Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-3469
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2011-08-29T04:00Z

From:
david.kayes@daimler.com
 To:
Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Coralie.Cooper@dot.gov
 Cc:
brian.burton@daimler.com, donald.keski-hynnila@daimler.com
 Date:
04/08/2011 02:51 PM
 Subject:
GHG / FE regulation:  additional suggestion

Byron, Coralie:

While sifting recent Daimler truck data into averaging categories, I noticed some anomalies caused by the use of GVWR as the sole determinant of a vehicle's class.  These are vehicles that I would intuitively classify as one type of vehicle but that the regulations classify as another.  For example:
   1.	I found about 100 of our M2 vehicle (which is primarily a Class 6, 7, or 8 model of vehicle) being built with components that lead to an 18,000 to 19,500 lb GVWR (most often, 19,500).  Because the 40 CFR 1037.801 and 49 CFR 535.4 classifications go by the GVWR, those vehicles fall into the Class 2b-5 vocational category.  These vehicles are essentially like our more numerous Class 6 to 7 vocational vehicles, except that they fall in the Class 2b-5 category.  If vehicles like these, alone in an averaging category, fail to meet the tire standards, then we will not have any credits to make up for that failure.  This may be a problem, or it may not.
   2.	Similarly, I found a couple dozen Cascadia vehicles (primarily a Class 8 model of vehicle) being built with sleepers and a GVWR of 33,000 lb or less.  By the aforementioned definitions, these would be Class 7.  However, there is no Class 7 sleeper category.  These vehicles have GCWRs > 33,000 lb, which means they are used like Class 8 sleeper vehicles.  Because there is no Class 7 sleeper category, there is definitely a problem here.
   3.	I even found nineteen Class 6 vehicles built with a hole in the back of the cab, likely for installation of a sleeper.  These are possibly configured to be a tractor (although it is hard to tell based upon the data available in our truck specifications). I think I would have to dig into these vehicles' final configurations to understand if they should be treated as tractors or vocational vehicles.

In the first two and perhaps in all three cases, these vehicles would be properly categorized if a manufacturer could petition the agencies to treat the vehicles as being in the next higher class (or two classes up in the case of the Class 6 vehicles if they get sleepers).  Orphaning an ostensibly Class 6 vehicle in Class 5, just because it has GVWR of 19,500 lb instead of 19,501 lb, unnecessarily complicates compliance.  Treating a sleeper-equipped tractor, which is obviously designed for heavy-heavy operation, as Class 7 because it has a GVWR of 33,000 lb exactly, and not 33,001, is problematic because of the lack of a Class 7 sleeper category.  And the third category could be problematic, but I do not understand what these vehicles become when finally configured.  I think that the effect on fuel consumption or emissions would be the same or better if a vehicle were treated as being in higher weight class, and the effect on our certification processes would be to ease our burden.

In short, I recommend that both agencies adopt in 1037.230 and 535.7 this language:  "A vehicle manufacturer may petition the agency to treat a vehicle as if it were in a higher weight class."

Regards,
Dave
-------------------------
David Kayes
Compliance and Regulatory Affairs --- Environmental Compliance
Daimler Trucks
(503) 745-9162 Office
(503) 265-9838 Mobile
David.Kayes@Daimler.com

If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail in error, and delete it. We thank you for your cooperation.