Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

1 Below is a summary of interagency comments received during EO 12866 and EO 13563 review of the draft final rule establishing GHG emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy duty trucks. They are for yo ur consideration and subject to further policy review.

1) Alternative Fuels Discussion for Preamble. In teragency commenters recommend that the agencies incorporate the following language into the Preamble:

This combined rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA is designed to regulate two separate characteristics of heavy duty vehicles: greenhou se gas emissions and fuel consumption. In the case of diesel or gasoline powered vehicles, there is a one-to-one relationship between these two characteristics. Each gallon of gasoline combus ted by a truck engine generates approximately 8,887 grams of CO2; and each gallon of diesel fuel burned generates about 10,180 grams of CO2. Becau se no available technologies reduce CO2 emissions per gallon of fuel combusted, any ru le that limits CO2 emissions is effectively identical to a rule that limits fuel consum ption. Compliance by a tr uck manufacturer with the NHTSA fuel economy rule assures compliance with the EPA rule, and vice versa.

For alternatively fueled vehicles, which use no petroleum, the situation is different. For example, a natural gas vehicl e that achieves approximatel y the same fuel economy as a diesel powered vehicle would emit 20 percent less CO2; and a natural gas vehicle with the same fuel economy as a gasoline vehicle would emit 30 percent less CO2. Yet natural gas vehicles consume no petroleum. To the extent that the goal of the NHTSA fuel economy portion of this rulemaking is to curb petroleum use, then natural gas vehicles should be credited with zero fuel consumption per mile. Similar differences between oil consumption and greenhouse gas emi ssions would apply to electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and biofuel-powered vehicles.

In recent rulemakings for light-duty ve hicles, EPA and NHTSA have followed the statutory provision that treats one gallon of alternative fu el as equivalent to 0.15 gallons of gasoline. Following that precedent in this heavy duty rule would mean that, for example, a natural gas powered truck would have attributed to it 20 percent less CO2 emissions than a comparable diesel powered truck, but 85 percent less fuel consumption. Engine manufacturers with a relatively large share of alte rnative-fuel products would likely have an easier time complying with NHTSAs average fuel economy standard than EPAs greenhouse gas emissions standard. Similarly, engine manufacturers with a relatively small share of alternative-fuel pr oducts would have a relatively easier time complying with EPA’s CO2 standard than w ith NHTSA’s fuel economy standard. In that way, the rule would not differ from the light duty vehicle rules.Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

2 Instead, in this rule, EPA and NHTSA are fina lizing identical rules. Fuel consumption for alternatively-powered vehicles will be calculated according to their CO2 emissions. In that way, there will be a one-to-one relationship between fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for all vehicles, by design, whether or not that relationship accurately reflects true fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. This has the advantage of reducing some of the paperwork and compliance burden this rule will impose on the truck manufacturers. On the other hand, it has th e disadvantage of disc ouraging some costeffective means of reducing petroleum cons umption by trucks, and the accompanying energy security costs. By attributing to natural gas engines only 20 percent less fuel consumption than comparable diesel engine s, because they emit 20 percent less CO2, rather than attributing to th em a much larger percentage reduction in fuel consumption, because they use no petroleum, this uniform rulemaking disincentivizes technologies that reduce consumption of petroleum-based fuels.

Agencies are considering for future rulema kings writing harmonized standards in a way that accurately reflect the true fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Under such standards, any given vehicle might “ove r comply” with the fu el economy standard, but might “under comply” with the CO2 standa rd. Therefore, in meeting the fleet-wide requirements, a manufacturer would need to meet both standards using all available options, such as credit trading and technol ogy mix. Allowing for two distinct standards would enable manufacturers to achieve the twin goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing consumption of petroleum-based fuels in the most costeffective manner.

2) EPA and DOT agreed to include fuel savings as a separate category when presenting them in tables. However, the latest draft of the Preamble still includes fuel savings as part of costs (as negative costs). In teragency comments request th at agencies separate fuel savings from cost categories.

3) Pages 8-9 of revised Preamble- Interagenc y commenters recommend discussing energy and national security and then discussing cl imate change. These edits reflect idea of having fuel consumption first and then ghgs. Interagency commenters note that this ordering fits with the President’s memo (e g, “America has the opportunity to lead the world in the development of a new generati on of clean cars and trucks through innovative technologies and manufacturing that will spur economic growth and create high-quality domestic jobs, enhance our energy securit y, and improve our environment.” and also “While the Federal Government and many States have now created a harmonized framework for addressing the fuel economy of and greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks, medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses continue to be a major source of fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas pollution”Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

3 4) Commenters recommend that agencies adopt the following language on Page 294:

Finally, the diversity of vehicl e types and useful lives does not pose a problem for credit trading. Each gram of carbon abated or ga llon of fuel saved has the same benefit, regardless of whether it is saved due to t echnological advances in a pickup truck, vocational vehicle, or tractor, and regardless of whether it is saved by advances in the engines or bodies. The EPA and NHTSA formul as estimate the useful life of vehicles to translate grams per mile, gramps per bhp-hr, a nd grams per ton-mile into lifetime tons of CO2, and equivalently gallons per mile, bhp-hr, and ton-mile into total lifetime gallons. If the EPA/ NHTSA formulas are overstate or un derstate vehicles’ usef ul lives, then this rule may achieve more or less CO2 reduction and fuel savings than projected. If the agencies overstate the useful lives of a truck, less CO2 abatement and fuel savings will be achieved. If the agencies understate the useful life, more will be achieved. This is true regardless of whether trading occurs or not . In the presence of flexible trading provisions, if the agencies understate the us eful life of a truck with relatively high compliance costs, and truck makers in that category purchase credits from truck makers in a category where the agencies have overestimated the useful life, then the trading will result in more pollution abatement and fuel savi ngs than projected. If the reverse is true, and the agencies overstate the useful life of trucks with relatively low compliance costs, then trading result in less pollution abatemen t and fuel savings than projected. There is no reason to think, however, that errors in the agencies’ calcul ations would be correlated with these regulatory compliance costs, and th erefore no reason to restrict trading on the basis of diversity of vehicle types or uncer tainty in the formulas that translate CO2 emissions rates and fuel economy into overa ll CO2 emissions and gallons of fuel. Accuracy in these formulas is important, however, and EPA and NHTSA will continue to monitor truck performance to make sure th e formulas correctly represent fuel economy and environmental gains.

5) Suggested Preamble edits. These edits reflect idea of having fuel consumption first and then ghgs. Interagency commenters note that th is ordering fits with the President’s memo (eg, “America has the opportunity to lead the world in the development of a new generation of clean cars and trucks through innovative technologies and manufacturing that will spur economic growth and create high-quality domesti c jobs, enhance our energy security, and improve our environment. ” and also “While the Federal Government and many States have now created a harmoni zed framework for addressing the fuel economy of and greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks, medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses continue to be a major source of fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas pollution”Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1065, 1066, and 1068

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162; NHTSA-2010-0079; FRL-xxxx-x]

RIN 2060-AP61; RIN 2127-AK74

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel E fficiency Standards for Medium- and HeavyDuty Engines and Vehicles

AGENCIES: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

ACTION: Final Rules

__________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY:

EPA and NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation, are each finalizing rules to establish a comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program that will significantly reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for on -road heavy-duty vehicles, responding to the President’s directive on May 21, 2010, to take coordinated steps to produce a new generation of clean vehicles. NHTSA’s fina l fuel consumption standards and EPA’s final carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions standards are tailored to each of three regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: (1) Combination Tr actors; (2) Heavy-duty Pic kup Trucks and Vans; and (3) Vocational Vehicles. The rules include separa te standards for the engines that power combination tractors and vocational vehicles. Certain rules are exclusive to the EPA program. These include EPA’s final hydrofluorocarbon emissi ons standards to cont rol leakage from air conditioning systems in combination tractors, an d pickup trucks and vans. These also include EPA’s final nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and methane (CH 4 ) emissions standards that will apply to all heavy-duty engines, pickup trucks and vans. EP A is also finalizing provisions allowing lightduty vehicle manufacturers to use CO 2 credits to meet the light-duty vehicle N 2 O and CH 4 standards, and a technical amendment to the criteria pollutant emissions requirements for certain switch locomotives.Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

5 EPA’s final greenhouse gas emission standards unde r the Clean Air Act will begin with model year 2014. NHTSA’s final fuel consumption standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will be voluntary in m odel years 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory with model year 2016 for most regulatory categories. Commercial traile rs are not regulated in this phase of the Heavy-Duty National Program.

The agencies estimate that the combined standards will reduce CO 2 emissions by approximately 280 million metric tons and save over 500 million ba rrels of oil over the lif e of vehicles sold during the 2014 through 2018 model year s, providing over $7 billion in net societal benefits, and $49 billion in net societal benefits when private fuel savings are considered.

DATES: These final rules are effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register], sixty days after date of publication in the Federal Register . The incorporation by reference of cer tain publications listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [Insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register]

.

ADDRESSES: EPA and NHTSA have established docke ts for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162 and NHTSA-2010-0079, respectively. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov web site. A lthough listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential busin ess information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by stat ute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www. regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following locations: EPA : EPA Docket Center, EPA/ DC, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room 3334, Washington DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, ex cluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. NHTSA : Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NHTSA: Lily Smith, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Ad ministration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-0949. EPA: Lauren Steele, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment a nd Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, A nn Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4788; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address: steele.lauren@epa. gov, or contact the Assessment and Standards Divisi on, email OTAQPUBLICWEB@epa.gov.Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

6 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### A. Does this Action Apply to Me

This action affects companies that manufacture, sell, or import in to the United States new heavyduty engines and new Class 2b through 8 trucks, including combination tractors, school and transit buses, vocational ve hicles such as utility service truc ks, as well as 3⁄4-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks and vans. The heavy-duty category incorpor ates all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or gr eater, and the engines that power them, except for mediumduty passenger vehicles already covered by the greenhouse gas emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy standards issued for light-duty model year 2012-2016 vehicles. Regulated categories and enti ties include the following:

Category NAICS Code a Examples of Potentially Affected Entities

Industry 336111 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Engine and Truck Manufacturers 336112 336120 Industry 541514 Commercial Impor ters of Vehicles and Vehicle Components 811112 811198 Industry 336111 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters 336112 422720 454312 541514 541690 811198

Note:

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, bu t rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely covered by these rules. This table lists the types of entitie s that the agencies are aware may be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activ ities are regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicabil ity criteria in the referenced regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicab ility of this action to the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table of ContentsSummary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

7 A. Does this Action Apply to Me

I. Overview

A. Introduction

B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-duty National Program

C. Summary of the Final EPA and NHTSA HD National Program

D. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the HD National Program

E. Program Flexibilities

F. EPA and NHTSA Statutory Authorities

G. Future HD GHG and Fuel Consumption Rulemakings

II. Final GHG and Fuel Consumption Standa rds for Heavy-duty Engines and Vehicles

A. What Vehicles Will Be Affected?

B. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors

C. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans

D. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles

E. Other Standards Provisions

III. Feasibility Assessments and Conclusions

A. Class 7-8 Combination Tractor

B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans

C. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility Provisions

A. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program

B. Additional Flexibility ProvisionsSummary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

8 V. NHTSA and EPA Compliance, Cert ification, and Enforcement Provisions

A. Overview

B. Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans

C. Heavy-Duty Engines

D. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors

E. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles

F. General Regulatory Provisions

G. Penalties

VI. How Will This Program Impact Fuel Consumption, GHG Emissions, and Climate Change?

A. What Methodologies Did the Agencies Use to Project GHG Emissions and Fuel Consumption Impacts?

B. MOVES Analysis

C. What Are the Projected Reductions in Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions?

D. Overview of Climate Cha nge Impacts from GHG Emissions

E. Changes in Atmospheric CO 2 Concentrations, Global Mean Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean pH Associated with the Program’s GHG Emissions Reductions

VII. How Will This Final Action Impact Non-GHG Emissi ons and Their Associated Effects?

A. Emissions Inventory Impacts

B. Health Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants

C. Environmental Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants

D. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants

VIII. What are the Agencies’ Estimated Cost, Economic, and Other Impacts of the Final Program?Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

9 A. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Impacts

B. Costs Associated With the Final Program

C. Indirect Cost Multipliers

D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reductions

E. Impacts of Reduction in Fuel Consumption

F. Class Shifting and Fleet Turnover Impacts

G. Benefits of Reducing CO 2 Emissions

H. Non-GHG Health and Environmental Impacts

I. Energy Security Impacts

J. Other Impacts

K. The Effect of Safety Standards and Voluntary Safety Improvements on Vehicle Weight

L. Summary of Costs and Benefits from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Perspective

M. Summary of Costs and Benefits fr om the Fuel Efficiency Perspective

N. Employment Impacts

IX. Analysis of the Alternatives

A. What Are the Alternatives that the Agencies Considered?

B. How Do These Alternatives Compare in Overall GHG Emissions Reductions and Fuel Efficiency and Cost?

C. What Is the Agencies’ Decision Regarding Trailer Standards?

X. Public Participation

XI. NHTSA’s Record of Decision

A. The Agency’s DecisionSummary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

10 B. Alternatives Considered by NHTSA in Reaching its Decision, Including the Environmentally Preferable Alternative

C. Factors Balanced by NHT SA in Making its Decision

D. How the Factors and Considerations Ba lanced by NHTSA Entered into its Decision

E. The Agency’s Preferences among Alte rnatives Based on Relevant Factors, Including Economic and Technical Consider ations and Agency Statutory Missions

F. Mitigation

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

A. EPA

B. NHTSA

List of Subjects



## I. Overview

A. Introduction

EPA and NHTSA (“the agencies”) are announci ng a first-ever program to improve fuel consumption (and thus increase energy security) and to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the heavy-duty highway vehicle sector. This broad sector – ranging from large pickups to sleeper-cab tractors – together represent the second largest cont ributor to oil consumption and GHG emissions from the mobile source sector, af ter light-duty passenger ca rs and trucks. These are the second joint rule s issued by the agencies, following on the April 1, 2010 standards to sharply reduce GHG emissions and fuel cons umption from MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks (published on May 7, 2010 at 75 FR 25324.

In a May 21, 2010 memorandum to the Admi nistrators of EPA and NHTSA (and the Secretaries of Transportation a nd Energy), the President stated that “America has the opportunity to lead the world in the deve lopment of a new generation of clean cars and trucks through innovative technologies and manu facturing that will spur econo mic growth and create high-Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

11 quality domestic jobs, enhance our energy security, and improve our environment.” 1,2 In the May 2010 memorandum, the President specifically requested the Administrators of EPA and NHTSA to “immediately begin work on a join t rulemaking under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to establish fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards for comm ercial medium-and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks beginning with the 201 4 model year (MY).” In this final rulemaking each agency is addressing this Memorandum by adopting rules under its respective authority that together comprise a coordinated and comprehe nsive HD National Program designed to address the urgent and closely intertwined challenges of reduction of dependence on oil, achievement of energy security, and amelioration of global climate change.

At the same time, the final program will benefit consumers and businesses by reducing costs for transporting goods andspur gr owth in the clean energy sector.

The HD National Program the agencies are fina lizing today reflects a collaborative effort between the agencies, a range of public intere st nongovernmental orga nizations (NGOs), the state of California and the re gulated industry. Consistent w ith Executive Order 13563, section 2(c), careful engagement long preceded issuance of the NPRM. At the time of the President’s announcement, a number of major HD truck and engine manufacturers representing the vast majority of this industry, and the California Ai r Resources Board (Califor nia ARB), sent letters to EPA and NHTSA supporting the creation of a HD National Program based on a common set of principles. In the letters, the stakeholders committed to working with the agencies and with other stakeholders toward a program cons istent with common principles, including:

 Increased use of existing technologies to achieve significant GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions;

 A program that starts in 2014 and is fully phased in by 2018;

 A program that works towards harmonization of methods for determ ining a vehicle’s GHG and fuel efficiency, recogni zing the global nature of th e issues and the industry;

 Standards that recognize the commercial needs of the trucking industry; and

 Incentives leading to the early intr oduction of advan ced technologies.

1 Improving Energy Security, American Competitiveness an d Job Creation, and Environmental Protection Through a Transformation of Our Nation’s Fleet of Cars And Trucks,” Issued May 21, 2010, published at 75 FR 29399, May 26, 2010.
2 The May 2010 Presidential Memorandum al so directed EPA and NHTSA, in cl ose coordination with the California Air Resources Board, to build on the National Program for 2012-2016 MY light-duty vehicles by developing and proposing coordinated light-duty vehicle standards for MY 2017-2025. The agencies have taken an initial step in this process, releasing a Joint Notice of Intent and Initia l Joint Technical Assessment Report in September 2010 (75 FR 62739), and a Supplemental Notice of Intent (75 FR 76337). The agencies plan to issue a full light-duty vehicle proposal to extend the National Program to MY 2017-2025 in September 2011.Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

12 The final rules adopted toda y reflect these principles.

The final HD National Program builds on many years of heavy-duty engine and vehicle technology development to achieve what the agen cies believe is the greatest degree of GHG emission and fuel consumption reduction appropri ate, technologically an d economically feasible, and cost-effective for model years 2014-2018. In addition to taking aggre ssive steps that are reasonably possible now, based on the technologi cal opportunities and pathways that present themselves during these model years, the agencies and industry will also continue learning about emerging opportunities for this complex sector to further reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption through future regulatory steps.

Similarly, the agencies will participate in e fforts to improve our ability to accurately characterize the actual in-use fuel consumpti on and emissions of this complex sector. As technologies progress in the comi ng years and as the agencies im prove the regulatory tools to evaluate real world vehicle performance, we expect that we will develop a second phase of regulations to reinforce these initial rules and achieve furthe r reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption reduction for the mid- a nd longer-term time frame (beyond 2018). The agencies are committed to working with all interested stakeholders in this effort and to the extent possible working towards alignment with simila r programs being developed in Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and Japan. In doing so, we will con tinue to evaluate many of the structural and technical decisions we are making in today’s fina l action in the context of new technologies and the new regulatory tools that we expect to realize in the future.

The regulatory program we are finalizing today takes careful account of public comments, and offers some important improvements, but in key respects, it is not substantially different from the proposal the agencies made on November 30, 2010 (see 75 FR 741512). The essential structure of the program and the stringenc y of the standards are essentially the same as proposed. We have made a number of change s to the testing requirements and reporting requirements to provide greater regulatory certainty and bett er align the NHTSA and EPA portions of the program. In response to comm ents, and consistent with Executive Order 13563, we have also made some changes to the aver aging, banking and trading (ABT) provisions of the program that will make implementation of this final program more flexible for manufacturers. We have added provisions to furt her encourage the development of advanced technologies and to provide a more straightforward mechanism to certify engines and vehi cles using innovative technologies. Finally in respons e to comments, we have made some technical changes to our emissions compliance model that results in di fferent numeric standards for both combination tractors and vocational vehicles to more accurate ly characterize emissions while maintaining the same overall stringency and therefore expected costs a nd benefits of the program.

Heavy-duty vehicles move much of the natio n’s freight and carry out numerous other tasks, including utility work, c oncrete delivery, fire response, re fuse collection, and many more. Heavy-duty vehicles are primarily powered by diesel engines, a lthough about 37 percent of theseSummary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

13 vehicles are powered by gasoline engines. 3 Heavy-duty trucks 4 have long been an important part of the goods movement infrastructure in this country and have experi enced significant growth over the last decade related to increased imports and exports of finished goods and increased shipping of finished goods to homes through inte rnet purchases.

The heavy-duty sector is extremely divers e in several respects , including types of manufacturing companies involved, the range of sizes of trucks and engines they produce, the types of work the trucks are designed to perf orm, and the regulatory history of different subcategories of vehicles and engines. The curre nt heavy-duty fleet encompasses vehicles from the “18-wheeler” combination tractors one sees on the highway to school and transit buses, to vocational vehicles such as util ity service trucks, as well as th e largest pickup trucks and vans.

For purposes of this preamble, the term “heavy-duty” or “HD” is used to apply to all highway vehicles and engines that are not with in the range of light- duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV) covered by the GHG and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) st andards issued for MY 2012-2016. 5 It also does not include motorcycles. Thus, in this rulemaking, unle ss specified otherwise, the heavy-duty category incorporates all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rati ng above 8,500 pounds, and the engines that power them, except for MDPVs. 6

The agencies proposed to cover all segments of the heavy-duty category above, except the scopes differ with respect to recreational vehi cles (RV’s or motor homes). We note that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires NHTSA to set standards for “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on- highway vehicles and work trucks.” 7 The standards that EPA is finalizing today c over recreational on-highway vehi cles, while NHTSA proposed not to include recreational vehicles based on an in terpretation of the term “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway commercial” vehicles. NHTSA stated in the NPRM that recreational vehicles are non-commercial, and therefore outside of the term and the scope of its rule.

3 References in this preamble to “gasoline” engines (and the vehicles powered by them) generally include other Otto-cycle engines as well, such as those fueled by etha nol and natural gas, except in contexts that are clearly gasoline-specific.
4 In this rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA use the term “truck” in a general way, referring to all categories of regulated heavy-duty highway vehicles (including buses). As such, the term is generally interchangeable with “heavy-duty vehicle.”
5 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule 75 FR 25323, May 7, 2010.
6 The CAA defines heavy-duty as a tr uck, bus or other motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 6,000 pounds (CAA section 202(b)(3)). The term HD as used in this action refers to a subset of these vehicles and engines.
7 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). “Commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles” are defined as on-highway vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more, while “work trucks” are defined as vehicles rated between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight that are not MDPVs. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 32901(a)(7) and (a)(19).Summary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

14 Oshkosh Corporation commented that this in terpretation did not match the statutory definition of the term in EISA, which define s “commercial medium- an d heavy-duty on-highway vehicle” by weight only, 8 and that therefore the agency’s in terpretation of the term should be explicitly broadened to include a ll vehicles, and more than only ve hicles that are not engaged in interstate commerce as defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Safe ty Administration in 49 CFR § 202. Alternatively, Oshkosh suggested that if NHTSA followed the definition provided in EISA, which makes no direct reference to the concep t of “commercial,” there would be no logical reason to exclude RVs base d on that definition.

NHTSA has considered Oshkosh’s comment a nd reconsidered its interpretation that effectively read words into the statutory definitio n. Given the very wide variety of vehicles contained in the HD fleet, reading those words in to the definition and thereby excluding certain types of vehicles could create il logical results, i.e., treating similar vehicles differently. Therefore, NHTSA will adhere to the statutory definition contained in EISA for this rulemaking. However, as RVs were not included by NHTSA in the proposed regulation in the NPRM, they are not within the scope and must be exclude d in NHTSA’s portion of the final program. Accordingly, NHTSA will address this issue in the next rulemaking.

Setting fuel consumption standards for th e heavy-duty sector, pursuant to NHTSA’s EISA authority, will improve our energy and na tional security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which has been a nati onal objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s. Net petroleum imports now account for approximately 49-51 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is highly concentrat ed, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price shocks as the recent unrest in North Africa and the Persian Gulf highlights. Recently, oil prices have been over $100 per barrel, gasoline and diesel fuel prices in excess of $4 per gallon, causing financial hardship for many families and businesses. The export of U.S. assets in exchange for oil imports continues to be an important component of the historically unprecedented U.S. trade deficits. Transporta tion accounts for about 72 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty vehicles acc ount for about 17 percent of transportation oil use, which means that they alone account for about 12 percent of all U.S. oil consumption. 9

Setting GHG emissions standards for the heavy-dut y sector will also help to ameliorate climate change. The EPA Administrator found af ter a thorough examinati on of the scientific evidence on the causes and impact of current and future climate change, and careful review of public comments, that the science compellingl y supports a positive finding that atmospheric concentrations of these greenhouse gases resu lt in air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger both public health a nd welfare. In her finding, the Administrator carefully studied and relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from the recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Scien ce Program and the U.N. Intergovernmental PanelSummary of interagency working comment s received on draft rule under EO 12866 review and EO 13563 review. Subj ect to further policy review.

15 on Climate Change. 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009. As summarized in the Technical Support Document for EPA’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, an thropogenic emissions of GHGs are very likely (a 90 to 99 percent probability) the cause of most of the observed global wa rming over the last 50 years. 10 Primary GHGs of concern are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ). Mobile sources emitted 31 percent of all U.S. GHGs in 2007 (transportation sources, which do not include certain off-highway sour ces, account for 28 percent) and ha ve been the fastest-growing source of U.S. GHGs since 1990. 11 Mobile sources addressed in EPA’s endangerment and contribution findings under CAA section 202(a) -- light-duty vehicles, he avy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles -- accounted for 23 pe rcent of all U.S. GHG emissions in 2007. 12 Heavy-duty vehicles emit CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, and HFCs and are responsible for nearly 19 percent of all mobile source GHGs (nearly 6% of all U.S. GHGs) and about 25 percent of section 202(a) mobile source GHGs. For heavy-duty vehicles in 2007, CO 2 emissions represented more than 99 percent of all GHG emissions (including HFCs). 13

[INSERT COST and BENEFIT SUMMARY TA BLES HERE (annualized MY estimates for proposed alternative and comparing with ot her alternatives by each category. Commenters also request that agencies provide a brief clar ification on what is in cluded in benefits.]

10 U.S. EPA. (2009). “Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Ai r Act” Washington, D.C., av ailable at Docket: EPA-HQOAR-2009-0171-11645, and at http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html.
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990- 2007. EPA 430-R-09-004. Available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG2007entire_report-508.pdf
12 See Endangerment TSD, Note Error! Bookmark not defined. , above, at pp. 180-194.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: See Note Error! Bookmark not defined. , above.