessories 0% 0% 7 % 7% 7% Stop/start engine systems 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mild hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Strong hybrid 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 73 

## 11.4 **Numerical Standards Corresponding to Alternative Technology Scenarios**  This section summarizes alternative EPA GHG and NHTSA fuel consumption standards corresponding to Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, including coefficients for the HD Pickup and Van alternative target curves. Note that the proposed standards correspond to Alternative 3. 

### 11.4.1 **Alternative 2 Vehicle Standar ds**  Potential EPA GHG and NHTSA fuel consumption standards are shown for Alternative 2 in Table 11 - 68 to Table 11 - 71 and the coefficients for the HD Pickup and Van target curves for Alternative 2 are shown in Table 11 - 72 .

**Table 11**  **- 68**  **Alternative 2 Phase 2 Diesel (CI) Vocational Vehicle**  **Standards** 

### 2021 **– 2023**  **MODEL YEAR CO**  **2** 

### Grams per Ton**- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 305 194 205 Multi Purpose 314 196 207 Regional 328 192 195 **2021 –** **2023 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton** **- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 29.9468 19.0615 20.0969 Multi Purpose 30.8574 19.2642 20.2999 Regional 32.1726 18.8587 19.1834 **2024 and Later Model Year CO**  **2** 

### Grams per Ton**- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 296 187 198 Multi Purpose 304 189 200 Regional 317 185 190 **2024 and Later Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton -** **Mile**

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 29.0602 18.3233 19.4746 Multi Purpose 29.8789 18.5280 19.6796 Regional 31.1068 18.2209 18.6547

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 74 **Table 11**  **- 69**  **Alternative 2 Phase 2**  **Gasoline (S I)**  **Vocational Vehicle**  **Standards** 

### 2021 **– 2023**  **MODEL YEAR CO**  **2** 

### Grams per Ton**- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 330 210 221 Multi -Purpose 339 212 223 Regional 353 207 211 **2021 –** **2023 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton** **- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 37.0853 23.5770 24.8811 Multi -Purpose 38.1283 23.8092 25.1137 Regional 39.7508 23.3446 23.7185 **2024 –** **2026 Model Year CO**  **2** 

### Grams per Ton**- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 325 205 217 Multi -Purpose 334 207 219 Regional 348 204 208 **2024 –** **2026 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton -** **Mile**

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 36.5703 23.0998 24.4215 Multi -Purpose 37.6252 23.3344 24.6563 Regional 39.1490 22.9826 23.3648

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 75 **Table 11**  **- 70**  **Alternative 2 Tractor Standards** 

### 2021 MODEL YEAR CO 2 

### GRAMS PER TON-MILE

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 102 82 73 Mid Roof 112 88 81 High Roof 114 90 80 2021 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton- Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 10.0196 8.055 7.1709 Mid Roof 11.0020 8.6444 7.9568 High Roof 11.1984 8.8409 7.8585 2024 Model Year CO 2 

### Grams per Ton-Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 97 77 68 Mid Roof 107 84 76 High Roof 109 85 74 2024 Model Year and Later Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 9.5285 7.5639 6.6798 Mid Roof 10.5108 8.2515 7.4656 High Roof 10.7073 8.3497 7.2692

**Table 11**  **- 71**  **Alternative 2 Trailer Standards MODEL**  **YEAR SUBCATEGORY**  **DRY VAN REFRIGERATED VAN**  **LENGTH LONG**  **SHORT LONG**  **SHORT** 2018

– 2020 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 83 1 47 84 151 Voluntary NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 8.1532 14. 4401 8.2515 14. 8330 2021

– 2023 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 8 2 147 8 4 1 51 NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 8.0550 1 4.4401 8.2515 14. 8330 2024

– 2026 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 81 1 47 8 3 1 51 NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 7.9568 1 4.4401 8.1532 14. 8330

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 76 **Table 11**  **- 72**  **Alternative 2 HD Pickup and Van Standard Target Curve Coefficients** 

### Diesel **Vehicles** Model Year a b c d 2018 -2020 a 

### 0.0416 320 0.0004086 3.143 2021 0.0408 313 0. 0004008 3. 075 2022 0.0400 307 0. 0003929 3. 016 2023 0.0392 301 0. 0003851 2. 957 2024 0.0384 295 0. 0003772 2. 898 2025 and later 0.0376 289 0. 0003694 2. 839 **Gasoline Vehicles** Model Year a b c d 2018 -2020 a 

### 0. 044 0 339 0.0004951 3.815 2021 0.0431 332 0. 0004850 3. 736 2022 0.0422 325 0. 0004749 3. 657 2023 0.0414 319 0. 0004658 3. 590 2024 0.0406 312 0. 0004568 3. 511 2025 and later 0.0398 306 0. 0004478 3. 443 Note : a Phase 1 primary phase - in coefficients. Alternative phase - in coefficients are different in MY2018 only.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 77 

### 11.4.2 **Alternative 4 Vehicle Standards** Potential EPA GHG and NHTSA fuel consumption standards are shown for Alternative 4 in Table 11 - 73 to Table 11 - 76 and the coefficients for the HD Pickup and Van target curves for Alternative 4 are shown in Table 11 - 77 .

**Table 11**  **- 73**  **Alternative 4 Phase 2 Diesel (CI) Vocational Vehicle**  **Standards** 

### 2021 **– 2023**  **MODEL YEAR**  **CO 2**  

### Grams per **Ton -** **Mile LHD** 

**(Class 2b**   ** 5)** **MHD**

**(Class 6 -**  **7) HHD** 

**(Class 8)** Urban 2 88 18 3 19 3 Multi Purpose 297 1 85 1 96 Regional 3 09 18 1 1 85 **2021 –** **2023 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per**  **1,000 Ton -** **Mile**

**LHD (Class 2b**  **** **5) MHD** 

**(Class 6 -**  **7) HHD** 

**(Class 8)** Urban 28.3890 17.9764 18.8605 Multi Purpose 29.0766 18.0747 18.9587 Regional 30.1572 17.6817 17.9764 **2024 and Later Model Year CO**  **2** 

### Grams per **Ton -** **Mile LHD** 

**(Class 2b**   ** 5)** **MHD**

**(Class 6 -**  **7) HHD** 

**(Class 8)**  Urban 272 172 182 Multi Purpose 280 174 183 Regional 292 170 174 **2024 and Later Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton** **- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b**  **** **5) MHD** 

**(Class 6 -**  **7) HHD** 

**(Class 8)** Urban 26.7191 16.8959 17.8782 Multi Purpose 27.5049 17.0923 17.9764 Regional 28.6837 16.6994 17.0923

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 78 **Table 11**  **- 74**  **Alternative 4 Phase 2 Gasoline (SI)**  **Vocational Vehicle**  **Standards** 

### 2021 **– 2023**  **MODEL YEAR CO**  **2** 

### Grams per **Ton -** **Mile LHD** 

**(Class 2b**   ** 5)** **MHD**

**(Class 6 -**  **7) HHD** 

**(Class 8)** Urban 313 199 210 Multi Purpose 323 20 1 212 Regional 336 197 201 **2021 –** **2023 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per**  **1,000 Ton -** **Mile**

**LHD (Class 2b**  **** **5) MHD** 

**(Class 6 -**  **7) HHD** 

**(Class 8)** Urban 35.2200 22.3923 23.6300 Multi Purpose 36.3452 22.6173 23.8551 Regional 37.8080 22.1672 22.6173 **2024 and Later Model Year CO**  **2** 

### Grams per **Ton -** **Mile LHD** 

**(Class 2b**   ** 5)** **MHD**

**(Class 6 -**  **7) HHD** 

**(Class 8)** Urban 299 189 196 Multi Purpose 308 191 198 Regional 321 187 188 **2024 and Later Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton** **- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b**  **** **5) MHD** 

**(Class 6 -**  **7) HHD** 

**(Class 8)** Urban 33.6446 21.2670 22.0547 Multi Purpose 34.6574 21.4921 22.2797 Regional 36.1202 21.0420 21.1545

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 79 **Table 11**  **- 75**  **Alternative 4 Tractor Standards** 

### DAY CAB SLEEPER CAB Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 94 76 68 Mid Roof 104 82 76 High Roof 106 84 75 2021 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton- Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 9.2338 7.4656 6.6798 Mid Roof 10.2161 8.055 7.4656 High Roof 10.4126 8.2515 7.3674 2024 Model Year CO 2 

### Grams per Ton-Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 87 70 62 Mid Roof 96 76 69 High Roof 96 76 67 2024 Model Year and Later Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 8.5462 6.8762 6.0904 Mid Roof 9.4303 7.4656 6.7780 High Roof 9.4303 7.4656 6.5815

**Table 11**  **- 76**  **Alternative 4 Trailer Standards MODEL**  **YEAR SUBCATEGORY**  **DRY VAN REFRIGERATED VAN**  **LENGTH LONG**  **SHORT LONG**  **SHORT** 2018 - 2020 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 83 144 84 147 Voluntary NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 8.1532 14.1454 8.2515 14.4401 2021 - 2023 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 8 0 14 2 8 1 14 5 NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 7. 8585 1 3.9489 7.9568 14. 2436 2024 - 2026 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 7 7 14 0 8 0 144 NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 7. 5639 13. 7525 7. 8585 14.1454

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 80 **Table 11**  **- 77**  **Alternative 4 HD Pickup and Van Standard Target Curve Coefficients** 

### Diesel **Vehicles** Model Year a b c d 2018 -2020 a 

### 0.0416 320 0. 0004086 3. 14 3 2021 0. 0402 308 0. 0003949 3. 026 2022 0. 0388 298 0. 0003811 2.927 2023 0.0374 28 7 0. 0003674 2. 819 2024 0.0361 277 0. 0003546 2. 721 2025 and later 0.0348 26 7 0. 0003418 2. 623 **Gasoline Vehicles** Model Year a b c d 2018 -2020 a 

### 0. 044 0 339 0. 000495 1 3. 81 5 2021 0.0425 327 0. 0004782 3. 680 2022 0.0410 31 5 0. 0004613 3. 545 2023 0.0395 304 0. 0004445 3. 421 2024 0. 038 1 294 0. 0004287 3.308 2025 and later 0.0368 28 3 0. 0004141 3. 184 Note : a Phase 1 primary phase - in coefficients. Alternative phase - in coefficients are different in MY2018 only.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 81 

### 11.4.3 **Alternative 5 Vehicle Standards** Potential EPA GHG and NHTSA fuel consumption standards are shown for Alternative 4 in Table 11 - 78 to Table 11 - 81 and the coefficients for the HD Pickup and Van target curves for Alternative 5 are shown in Table 11 - 82 .

**Table 11**  **- 78**  **Alternative 5 Phase 2 Diesel (CI) Vocational Vehicle**  **Standards** 

### 2021 **– 2023**  **MODEL YEAR CO**  **2** 

### Grams per Ton**- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 292 185 194 Multi Purpose 300 186 196 Regional 313 183 185 **2021 –** **2023 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton** **- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 32.8863 20.7809 21.8523 Multi Purpose 33.8112 20.9856 22.0566 Regional 35.2499 20.5761 20.8312 **2024 and Later Model Year CO**  **2** 

### Grams per Ton**- Mile** 

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD**  **(Class 6 -** **7) HHD (Class 8)**  Urban 278 175 185 Multi Purpose 286 177 186 Regional 298 174 177 **2024 and Later Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton -** **Mile**

**LHD (Class 2b -** **5) MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HHD (Class 8)** Urban 31.2817 19.7042 20.7621 Multi Purpose 32.1840 19.9043 20.9617 Regional 33.4874 19.6042 19.8637

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 82 **Table 11**  **- 79**  **Alternative 5**  **Phase 2 Gasoline (SI) Vocational**  **Vehicle Standards**  

### 2021 **– 2023**  **MODEL YEAR CO**  **2** 

### Grams per Ton**- Mile**  **LH D**  **(Cla ss**  **2b**   ** 5)** **MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HH**

**D (Cla**  **ss 8)** Urba n 292 185 194 Mult i Purp ose 300 186 196 Regi onal 313 183 185 **2021 –** **2023 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000**  **Ton -** **Mile LH**  **D (Cla**  **ss 2b**  **** **5) MHD**  **(Class 6 -**  **7) HH** 

**D (Cla**  **ss 8)** Urba n 32.8 863 20.7809 21.8

523 Mult i Purp ose 33.8 112 20.9856 22.0

566 Regi onal 35.2 499 20.5761 20.8

312 **2024 and Later Model Year CO**  **2** 

### Grams per Ton**- Mile**  **LH D**  **(Cla ss**  **2b**   ** 5)** **MHD (Class 6** **- 7)**  **HH**

**D (Cla**  **ss 8)** Urba n 278 175 185 Mult 286 177 186

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 83 i Purp ose Regi onal 298 174 177 **2024 and Later Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000**  **Ton -** **Mile LH**  **D (Cla**  **ss 2b**  **** **5) MHD**  **(Class 6 -**  **7) HH** 

**D (Cla**  **ss 8)** Urba n 31.2 817 19.7042 20.7

621 Mult i Purp ose 32.1 840 19.9043 20.9

617 Regi onal 33.4 874 19.6042 19.8

637

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 84 **Table 11**  **- 80**  **Alternative 5 Tractor Standards** 

### DAY CAB SLEEPER CAB Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 87 70 63 Mid Roof 96 75 71 High Roof 98 77 70 2021 Model Year Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton- Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 8.5462 6.8762 6.1886 Mid Roof 9.4303 7.3674 6.9745 High Roof 9.6267 7.5639 6.8762 2024 Model Year CO 2 

### Grams per Ton-Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 82 65 58 Mid Roof 91 71 64 High Roof 92 72 63 2024 Model Year and Later Gallons of Fuel per 1,000 Ton-Mile

Day Cab Sleeper Cab Class 7 Class 8 Class 8 Low Roof 8.0550 6.3851 5.6974 Mid Roof 8.9391 6.9745 6.2868 High Roof 9.0373 7.0727 6.1886

**Table 11**  **- 81**  **Alternative 5 Trailer Standards MODEL**  **YEAR SUBCATEGORY**  **DRY VAN REFRIGERATED VAN**  **LENGTH LONG**  **SHORT LONG**  **SHORT** 2018 - 2020 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 8 2 144 83 147 Voluntary NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 8. 0550 14.1454 8.1532 14.4401 2021 - 2023 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 79 14 2 81 145 NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 7. 7603 1 3.9489 7.9568 14.2436 2024 - 2026 EPA Standard

(CO 2 Grams per Ton-Mile) 76 140 80 143 NHTSA Standard (Gallons per 1,000 Ton-Mile) 7.4656 13.7525 7.8585 14.0472

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 85 **Table 11**  **- 82**  **Alternative 5 HD Pickup and Van Standard Target Curve Coefficients** 

### Diesel **Vehicles** Model Year a b c d 2018 -2020 a 

### 0.0416 320 0.0004086 3.143 2021 0.0400 307 0. 0003929 3. 016 2022 0.0384 295 0. 0003772 2. 898 2023 0.0368 283 0.0003615 2. 780 2024 0.0354 271 0. 0003477 2. 662 2025 and later 0.0339 261 0. 0003330 2. 564 **Gasoline Vehicles** Model Year a b c d 2018 -2020 a 

### 0. 044 0 339 0.0004951 3.815 2021 0.0422 325 0. 0004749 3. 657 2022 0.0405 312 0. 0004557 3. 511 2023 0.0389 300 0. 0004377 3. 376 2024 0.0374 288 0. 0004208 3. 241 2025 and later 0.0359 276 0. 0004040 3. 106 Note : a Phase 1 primary phase - in coefficients. Alternative phase - in coefficients are different in MY2018 only. 

### 11.4.4 **Alternative Engine Standards** The alternative standards the agencies considered for heavy- duty tractor engines are provided in Table 11 - 83 .

**Table 11**  **- 83**  **Alternative Heavy -** **Duty Tractor Engine**  **Standards over**  **the SET Cycle** 

### MODEL **YEAR STANDARDS**  **ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 4**  **ALTERNATIVE 5** MHD HHD MHD HHD MHD HHD 2021

– 2023 EPA Standard 481 455 477 451 474 448

(CO 2 

### Grams per Ton-Mile) NHTSA Standard 4.725 0 4.4695 4.6857 4.4303 4.6562 4.4008 (Gallons per 100 Ton-Mile) 2024 and Later EPA Standard 471 445 466 441 464 438

(CO 2 

### Grams per Ton-Mile) NHTSA Standard 4.6267 4.3713 4.5776 4.3320 4.5580 4.3026 (Gallons per 100 Ton-Mile)

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 86 Table 11 - 84 

### presents the alternative CO 2 

### and fuel consumption standards the agencies considered for compression- ignition engines to be installed in vocational vehicles. As with the proposed standards, the first set of alternative standards would take effect with MY 2021, and the second set would take effect with MY 2024. **Table 11**  **- 84**  **Alternative Vocational Diesel Engine Standards over**  **the Heavy -** **Duty FTP Cycle** 

### MODEL YEAR STANDARD LIGHT HEAVYDUTY DIESEL MEDIUM

HEAVYDUTY DIESEL HEAVY

HEAVYDUTY DIESEL **Alternative 2** 2021 -2023 CO 2 

### Standard (g/bhp -hr) 571 571 550

Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp -hr) 5.6090 5.6090 5.4028 2024 and Later CO 2 

### Standard (g/bhp -hr) 559 559 539

Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp -hr) 5.4912 5.4912 5.2947

**Alternative 4** 2021 -2023 CO 2 

### Standard (g/bhp -hr) 562 562 541

Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp -hr) 5.5206 5.5206 5.3143 2024 and Later CO 2 

### Standard (g/bhp -hr) 553 553 533

Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp -hr) 5.4322 5.4322 5.2358

**Alternative 5** 2021 -2023 CO 2 

### STANDARD (G/BHP -HR) 559 559 538

Fuel Consumption Standard (gallon/100 bhp -hr) 5.4912 5.4912 5.2849 2024 and Later CO 2 

### Standard (g/bhp -hr) 550 550 530

Fuel Consumption (gallon/100 bhp -hr) 5.4028 5.4028 5.2063

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 87 

## References

1 OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4 . 2 NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the reasonable action alternatives to demonstrate the different environmental effects of the action alternatives. See 40 CFR 1502.2(e), 1502.14(d).CEQ has explained that “[T]he regulations require the analysis of the no action alternative even if the agency is under a court order or legislative command to act. This analysis provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. [See 40 CFR 1502.14(c).] * * * Inclusion of such an analysis in the EIS is necessary to inform Congress, the public, and the President as intended by NEPA. [See 40 CFR 1500.1(a).]'' Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 18026 (1981) (em phasis added). 3 http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/vehicle -technologies - office - 21st- century-truck 4 http://www.epa.gov/smartway/ 5 State of California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 3 2, or AB32) 6 Confidence Report: Idle - Reduction Solutions, North American Council for Freight Efficiency, Lee, Tessa, 2014, p. 13 . 7 Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium- and Heavy- Duty Vehicles; National Research Council; Transportation Research Board (2010). “Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy- Duty Vehicles,” (hereafter, “NAS 2010”). Washington, D.C. 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) . 8 Note that the “CO 2 emission rates” for tractors and vocational vehicles reflect changes in CO 2 emissions not represented by tire rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, or vehicle weight. 9 Vocational vehicles modeled in MOVES include heavy heavy- duty, medium heavy- duty, and light heavy- duty vehicles. However, for light heavy- duty vocational vehicles, class 2b and 3 vehicles are not included in the inventories for the vocational sector. Instead, all vehicles with GVWR of less than 14,000 lbs were modeled using the energy rate reductions described below for HD pickup trucks and vans. In practice, many manufacturers of these vehicles choose to average the lightest vocational vehicles into chassis - certified families (i.e., heavy- duty pickups and vans). 10 Vocational tractors are included in the short-haul tractor segment. 11 Vocational vehicles modeled in MOVES include heavy heavy- duty, medium heavy- duty, and light heavy- duty vehicles. However, for light heavy- duty vocational vehicles, class 2b and 3 vehicles are not included in the inventories for the vocational sector. Instead, all vehicles under 14,000 lbs were modeled using the energy rate reductions described below for HD pickup trucks and vans. In practice, many manufacturers of these vehicles choose to average the lightest vocational vehicles into chassis - certified families (i.e., heavy- duty pickups and vans). 12 Vocational tractors are included in the short-haul tractor segment. 13 Vocational vehicles modeled in MOVES include heavy heavy- duty, medium heavy- duty, and light heavy- duty vehicles. However, for light heavy- duty vocational vehicles, class 2b and 3 vehicles are not included in the inventori es for the vocational sector. Instead, all vehicles with GVWR of less than 14,000 lbs were modeled using the energy rate reductions described below for HD pickup trucks and vans. In practice, many manufacturers of these vehicles choose to average the lightest vocational vehicles into chassis - certified families (i.e., heavy- duty pickups and vans). 14 Vocational tractors are included in the short-haul tractor segment. 15 Vocational vehicles modeled in MOVES include heavy heavy- duty, medium heavy- duty, and light heavy- duty vehicles. However, for light heavy- duty vocational vehicles, class 2b and 3 vehicles are not included in the inventories for the vocational sector. Instead, all vehicles with GVWR less than 14,000 lbs were modeled using the energy rate reductions described below for HD pickup trucks and vans. In practice, many manufacturers of these vehicles choose to average the lightest vocational vehicles into chassis - certified families (i.e., heavy- duty pickups and vans). 16 Vocational tractors are included in the short-haul tractor segment.

### *** E.O. 12866 Review **– REVISED**  **– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

11 - 88 17 Vocational vehicles modeled in MOVES include heavy heavy- duty, medium heavy- duty, and light heavy- duty vehicles. However, for light heavy- duty vocational vehicles, class 2b and 3 vehicles are not included in the inventories for the vocational sector. Instead, all vehicles under 14,000 lbs were modeled using the energy rate reductions described below for HD pickup trucks and vans. In practice, many manufacturers of these vehicles choose to average the lightest vocational vehicles into chassis - certified families (i.e., heavy- duty pickups and vans). 18 Vocational tractors are included in the short-haul tractor segment.