Page Range | 73333-74277 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
81 FR 74277 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo | |
81 FR 73401 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
81 FR 73352 - Requirement for Nondiscrimination Against End-Users of Supplies or Services (“Beneficiaries”) Under USAID-Funded Contracts | |
81 FR 73447 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
81 FR 73459 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
81 FR 73447 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 73475 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Information Collection Tools | |
81 FR 73474 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73474 - Senior Executive Service; Fiscal Service Performance Review Board | |
81 FR 73476 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel | |
81 FR 73363 - Special Enrollment Examination User Fee for Enrolled Agents | |
81 FR 73407 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73462 - Shipping Coordinating Committee: Amended Notice of Public Meeting | |
81 FR 73397 - Notice of Extension to Comment Period on the Request for Public Comments To Be Sent to EPA on Peer Review Materials To Inform the Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making on Perchlorate | |
81 FR 73387 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit | |
81 FR 73388 - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund, Section 128(a); Notice of Grant Funding Guidance for State and Tribal Response Programs for FY2017 | |
81 FR 73426 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Program To Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines | |
81 FR 73467 - Traffic Safety for Older Road Users Meeting | |
81 FR 73447 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C Systems; Notice of Meeting | |
81 FR 73466 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes | |
81 FR 73381 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18879 | |
81 FR 73386 - Supporting Clean Energy Startups-Industry and Investment Partnerships for Scaling Innovation | |
81 FR 73386 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board | |
81 FR 73383 - Request for Comments on Examination Time Goals | |
81 FR 73463 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Clay, Marion, and Clinton Counties, Ill. | |
81 FR 73381 - Marine Mammals; File No. 20430 | |
81 FR 73465 - Hours of Service of Drivers: American Concrete Pumping Association (ACPA); Application for Exemption | |
81 FR 73406 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73474 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13224 | |
81 FR 73464 - Notice of Statute of Limitations on Claims; Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California | |
81 FR 73448 - Superseded or Outdated Generic Communications | |
81 FR 73416 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Bear Sighting and Encounter Reports | |
81 FR 73378 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73385 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cash Management Contract URL Collection | |
81 FR 73427 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73407 - The Role of Hospitals in Modernizing Evidence Generation for Device Evaluation: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Surveillance; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
81 FR 73380 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Amendment 14 Data Collection | |
81 FR 73382 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Herring Amendment 5 Data Collection | |
81 FR 73385 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study: (BPS: 12/17) | |
81 FR 73404 - Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (the STAC or the Committee), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services | |
81 FR 73405 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review | |
81 FR 73404 - Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHRAC, NIOSH) | |
81 FR 73402 - Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) | |
81 FR 73410 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Animation in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising | |
81 FR 73427 - Meeting of National Council on the Humanities | |
81 FR 73418 - Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same; Institution of Investigation | |
81 FR 73419 - Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers; Institution of Investigation | |
81 FR 73417 - Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews | |
81 FR 73400 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
81 FR 73398 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
81 FR 73421 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation | |
81 FR 73420 - Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews | |
81 FR 73398 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
81 FR 73452 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, To Amend Certain Rules Related to Flexible Exchange Options | |
81 FR 73339 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Falmouth, MA | |
81 FR 73362 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Drummond Island, MI | |
81 FR 73449 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73460 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73458 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73459 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73341 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Hagerstown, MD | |
81 FR 73340 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Miles City, MT | |
81 FR 73461 - South Carolina Disaster #SC-00040 | |
81 FR 73421 - Final Adjusted Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2016 | |
81 FR 73462 - South Carolina Disaster Number SC-00040 | |
81 FR 73461 - Georgia Disaster # GA-00081 | |
81 FR 73462 - Florida Disaster #FL-00121 | |
81 FR 73461 - North Carolina Disaster Number NC-00081 | |
81 FR 73463 - Supplemental Type Certificate SA893CE (Original Product Type Certificate Number A4CE) | |
81 FR 73460 - North Carolina Disaster Number NC-00081 | |
81 FR 73450 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Allow DTC To Automate the Process for Participants To Submit Eligibility Requests for Older Issues | |
81 FR 73473 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Affiliate Marketing | |
81 FR 73333 - Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Increased Assessment Rate | |
81 FR 73405 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
81 FR 73402 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
81 FR 73379 - National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Executive Council Meeting | |
81 FR 73378 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of the Semiannual Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. | |
81 FR 73360 - Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes | |
81 FR 73428 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations | |
81 FR 73342 - Spirotetramat; Pesticide Tolerance | |
81 FR 73368 - Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming | |
81 FR 73471 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
81 FR 73472 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
81 FR 73470 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
81 FR 73468 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
81 FR 73355 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 2 | |
81 FR 73335 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 2 | |
81 FR 73357 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
81 FR 73368 - Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste Management Program | |
81 FR 73347 - Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Program | |
81 FR 73478 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2 |
Agricultural Marketing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
National Endowment for the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements a recommendation from the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) for an increase of the assessment rate established for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.08 to $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order, and is comprised of producers and handlers of oranges and grapefruit operating within the area of production. Assessments upon orange and grapefruit handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Effective October 26, 2016.
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Texas orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit beginning on August 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.08 to $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled.
The Texas orange and grapefruit marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Texas oranges and grapefruit. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on June 2, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $751,148 and an assessment rate of $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $701,148. The assessment rate of $0.09 is $0.01 higher than the rate currently in effect. At the current assessment rate, assessment income would equal around $640,000, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures, which includes a $50,000 increase in funding for compliance. The Committee considered the estimated expenses and recommended increasing the assessment rate.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2016-17 year include $600,248 for the Mexican fruit fly control program, $77,200 for management, and $50,000 for compliance. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $600,248, $77,200, and $0, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Texas oranges and grapefruit. Orange and grapefruit shipments for the 2016-17 year are
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2016-17 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
According to Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2014-15 season was around $16.50 per box and total shipments were near 4.1 million boxes. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers have average annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. In addition, based on information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2014-15 season was around $9.55 per box. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.08 to $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas oranges and grapefruit. The Committee unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $751,148 and an assessment rate of $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.09 is $0.01 higher than the 2015-16 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2016-17 season is estimated at 8 million 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalent. Thus, the $0.09 rate should provide $720,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to meet this year's expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2016-17 year include $600,248 for the Mexican fruit fly control program, $77,200 for management, and $50,000 for compliance. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $600,248, $77,200, and $0, respectively.
At the current assessment rate, assessment income would only equal around $640,000, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures, which includes a $50,000 increase in funding for compliance. The Committee considered the estimated expenses and recommended increasing the assessment rate.
Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee, and Committee management. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the Texas citrus industry. Based on estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.09 should provide $720,000 in assessment income. The Committee determined that the assessment revenue, along with funds from interest income and funds from reserves, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2016-17 fiscal period.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the average grower price for the 2016-17 season could be around $13.50 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2016-17 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could be around 0.6 percent.
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 2, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postposing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after August 1, 2016, an assessment rate of $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent is established for oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad. Each of these changes is described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” in the
The direct final rule is effective January 9, 2017, unless significant adverse comments are received by November 25, 2016. If the direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Gregory R. Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6445, or email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0155 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0155 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on January 9, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by November 25, 2016, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications (TSs).
For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the
By letter dated March 31, 2015, as supplemented June 19 and November 30, 2015, Holtec International submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1040. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad.
Specifically, Amendment No. 2 adds new 16X16 fuel types to approved
As documented in the Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (PSER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask fabrication or design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 2 would remain within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Thus, as discussed in the PSER, staff has determined that there is reasonable assurance that: (i) The activities authorized by the amended certificate can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) these activities will be conducted in compliance with the applicable regulations of 10 CFR part 72.
This direct final rule revises the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the PSER.
The amended Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 under 10 CFR 72.212.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.
This direct final rule amends the CoC for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad.
Specifically, Amendment No. 2 adds new 16X16 fuel types to approved contents, in CoC No. 1040, named 16X16B and 16X16C and updates 15X15I fuel types to include those with guide tubes. Amendment No. 2 revises Table 2.1-1 to allow up to 37 undamaged 16X16A fuel assemblies in DFCs for the multipurpose canister—37 permitted for storage in the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. An updated heat load pattern is also included for loading up to 37 intact 16X16A fuel assemblies in DFCs. Also, Appendix B, Table 3-4 was revised to clarify the “Top Surface Pad” term.
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 2 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during
Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 2 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff documented its safety findings in a PSER.
The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 2 and discontinue the direct final rule process. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 2 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, an interested licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the proposed action.
Approval of Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.
No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.
The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Amendment No. 2” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.
This final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information collection unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12073), as corrected on March 25, 2015 (80 FR 15679), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214. By letter dated March 31, 2015, as supplemented June 19 and November 30, 2015, Holtec submitted an application to amend the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.
The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 2 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 2 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.
Approval of the direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the PSER and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1040
Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System was initiated by Holtec and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 2 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 2. These changes do not affect existing users of the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, and the current Amendment No. 1 continues to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 2, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the staff.
The Office of Management and Budget has not found this to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
On page 65533, column 2, add the following:
after line 39, add “Falmouth Airpark (lat. 41°35′08″ N., long. 70°32′25″ W.)”,
and on line 41, remove “55°”, and add in its place, “39°”,
and on line 45, remove “143°”, and add in its place, “127°”,
and on line 49, remove “234°”, and add in its place, “219°”,
and on line 51, after “airport,” add “excluding that airspace within a 1-mile
radius of Falmouth Airpark”,
and on line 52, remove “323°”, and add in its place, “307°”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frank Wiley Field Airport, Miles City, MT, due to airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. The Class E airspace designated as an extension, proposed for revocation in the NPRM, is removed from this rulemaking as it was proposed in error.
Effective 0901 UTC, January 5, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies controlled airspace at Frank Wiley Field Airport, Miles City, MT.
On June 17, 2016, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and 6005,
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frank Wiley Field Airport, Miles City, MT. The Class E surface area airspace is modified to within a 5-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field Airport to support terminal operations below 700 feet above the surface and to account for rising terrain. Additionally, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within an 8-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field Airport to support IFR departures below 1,200 feet above the surface due to rising terrain. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found redesign of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace designated as an extension is removed from this rulemaking as the airspace was added in error.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 34.5-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.
The
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6004 and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
On page 65535, column 1, line 20, remove “(lat. 39°42′22″ N., long. 77°44′41″ W.)”, and add in its place, “(lat. 39°42′23″ N., long. 77°44′31″ W.)”;
On page 65535, column 1 line 50, remove “(lat. 39°42′22″ N., long. 77°44′41″ W.)”, and add in its place, “(lat. 39°42′23″ N., long. 77°44′31″ W.)”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of spirotetramat in or on asparagus. Bayer CropScience LP requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective October 25, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 27, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 27, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for spirotetramat including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with spirotetramat follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The target organs of toxicity following subchronic and chronic oral exposures to spirotetramat were different in rats and dogs. The thyroid and thymus glands were the target organs identified in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in dogs while the testes were the target organs identified in rats. The dog was the most sensitive species, and in both rats and dogs, males were more sensitive than females. The thyroid effects in the dog consisted of lower circulating levels of thyroid hormones (T3 and/or T4) along with a reduction in follicle size, a possible indication of reduced amount of colloid. The effects in the dog thymus were described microscopically as involution, which also resulted in decreased organ weight.
In rats, reported testicular effects consisted of abnormal spermatozoa and hypospermia in the epididymis, decreased testicular weights, and testicular degenerative vacuolation. An investigative subchronic study where rats were dosed with a primary enol metabolite of spirotetramat reproduced the same testicular effects as the parent chemical, suggesting that this metabolite is, at minimum, a primary contributor to the observed male reproductive toxicity. Consistent with this notion, orally administered spirotetramat was demonstrated in rats to be extensively metabolized, and males were noted to achieve much higher systemic exposures than their female counterparts, which helps explain the higher sensitivity of males. Other effects reported in a rat chronic toxicity study were associated with kidney effects consisting of decreased organ weight and tubular dilatation.
In one- and two-generation rat reproductive toxicity studies, male reproductive toxicity (abnormal sperm cells and reproductive performance) similar to that reported in subchronic toxicity studies with adult rats was reported in the first generation (F
There was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study with reduced fetal weight and increased incidences of malformations and skeletal deviations observed at the limit dose, while maternal effects at this dose consisted of only body weight decrements. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure to spirotetramat in the rabbit developmental or two-generation reproduction studies.
The only evidence of neurotoxicity in the rat acute neurotoxicity study was based on decreased motor and locomotor activity, which occurred only at relatively high dose levels. The rat subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) study does not indicate a concern for neurotoxicity, even at relatively high dose levels.
The results of an immunotoxicity study in rats do not indicate any functional deficits in immune function. There is no evidence of carcinogenicity in chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies performed in rats and mice and spirotetramat was also negative for mutagenicity and clastogenicity in guideline in vivo and in vitro assays.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by spirotetramat as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spirotetramat used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for spirotetramat. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all foods, Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors where provided, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).
ii.
iii.
iv.
2.
Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of spirotetramat and its metabolites for acute exposures are estimated to be 395 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 7.99 ppb for ground water, and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 395 ppb for surface water and 5.36 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For both the acute and chronic dietary risk assessments, the water concentration
3.
Spirotetramat is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: golf courses and residential citrus trees. The golf course use could result in potential post-application dermal exposure; however, there is no dermal hazard and therefore, quantification of dermal risk is not necessary. For the residential citrus tree use, because the product is sold in bulk packaging for agricultural uses and the label requires that handlers wear specific clothing (
4.
EPA has not found spirotetramat to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and spirotetramat does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that spirotetramat does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for spirotetramat is complete.
ii. Although there is evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute neurotoxicity study, concern is low since the effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL values, the selected endpoints are protective of the observed neurotoxic effect, there are no neurotoxic effects seen in the subchronic neurotoxicity study, and the existing toxicological database indicates that spirotetramat is not a neurotoxic chemical.
iii. There was no evidence of quantitative susceptibility of offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure. There is evidence of qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study; however, there is no residual uncertainty concerning these effects due to the clear NOAEL/LOAELs in the study for these effects. Moreover, concern for these effects is low since effects were only seen at the limit dose, effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity, and selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary food and drinking water exposure assessment utilizes tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT information for all commodities. The chronic dietary food and drinking water exposure assessment utilizes average field trial residues for some commodities, tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities, and 100 PCT. The chronic assessment is somewhat refined; however, since it is based on reliable data, it will not underestimate exposure and risk. The drinking water assessments provide conservative, health-protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations that will not likely be exceeded. These assessments of exposure are not likely to underestimate the resulting estimates of risk from exposure to spirotetramat.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for spirotetramat in or on asparagus.
EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing noting general concerns about the potential effects on the cornea, thymus and thyroid, and testicular histopathy and stating, in part, that EPA should deny any approval of use of this chemical on any food products. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. EPA has assessed the effects of this chemical on human health and determined that aggregate exposure to it will be safe. This citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of spirotetramat, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on asparagus at 0.10 ppm.
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize States to operate their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA uses the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs” to provide notice of the authorization status of State programs and to incorporate by reference those provisions of the State statutes and regulations that will be subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement. The rule codifies in the regulations the prior approval of Oklahoma's hazardous waste management program and incorporates by reference authorized provisions of the State's statutes and regulations.
This regulation is effective December 27, 2016, unless the EPA receives adverse written comment on this regulation by the close of business November 25, 2016. If the EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.
Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, RCRA Permits Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division (6MM), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone numbers: (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178, email address:
Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize State hazardous waste management programs to operate in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste management regulatory program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 3007 and 3008 of RCRA and any other applicable statutory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the authorized State program and State requirements that can be Federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the authorized program in each State.
Oklahoma initially received Final authorization effective January 10, 1985, (49 FR 50362) to implement its Base Hazardous Waste Management program.
Subsequently, the EPA approved additional program revision applications effective on June 18, 1990 (55 FR 14280), November 27, 1990 (55 FR 39274), June 3, 1991 (56 FR 13411), November 19, 1991 (56 FR 47675), November 29, 1993 (58 FR 50854), December 21, 1994 (59 FR 51116), April 27, 1995 (60 FR 2699), March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12100), July 14, 1998 (63 FR 23673), November 23, 1998 (63 FR 50528), February 8, 1999 (63 FR 67800), March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16528), July 10, 2000 (65 FR 29981) March 5, 2001 (66 FR 28), June 9, 2003 (68 FR 17308), April 6, 2009 (74 FR 5994), May 6, 2011 (76 FR 18927), May 14, 2012 (77 FR 15273), July 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161), and October 28, 2014 (79 FR 51497). The EPA first incorporated by reference Oklahoma's hazardous waste program effective December 13, 1993 (58 FR 52679), and updated the incorporation by reference effective July 14, 1998 (63 FR 23673), October 25, 1999 (64 FR 46567), October 27, 2003 (68 FR 51488), August 27, 2010 (75 FR 36546), July 16, 2012 (77 FR 29231), October 9, 2012 (77 FR 46964), July 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161), and September 2, 2014 (79 FR 37226). In this document, the EPA is revising Subpart LL of 40 CFR part 272 to include the recent authorization revision actions effective October 28, 2014 (79 FR 51497).
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Oklahoma rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 272 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through
The purpose of this
This document incorporates by reference Oklahoma's hazardous waste statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the authorized and Federally enforceable program. By codifying Oklahoma's authorized program and by amending the Code of Federal Regulations, the public will be more easily able to discern the status of Federally approved requirements of the Oklahoma hazardous waste management program.
The EPA is incorporating by reference the Oklahoma authorized hazardous waste program in subpart LL of 40 CFR part 272. Section 272.1851 incorporates by reference Oklahoma's authorized hazardous waste statutes and regulations. Section 272.1851 also references the statutory provisions (including procedural and enforcement provisions) which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements and the Program Description, which are approved as part of the hazardous waste management program under Subtitle C of RCRA.
The EPA retains its authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in authorized States. With respect to these actions, the EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than any authorized State analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Oklahoma procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 272.1851(c)(2) of 40 CFR lists the statutory provisions which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, as well as those procedural and enforcement authorities that are part of the State's approved program, but these are not incorporated by reference.
The public needs to be aware that some provisions of Oklahoma's hazardous waste management program are not part of the Federally authorized State program.
These provisions include:
(1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader in scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));
(2) Federal rules for which Oklahoma is not authorized, but which have been incorporated into the State regulations because of the way the State adopted Federal regulations by reference;
(3) A Federal program which has since been withdrawn by the U.S. EPA; and
(4) Federal rules for which Oklahoma is authorized but which were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144, June 27, 2014).
State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program are not part of the RCRA authorized program and the EPA will not enforce them. Therefore, they are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, 40 CFR 272.1851(c)(3) lists the Oklahoma regulatory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the Federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. “Broader in scope” provisions cannot be enforced by the EPA; the State, however, may enforce such provisions under State law.
Oklahoma has adopted but is not authorized for the Federal rules published in the
Oklahoma adopted and was authorized for the following Federal Performance Track program, which has since been terminated by the U.S. EPA: published in the
Oklahoma has adopted and was authorized for the following Federal rules which have since been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
With respect to any requirement pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) for which the State has not yet been authorized, the EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for these provisions.
The EPA is not amending 40 CFR part 272 to include HSWA requirements and prohibitions that are implemented by the EPA. Section 3006(g) of RCRA provides that any HSWA requirement or prohibition (including implementing regulations) takes effect in authorized and not authorized States at the same time. A HSWA requirement or prohibition supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by the EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985). The EPA has the authority to implement HSWA requirements in all States, including authorized States, until the States become authorized for such requirement or prohibition. Authorized States are required to revise their programs to adopt the HSWA requirements and prohibitions, and then to seek authorization for those revisions pursuant to 40 CFR part 271.
Instead of amending the 40 CFR part 272 every time a new HSWA provision takes effect under the authority of RCRA section 3006(g), the EPA will wait until the State receives authorization for its analog to the new HSWA provision before amending the State's 40 CFR part 272 incorporation by reference. Until then, persons wanting to know whether a HSWA requirement or prohibition is in effect should refer to 40 CFR 271.1(j), as amended, which lists each such provision.
Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirement implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those State requirements, the EPA can only enforce the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs. The EPA will not codify those State requirements until the State receives authorization for those requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
The requirements being codified are the result of Oklahoma's voluntary participation in the EPA's State program authorization process under RCRA Subtitle C. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Incorporation by reference, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.
This action is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 272 is amended as follows:
Sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).
(a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), the EPA granted Oklahoma final authorization for the following elements as submitted to EPA in Oklahoma's base program application for final authorization which was approved by EPA effective on January 10, 1985. Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on June 18, 1990, November 27, 1990, June 3, 1991, November 19, 1991, November 29, 1993, December 21, 1994, April 27, 1995, March 14, 1997, July 14, 1998 and November 23, 1998, February 8, 1999, March 30, 2000, July 10, 2000, March 5, 2001, June 9, 2003, April 6, 2009, May 6, 2011, May 14, 2012, July 29, 2013, and October 28, 2014.
(b) The State of Oklahoma has primary responsibility for enforcing its hazardous waste management program. However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities in accordance with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934, 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions, as well as in accordance with other statutory and regulatory provisions.
(c) State Statutes and regulations:
(1) The Oklahoma statutes and regulations cited in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are incorporated by reference as part of the hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921
(i) The binder entitled “EPA-Approved Oklahoma Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program”, October, 2014. Only those provisions that have been authorized by EPA are incorporated by reference. These provisions are listed in Appendix A to Part 272.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) The following provisions provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, but they are not being incorporated by reference and do not replace Federal authorities:
(i) Oklahoma Environmental Crimes Act, as amended effective July 1, 2013, 21 Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.), Sections 1230.1
(ii) Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, as amended effective July 1, 2013, 25 Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.), Sections 301
(iii) Oklahoma Statutes, Title 27A, “Environment and Natural Resources”, as amended effective July 1, 2013: Chapter 1, “Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act”, Sections 1-1-101
(iv) Oklahoma Open Records Act, as amended effective July 1, 2013, 51 Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.), Sections 24A.1
(v) Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, as amended effective July 1, 2013, 75 Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.), Sections 250
(vi) The Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 252, Chapter 205, Hazardous Waste Management, effective July 1, 2013 (2011 Edition, as amended by the 2013 Supplement): Subchapter 1, Sections 252:205-1-1(b), 252:205-1-3(a) and (b), 252:205-1-4(a)-(d); Subchapter 3, Sections 252:205-3-2(a) introductory paragraph, 252:205-3-2(a)(1) and 252:205-3-2(a)(3); Subchapter 11, Section 252:205-11-3.
(3) The following statutory and regulatory provisions are broader in scope than the Federal program, are not part of the authorized program, and are not incorporated by reference:
(i) Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act, as amended, 27A Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.) as amended effective July 1, 2013, Sections 2-7-119, 2-7-120, 2-7-121, 2-7-121.1, and 2-7-134.
(ii) The Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 252, Chapter 205, effective July 1, 2013 (2011 Edition, as amended by the 2013 Supplement): Subchapter 1, Sections 252:205-1-1(c)(2) and (3), 252:205-1-2 “RRSIA”. 252:205-1-2 “Reuse”, 252:205-1-2 “Speculative accumulation”, 252:205-1-2 “Transfer facility”, 252:205-1-2 “Transfer station”, 252:205-1-4(e); Subchapter 5, Section 252:205-5-1(4), Subchapter 15; Subchapter 17; Subchapter 21; Subchapter 23; and 252:205 Appendices B, C and D.
(4)
(ii) The Federal rules listed in the table below are not delegable to States. Oklahoma has excluded the rules from its incorporation by reference of the Federal regulations. EPA retains its authority for the implementation and enforcement of these rules.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
The statutory provisions include:
Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act, as amended, 27A Oklahoma Statute (O.S.) 2011 Main Volume, Sections 2-7-103, 2-7-108(A), 2-7-108(B)(1), 2-7-108(B)(3), 2-7-108(C), 2-7-110(B), 2-7-110(C), 2-7-111(A), 2-7-111(B), 2-7-111(C)(1), 2-7-111(C)(2)(a), 2-7-111(D), 2-7-111(E), 2-7-112, 2-7-116(B) through 2-7-116(F), 2-7-116(H)(2), 2-7-118, 2-7-124, 2-7-125, 2-7-127, and 2-10-301(G), as published by West Publishing Company, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul, Minnesota 55164 0526; Phone: 1-800-328-4880; Web site:
The regulatory provisions include:
The Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 252, Chapter 205, effective July 1, 2013 (2011 Edition, as amended by the 2013 Supplement): Subchapter 1, Sections 252:205-1-1(a), 252:205-1-1(c) introductory paragraph, 252:205-1-1(c)(1), 252:205-1-2 introductory paragraph, 252:205-1-2 “OHWMA”, 252:205-1-2 “Post-closure permit”, 252:205-1-3(c); Subchapter 3, Sections 252:205-3-1 (2013 Supplement), 252:205-3-2(a)(2), 252:205-3-2(b)-(n), 252:205-3-4, 252:205-3-5 and 252:205-3-6; Subchapter 5, Sections 252:205-5-1 (except 252:205-5-1(4)), 252:205-5-2 through 252:205-5-5; Subchapter 7, Sections 252:205-7-2 and 252:205-7-4 (except the phrase “or in accordance with 252:205-15-1(d)); Subchapter 9, Sections 252:205-9-1 through 252:205-9-4; Subchapter 11, Sections 252:205-11-1(a) (except the word “recycling”), 252:205-11-1(b)-(e), and 252:205-11-2; and Subchapter 13, Sections 252:205-13-1(a)-(e), as published by the State's Office of Administrative Rules, Secretary of State, P.O. Box 53390, Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3390; Phone number: 405-521-4911; Web site:
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Final rule.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), authorizes the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide foreign assistance in the form of development and humanitarian assistance that reflect American ideals. To help emphasize USAID's intent and expectation of non-discrimination of beneficiaries in USAID-funded activities, USAID is issuing a final rule to amend its Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) to include a new clause entitled “Nondiscrimination against End-Users of Supplies or Services.” This clause expressly states that USAID-funded contractors must not discriminate among end-users of supplies or services (referred to in this rule as beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries) in any way that is contrary to the scope of the activity as defined in the statements of work (SOWs).
Todd Larson Telephone: 202-712-4969 or Email:
USAID published a proposed rule in the
USAID seeks to improve the lives of people around the world by being inclusive in its development and humanitarian assistance efforts. In so doing, USAID recognizes that every person is instrumental in the transformation of their own societies, with the end result that each and every person is recognized and equally valued without regard to artificial and discriminatory distinctions. The inclusion, protection, and empowerment of all persons is critical because drawing on the full contributions of the entire population leads to more effective, comprehensive, and sustainable development results.
Nondiscrimination is the basic foundation of USAID's inclusive development approach; as such, all USAID programs seek to ensure access for all potential beneficiaries within the scope of the contract without discrimination. Contractors must adhere to this by implementing the activities as outlined in the contract SOWs. Nondiscrimination is a critical foundation for protecting and promoting the human rights of all persons. In addition, nondiscrimination ensures equitable access to USAID programs. Effective nondiscrimination practices support USAID's principles of inclusion and equal access and help to ensure that USAID programs empower and effectively reach women and girls; marginalized ethnic and religious populations; indigenous peoples; internally displaced persons; persons with disabilities; youth and the elderly; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals; and other socially marginalized individuals and peoples unique to the country or regional context.
In recent years, the Government has made multiple pronouncements of policy in many areas reflecting its emphasis on equity, fairness, and human dignity—effective nondiscrimination is a means toward achieving all of these. For example, in 2011, the White House issued E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” to update all agencies on factors to consider when issuing rules; in addition to quantitative factors, it advised that the qualitative values of equity, fairness, and human dignity are important considerations. Additionally, a 2011 Presidential Memorandum, “International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons,” directs all agencies engaged abroad to advance nondiscrimination. This rule addressing discrimination in the provision of supplies or services is consistent with the values that animate the above.
This rulemaking revises (48 CFR) AIDAR to add a new clause at 752.7038 entitled “Nondiscrimination against End-Users of Supplies or Services.” The clause, applicable to all solicitations, contracts, and subcontracts at any tier, prohibits contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries (
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure adherence to the intent and authorities in the FAA, and other statutes related to humanitarian assistance and international development. The intent of the FAA is to help people, without regard to irrelevant and discriminatory distinctions among them. This intent is reflected in many places in the statute. The first words of the Act set out that it seeks to promote United States interests “by assisting peoples of the world.” Congress explained its intent thusly in FAA section 101: “[T]he Congress reaffirms the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renews its commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, illness, and ignorance.”
A survey of FAA provisions relevant to USAID awards reflects that they focus on development and humanitarian assistance needs and effectiveness toward meeting them. For example, FAA section 103, on agriculture, rural development, and nutrition, suggests assistance should focus on alleviating poverty. FAA section 104, on health-related assistance, suggests limited targeting of activities to the specialized health needs of children, infants, and mothers. FAA section 491, on international disaster assistance, contemplates “prompt United States assistance to alleviate human suffering” and emphasizes that the implementing agency “shall insure that the assistance provided by the United States shall, to the greatest extent possible, reach those most in need of relief and rehabilitation as a result of natural and manmade disaster.”
In some contexts, such as assistance for child survival, the foreign assistance authorities contemplate a focus on women and children, but that is a matter of programmatic need and effectiveness. USAID has identified no context where excluding individuals from assistance based on any of the types of discrimination proscribed by this clause, outside the scope of the award, would have a positive effect on implementing USAID's foreign assistance authorities.
The main effect of this clause is to ensure that USAID's policy and practice of non-discrimination in planning projects and activities is followed through to completion by the contractors that implement them. Its impact on contractors and offerors is to remind them to follow the terms and conditions of the contract, including the implementation of the SOW as designed, and to refrain from the types of discrimination described in the clause. In itself, the clause serves as a reminder to contractors and offerors of USAID's long-standing, pre-existing expectations based on USAID's programmatic and planning priorities and authorities.
The proposed rule was published for public comment pursuant to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 1707). In total, six public comments were received. All six comments were supportive in nature.
Five commenters recommended minor edits to the second sentence of subsection (a) of the rule to clarify that all of the listed categories are included among the factors, which if not expressly stated in the award, are precluded from being used as a basis for discrimination by the contractor. The second sentence of this final rule has accordingly been clarified in response to these comments to eliminate any potential ambiguity.
Four commenters suggested that the rule be modified to apply to USAID grantees and be included in USAID grant and cooperative agreement awards. One commenter also urged that the rule be clarified to apply to subcontracts and subgrants. These comments did not warrant any changes to the final rule. The AIDAR only applies to contracts. USAID will address assistance awards (
One commenter recommended the inclusion of language in the third sentence of the new clause to specify that targeted activities by the contractor toward the assistance needs of certain populations specified in the contract must serve a “legitimate programmatic purpose.” This change was not included in the final rule, as the programmatic purpose of USAID contracts is already considered as part of the contract SOWs. On its own initiative, USAID made a minor editorial revision to better clarify the regulation, replacing the article “a” with “the” in the third sentence of the clause to clearly refer to the contractor receiving a USAID funded contract.
Finally, USAID also received a comment outside the scope of this rule from one commenter urging the Agency to examine its reporting and verification procedures to ensure compliance with the rule, and urging the government-wide harmonization of nondiscrimination policies for beneficiaries of foreign assistance.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation. E.O. 13563 allows that in making this assessment, an agency “may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.” The estimated costs of this rulemaking do not exceed the threshold of economic significance (
This rule provides a benefit by promoting non-discrimination, which itself promotes programmatic efficiency, with very little additional administrative burden for the affected entities, USAID contractors. It does not ask them to carry out activities beyond those in their contract SOWs and terms and conditions; it does not ask them to alter the manner in which they conduct the work as set out in their contracts. In fact, it reminds them to stay within those instructions. The only potential cost the Agency could identify for contractors and subcontractors is for minimal training, to the extent that contractors do not already proscribe discrimination as part of the normal conduct of their business.
USAID awards approximately 1,300 contracts/task orders annually. As a practical matter for these current contracts, even absent this clause, if for example a contract specified the provision of food parcels in a certain community, the contractor could not, on its own, decide that only certain members of that community should receive the food parcels or that certain members should be excluded.
Including this clause in all new contracts and subcontracts going forward provides an explicit reminder of USAID's expectation that its contractors not discriminate against any protected group or individual, and is particularly important in countries where stigma and discrimination toward certain groups is tolerated or officially endorsed by the government. The benefits of the rule would be to
Contractors responding to a solicitation (
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. It requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities.
In fiscal year 2015, 330 small businesses received USAID funds. In fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 the 391, 384, 349, and 363 small businesses received USAID funds, respectively. The requirement this rule would impose on small businesses is no different than the requirement for other entities: Contracts or subcontracts awarded to them will include a provision reminding them not to discriminate. Beyond adding a brief reminder or discussion of this now explicit requirement to existing trainings on business ethics and conduct they provide to their staff, as already required by FAR 3.10, we do not estimate that this will impose a significant additional cost. As with all contractors, the employees of small businesses will be expected to be mindful of the principles of equity, fairness, and human dignity when performing the work under their contracts; as they have always been. The additional effort by small businesses (a matter of a few minutes of discussion) is so de minimis that we do not estimate that this will impose more than a negligible cost.
There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There is currently no other Federal rule addressing discrimination of recipients of supplies or services pursuant to a Federal Government contract. There were no significant alternatives identified that would meet the objective of the rule.
In light of the above analysis, the USAID Chief Acquisition Officer certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not include a reporting or information collection requirement. Therefore, USAID has determined that this rule does not impose any new or revised reporting or disclosure requirements that would be considered collections of information requiring Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Government procurement.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, USAID amends 48 CFR Chapter 7 as set forth below:
Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445 (22 U.S.C. 2381), as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435.
The following clause must be inserted in section I of all solicitations and resulting contracts.
(a) USAID policy requires that the contractor not discriminate against any end-user of the contract supplies or services (
(b) The Contractor must insert this clause, including this paragraph, in all subcontracts under this contract.
(End of clause)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad.
Submit comments by November 25, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Gregory Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6445 or email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0155 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0155 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design. Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:
(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;
(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or
(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.
(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications.
For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”
To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule (80 FR 12073; March 6, 2015), as corrected (80 FR 15679; March 25, 2015), that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1040.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking at fastener holes located at a certain frame on the lower shell panel junction. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of certain fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the lower shell panel junction; such cracking could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 9, 2016.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0136, dated June 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
During A330/A340 aeroplanes full scale fatigue test specimen in the FR40-to-fuselage skin panel junction, fatigue damage has been found. Corrective actions consisted of the following actions:
The aeroplanes listed in the Applicability section of this AD are all aeroplanes post-mod 44360 and pre-mod 55792 (fuselage reinforcement at FR40 in production).
Recently, during embodiment of a FR40 web repair on an A330 aeroplane and during FR40 keel beam fitting replacement on an A340 aeroplane, the internal strap was removed and rototest inspection was performed on several holes.
Cracks were found on both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides on internal strap, or butt strap, or keel beam fitting, or forward fitting FR40 flange.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive rototest inspections of 10 fastener holes located at FR40 lower shell panel junction on both LH and RH sides, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions [which include oversizing, installing
The compliance time ranges between 20,000 flight cycles or 65,400 flight hours and 20,800 flight cycles or 68,300 flight hours, depending on airplane utilization and configuration. The repetitive inspection interval ranges between 14,000 flight cycles or 95,200 flight hours and 24,600 flight cycles or 98,700 flight hours, depending on airplane configuration. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive rototest inspections of certain fastener holes, and corrective actions if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these repairs:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 9, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, having serial numbers 0176 through 0915 inclusive.
(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report of cracking at fastener holes located at frame (FR)40 on the lower shell panel junction. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction; such cracking could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the compliance times defined in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, and, thereafter, at intervals not to exceed the compliance times defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; as applicable, depending on airplane utilization and configuration: Accomplish a special detailed inspection of fastener holes located at FR40 lower shell panel junction on both left-hand (LH) and right-side (RH) sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; as applicable.
(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any crack is detected, before further flight, accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; as applicable, except where Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the hole diameter is not within tolerance of the transition fit as nominal, or first oversize, or second oversize, or next nominal, as applicable, and Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(3) Accomplishment of corrective actions, as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(4) Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane, as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, unless the method approved in accordance with the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA indicates otherwise.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, dated June 21, 2013; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, dated June 21, 2013; as applicable.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Technical Disposition (TD) Reference LR57D11023360, Issue B, dated July 12, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0136, dated June 13, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an uncommanded engine shutdown during flight due to failure of the propeller regulating valve caused by hot exhaust gases escaping from fractured engine exhaust pipes. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 9, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2016-0156, dated August 2, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Two cases were reported of uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) on DA 42 aeroplanes. Subsequent investigations identified these occurrences were due to failure of the propeller regulating valve, caused by hot exhaust gases coming from fractured engine exhaust pipes. The initiating cracks on the exhaust pipes were not detected during previous inspections, since those exhaust pipes are equipped with non-removable heat shields that do not allow inspection for certain sections of the exhaust pipe.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further cases of IFSD or overheat damage, possibly resulting in a forced landing, with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) developed an exhaust pipe without a directly attached integral heat shield that allows visual inspection over the entire exhaust pipe length. DAI issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 42-120 and relevant Working Instruction (WI) WI-MSB 42-120, providing instructions to install the modified exhaust pipes. As an interim measure, an additional bracket was designed to hold the exhaust pipe in place in case of a pipe fracture.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires replacement of the exhaust pipes with pipes having new design, and prohibits (re)installation of the previous design pipes.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016, and Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016. In combination, this service information describes procedures for replacing the exhaust
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 130 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take the following to comply with the requirements of this proposed AD:
It would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the installation of additional exhaust clamps required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $125 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators for the installation of additional exhaust clamps to be $27,300, or $210 per product.
It would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the exhaust pipe replacement required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,990 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators for the exhaust pipe replacement requirement to be $302,900, or $2,330 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by December 9, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH DA 42 airplanes, serial numbers 42.004 through 42.427 and 42.AC001 through 42.AC151, that have a TAE 125-02-99 or TAE 125-02-114 engine installed, are equipped with an exhaust pipe, DAI part number (P/N) D60-9078-06-01, or Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 02, 52-7810-H0001 03, or 52-7810-H0001 04, and are certificated in any category.
Airplanes equipped with an exhaust pipe, DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01, are not affected by this AD.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 78: Engine Exhaust.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an uncommanded engine shutdown during flight due to failure of the propeller regulating valve caused by hot exhaust gases escaping from fractured engine exhaust pipes. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller regulating valve, which could result in forced landing with consequent damage to the airplane.
Unless already done, do the following actions. For the purpose of this AD, if the flight hours accumulated since first installation of an affected exhaust pipe is not known, use the total hours time-in-service (TIS) accumulated on the airplane.
(1) At whichever of the following compliance times that occurs later, install additional exhaust pipe clamps following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016, as specified in the Accomplishments/Instructions paragraph of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016. The replacement required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD may be done in lieu of installing additional exhaust pipe clamps.
(i) Before or upon accumulating 1,300 hours TIS since the affected exhaust pipe was first installed on an airplane; or
(ii) Within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) At whichever of the following compliance times that occurs later, replace the exhaust pipes listed in paragraph (c) of this AD with an exhaust pipe DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01. Do the replacement following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016, as specified in the Accomplishments/Instructions paragraph of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016.
(i) Before or upon accumulating 2,800 hours TIS since the affected exhaust pipe was first installed on an airplane; or
(ii) Within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(3) After installing an exhaust pipe DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01, as required by this AD, do not install an exhaust pipe listed in paragraph (c) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0156, dated August 2, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E en route domestic airspace at Drummond Island Airport, Drummond Island, MI, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Drummond Island Airport.
Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2016.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20591: telephone 1 800 617-5527, or 1 202 366-9826. You must identify the docket number FAA-2016-5045/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5874.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace in the Drummond Island, MI area.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 17-mile radius of Drummond Island Airport, Drummond Island, MI, excluding Canadian airspace. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Minneapolis ARTCC by safely vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas.
Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 17-mile radius of Drummond Island Airport, excluding that airspace within Canada.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of proposed rulemaking, and notice of public hearing.
This document withdraws a proposed regulation relating to the user fee for the special enrollment examination to become an enrolled agent. This document also proposes a new regulation to increase the user fee for the examination to recover the cost to the IRS of overseeing the administration of the examination. The withdrawal and proposal affect individuals taking the enrolled agent special enrollment examination. This document also contains a notice of public hearing on the new proposed regulation.
Written or electronic comments must be received by December 27, 2016. Requests to speak and outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for December 29, 2016, must be received by December 27, 2016.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134122-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered between the
Concerning this proposed regulation, Jonathan R. Black, (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number); concerning cost methodology, Eva Williams, (202) 803-9728 (not a toll-free number).
Section 330 of title 31 of the United States Code authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to regulate the practice of representatives before the Treasury Department. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 330, the Secretary has published regulations governing practice before the IRS in 31 CFR part 10 and reprinted the regulations as Treasury Department Circular No. 230 (Circular 230).
Section 10.4(a) of Circular 230 authorizes the IRS to grant status as enrolled agents to individuals who demonstrate special competence in tax matters by passing a written examination (Enrolled Agent Special Enrollment Examination (EA-SEE)) administered by, or under the oversight of, the IRS and who have not engaged in any conduct that would justify suspension or disbarment under Circular 230. There were a total of 51,755 active enrolled agents as of September 1, 2016.
Starting in 2006, the IRS engaged the services of a third-party contractor to develop and administer the EA-SEE. The EA-SEE is composed of three parts, which are offered in a testing period that begins each May 1 and ends the last day of the following February. The EA-SEE is not available in March and April, during which period it is updated to reflect recent changes in the relevant law. More information on the EA-SEE, including content, scoring, and how to register, can be found on the IRS Web site at
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) authorizes each agency to promulgate regulations establishing the charge for services provided by the agency (user fees). The IOAA provides that these user fee regulations are subject to policies prescribed by the President and shall be as uniform as practicable. Those policies are currently set forth in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 (OMB Circular), 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993).
The IOAA states that the services provided by an agency should be self-sustaining to the extent possible. 31 U.S.C. 9701(a). The OMB Circular states that agencies that provide services that confer special benefits on identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public are to establish user fees that recover the full cost of providing those services. The OMB Circular requires that agencies identify all services that confer special benefits and determine whether user fees should be assessed for those services.
Agencies are to review user fees biennially and update them as necessary to reflect changes in the cost of providing the underlying services. During this biennial review, an agency must calculate the full cost of providing each service, taking into account all direct and indirect costs to any part of the U.S. government. The full cost of providing a service includes, but is not limited to, salaries, retirement benefits, rents, utilities, travel, and management costs, as well as an appropriate allocation of overhead and other support costs associated with providing the service.
An agency should set the user fee at an amount that recovers the full cost of providing the service unless the agency requests, and the OMB grants, an exception to the full-cost requirement. The OMB may grant exceptions only where the cost of collecting the fees would represent an unduly large part of the fee for the activity, or where any other condition exists that, in the opinion of the agency head, justifies an exception. When the OMB grants an exception, the agency does not collect the full cost of providing the service and therefore must fund the remaining cost of providing the service from other available funding sources. When the OMB grants an exception, the agency subsidizes the cost of the service to the recipients of reduced-fee services even though the service confers a special benefit on those recipients who should otherwise be required to pay the full costs of receiving that benefit as provided for by the IOAA and the OMB Circular.
As discussed above, Circular 230 § 10.4(a) provides that the IRS will grant enrolled agent status to an applicant if the applicant, among other things, demonstrates special competence in tax matters by written examination. The EA-SEE is the written examination that tests special competence in tax matters for purposes of that provision, and an applicant must pass all parts of the EA-SEE to be granted enrolled agent status through written examination. The IRS confers a benefit on individuals who take the EA-SEE beyond those that accrue to the general public by providing them with an opportunity to demonstrate special competence in tax matters by passing a written examination and therefore satisfying one of the requirements for becoming an enrolled agent under Circular 230 § 10.4(a). Because the opportunity to take the EA-SEE is a special benefit, the IRS charges a user fee to take the examination.
Pursuant to the guidelines in the OMB Circular, the IRS has calculated its cost of providing examination services under the enrolled agent program. The proposed user fee will be implemented under the authority of the IOAA and the OMB Circular and will recover the full cost of overseeing the program. The current user fee is $11 to take each part of the EA-SEE. The contractor who administers the EA-SEE also charges individuals taking the EA-SEE an additional fee for its services. For the May 2016 to February 2017 testing period, the contractor's fee is $98 for each part of the EA-SEE. For the March 2017 to February 2019 testing periods, the contractor's fee will be $100.94. For the March 2019 to February 2020 testing period, the contractor's fee will be $103.97. The fee charged by the contractor is fixed by the current contract terms and therefore may not be reduced or renegotiated at this time. The contract will expire on February 29, 2020. The contract was subject to public procurement procedures, and there were no tenders that were more competitive.
The IRS has not increased the EA-SEE user fee since 2006, when it published the existing user fee regulation. Since that time, the costs incurred by the IRS to implement the EA-SEE program have increased. The IRS has recently gathered sufficient data to reliably estimate the IRS's current costs in implementing the EA-SEE
The increased costs require an increase in the EA-SEE user fee. The increased costs are primarily attributable to the following: (1) The cost for background checks required under Publication 4812, “Contractor Security Controls,” for individuals working at the contractor's testing centers increased by $289,000 per year; (2) the IRS estimates that the contractor will administer 12,000 fewer parts of the EA-SEE per year than the estimated 34,000 used to calculate the $11 fee, and the total costs are therefore being recovered from fewer individuals; and (3) the IRS's costs of verifying the contractor's compliance with the information technology security requirements necessary to protect the personally identifiable information of individuals taking the EA-SEE have increased, because Publication 4812 has strengthened those requirements.
In addition, the scope of the work performed to oversee the contract has expanded beyond what it was in 2006. The proposed fee more accurately accounts for the time and personnel necessary to oversee the development and administration of the EA-SEE and to ensure the contractor complies with the terms of its contract. The IRS's costs for oversight now include costs associated with: (1) Review and approval of materials used by the contractor in developing the EA-SEE; (2) review of surveys of existing enrolled agents, which help to determine the topics to be covered in the EA-SEE; (3) composition of potential EA-SEE questions in coordination with the contractor's external tax law experts; (4) Office of Chief Counsel review and revision of the potential questions for legal accuracy; and (5) analysis of the answers and raw scores of a testing population to determine what should be a passing score.
Further, the IRS's personnel ensure the contractor's compliance with its contract by reviewing the work of the contractor using an annual Work Breakdown Structure—a project management tool—and reviewing and verifying that the contractor is in compliance with its Quality Assurance Plan regarding customer satisfaction and accuracy. The IRS incurs additional costs associated with resolution of test-related issues such as cheating incidents, appeals regarding scores, refund requests, and customer service complaints that are not resolved at the contractor level.
Taking into account the full amount of these costs, the user fee for the EA-SEE is proposed to be increased to $81 per part as of the testing period that begins on May 1, 2017. The IRS does not intend to subsidize any of the cost of making the EA-SEE available to examinees, and is not applying for an exception to the full-cost requirement from the OMB.
On January 26, 2016, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-134122-15) proposing an increase to the EA-SEE user fee was published in the
User fee calculations begin by first determining the full cost for the service. The IRS follows the guidance provided by the OMB Circular to compute the full cost of the service, which includes all indirect and direct costs to any part of the U.S. government, including, but not limited to, direct and indirect personnel costs, physical overhead, rents, utilities, travel, and management costs. The IRS's cost methodology is described below.
Once the total amount of direct and indirect costs associated with a service is determined, the IRS follows the guidance in the OMB Circular to determine the costs associated with providing the service to each recipient, which represents the average per unit cost of that service. This average per unit cost is the amount of the user fee that will recover the full cost of the service.
The IRS follows generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), as established by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) in calculating the full cost of providing services. The FASAB Handbook of Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as amended, which is available at
The IRS determines the cost of its services and the activities involved in producing them through a cost accounting system that tracks costs to organizational units. The lowest organizational unit in the IRS's cost accounting system is called a cost center. Cost centers are usually separate offices that are distinguished by subject-matter area of responsibility or geographic region. All costs of operating a cost center are recorded in the IRS's cost accounting system and allocated to that cost center. The costs allocated to a cost center are the direct costs for the cost center's activities as well as all indirect costs, including overhead, associated with that cost center. Each cost is recorded in only one cost center.
To establish the per-unit cost, the total cost of providing the service is divided by the volume of services provided. The volume of services provided includes both services for which a fee is charged as well as subsidized services. The subsidized services are those where the OMB has approved an exception to the full cost requirement, for example, to charge a reduced fee to low-income taxpayers. The volume of subsidized services is included in the total volume of services provided to ensure that the IRS, and not those who are paying full cost, subsidizes the cost of the reduced-full cost services.
Not all cost centers are fully devoted to only one service for which the IRS charges a user fee. Some cost centers work on a number of different services. In these cases, the IRS estimates the cost incurred in those cost centers attributable to the service for which a user fee is being calculated by measuring the time required to accomplish activities related to the service and estimating the average time required to accomplish these activities. The average time required to accomplish these activities is multiplied by the relevant organizational unit's average labor and benefits costs per unit of time to determine the labor and benefits costs incurred to provide the service. To determine the full cost, the IRS then adds an appropriate overhead charge as discussed below.
Overhead is an indirect cost of operating an organization that cannot be immediately associated with an activity that the organization performs.
These costs can include:
• General management and administrative services of sustaining and supporting organizations
• Facilities management and ground maintenance services (security, rent, utilities, and building maintenance)
• Procurement and contracting services
• Financial management and accounting services
• Information technology services
• Services to acquire and operate property, plants and equipment
• Publication, reproduction, and graphics and video services
• Research, analytical, and statistical services
• Human resources/personnel services
• Library and legal services
To calculate the overhead allocable to a service, the IRS first calculates the Corporate Overhead rate and then multiplies the Corporate Overhead rate by the direct labor and benefits costs determined as discussed above. The IRS calculates the Corporate Overhead rate annually based on cost elements underlying the Statement of Net Cost included in the IRS Annual Financial Statements, which are audited by the Government Accountability Office. The Corporate Overhead rate is the ratio of the sum of the IRS's indirect labor and benefits costs from the supporting and sustaining organizational units—those that do not interact directly with taxpayers—and all non-labor costs to the IRS's labor and benefits costs of its organizational units that interact directly with taxpayers.
The Corporate Overhead rate of 65.85 percent for costs reviewed during FY 2015 was calculated based on FY 2014 costs as follows:
The RPO is the only organization involved in overseeing the administration of the EA-SEE. The cost centers within the RPO support multiple programs and are not solely dedicated to the EA-SEE. The RPO, however, has a staff of only ten people who devote time to oversee the administration of the EA-SEE program. Because there are only a few individuals who directly handle oversight of the EA-SEE, the IRS projected the estimated costs of direct labor and benefits based on the actual labor and benefits of these specific individuals reduced to reflect the percentage of time each individual spends overseeing the EA-SEE program. The RPO's managers are able to estimate the percentage of time these employees devote to overseeing the EA-SEE program based on their knowledge of actual program assignments. Of the ten people, eight devote seventy-five percent or more of their time to EA-SEE-related activities, and two devote approximately ten percent of their time to EA-SEE-related activities.
The baseline for the labor and benefits estimate was the actual labor and benefits for the ten personnel for Fiscal Year 2015. From this baseline, the IRS estimated the direct labor and benefits costs over the next three years using an inflation factor for Fiscal Years 2016, 2017, and 2018. The IRS used a three year projection because the increase in future labor and benefits costs are reliably predictable representations of the actual costs that will be incurred by the RPO. These estimated direct labor and benefits costs were then reduced by the percentage of time each of the ten individuals devoted to the EA-SEE program and are set out in the following table:
The total estimated direct labor and benefits costs for the three years is $2,763,997. After estimating the direct total labor and benefits, the IRS applied the Fiscal Year 2015 Corporate Overhead rate of 65.85 percent to the estimated direct labor and benefits to calculate indirect costs of $1,820,092, for a total labor and benefits costs for the three year period of $4,584,089.
The EA-SEE program incurs a cost for required background investigations performed on the employees of the contractor that administers the EA-SEE. The background investigations are not performed by the RPO, so the cost of the background investigations is not included in the direct labor and benefits costs calculated above for the ten RPO employees. The contractor administers the EA-SEE at approximately 260 domestic locations, and each employee at these locations must undergo a background investigation in order to administer the EA-SEE. The contractor's employees are typically short-term or seasonal workers, so the IRS must perform background investigations on new employees on a continuing basis. Where permissible, the IRS will piggyback on previously completed background investigations. Typically, the IRS may rely on another government agency's background investigation for up to two years from the date the prior investigation was completed. However, investigations performed by other organizations for the contractor's employees generally cannot supplant the need for the IRS to perform its own investigations because the IRS's background investigations include, among other elements, federal tax compliance checks, which are not necessarily part of investigations performed by other organizations. The EA-SEE is the only exam that the contractor administers on behalf of the IRS, so the contractor's new hires typically have not undergone a background investigation performed by the IRS prior to being hired.
The IRS estimated the cost for background investigations using historical costs from the years 2012 through 2014. The IRS cannot forecast the future costs of background investigations with the same certainty as it can forecast labor and benefits, and it therefore used a historical three year average to estimate the background investigation costs. The IRS did not include the historical background investigation cost from 2015 in the historical average because 2014 was the most recent year for which information was available at the time the IRS initiated this project to update the user fee.
The cost for background investigations for the contractor was an average of $289,000 per year for the years 2012 through 2014, calculated as follows: The costs of all background investigations incurred on behalf of the RPO were $294,000, $259,000, and $409,000 in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively, for a $321,000 yearly average. Ninety percent of these background investigations were for the contractor who administers the EA-SEE. The other ten percent of these background investigations did not relate to the EA-SEE, so the IRS multiplied the $321,000 yearly average cost of background investigations by the ninety percent allocable to the contractor. The resulting average annual cost for EA-SEE background investigations for each
The calculation of the total cost of the EA-SEE program for 2016 through 2018 is below:
The number of examinations provided during Fiscal Years 2012, 2013, and 2014 were 23,985, 23,110, and 20,180, respectively. As with the cost of background investigations, the number of examinations administered in 2015 was not available at the time this project was initiated, and the IRS therefore did not include it in the calculation. The total number of examinations for the three years was 67,275. The IRS used this historical three-year volume to estimate the number of examinations it expects to provide in 2016, 2017, and 2018.
The IRS divided the three year total EA-SEE program costs by the total volume of examinations expected over the same three year period to determine a unit cost per examination of $81.
Certain Treasury regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the information that follows. The user fee primarily affects individuals who take the enrolled agent examination, many of whom may not be classified as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, a substantial number of small entities is not likely to be affected. Further, the economic impact on any small entities affected would be limited to paying the $70 difference in cost per part between the proposed $81 user fee and the existing $11 user fee, which is unlikely to present a significant economic impact. Moreover, the total economic impact of this proposed regulation would be approximately $1.57 million, which is the product of the approximately 22,425 parts of the EA-SEE administered annually and the $70 increase in the fee. Accordingly, the proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before this proposed regulation is adopted as a final regulation, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in the preamble under the
A public hearing has been scheduled for December 29, 2016, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. All visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by December 27, 2016. A period of 10 minutes will be allocated to each person for making comments.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
The principal author of this regulation is Jonathan R. Black of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees.
Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-134122-15) that was published in the
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:
31 U.S.C. 9701.
(b)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to codify in the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs”, Oklahoma's authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will enforce under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Send written comments by November 25, 2016.
Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2014-0791, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, Permit Section (RPM), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Phone number: (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178, and Email address:
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
This document incorporates by reference Oklahoma's hazardous waste statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the authorized and federally enforceable program. By codifying Oklahoma's authorized program and by amending the Code of Federal Regulations, the public will be more easily able to discern the status of federally approved requirements of the Oklahoma hazardous waste management program.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to adopt rules that prohibit certain practices some multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) use in their negotiations for carriage of video programming that may impede competition, diversity, and innovation in the video marketplace. Specifically, the document proposes to prohibit the inclusion of “unconditional” most favored nation (MFN) provisions and unreasonable alternative distribution method (ADM) provisions in program carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors.
Comments are due on or before December 27, 2016; reply comments are due on or before January 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 16-41, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy or Calisha Myers of the Policy Division, Media Bureau at
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-129, adopted and released on September 29, 2016. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at
1. We propose to adopt rules that prohibit the inclusion of unconditional most favored nation and unreasonable alternative distribution method provisions in carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors.
2.
3. For example, as suggested by ITTA, should we define an independent video programming vendor as a video programming vendor that is not affiliated with a broadcast network, movie studio or MVPD? Alternatively, or in combination with this approach, should we define an independent video programming vendor based on whether such vendor earns less than a threshold amount of annual gross revenue? If we were to define an independent programmer based on its annual gross revenue, what is the appropriate revenue threshold? Should we consider adopting a revenue threshold that is based solely on programming license fees and/or advertising revenue? Or are there other sources of revenue that we should consider? An alternative to using a threshold based on revenue is to define an independent programmer based on a programmer's total assets or a combination of revenue and total assets.
4.
5. In proposing this rule, we acknowledge that MFN provisions, which have long been common in the industry, may have legitimate public interest justifications, such as facilitating efficient negotiations by enabling well-informed positions, encouraging investment in programming by enabling MVPDs to adjust contract terms after an initial agreement is executed, and broadening MVPD subscribers' access to video content by allowing MVPDs to secure additional rights to programming. However, we are not persuaded based on the record that such justifications exist for MFN provisions that are unconditional and thus permit “cherry picking” of the best contract terms. Because, as noted above, unconditional MFN provisions entitle an MVPD to the most favorable terms granted to other distributors without obligating the MVPD to provide the same or equivalent consideration in exchange for those terms, such provisions appear designed to discourage or foreclose the wider distribution of video content, including on online platforms.
6. The record reflects, moreover, that this category of MFN provisions can apply upward pressure on both wholesale and retail prices for program content by reducing a programmer's incentive to cut its carriage rates to any one distributor out of fear that doing so would require it to reduce the rates charged to distributors with unconditional MFN status without receiving any reciprocal benefits. As a consequence, unconditional MFN provisions effectively limit the flexibility of content providers to enter into unique deals with new and emerging distributors, thereby impeding entry into program production and distribution marketplaces and reducing consumer choice.
7. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on whether the purposes of Section 616 and the public interest would be served by adopting the proposed rule. In addition, we seek comment on our proposed definition of unconditional MFN provision and on any alternative definitions. Should we be concerned that the proposed definition is too narrow and thus would permit MVPDs to draft contract language that avoids application of the prohibition? If so, how should we address such concerns? Should any rules we adopt address MFN provisions that are partially unconditional or effectively discourage or foreclose wider distribution of content? We also seek input on our proposal to ban unconditional MFN provisions that entitle an MVPD to contractual rights that an independent programmer has negotiated with any other video programming distributor. Should we be uniquely concerned about the use of unconditional MFN provisions to harm competition from nascent OVDs? Accordingly, should we prohibit only unconditional MFN provisions that apply to terms an independent
8. We also seek comment on which, if any, of the Commission's program carriage rules would need to be amended if we adopted the proposed rule.
9.
10. We tentatively conclude that in determining whether a particular ADM provision is “unreasonable,” we will consider, among other factors, the extent to which an ADM provision prohibits an independent programmer from licensing content to other distributors, including OVDs. Although the issue of whether a particular ADM clause is “unreasonable” would be fact-specific and determined in the context of a complaint proceeding brought under Section 616 of the Act under our proposal,
11. We believe that our proposed rule, which proscribes only “unreasonable” ADM provisions, would ensure that MVPDs cannot use ADM provisions to harm the development of nascent competition, while preserving independent programmers' and distributors' respective incentives to develop quality program content and invest in independent and diverse programming sources. Or would prohibiting such ADM provisions make it less likely that MVPDs would agree to carry independent programmers or would seek to enter into exclusive programming agreements with them that would limit rather than expand their carriage opportunities? We seek comment on our tentative conclusions and proposed framework for determining whether an ADM clause is unreasonable. How should we define an “extended time period” for the purpose
12. In addition, we tentatively conclude that an ADM provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from distributing programming, for which the MVPD has agreed to pay, to consumers for free over the Internet for a limited period after the programming's initial airing on a linear MVPD service should be deemed presumptively reasonable. Establishing such a presumption would be consistent with conditions imposed in the Comcast-NBCU and Charter-TWC merger proceedings that permit the respective combined entities to prevent a programmer from making its content available on the Internet for free for 30 days after its initial airing, if such entities paid a fee for that content.
13. We also seek input on the type of evidence that would be needed to rebut a positive presumption. What type of showing should be sufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonableness? As an alternative to establishing rules based on presumptions, should we adopt a bright line rule that defines and expressly prohibits certain types of ADM provisions?
14. We also tentatively conclude that an ADM provision that grants an MVPD the universally exclusive right to distribute an independent video programming vendor's content should be deemed presumptively reasonable. We recognize that this type of blanket exclusivity long has been common in the video programming industry and does not appear to raise the same competitive concerns as ADMs targeted at OVDs.
15. We also seek comment on whether adoption of a rule prohibiting unreasonable ADM provisions and our proposed framework for the rule would warrant any rule revisions besides those set forth herein. In particular, which, if any, of the Commission's program carriage rules would need to be amended if we adopted the proposed rule? What remedies and penalties should we impose on an MVPD that violates the proposed prohibition on unreasonable ADM provisions?
16. To what extent, if at all, would the costs associated with pursuing a program carriage complaint affect the ability of independent programmers to obtain relief? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of the proposals above and any others that commenters assert would better serve the public interest. To the extent possible, commenters should quantify any identified costs and benefits. We also seek comment on whether there are any circumstances in which the kinds of ADM provisions we propose to prohibit are beneficial to competition or programming diversity. If so, are the potential public interest benefits of allowing such provisions outweighed by the benefits of a prohibition?
17. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other kinds of ADM provisions that we should deem to be presumptively reasonable or presumptively unreasonable. We also invite comment on what circumstances could justify waiver of a rule prohibiting the use of unreasonable ADM provisions in agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors. In light of the potential detrimental impact that unreasonable ADM provisions have on competition, diversity, and innovation in the marketplace, what, if any, situations would constitute “good cause” for permitting an MVPD to include in a carriage contract an ADM provision that otherwise would be precluded under our proposed rules?
18.
19. We also seek comment on what, if any, additional rules we should consider to advance competition, diversity, and innovation in the marketplace. In particular, are there other specific actions we can take to provide greater opportunities for distribution of programming from new video programming vendors, including minorities and women, or programming directed at minority, underserved, or female viewers? Are there any actions we can take to protect consumers from programming disruptions resulting from an MVPD's decision to drop an independent video programmer from its lineup? For example, would the public interest be served, as RFD-TV suggests, by adopting a rule that permits MVPD subscribers to cancel, without penalty, a subscription television package within a specified time period,
20.
21. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the Commission's grant of authority under Section 616(a) to adopt rules “governing program carriage agreements and related practices between [MVPDs] and video programming vendors” is sufficiently broad to enable us to prohibit the use of unconditional MFN or unreasonable ADM provisions. As noted above, the rules we propose will apply to agreements between MVPDs and “independent video programming vendors,” which are encompassed within the term “video programming vendor.”
22. Some commenters argue that Section 616 is only a limited grant of authority to the Commission. For example, AT&T contends that the Commission has authority under Section 616 only to address conduct that violates one of three proscriptions set forth in the subsections of Section 616(a). Consistent with our previous determination that “[Section 616] does not preclude the Commission from adopting additional requirements beyond the six listed in the statute,” we are not persuaded that Congress intended to limit the Commission's regulatory authority to only those practices specifically listed in Section 616(a).
23. Although the first sentence of Section 616(a) directs the Commission to adopt implementing rules “[w]ithin one year after October 5, 1992,”
24. We also believe that our proposed rules are consistent with the overall structure and intent of Section 616(a). Although Sections 616(a)(1) and 616(a)(2) prohibit an MVPD from “requiring” or “coercing” programmers to accept certain terms as a condition of carriage on its systems,
25. We seek comment on whether other provisions of the Act provide an alternative or an additional basis for the adoption of rules addressing restrictive MFN and ADM provisions. For example, does Section 616(a)(3) of the Act provide a basis for proscribing restrictive MFN and ADM provisions? Section 616(a)(3) directs the Commission to adopt rules “designed to prevent [an MVPD] from engaging in conduct the effect of which is to unreasonably restrain the ability of an unaffiliated video programming vendor to compete fairly by discriminating in video programming distribution on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation of vendors in the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage of video programming provided by such vendors.”
26. We also seek input on whether any provisions of Section 628 serve as a valid basis for establishing rules to address restrictive MFN and ADM provisions. Consistent with the goal of our proposed rules, we note that the purpose of Section 628 is to “increase[e] competition and diversity in the [MVPD] market . . . and to spur the development of communications technologies.”
27. This document does not contain proposed new or revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
28.
29.
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
30.
31.
32. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy or Calisha Myers of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, at
33. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
34. In the NPRM, we propose to adopt rules that prohibit certain practices used by some multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) in their negotiations for carriage of video programming that impede competition, diversity and innovation in the video marketplace. Specifically, we propose to prohibit the inclusion of:
35. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 157, 257, 303(r), 616 and 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157, 257, 303(r), 536, and 548.
36. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
37.
38.
39.
• Unconditional MFN provisions; and
• unreasonable ADM provisions.
40. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (iii) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (iv) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
41. Although the rules proposed in the NPRM would apply to all MVPDs, including those that are small, we do not believe such rules would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small MVPDs. The record indicates that small MVPDs do not appear to obtain the kinds of contractual restrictions the proposed rules would proscribe. In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on what circumstances could justify waiver of the proposed rules. We note further that to the extent small MVPDs are aggrieved by contractual restrictions imposed by larger MVPDs, small MVPDs would have standing to seek relief by filing a program carriage complaint under our existing rules.
42. With regard to the impact on other small video programming distributors (such as online video distributors), and small video programming vendors (including independent content creators), based on the record, such small entities generally would benefit from Commission action addressing unconditional MFN and unreasonable ADM provisions. Because such entities likely would support the rules proposed in the NPRM, we find that no further analysis of alternatives on their behalf is necessary.
43. None.
44. We adopt this NPRM pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 157, 257, 303(r), 616 and 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 257, 303(r), 536 and 548.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572 and 573.
(b)
(f)
(d)
(e)
(1) The following alternative distribution method provisions shall be deemed to be presumptively unreasonable:
(i) A provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from licensing content, for an extended time period or indefinitely, to an online video distributor that distributes content for free to consumers;
(ii) A provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from licensing content, for any period of time, to an online video distributor that distributes content to paying subscribers;
(iii) A provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from licensing content to an online video distributor unless or until such distributor meets conditions that are difficult to satisfy in a timely manner or are designed to undermine such distributor's ability to compete; or
(iv) A provision that imposes any pecuniary or non-pecuniary penalty or adverse impact on an independent video programming vendor for the provision of its video programming to an online video distributor.
(2) The following alternative distribution method provisions shall be deemed to be presumptively reasonable:
(i) A provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from distributing programming, for which the multichannel video programming distributor has agreed to pay, to consumers for free over the Internet for a limited period after the programming's initial linear airing; and
(ii) A provision that grants a multichannel video programming distributor the universally exclusive right to distribute an independent video programming vendor's content.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by November 25, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725-17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has conducted a new shipper review (“NSR”) of Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (“Huameng”) regarding the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we continue to find Huameng's sale is not
Effective October 25, 2016.
Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3964.
On May 25, 2016, the Department published the preliminary results of this new shipper review.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The merchandise covered by this order is all grades of garlic, whether whole or separated into constituent cloves. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, and 2005.99.9700. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
As explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and in the proprietary Huameng
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that are raised in the briefs and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is in the Appendix of this notice.
Effective upon publication of the final rescission of the NSR of Huameng, the Department will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise by Huameng. Cash deposits will be required for exports of subject merchandise by Huameng entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, at the PRC-wide rate.
As the result of this rescission of the NSR of Huameng, the entries of Huameng covered by this NSR will be assessed at the cash deposit rate required at the time of entry, which is the PRC-wide rate.
This notice serves as final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary of Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of business proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). We request timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
Climate Program Office (CPO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of open meeting.
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Program Office will hold an organizational meeting on October 27, 2016, to reconstitute the Executive Council.
The meeting will be held Thursday, October 27, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. EST to 3:00 p.m. EST. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change.
The meeting will be held at the Hall of States, Room 383/385, 444 North Capitol St. NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Veva Deheza, NIDIS Executive Director, David Skaggs Research Center, Room GD102, 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305. Email:
The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) was established by Public Law 109-430 on December 20, 2006, and reauthorized by Public Law 113-86 on March 6, 2014, with a mandate to provide an effective drought early warning system for the United States; coordinate, and integrate as practicable, Federal research in support of a drought early warning system; and build upon existing forecasting and assessment programs and partnerships.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 27, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Daniel Luers, Greater Atlantic Region, Sustainable Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 282-8457, or
This request is for extension of a current information collection. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect information from users of the resources.
This collection requires vessel trip reports (VTRs) to be submitted weekly for all mackerel, squid, and butterfish permit holders. In addition, all limited access mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders must maintain a VMS unit on their vessels and declare intent to target Atlantic mackerel or longfin squid and submit daily catch reports via VMS. They must also submit daily catch reports via VMS. Vessels that land over 20,000 lb of mackerel must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) via VMS of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hours prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on their return trip to port, or if the vessel does not fish seaward of the VMS demarcation line, at least 6 hours prior to landing.
This collection also requires limited access mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders to bring all catch aboard the vessel and make it available for sampling by an observer. If catch is not made available to an observer before discard, that catch is defined as slippage, and the vessel operator must complete a “Released Catch Affidavit” form within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip which details why catch was slipped, estimates the quantity and species composition of the slipped catch, and records the time and location of the slipped catch.
Finally, this collection requires any vessel with a limited access mackerel permit intending to land over 20,000 lbs of mackerel to contact NMFS at least 48 hours in advance of a fishing trip to request an observer. Vessels currently contact NMFS via phone, and selection notices or waivers are issued by NMFS via VMS. If service providers are unable to provide coverage, an owner, operator, or vessel manager may request a waiver by calling the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program.
Information is submitted on paper, electronically or by telephone.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that James Harvey, Ph.D., Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, California 95039, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on blue (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before November 25, 2016.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Shasta McClenahan or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant is requesting a five-year permit to conduct research on large whales and dolphins in California waters. The primary objectives of this research project are to: (1) Relate distribution and abundance of cetaceans with environmental factors, (2) determine diet and foraging behaviors as they exploit prey resources, (3) determine types of acoustic behavior of marine mammals and how acoustic signals are affected by anthropogenic factors, and (4) determine the movements of individuals or pods during migrations or within their home range. Research activities for large whales will include passive acoustics, behavioral observations, photography, video recording, biopsy sampling, collection of sloughed skin, attachment of suction cup or dart/barb tags, and tracking during vessel surveys. Research for Risso's dolphins will include passive acoustics, behavioral observations, and photo-identification. The number of species to be taken annually via tagging/biopsy/photo-identification are: 50/100/150 blue whales, 40/90/140 fin whales, 50/100/150 humpback whales, 160/210/260 gray whales, and 0/0/2,000 Risso's dolphins. Up to five sperm whales may be incidentally harassed and opportunistically photographed, annually. Up to 200 California sea lions (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; withdrawal of application.
Notice is hereby given that Heather E. Liwanag, Ph.D. (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401) has withdrawn an application for a permit to conduct research on Weddell seals (
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Sara Young or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.
On August 3, 2016, notice was published in the
The applicant has withdrawn the application from further consideration.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 27, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Daniel Luers, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 282-8457,
This request is for extension of a current information collection. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect information from users of the resources.
Data collection for Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan requires renewal of Category E permits for limited access herring permit holders. This collection also requires herring carrier vessels that sell herring (rather than deliver those fish on behalf of a dealer for purchase) to obtain or maintain an At-Sea Atlantic Herring Dealer Permit. Vessels that have both an At-Sea Atlantic Herring Dealer Permit and a Federal fishing permit are required to fulfill the reporting requirements of both permits as appropriate.
This collection has several vessel monitoring system (VMS) and vessel trip reporting (VTR) components. Category E vessels must submit daily VMS reports, weekly VTRs, and maintain a VMS unit on their vessels and declare intent to target Atlantic herring via VMS. This collection allows a vessel that opts to enroll as a herring carrier to do so via VMS rather than obtaining a letter of authorization (LOA). By declaring a herring trip via VMS, a vessel is exempt from daily VMS catch reporting, and is not bound by the 7-day enrollment period required by the herring carrier LOA. Vessels with limited access herring permits, Category E permits, and vessels declaring herring carrier trips via VMS also must give a pre-landing notification to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement via VMS. In addition, vessels are prohibited from turning off VMS units while in port. A vessel representative must request a letter of exemption (LOE) from NMFS to turn off its VMS if that vessel will be out of the water for more than 72 hours. A vessel owner is able to sign a herring vessel out of the VMS program for a minimum of 30 days by requesting and obtaining an LOE from NMFS. A vessel is not able to leave the dock unless the VMS unit is turned back on.
This collection also requires that vessels with limited access herring permits, vessels with open access Category D permits that are fishing with midwater trawl gear in Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, vessels with open access category E permits, and herring carrier vessels contact NMFS at least 48 hours in advance of fishing to request an observer. Vessels currently contact NMFS via phone, and selection notices or waivers are issued by NMFS via VMS. Vessels with limited access herring permits, Category E permits, and vessels declaring herring carrier trips via VMS must notify NMFS via VMS of their intent to participate in the herring fishery prior to leaving port on each trip by entering the appropriate activity and gear codes in order to harvest, possess, or land herring on that trip.
Additionally, this collection requires vessels issued limited access permits working cooperatively in the herring fishery to provide NMFS-approved observers with the estimated weight of each species brought on board or released on each tow.
Finally, this collection requires that all herring vessels (
Information is collection on paper forms, by telephone, or electronically.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Request for comments.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is soliciting public feedback as part of an effort to reevaluate its examination time goals. Examination time goals vary by technology and represent the average amount of time that a patent examiner is expected to spend examining a patent application in a particular technology. The Office plans to use the public feedback as an input to help ensure that the Office's examination time goals accurately reflect the amount of time needed by examiners to conduct quality examination in a manner that responds to stakeholders' interests. In addition to accepting public feedback through the submission of written comments, the Office will provide the following avenues for increased interactive participation: IdeaScale®, a Web-based collaboration tool that allows users to post comments and interact with the posted comments of others; and five roundtables that the Office will be conducting in: Alexandria, Virginia; Detroit, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and San Jose, California.
Written comments should be sent by electronic mail addressed to
Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to receive comments by electronic mail in order to facilitate posting on the USPTO's Internet Web site (
The comments will be available for viewing via the USPTO's Internet Web site (
The Office has a staff of approximately 8,400 patent examiners who examine patent applications in hundreds of technology areas. Each technology area is assigned an examination time goal. The goals are used by the Office for a variety of purposes, including forecasting pendency and staffing needs and evaluating individual examiner performance. The goals originally were assigned over 40 years ago and have been adjusted twice.
Since the examination time goals were originally assigned, significant changes to the examination process have occurred, including increased use of electronic tools, changes in law due to court decisions, a growing volume of prior art, and progress in technology, which results in increasingly complex subject matter in applications. In addition, the Office recently transitioned from the United States Patent Classification (USPC) system to the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. Because the current examination time goals were assigned based on the USPC system, implementation of the CPC system has caused the Office to reconsider and reassess the assignments of examination time goals. Furthermore, the Office is (i) implementing the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiatives in order to provide a higher quality examination to our stakeholders and (ii) assessing the relationship between examination time and value-added examination activities, such as best practices for enhancing the clarity of the record with respect to claim interpretation, interview summaries, and reasons for allowance. All of these factors warrant a reevaluation of the Office's examination time goals.
To help inform public comments responsive to this request for comments (RFC), the Office has prepared background material illustrating the use of examination time goals in the context
The Office has generated the following list of questions concerning examination time goals to further inform comments responsive to this RFC. Responders to this RFC can choose to address as many of these questions as desired. Responders are not limited to submitting information addressing the questions below. The Office welcomes any other comments on the topic of this RFC that may be informative, for example those that facilitate an understanding of the interests of stakeholders with respect to quality, pendency, and cost for services. A further area of inquiry seeks to shed light on other characteristics of patent applications, besides technological complexity, which lead to a more time-consuming examination.
(1) Do you perceive a difference in the quality of examination performed in complex technologies compared to less complex technologies? If yes, which do you perceive as higher quality and why? In what aspect(s) is the quality of examination higher?
(2) What factors do you consider when estimating the amount of time needed to take various steps in prosecution, such as preparing responses to Office actions or preparing for interviews? In particular, if you prosecute applications in a variety of technology areas, how do those factors vary among the technologies?
(3) Are the applications you prosecute more or less complex than in the past,
(4) In order to increase the quality of examination, do you believe that an increase in the time allotted for examination should be designated for specific activities, such as interviews, or left to the discretion of the examiner? What activities would you prioritize and allocate more time to?
(5) Are there any portions of Office actions which you feel do not add value or quality to the examination? If yes, what are they?
(6) What other activities beyond examining, such as research or training, could examiners spend time on that would add value? Why do you believe these activities could add value?
(7) While the focus of this request for comments and the roundtables is to find the appropriate amount of time for examination, cost and pendency are also contributing factors. Do these factors raise a concern that should be considered?
In addition to accepting public feedback through the submission of written comments, the Office will provide an avenue for interactive participation using IdeaScale®. IdeaScale® allows users to post comments on a topic, and view and respond to others' comments. Users also may vote to indicate agreement or disagreement with a particular comment. Information on how to use IdeaScale® to comment on examination time goals is available at
The Office also will provide an avenue for interactive participation by conducting five public roundtables. Information on the first two roundtables to be conducted, in Alexandria, Virginia, and Dallas, Texas, including locations, dates, and how to participate, is set forth below.
To register, please send an email message to
For more information on the Alexandria and Dallas roundtables, including the agenda for each roundtable and webcast access instructions for the Alexandria roundtable, please visit
Information on the roundtables to be conducted in Detroit, Michigan, Denver, Colorado, and San Jose, California will be provided at
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 25, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 25, 2016.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize
Department of Energy.
Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.
This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair designee for the Department of Energy.
This listing supersedes all previously published lists of Performance Review Board Chair.
This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2016: Dennis M. Miotla.
Department of Energy.
Designation of Performance Review Board Standing Register.
This notice provides the Performance Review Board Standing Register for the Department of Energy. This listing supersedes all previously published lists of PRB members.
This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2016.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of Request for Information.
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Technology-to-Market (T2M) team is issuing a Request for Information (RFI) on Supporting Clean Energy Startups—Industry and Investment Partnerships for Scaling Innovation. The purpose of this RFI is to gain public input on how T2M can best facilitate a more efficient clean energy innovation ecosystem in the U.S. T2M is looking to understand unaddressed challenges faced by early-stage clean energy start-ups and by the investors and industry partners that can help facilitate the transition of new technologies into the marketplace. The information being sought under this RFI is intended to assist EERE in further defining the scope and priorities of its initiatives.
Written comments and information are requested on or before November 14, 2016.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, which must be submitted electronically to
Questions may be directed to Johanna Wolfson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-61, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-1040. Email:
None.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Air Alliance Houston, Community In-Power and Development Association, Inc., Louisiana Bucket Brigade and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (“Plaintiffs”), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by November 25, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0612, online at
Susan Stahle, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1272; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address:
The proposed consent decree would settle Plaintiffs' claims in a deadline suit alleging EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties pursuant to CAA section 130 to review, and, if necessary, revise the VOC emission factor for elevated flares and enclosed ground flares at natural gas production sites in the source category entitled “Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution” (ONG source category) at least once every three years (“Natural Gas VOC emissions factor”). The proposed consent decree would require EPA, by June 5, 2017, to review and either propose revisions to the Natural Gas VOC emissions factor under CAA section 130, or propose a determination under CAA section 130 that revision of the Natural Gas VOC emissions factor is not necessary. The proposed consent decree would also require EPA, by February 5, 2018, to issue final revisions to the Natural Gas VOC emissions factor under CAA section 130, or issue a final determination under CAA section 130 that revision of the Natural Gas VOC emissions factor is not necessary. EPA will post each proposed revision or determination (or combination thereof), and each final revision or determination (or combination thereof), on its AP-42 Web site (located at
For a period of 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0612 contains a copy of the consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will accept requests, from November 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, for grants to establish and enhance State and Tribal Response Programs. This notice provides guidance on eligibility for funding, use of funding, grant mechanisms and process for awarding funding, the allocation system for distribution of funding, and terms and reporting under these grants. EPA has consulted with state and tribal officials in developing this guidance.
The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements of a response program and establishing a public record. Another goal is to provide funding for other activities that increase the number of response actions conducted or overseen by a state or tribal response program. This funding is not intended to supplant current state or tribal funding for their response programs. Instead, it is to supplement their funding to increase their response capacity.
For fiscal year 2017, EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.0 million per state or tribe. Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will be available to provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out these grants.
This action is effective as of November 1, 2016. EPA expects to make non-competitive grant awards to states and tribes which apply during fiscal year 2017.
Mailing addresses for EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters can be found at
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, (202) 566-2745 or the applicable EPA Regional Office listed at the end this Notice.
Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, authorizes a noncompetitive $50 million grant program to establish and enhance state
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance entry for the section 128(a) State and Tribal Response Program cooperative agreements is 66.817. This grant program is eligible to be included in state and tribal Performance Partnership Grants under 40 CFR part 35 Subparts A and B, with the exception of funds used to capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield remediation under section 104(k)(3); or purchase environmental insurance or developing a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a State or Tribal response program.
Requests for funding will be accepted from November 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Requests EPA receives after December 31, 2016 will not be considered for FY2017 funding. Information that must be submitted with the funding request is listed in Section IX of this guidance. States or tribes that do not submit the request in the appropriate manner may forfeit their ability to receive funds. First time requestors are strongly encouraged to
Requests submitted by the December 31, 2016 request deadline are preliminary; final cooperative agreement work plans and budgets will be negotiated with the regional offices once final funding allocation determinations are made. As in previous years, EPA will place special emphasis on reviewing a cooperative agreement recipient's use of prior section 128(a) funding in making allocation decisions and unexpended balances are subject to 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR 35.518 to the extent consistent with this guidance. Also, EPA will prioritize funding for recipients establishing their response programs.
States and tribes requesting funds are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number with their cooperative agreement's final package. For more information, please go to
State and tribal response programs oversee assessment and cleanup activities at brownfield sites across the country. The depth and breadth of these programs vary. Some focus on CERCLA related activities, while others are multi-faceted, addressing sites regulated by both CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Many states also offer accompanying financial incentive programs to spur cleanup and redevelopment. In enacting CERCLA section 128(a),
This funding is intended for those states and tribes that have the management and administrative capacity within their government required to administer a federal grant. The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements of an environmental response program and that the program establishes and maintains a public record of sites addressed.
Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out section 128(a) cooperative agreements.
To be eligible for funding under CERCLA section 128(a), a state or tribe must:
1. Demonstrate that its response program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements of a response program described in Section V of this guidance;
2. maintain and make available to the public a record of sites at which response actions have been completed in the previous year and are planned to be addressed in the upcoming year (see CERCLA section 128(b)(1)(C)).
States and tribes are
Section 128(a) recipients that do not have a VRP MOA with EPA must demonstrate that their response program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements described below. Achievement of the four elements should be viewed as a priority. Section 128(a) authorizes funding for activities necessary to establish and enhance the four elements, and to establish and maintain the public record requirement.
The four elements of a response program are described below:
1.
EPA recognizes the varied scope of state and tribal response programs and will not require states and tribes to develop a “list” of brownfield sites. However, at a minimum, the state or tribe should develop and/or maintain a system or process that can provide a reasonable estimate of the number, likely location, and general characteristics of brownfield sites within their state or tribal lands. Inventories should evolve to a prioritization of sites based on community needs, planning priorities, and protection of human health and the environment. Inventories should be developed in direct coordination with communities, and particular attention should focus on communities with limited capacity to compete for and manage a competitive brownfield assessment, revolving loan, or cleanup cooperative agreement.
Given funding limitations, EPA will negotiate work plans with states and tribes to achieve this goal efficiently and effectively, and within a realistic time frame. For example, many of EPA's Brownfields Assessment cooperative agreement recipients conduct inventories of brownfields sites in their communities or jurisdictions. EPA encourages states and tribes to work with these cooperative agreement recipients to obtain the information that they have gathered and include it in their survey and inventory.
2.
a. A response action will protect human health and the environment, and be conducted in accordance with applicable laws; and
b. the state or tribe will complete the necessary response activities if the person conducting the response fails to complete them (this includes operation and maintenance and/or long-term monitoring activities).
3.
a. Public access to documents and related materials that a state, tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or developing to make cleanup decisions or conduct site activities;
b. prior notice and opportunity for meaningful public comment on cleanup plans and site activities, including the input into the prioritization of sites; and
c. a mechanism by which a person who is, or may be, affected by a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at a brownfield site—located in the community in which the person works or resides—may request that a site assessment be conducted. The appropriate state or tribal official must consider this request and appropriately respond.
4.
In order to be eligible for section 128(a) funding, states and tribes (including those with MOAs) must establish and maintain a public record system, as described below, to enable meaningful public participation (refer to Section V.3 above). Specifically, under section 128(b)(1)(C), states and tribes must:
1. Maintain and update, at least annually or more often as appropriate, a public record that includes the name and location of sites at which response actions have been completed during the previous year;
2. maintain and update, at least annually or more often as appropriate, a public record that includes the name and location of sites at which response actions are planned in the next year; and
3. identify in the public record whether or not the site, upon completion of the response action, will be suitable for unrestricted use. If not, the public record must identify the institutional controls relied on in the remedy and include relevant information concerning the entity responsible for oversight, monitoring, and/or maintenance of the institutional and engineering controls; and how the responsible entity is implementing those activities (see Section VI.C).
Section 128(a) funds may be used to maintain and make available a public record system that meets the requirements discussed above.
It is important to note that the public record requirement differs from the “timely survey and inventory” element described in the “Four Elements” section above. The public record addresses sites at which response actions have been completed in the previous year or are planned in the upcoming year. In contrast, the “timely survey and inventory” element, described above, refers to identifying brownfield sites regardless of planned or completed actions.
EPA's goal is to enable states and tribes to make the public record and other information, such as information from the “survey and inventory” element, easily accessible. For this reason, EPA will allow states and tribes to use section 128(a) funding to make such information available to the public via the internet or other avenues. For example, the Agency would support funding state and tribal efforts to include detailed location information in the public record such as the street address, and latitude and longitude information for each site.
In an effort to reduce cooperative agreement reporting requirements and increase public access to the public record, EPA encourages states and tribes to place their public record on the internet. If a state or tribe places the public record on the Internet, maintains the substantive requirements of the public record, and provides EPA with the link to that site, EPA will, for purposes of cooperative agreement funding only, deem the public record reporting requirement met.
EPA encourages states and tribes to maintain public record information, including data on institutional controls, on a long-term basis (more than one year) for sites at which a response action has been completed. Subject to EPA regional office approval, states or tribes may include development and operation of systems that ensure long-term maintenance of the public record, including information on institutional controls (such as ensuring the entity responsible for oversight, monitoring, and/or maintenance of the institutional and engineering controls is implementing those activities) in their work plans.
Section 128(a)(1)(B) describes the eligible uses of cooperative agreement funds by states and tribes. In general, a state or tribe may use funding to “establish or enhance” its response program. Specifically, a state or tribe may use cooperative agreement funds to build response programs that include the four elements outline in section 128(a)(2). Eligible activities include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Developing legislation, regulations, procedures, ordinances, guidance, etc. that establish or enhance the administrative and legal structure of a response program;
• establishing and maintaining the required public record described in Section VI of this guidance;
• operation, maintenance and long-term monitoring of institutional controls and engineering controls;
• conducting site-specific activities, such as assessment or cleanup, provided such activities establish and/or enhance the response program and are tied to the four elements. In addition to the requirement under CERCLA section 128(a)(2)(C)(ii) to provide for public comment on cleanup plans and site activities, EPA strongly encourages states and tribes to seek public input regarding the priority of sites to be addressed-especially from local communities with health risks related to exposure to hazardous waste or other public health concerns, those in economically disadvantaged or remote areas, and those with limited experience working with government agencies. EPA will not provide section 128(a) funds solely for assessment or cleanup of
• capitalizing a revolving loan fund (RLF) for brownfields cleanup as authorized under CERCLA section 104(k)(3). These RLFs are subject to the same statutory requirements and cooperative agreement terms and conditions applicable to RLFs awarded under section 104(k)(3). Requirements include a 20 percent match (in the form of money, labor, material, or services from a non-federal source) on the amount of section 128(a) funds used for the RLF, a prohibition on using EPA cooperative agreement funds for administrative costs relating to the RLF, and a prohibition on using RLF loans or subgrants for response costs at a site for which the recipient may be potentially liable under section 107 of CERCLA. Other prohibitions relevant to CERCLA section 104(k)(4) also apply; and
• purchasing environmental insurance or developing a risk-sharing pool, indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a state or tribal response program.
Under CERCLA section 128(a), establish includes activities necessary to build the foundation for the four elements of a state or tribal response program and the public record requirement. For example, a state or tribal response program may use section 128(a) funds to develop regulations, ordinances, procedures, guidance, and a public record.
Under CERCLA section 128(a), enhance is related to activities that add to or improve a state or tribal response program or increase the number of sites at which response actions are conducted under such programs.
The exact enhancement activities that may be allowable depend upon the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe. For example, regional offices and states or tribes may agree that section 128(a) funds may be used for outreach and training directly related to increasing awareness of its response program, and improving the skills of program staff. It may also include developing better coordination and understanding of other state response programs, (
Site-specific assessment and cleanup activities should establish and/or enhance the response program and be tied to the four elements. Site-specific assessments and cleanups can be both eligible and allowable if the activities is included in the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe, but activities must comply with all applicable laws and are subject to the following restrictions:
a. Section 128(a) funds can only be used for assessments or cleanups at sites that meet the definition of a brownfields site at CERCLA section 101(39). EPA encourages states and tribes to use site-specific funding to perform assessment (
b. absent EPA approval, no more than $200,000 per site assessment can be funded with section 128(a) funds, and no more than $200,000 per site cleanup can be funded with section 128(a) funds;
c. absent EPA approval, the state/tribe may not use funds awarded under this agreement to assess and/or clean up sites owned or operated by the recipient or held in trust by the United States Government for the recipient; and
d. assessments and cleanups cannot be conducted at sites where the state/tribe is a potentially responsible party pursuant to CERCLA section 107, except:
• At brownfield sites contaminated by a controlled substance as defined in CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(I); or
• when the recipient would satisfy all of the elements set forth in CERCLA section 101(40) to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser except in cases where the date of acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 2002.
Subawards are defined at 2 CFR 200.92 and may not be awarded to for-profit organizations. If the recipient plans on making any subawards under the cooperative agreement then they become a pass-through entity. As the pass-through entity, the recipient must report on its subaward monitoring activities under 2 CFR 200.331(d). Additional reporting requirements for these activities will be included in the cooperative agreement. In addition, subawards cannot be provided to entities that may be potentially responsible parties (pursuant to CERCLA section 107) at the site for which the assessment or cleanup
1. At brownfields sites contaminated by a controlled substance as defined in CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(I); or
2. when the recipient would satisfy all of the elements set forth in CERCLA section 101(40) to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser except in cases where the date of acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 2002.
States and tribes may use section 128(a) funds for site-specific activities that improve state or tribal capacity but the amount recipients may request for site-specific assessments and cleanups may not exceed 50% of the total amount of funding.
• Total amount requested for site-specific activities;
• percentage of the site-specific activities (assuming waiver is approved) in the total budget;
• site-specific activities that will be covered by this funding. If known, provide site specific information and describe how work on each site contributes to the development or enhancement of your state/tribal site response program. EPA recognizes the role of response programs to develop and provide capacity in distressed, environmental justice, rural or tribal communities, and encourages prioritization for site-specific activities in those communities. Further explain how the community will be (or has been) involved in prioritization of site work and especially those sites where there is a potential or known significant environmental impact to the community;
• an explanation of how this shift in funding will not negatively impact the core programmatic capacity (
• an explanation as to whether the sites to be addressed are those for which the affected community(ies) has requested work be conducted (refer to Section VII.A Overview of Funding for more information).
EPA Headquarters will review waiver requests based on the information in the justification and other information available to the Agency. EPA will inform recipients whether the waiver is approved.
States and tribes may use section 128(a) funds for activities that establish and enhance response programs addressing petroleum brownfield sites. Subject to the restrictions listed above (see Section VII.D.1) for all site-specific activities, the costs of site-specific assessments and cleanup activities at petroleum contaminated brownfield sites defined in CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II), are both eligible and allowable if the activity is included in the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe. Section 128(a) funds used to capitalize a Brownfields RLF may be used at brownfield sites contaminated by petroleum to the extent allowed under CERCLA section 104(k)(3).
Other eligible uses of funds for site-specific related include, but are not limited to, the following activities:
• Technical assistance to federal brownfields cooperative agreement recipients;
• development and/or review of quality assurance project plans (QAPPs); and
• entering data into the Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database
Other uses not specifically referenced in this guidance may also be eligible and allowable. Recipients should consult with their regional state or tribal contact for additional guidance. Costs incurred for activities at non-brownfield sites may be eligible and allowable if such activities are included in the state's or tribe's work plan.
Funding authorized under CERCLA section 128(a) is awarded through a cooperative agreement
Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional offices will negotiate and enter into section 128(a) cooperative agreements with eligible and interested states or tribes.
For Fiscal Year 2017, EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.0 million per state or tribe. Please note the CERCLA 128(a) program's annual budget has remained relatively the same since 2003 while demand has increased over time. Due to the increasing number of entities requesting funding, it is likely that the FY17 states and tribal individual funding amounts will be less than the FY16 individual funding amounts.
States and tribes must define in their work plan the “section 128(a) response program(s)” to which the funds will be applied, and may designate a component of the state or tribe that will be EPA's primary point of contact. When EPA funds the section 128(a) cooperative agreement, states and tribes may distribute these funds among the appropriate state and tribal agencies that are part of the section 128(a) response program. This distribution must be clearly outlined in their annual work plan.
If a portion of the section 128(a) grant funds requested will be used to capitalize a revolving loan fund for cleanup, pursuant to section 104(k)(3), two separate cooperative agreements must be awarded (
If a state or tribe chooses to use its section 128(a) funds to capitalize a revolving loan fund program, the state or tribe must have the lead authority to manage the program (
States and tribes may include section 128(a) cooperative agreements in their PPG as described in 69 FR 51,756 (2004). Section 128(a) funds used to capitalize an RLF or purchase environmental insurance or develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a state or tribal response program are not eligible for inclusion in the PPG.
EPA regional offices will determine the project period for each cooperative agreement. These may be for multiple years depending on the regional office's cooperative agreement policies. Each cooperative agreement must have an annual budget period tied to an annual work plan. While not prohibited, pre-award costs are subject to 40 CFR 35.113 and 40 CFR 35.513.
As part of the annual work plan negotiation process, states or tribes that do
Prior to funding a state's or tribe's annual work plan, EPA regional offices will verify and document that a public record, as described in Section VI and below, exists and is being maintained.
• States or tribes that received initial funding prior to FY16: Requests for FY17 funds will not be accepted from states or tribes that fail to demonstrate, by the December 31, 2016 request deadline, that they established and are maintaining a public record. (
• states or tribes that received initial funding in FY16: By the time of the actual FY17 award, the state or tribe must demonstrate that they established and maintained the public record (those states and tribes that do not meet this requirement will have a term and condition placed on their FY17 cooperative agreement that prohibits the drawdown of FY17 funds until the public record requirement is met).
States and tribes should be aware that EPA and its Congressional appropriations committees place significant emphasis on the utilization of prior years' funding. Unused funds prior to FY16 will be considered in the allocation process. Existing balances of cooperative agreement funds as reflected in EPA's Financial Data Warehouse may result in an allocation amount below a recipient's request for funding or, if appropriate deobligation and reallocation by EPA Regions as provided for in 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR 35.518.
EPA Regional staff will review EPA's Financial Database Warehouse to identify the amount of remaining prior year(s) funds. The requestor should work, as early as possible, with both their own finance department, and with their Regional Project Officer to reconcile any discrepancy between the amount of unspent funds showing in EPA's system, and the amount reflected in the recipient's records. The recipient should obtain concurrence from the Region on the amount of unspent funds requiring justification by the deadline for this request for funding.
After the December 31, 2016, request deadline, EPA's Regional Offices will submit summaries of state and tribal requests to EPA Headquarters. Before doing so, regional offices may take into account additional factors when determining recommended allocation amounts. Such factors include, but are not limited to, the depth and breadth of the state or tribal program, and scope of the perceived need for funding (
After receipt of the regional recommendations, EPA Headquarters will consolidate requests and make decisions on the final funding allocations.
EPA regional offices will work with interested states and tribes to develop their preliminary work plans and funding requests. Final cooperative agreement work plans and budgets will be negotiated with the regional office once final allocation determinations are made. Please refer to process flow chart below (dates are estimates and subject to change):
All states and tribes requesting FY17 funds must submit (to their regional brownfields contact, shown on the last page of this guidance) a draft work plan of the funds with associated dollar amounts. Please contact your regional contact listed on page 29 or visit
For
a. Prepare a draft work plan and budget for your FY17 funding request. The funding requested should be reasonably spent in one year. The requestor should work, as early as possible, with their EPA regional program contact to ensure that the funding amount requested and related activities are reasonable.
b. In your funding request, include the prior years' funding amount. Include any funds that you, the recipient, have not received in payments (
c. If you do not have an MOA with EPA, demonstrate how your program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements described in Section VI.
For
a. Describe your plan to establish a response program, why it is a priority for your tribe, and why CERCLA 128(a) funding will be beneficial to your program. If your tribe is already supported by a tribal consortia receiving CERCLA 128(a) funding, explain why additional resources are necessary.
b. Prepare a draft work plan and budget for your first funding year. The funding requested should be reasonably spent in one year. For budget planning purposes, it is recommended that you assume funding sufficient to support 0.5 staff to establish a response program and some travel to attend regional and national trainings or events.
a. Describe the organizational structure you will utilize to ensure sound program management to guarantee or confirm timely and successful expenditure of funds, and completion of all technical, administrative and financial requirements of the program and cooperative agreement.
b. Include a brief description of the key qualifications of staff to manage the response program and/or the process you will follow to hire staff to manage the response program. If key staff is already in place, include their roles, expertise, qualifications, and experience.
c. Discuss how this response program fits into your current environmental program(s). If you don't have an environmental program, describe your process to develop, or interest to start one.
d. Describe if you have had adverse audit findings. If you had problems with the administration of any grants or cooperative agreements, describe how you have corrected, or are correcting, the problems.
Cooperative agreements for state and tribal response programs will include programmatic and administrative terms and conditions. These terms and conditions will describe EPA's substantial involvement including technical assistance and collaboration on program development and site-specific activities. Each of the subsections below summarizes the basic terms and conditions, and related reporting that will be incorporated into your cooperative agreement.
In accordance with 2 CFR 200.328 and any EPA specific regulations, state and tribes must provide progress reports meeting the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement negotiated. State and tribal costs for complying with reporting requirements are an eligible expense under the section 128(a) cooperative agreement. As a minimum, state or tribal progress reports must include both a narrative discussion and performance data relating to the state or tribe accomplishments and environmental outputs associated with the approved budget and work plan. Reports should also provide an accounting of section 128(a) funding. If applicable, the state or tribe must include information on activities related to establishing or enhancing the four elements of the state's or tribe's response program. All recipients must provide information related to establishing or, if already established, maintaining the public record. Depending upon the activities included in the state's or tribe's work plan, the recipient may also need to report on the following:
1.
2.
• A narrative description and copies of applicable documents developed or under development to enable the response program to conduct enforcement and oversight at sites. For example:
○ Legal authorities and mechanisms (
○ policies and procedures to implement legal authorities; and other mechanisms;
• a description of the resources and staff allocated/to be allocated to the response program to conduct oversight and enforcement at sites as a result of the cooperative agreement;
• a narrative description of how these authorities or other mechanisms, and resources, are adequate to ensure that:
○ a response action will protect human health and the environment; and be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state law; and if the person conducting the response action fails to complete the necessary response activities, including operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities, the necessary response activities are completed; and
• a narrative description and copy of appropriate documents demonstrating the exercise of oversight and enforcement authorities by the response program at a brownfields site.
3.
4.
• Number and frequency of oversight audits of licensed site professional certified cleanups;
• number and frequency of state/tribal oversight audits conducted;
• number of sites where staff conducted audits, provided technical assistance, or conducted other oversight activities; and
• number of staff conducting oversight audits, providing technical assistance, or conducting other oversight activities.
5.
6.
• Number and description of insurance policies purchased (
• the number of sites covered by the insurance;
• the amount of funds spent on environmental insurance (
• the amount of claims paid by insurers to policy holders.
The regional offices may also request that information be added to the progress reports, as appropriate, to properly document activities described by the cooperative agreement work plan.
EPA regions may allow states or tribes to provide performance data in appropriate electronic format.
The regional offices will forward progress reports to EPA Headquarters, if requested. This information may be used to develop national reports on the outcomes of CERCLA section 128(a) funding to states and tribes.
States and tribes must report, by December 31, 2016, a summary of the
• Environmental programs where CERCLA section 128(a) funds are used to support capacity building (general program support, non-site-specific work). Indicate as appropriate from the following:
• number of properties (or sites) enrolled in a response program during FY16;
• number of properties (or sites) where documentation indicates that cleanup work is complete and all required institutional controls (IC's) are in place, or not required;
• total number of acres associated with properties (or sites) in the previous bullet;
• number of properties where assistance was provided, but the property was not enrolled in the response program (OPTIONAL);
• date that the public record was last updated;
• Estimated total number of properties (or sites) in your brownfields inventory;
• Number of audits/inspections/reviews/other conducted to ensure engineering controls and institutional controls are still protective; and
• Did you develop or revise legislation, regulations, codes, guidance documents or policies related to establishing or enhancing your Voluntary Cleanup Program/Response Program during FY16? If yes, please indicate the type and whether it was new or revised.
EPA may require states/tribes to report specific performance measures related to the four elements that can be aggregated for national reporting to Congress.
All recipients must report, as specified in the terms and conditions of their cooperative agreement, and in Section VIII.I of this guidance, information related to establishing, or if already established, maintaining the public record, described above. States and tribes can refer to an already existing public record,
A list of sites at which response actions have been completed in the past year including:
• Date the response action was completed;
• site name;
• name of owner at time of cleanup, if known;
• location of the site (street address, and latitude and longitude);
• whether an institutional control is in place;
• type of institutional control(s) in place (
• nature of the contamination at the site (
• size of the site in acres.
A list of sites planned to be addressed by the state or tribal response program in the coming year including:
• Site name and the name of owner at time of cleanup, if known;
• location of the site (street address, and latitude and longitude);
• to the extent known, whether an institutional control is in place;
• type of the institutional control(s) in place (
• to the extent known, the nature of the contamination at the site (
• size of the site in acres
Applicants must ensure that they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the subaward and executive total compensation reporting requirements established under OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 170, unless they qualify for an exception from the requirements, should they be selected for funding.
Unless exempt from these requirements under OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 25
1. Be registered in SAM prior to submitting an application or proposal under this announcement. SAM information can be found at
2. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which they have an active federal award or an application or proposal under consideration by an agency; and
3. Provide their DUNS number in each application or proposal submitted to the agency. Applicants can receive a DUNS number, at no cost, by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711, or visiting the D&B Web site at:
If an applicant fails to comply with these requirements, it will affect their ability to receive the award.
Please note that the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system has been replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM). To learn more about SAM, go to SAM.gov or
If funding is provided it will be provided through a cooperative agreement award. All cooperative agreement applications for non-competitive assistance agreements must be submitted using
To learn more about the
An applicant that receives an award under this announcement is expected to manage assistance agreement funds efficiently and effectively, and make sufficient progress towards completing the project activities described in the work-plan in a timely manner. The assistance agreement will include terms and conditions related to implementing this requirement.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Extension of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the comment period for the notice, “Request for Public Comments To Be Sent to EPA on Peer Review Materials To Inform the Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making on Perchlorate.” In response to stakeholder requests, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional eleven days, from November 14, 2016, to November 25, 2016.
The comment period announced in the notice that was published on September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67350) is extended. Comments now must be received by EPA on or before November 25, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0438, to the
Russ Perkinson at U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division, (Mail Code 4607M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 202-564-4901; or email:
On September 30, 2016, EPA published in the
The notice of request for public comment, as initially published in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 27,
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
In general, an applicant's submission is as follows: (a) FCC Form 731 includes approximately two pages covering the demographic and equipment identification information; and (b) applicants must supply additional documentation and other information, as described above, demonstrating conformance with FCC Rules, which may range from 100-1,000 pages. The supplemental information is essential to control potential interference to radio communications, which the FCC may use, as is necessary, to investigate complaints of harmful interference. In response to new technologies and in allocating spectrum, the Commission may establish new technical operating standards: (a) RF equipment manufacturers must meet the new standards to receive an equipment authorization, and (b) RF equipment manufacturers must still comply with the Commission's requirements in FCC Form 731 and demonstrate compliance as required by 47 CFR part 2 of FCC Rules. Thus, this information collection applies to a variety of RF equipment: (a) That is currently manufactured, (b) that may be manufactured in the future, and (c) that operates under varying technical standards. On July 8, 2004, the Commission adopted a Report and Order,
On October 26, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission released a
On August, 22, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission released an
Before equipment operating under part 90 of this chapter and capable of operating on the 700 MHz interoperability channels (See § 90.531(b)(1) of this chapter) may be marketed or sold, the manufacturer thereof shall have a Compliance Assessment Program Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and Summary Test Report or, alternatively, a document detailing how the manufacturer determined that its equipment complies with § 90.548 of this chapter and that the equipment is interoperable across vendors. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold.
The Commission also modified Section 90.548(c) of the Commission's rules to provide:
Transceivers capable of operating on the interoperability channels listed in § 90.531(b)(1) shall not be marketed or sold unless the transceiver has previously been certified for interoperability by the Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; provided, however, that this requirement is suspended if the CAP is discontinued. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold. In the alternative, manufacturers may employ their own protocol for verifying compliance with Project 25 standards and determining that their product is interoperable among vendors. In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with this § 90.548.
To effectively implement the provisions of the new Rules, no modifications to the existing FCC Form 731 Application for Equipment Authorization are required. The changes are intended to simplify the filing process, ensure equipment complies with Project 25 standards and is interoperable across vendors. The following specific methods are proposed to ensure compliance with Section 90.548 and simplify filing processes for equipment manufacturers:
(1) The
(2) In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with § 90.548.
The modified rules provide a benefit to public safety licensees by ensuring that only equipment that has been tested for interoperability in a vendor-neutral environment before equipment can be marketed or sold to public safety. This will provide the additional benefit of engendering competition in the public safety equipment marketplace by eliminating system compatibility as a gating factor when evaluating equipment purchases. The
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
This information collection addresses the requirement that certain carriers with high cost reporting obligations must file information about their locations which meet their broadband deployment public interest obligations via an electronic portal (“portal”).
2:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 9, 2016.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
1-(866) 867-4769, Passcode: 493-925.
2:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance)
Open.
The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter
Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
1-(866) 867-4769, Passcode: 493-925.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered on March 22, 2016 pursuant to Executive Order 13708, and will expire on September 30, 2017.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection project entitled “Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) Study.” The collect is part of a research study designed to evaluate the efficacy of smartphone-based platform for delivering sexual health and prevention messages to MSM.
Written comments will be received on or before December 27, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0100 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) Study—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention is requesting approval for two years of data collection entitled, “Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for MSM.” The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a smartphone-based HIV prevention intervention, known as M
This study will be carried out in three metropolitan areas in the United States: Atlanta, Georgia, Detroit, Michigan and New York City, New York. These cities were selected not only because they have high rates of HIV, but also because significant disparities in HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM) have been observed by race/ethnicity and age.
The study population will include 1,206 adult MSM living in Atlanta, Detroit, and New York City. Men recruited to the study will be at least 18 years in age, who have had anal sex with at least one man in the past 12 months, and who own and use an Android and iOS smartphone.
Across the three sites, we will ensure that at least 40% of participants are people of color (non-white or Hispanic) by quota sampling. Participants will be recruited to the study through a combination of approaches, including online advertisement, traditional print advertisement, referral, in-person outreach, and through word of mouth.
A quantitative assessment will be used to collect information for this study, which will be delivered at the time of study enrollment and again at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups. The assessment will be used to measure changes in condom use behavior, number of sex partners, HIV testing, sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing, health care engagement, pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and adherence, and antiretroviral therapy uptake and adherence following completion of the intervention. Participants will complete the assessment in-person at baseline and 9-months, using a computer in a private location, and remotely via their personal computer or tablet device at the 3-month and 6-month follow-ups.
It is expected that 50% of men screened will meet study eligibility and provide contact information, that 75% will schedule and show up for an in-person appointment, and that 95% of these men will remain eligible after reverification. We expect the initial screening to take approximately four minutes to complete, that providing contact information will take one minute, and the rescreening prior to study enrollment to take another four minutes. The assessment will take 90 minutes (1
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The CDC is soliciting nominations for membership on the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC).
Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-347 (Jan. 2, 2011), amended by Pub. L. 114-113 (Dec. 18, 2015), added Title XXXIII to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), establishing the WTC Health Program within HHS (42 U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm-61). Section 3302(a) of the PHS Act established the WTC Health Program STAC. The STAC is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees in the Executive Branch. PHS Act Section 3302(a)(1) establishes that the STAC will review scientific and medical evidence and make recommendations to the WTC Program Administrator on additional WTC Health Program eligibility criteria and on additional WTC-related health conditions. Section 3341(c) of the PHS Act requires the WTC Program Administrator to also consult with the STAC on research regarding certain health conditions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The STAC may also be consulted on other matters related to implementation and improvement of the WTC Health Program, as outlined in the PHS Act, at the discretion of the WTC Program Administrator.
In accordance with Section 3302(a)(2) of the PHS Act, the WTC Program Administrator will appoint the members of the committee, which must include at least:
• 4 occupational physicians, at least two of whom have experience treating WTC rescue and recovery workers;
• 1 physician with expertise in pulmonary medicine;
• 2 environmental medicine or environmental health specialists;
• 2 representatives of WTC responders;
• 2 representatives of certified-eligible WTC survivors;
• 1 industrial hygienist;
• 1 toxicologist;
• 1 epidemiologist; and
• 1 mental health professional.
At this time the Administrator is seeking nominations for members fulfilling the following categories:
• Mental Health Professional
• Occupational physician who has experience treating WTC rescue and recovery workers;
• Industrial Hygienist;
• Representative of WTC responders;
• Representative of certified-eligible WTC survivors
Additional members may be appointed at the discretion of the WTC Program Administrator.
A STAC member's term appointment may last 3 years. If a vacancy occurs, the WTC Program Administrator may appoint a new member who fulfills the same membership category as the predecessor. STAC members may be appointed to successive terms. The frequency of committee meetings shall be determined by the WTC Program Administrator based on program needs. Meetings may occur up to four times a year. Members are paid the Special Government Employee rate of $250 per day, and travel costs and per diem are included and based on the Federal Travel Regulations.
Any interested person or organization may self-nominate or nominate one or more qualified persons for membership.
Nominations must include the following information:
• The nominee's contact information and current occupation or position;
• The nominee's resume or curriculum vitae, including prior or current membership on other National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC, or HHS advisory committees or other relevant organizations, associations, and committees;
• The category of membership (environmental medicine or environmental health specialist, occupational physician, pulmonary
• A summary of the background, experience, and qualifications that demonstrates the nominee's suitability for the nominated membership category;
• Articles or other documents the nominee has authored that indicate the nominee's knowledge and experience in relevant subject categories; and
• A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to regularly attend and participate in STAC meetings, and has no known conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on the Committee.
STAC members will be selected upon the basis of their relevant experience and competence in their respective categorical fields. The information received through this nomination process, in addition to other relevant sources of information, will assist the WTC Program Administrator in appointing members to serve on the STAC. In selecting members, the WTC Program Administrator will consider individuals nominated in response to this
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that Committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for the STAC membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection.
Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Report,” OGE Form 450. This form is used by CDC to determine whether there is a financial conflict between that person's private interests and activities and their public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee as well as any appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded at
Submissions must be electronic or by mail. Submissions should reference docket 229-E. Electronic submissions: You may electronically submit nominations, including attachments, to
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) CK17-005, “Vector-Borne Disease Regional Centers of Excellence”.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by December 27, 2016.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
1.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “The Role of Hospitals in Modernizing Evidence Generation for Device Evaluation: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Surveillance.” Hospitals play a critical role in the development
The public workshop will be held on December 5, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET. Submit either electronic or written comments on the public workshop by January 6, 2017.
The public workshop will be held at Fishers Lane Conference Center, Terrace Level, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852. Parking is available for this public meeting at $7 per day (cash only). Alternatively, the location is accessible by metro via the Twinbrook metro stop (Red Line). When you leave the Metro station, make a right turn towards the east side of the parking lot. Proceed to the north east corner of the parking lot and leave through the pedestrian gate. When you exit the station you will be at the corner of Fishers Lane and Twinbrook Parkway. Cross the street and proceed down Fishers Lane to 5635 Fishers Lane. Entering through the main front entrance on Fishers Lane, you will need to take an elevator down to the Terrace Level. Follow the short hallway towards the elevators and the Conference Center glass doors are straight ahead near the elevators.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Jill Marion, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3110, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6128,
In 2012, FDA issued a report, “Strengthening Our National System for Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance,”
The system was renamed an “evaluation system” to reflect the broad evidence needs of stakeholders with the August 2015 release of the report, “Recommendations for a National Medical Device Evaluation System: Strategically Coordinated Registry Networks to Bridge the Clinical Care and Research,” issued by the multistakeholder Task Force, under the auspices of the Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNet).
The importance and challenges of hospital surveillance efforts have long been recognized. In 1997, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (Pub. L. 105-115), which amended section 519(b) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i(b)). This amendment legislated the replacement of universal user facility reporting by an alternative system that is limited to a “. . . subset of user facilities that constitutes a representative profile of user reports” for device related deaths and serious injuries. In response, FDA developed The Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun).
This workshop is intended to foster a dialogue about the value of, costs of, and challenges with current hospital-based reporting and surveillance, what the role of hospitals should be and reasonably could be in the evolution of device surveillance and in creating more robust surveillance capabilities in the developing national evaluation system, and how that should impact current hospital reporting requirements and future voluntary opportunities to best meet the needs of patients in receiving and hospitals in providing quality care. Topics for discussion at the public workshop include:
• An overview of the role of hospitals and potential benefits from a national evaluation system.The recent reports of the Planning Board and the work in transitioning to establishing a Coordinating Center to support development of the national system.
• The role of hospitals in evidence generation and how this fits into the national system;
• Current hospital-based surveillance efforts including participation in registries, patient safety organizations, electronic health records-based surveillance projects, and other surveillance projects.
• A review of the role of hospitals in medical device reporting activities as outlined in the Safe Medical Devices Act (Pub. L. 101-629) and current challenges hospitals face in complying with these requirements. An assessment of the current value of reporting from user facilities and identification of opportunities for process improvement.
• An exploration of FDA's MedSun, a user facility reporting program introduced in 2002 which partners with a subset of user facilities in the United States to identify and report medical device events including mandatory events under the Safe Medical Devices Act and voluntary events.
• Future surveillance opportunities for hospitals in the national system, including use of non-traditional sources of hospital data and capabilities.
• A review of the potential benefits to hospitals of the national system and Unique Device Identification implementation to modernize hospital surveillance. Additional benefits to hospitals include improvement of supply chain management, efficiency of recalls, efficiency of medical device purchasing, and quality of care.
• A discussion of how all stakeholders can work together to improve hospital-based medical device surveillance and determine the role and value of evidence generation as it is integrated into the developing national evaluation system.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Office of Communications and Education, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5661, FAX: 301-847-8142,
To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at
FDA is holding this public workshop to obtain information on the role of hospitals in evidence generation and surveillance. In order to permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of the public workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is January 6, 2017.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 25, 2016.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes the FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(c)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA-regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
Advertisers use many techniques to increase consumer interest in their ads, including the use of animated spokes-characters. These characters may be fictional or nonfictional and human or nonhuman (Ref. 1). Despite variations in form, animated characters are often used to grab attention, increase ad memorability, and enhance persuasion to ultimately drive behavior (Refs. 2-4). Animated characters have long been used for low-involvement products (
Animation also has been used in drug ads to symbolize the disease (
Animated characters may provide marketers with a way to explain product benefits in an engaging and even humorous manner. Thus, the majority of research on animated characters in advertising focuses on outcomes such as product evaluations (Ref. 9), emotional responses (Refs. 1, 10-11), brand attitudes (Ref. 12), and perceived product value (Ref. 13). The extent to which emotional responses can be fostered by animated characters is especially relevant to this study, as the positive effects these animations induce might transfer to the brands being advertised. It is also possible that animated characters may lead to lower perceived risk by minimizing or camouflaging side effects (Ref. 14).
It is important to examine whether animation in drug ads inflates efficacy perceptions, minimizes risk, or otherwise hinders comprehension of drug risks and benefits. To investigate these issues, we will conduct a two-part experimental study to examine how: (1) Type of animation and (2) nonhuman personification in drug ads influence consumer comprehension, processing, and perception of risk and benefit information. Understanding how issues of animation and personification affect perceptions of both risks and benefits can inform FDA regarding how prescription drug risk and benefit information is processed. These strategies will be examined across two different medical conditions to see if the findings are consistent across patient populations.
1. How does consumer processing of a DTC prescription drug ad differ depending on whether the ad is live-action, rotoscoped, or animated?
2. Does consumer processing differ depending on whether the sufferer, the disease, or the benefit is the focus of the animation?
To test these research questions, we will conduct two experiments. Both experiments will be examined in two different medical conditions: Chronic dry eye and psoriasis. The mock drugs we will create for these conditions mimic currently available medications and were chosen for their variance in serious side effects,
The first experiment will examine whether animation itself influences consumer processing, defined as consumer recall of risks and benefits, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes and emotional responses to the ad, the brand, the product, and the character (table 1). We will examine two different types of animation in addition to a control ad which will be shot with live actors: An “in-between” animation technique, rotoscoping, in which live scenes are drawn to look animated, and full animation with nonhuman characters. The live action and rotoscoped ad will be identical except for the rotoscope treatment. The animated ad will follow the theme and message as closely as possible within the limitations of animation itself. The benefits and risks of the product will be identical, although the ad's storyline may vary somewhat to account for a nonhuman protagonist.
The second experiment will examine whether the object of the animation influences consumer processing of the ad (table 2), defined as consumer recall of risks and benefits, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes and emotional responses to the ad, the brand, the product, and the character. The animation will focus on the animated character who will personify either the sufferer of the medical condition, the disease itself, or the
In both cases, a professional firm will create all ads such that they are indistinguishable from currently running DTC ads.
Pretesting will take place before the main study to evaluate the procedures and measures used in the main study. We will recruit adults who have experienced chronic dry eye or psoriasis. We will exclude individuals who work in healthcare or marketing settings because their knowledge and experiences may not reflect those of the average consumer. We propose to test 300 participants for the pretest. Each experiment will include 30 participants per condition for a total of 180 participants each, but 60 of those in the nonhuman sufferer conditions will overlap between the two experiments. We will need 1,500 unique participants for the main study to obtain 90 percent power to detect a moderately small effect size. There will be 150 participants per condition for a total of 900 participants in each experiment, with 300 participants in the overlapping nonhuman sufferer conditions.
In both experiments, participants who have been diagnosed with either chronic dry eye or psoriasis will be recruited via an opt-in Internet panel to watch one ad for a prescription drug that treats their medical condition. In experiment 1, participants will be randomly assigned to view either a live-action, rotoscoped, or fully animated ad. All themes in experiment 1 will focus on the main character as the sufferer of the condition. In experiment 2, participants will be randomly assigned to a personification condition: Sufferer, disease, or benefit. All ads in experiment 2 will be fully animated. Participants will watch the ad once and then answer an online survey with questions addressing recall of risks and benefits, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes and emotional responses to the ad, the brand, the product, and the character. The questionnaire is available upon request. Participation is estimated to take approximately 25 minutes.
To examine differences between experimental conditions, we will conduct inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance.
With online surveys, several participants may be completing the survey at the time that the total target sample is reached. Those participants are allowed to complete the survey, which can result in the number of completes going slightly over the target number. Thus, our target number of completes is 1,500, so we have rounded up by an additional 150, or 10 percent, to allow for some overage.
In the
(Comment 1) Note that the accuracy of the findings will be highly dependent on the quality of the stimuli (
(Response 1) We agree.
(Comment 2) Assume that stimuli will conform to FDA regulations and standards.
(Response 2) Reviewers from the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion have been involved throughout the development of the stimuli to ensure that the mock ads conform to FDA regulations and standards.
(Comment 3) Question the use of such a large (n = 300) pretest and recommends the use of a qualitative, in-person pretest.
(Response 3) Before the pretests and main studies are conducted, we will conduct nine cognitive interviews to obtain verbal in-person feedback on the questionnaires and the stimuli. We believe this will accomplish what this commenter is suggesting. The pretest is designed to test procedures, verify that the online questionnaire is working as intended, identify and correct any challenges to nesting the stimuli within the questionnaire, and examine data trends to check that the manipulations and questionnaire items are appropriate. A qualitative in-person pretest would not meet those objectives.
(Comment 4) Recommend screening and quotas by length of time since diagnosis as this may influence the urgency with which individuals watch the ads and their familiarity with previous treatments.
(Response 4) We have included a question toward the end of the questionnaire to measure time since diagnosis, which will enable us to assess its association with attention to the ad and statistically control for it if necessary. However, statistical control will likely be unnecessary, since random assignment to conditions in our study design should prevent there from being systematic differences among groups in time since diagnosis or any other extraneous variable.
(Comment 5) For question 5, the item “think rather than feel” seems out of place in the question bank and Lilly recommends deletion.
(Response 5) The items in Question 5 make up a validated scale developed by Stephenson and Palmgreen (Ref. 18). Niederdeppe (Ref. 19) used the same scale items to measure cognitive processing. There may be psychometric consequences to deleting this item—in other words, the reliability of the scale may be reduced if we remove this item. Since it was previously validated as a scale, we will maintain the item.
(Comment 6) Questions 6 and 8 (“In your opinion, if 100 people take [DRUG X], for how many will the drug work?”) may be difficult to answer, as pharmaceutical ads rarely have specific side effect information. Recommend changing to ask how frequently side effects will occur, from “very frequent” to “never occurs.”
(Response 6) We agree and will revise these questions to focus on perceived frequency or likelihood of side effects and efficacy in more general terms.
(Comment 7) Questions 13 and 14 (overall comprehension closed-ended
(Response 7) We appreciate the commenter's concerns about the complexity of the response options. We will examine the closed-ended questions in cognitive testing, with careful attention to participant's ability to understand and choose among the response options. If participants have notable difficulty with the closed-ended questions, we will revise them to enhance accessibility, or we will replace those items with open-ended items.
(Comment 8) Question 16b for Chronic Dry Eye does not have any question or response options.
(Response 8) We have since developed question and response options for this item.
(Comment 9) Recommend moving questions 17-28 to before question 15 because questions 15 and 16 are specific and starting with question 17, questions again refer to general ad perceptions.
(Response 9) We always approach question ordering carefully, attempting to balance a number of considerations, including the reduction of bias from one question to another, flow, and importance of each item. In this case, we feel that specific claim comprehension is more important than the other more general questions in our questionnaire, which is why they are placed afterwards. We will examine this issue closer in cognitive testing.
(Comment 10) Recommend reducing question 18 to only “like/dislike” because the results will be too similar and will be confounded.
(Response 10) We selected these items because they have been used consistently in past research. We use three items rather than one to achieve reliability, which provides a fuller understanding of the dependent variable. However, we will pay close attention to this in cognitive testing to ensure that participants are not confused or annoyed by the three questions.
(Comment 11) For question 21, recommend adding clarifying language: “. . . in terms of dealing with your psoriasis/chronic dry eye” to provide context for participant to understand how to compare themselves with the character.
(Response 11) We will present the additional context as an alternative way of asking the question in cognitive interviews.
(Comment 12) Recommend removing question 26 about how “eerie” the character is because the essence of this question is answered in question 25 and the question is leading, as it directs participants to respond only negatively about their perceptions of the character.
(Response 12) Given the uncanny valley theory concerning rotoscoped images (Ref. 6), we feel it is crucial to maintain this specific question about the eeriness of the character.
(Comment 13) Recommend adding an open-ended question, preferably near the beginning of the survey (
(Response 13) Although we do not include questions that directly measure perceived understanding of the overall message, risks, and benefits, much of the questionnaire is focused on measuring participants' memory and comprehension of that information in the ad.
(Comment 14) Recommend adding demographic questions about how much television participants watch per week and whether English is their primary language to provide extra detail for analyses.
(Response 14) We appreciate this suggestion and will add the recommended demographic items to the questionnaire.
(Comment 15) Recommend adding another open-ended question about whether any additional information could have or should have been included in the ad (
(Response 15) This is a great question and may provide fruitful avenues for future research. We will include the item in the pretest and if timing is not an issue, we will maintain it in the main study.
(Comment 16) Concerned that execution-specific learnings from this research may not translate readily into FDA DTC policy/guidance. The research may not have practical utility for the general public and may be unnecessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions.
(Response 16) On the contrary, this particular study has the potential to directly influence policy in an area that we have no prior research on. We have attempted to address the execution-specific nature of the research by investigating our questions in two distinct medical conditions with two distinct products and ad executions. Although one research study cannot answer all questions, we believe we have designed the study in such a way that we will be able to provide information on the issue of animation in DTC ads. Because there is no previous research of this kind, this will be an informative study that will help FDA develop guidance and policy in the future, should the research reveal a need to.
(Comment 17) FDA should conduct research on how all of the elements investigated previously combine to influence DTC viewing.
(Response 17) We appreciate this suggestion and will look for opportunities to do so in the future. Note we have conducted research combining the results of two previous studies—toll-free wording and distraction—in our recent eye-tracking study.
(Comment 18) Suggests a number of additional reasons for animation besides those stated in the FRN: Education, to help consumers quickly identify relevant ads, and to de-personalize an ad to make it more relevant to a variety of people.
(Response 18) We will keep these in mind in writing up the results of the studies.
(Comment 19) The proposed research may oversimplify animation by not incorporating multiple types of animation or examining ads that are 100 percent versus partially animated, and thus be unlikely to yield any general conclusions about the use of animation.
(Response 19) We acknowledge that we are not studying all types and executions of animation. As the first study of its kind, we feel the animation manipulations that we propose to examine will provide information on a reasonable number of variations (
(Comment 20) The proposed methodology fails to measure the relevance of the ads. A copy-testing methodology, whereby the ads are embedded in a clutter reel, may more accurately gauge the recall of risks and benefits that might occur in the real world.
(Response 20) We needed to make difficult choices in this study, as in all of our studies, regarding the tradeoff between experimental control and real-world generalizability. Given the lack of data available regarding animation in DTC, we chose to err on the side of experimental control in this study. Our
(Comment 21) Advertising concepts are generally not designed to be adapted or translated to different creative formats, and because whether an ad is animated or in live action is an integral part of the concept itself, this is an inherent limitation of the research.
(Response 21) We agree that animated ads often have different storylines or different approaches to conveying information from live action ads. However, if we were to use completely different ads for our animated, rotoscoped, and live-action ads, we would be unable to determine what caused any differences in our dependent variables. Indeed, by maintaining as much similarity as possible among these three conditions, we will be able to determine whether it is the animation form per se that causes differences or not.
(Comment 22) Encourage FDA to acknowledge that this study is exploratory and that results will not be generalizable beyond the two medical conditions studied.
(Response 22) We acknowledge that this is the first study to directly examine animation in DTC advertising. We are always mindful of how far we can extrapolate our research. We chose to examine two different medical conditions because this will provide some assurance that our findings are not exclusive to one medical condition or execution, if that is what we find. We note that the strength of the study is in its experimental design. Participants will be randomly assigned to cells, which will allow us to determine whether differences exist between different levels of our independent variables. Random assignment will somewhat allay concerns about demographic differences and other individual characteristics, which should even out across cells. However, we agree that other medical situations may cause different reactions and we will acknowledge the limitations of our study, which include not examining all medical conditions and levels of risk, in any writeup we produce.
(Comment 24) The major statement is required to be in the audio and the amount and type of risk information will vary by drug. We request that the professional ad agency designing the TV ads ensure that the major statement is presented consistently across the ads studied for the given “mock drug.”
(Response 24) We have designed the fictitious ads to very closely align with both FDA policies and with the types of DTC ads that currently air on TV. Our ads have been reviewed by staffers in the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion multiple times throughout the ads' development. The mock products closely mimic existing drugs in their respective classes. We agree that the quality of the ads strongly influences the success of our research and the professional development of these ads is a high priority.
(Comment 25) An imbalance of gender distribution in the diseases and study groups could skew the results due to potential gender differences in consumer processing and perception of information from drug ads. To ensure a gender balance between the study groups, we propose a randomization scheme stratified by gender. Also, please capture patient demographic information and important confounding factors and report on a comparison of the baseline patient characteristics.
(Response 25) Stratified randomization by gender would be methodologically appropriate and conservative, but in practice would make our already complex survey even more complicated. We will acknowledge a potential gender-disease confound as a limitation of the design in reports of the results.
(Comment 26) While the results from this proposed study may suggest hypotheses on difference in how prescription drug risk and benefit information may be perceived by consumers viewing live versus animation ads, the results from this study should not be used to guide or influence FDA's current thinking on the use of animation in DTC ads. More robust and controlled studies will be required in the future to test specific hypotheses generated from this two-part survey experiment.
(Response 26) Although this is the first study to directly examine animation in DTC ads the way we have proposed here, the research we have designed is robust and well controlled. As trained research psychologists, we adhere to the highest standards in terms of rigorous control, prespecified hypotheses, appropriate statistical analyses, and reasonable and responsible interpretations. Our research undergoes many internal and external reviews before and after data collection, including a stringent OMB review (of which public comment is a part), multiple levels of internal clearance, and peer review at well-respected academic journals in relevant fields. Although FDA never exclusively uses the findings of one scientific study to make policy decisions, the quantitative research we conduct is one part of the calculus that FDA uses to inform policy decisions.
(Comment 27) Recommend that questions 18 and 19 be switched in order to avoid participants being confused by the questions. Also suggest some kind of bolding for emphasis.
(Response 27) We agree that formatting these questions to emphasize and differentiate the target object will be useful and have no problem changing the order of questions 18 and 19 and will do so.
(Comment 28) The term “main character” needs to be clarified. As it is, it could mean the human character or the animated character which may, or may not, be the human character.
(Response 28) Participants will only view one version of the ad corresponding to the ad condition to which they've been randomized, and each ad will either be animated or live action. In terms of screen time and storyline, a single character will be dominant in each ad. We do not expect ambiguity surrounding who the main character is in each ad, but we will test this phrase in cognitive interviewing.
(Comment 29) For question 23, the commenter agrees that trust is a useful metric to study but questions whether our options are valid measures of trust, particularly “ethical.” Suggest the use of the following adjectives instead: Exaggerated, deceptive, manipulative, trustworthy, informative, credible.
(Response 29) The negative adjectives on the list are from an existing scale (Refs. 20-21) and we would like to keep those consistent with the prior literature. We will revise the positive adjectives to reflect the commenter's suggestion: Trustworthy, informative, credible, and reliable.
(Comment 30) For questions 24 and 25, suggest the addition of “hopeful,” “empowered,” and “informed.”
(Response 30) The emotional reaction questions were adapted from existing scales (Ref. 22), but we think it would be useful to test a longer set of emotions in cognitive interviews and narrow down from there.
(Comment 31) We feel that question 26 should be deleted because it is a leading question. If not deleted, change “eerie” to “strange.”
(Response 31) We agree that this is an unusual question and may seem offputting without context. However,
(Comment 32) Question 29 about anthropomorphism seems inappropriate to gauge audience acceptance of the premise. Suggest using a question such as: “To what extent do/can bodily organs or pills have personalities?”
(Response 32) The purpose of question 29 is to measure an individual difference variable, namely to what extent people tend to anthropomorphize. The question is modified from a validated measure (Ref. 23). We do not intend to assess people's acceptance of animated DTC ads through this question. Instead, we are using this as a possible moderator variable to explain some of the variance we might find in responses to other questions. Indeed, another commenter wrote that we should measure demographics and other possibly confounding variables. This is one of these variables. The amount of humanization people ascribe to nonhuman objects may influence their attitudes and perceptions, and these items have been validated in past research. It is not an outcome measure.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on or before November 25, 2016.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Margaret Hazen, Supervisory Park Ranger, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve at
The National Park Service Organic Act, 54 U.S.C. 100101(a)
Bear sighting data provides the park with important data used to determine bear movements, habitat use, and species distribution. This information can be used in backcountry management and planning, field research planning, and educational outreach for visitors. Bear-human interaction data is vital to understand how bears respond to people, detecting changes in bear behavior, and identifying potential areas of high bear-human conflict. Obtaining immediate information on bear-human conflicts allows managers to respond promptly to mitigate further conflicts. Proactive mitigation includes notifying other backcountry users, issuing advisories or recommendations, or issuing closures to prevent further conflicts and maintain public safety. Additionally, managers may respond to reports of bear-human conflict with bear management techniques such as hazing or aversive conditioning. Obtaining current accurate information on bear sightings and interactions is essential for public safety and to effectively manage bears and people to minimize conflicts. Summary statistics (without personal information) may be generated to examine long-term trends in types and locations of bear-human interactions. Observations and interactions by visitors are recorded via the two forms: NPS Form 10-405 and NPS Form 10-406.
The NPS requires the submission of NPS Form 10-405 upon exiting the park backcountry in order to collect information regarding bear sightings within GLBA. The collection and timeliness of the data collection is critical for the NPS' ability to enhance the safety of future visitors and to protect the bear population at the park. Information collected via NPS Form 10-405 includes:
• Group name;
• Take-out date;
• Whether visitor encountered dirty campsites left by previous users or observe unsafe or inappropriate behavior by other groups; and
• Detailed information for each sighting documented on the form, to include:
○ Date/time;
○ Species type
○ Total number of bears seen together (for each sighting);
○ Bear unit type;
○ Estimation of distance between visitor and bear(s);
○ Whether the bear was aware of the group;
○ Bear reaction to group;
○ Activity of group;
○ Number of observers; and
○ Location description/campsite name/GPS position/other comments.
Submission of a completed NPS Form 10-406 is required when a bear enters camp, approaches the group, damages gear, obtains food, and/or acts in an aggressive or threatening manner towards the group. The collection and timeliness of data concerning bear-human contact is critical for the NPS' ability to enhance the safety of future visitors and to protect the bear population at the park. Information collected via NPS Form 10-406 includes:
• Name and phone number of the primary person involved in the interaction;
• Group type: Park visitor, concession employee, contractor, researcher, NPS employee, or other;
• Number of people who encountered the bear;
• Corresponding sighting number on NPS Form 10-405; Location 1-28 (Backcountry vs. Developed Area A and B);
• Types of vegetation in area of encounter;
• The bear's activity when it was first observed;
• The group's activity prior to seeing the bear;
• The bear's initial and subsequent reaction to the group;
• Group's response to bear's reaction;
• Group's distance to the bear;
• Whether food was present, and if so, if it was eaten by the bear;
• Whether property was damaged;
• Detailed description of the interaction;
• Detailed description of the bear, to include color, markings, scars, tags, etc.;
• Date, time, and duration of encounter;
• Exact location of encounter documented on map provided by GLBA, to include the latitude/longitude;
• Where did the individual learn about how to behave while in bear country; and
• Whether visitor encountered dirty campsites left by previous users or observe unsafe or inappropriate behavior by other groups
On June 26, 2015, we published in the
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
Edward Petronzio (202-205-3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 19, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Andrea Electronics Corp. of Bohemia, New York. A supplement was filed on October 5, 2016. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain audio processing hardware, software, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (“the '607 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (“the '345 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637 (“the '637 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain audio processing hardware, software, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-12 and 25-37 of the '607 patent; claims 1-25, 38-40, and 42-47 of the '345 patent; claims 1-14 of the '637 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which
(a) The complainant is: Andrea Electronics Corp., 620 Johnson Avenue, Suite 1B, Bohemia, NY 11716.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 26, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Silicon Genesis Corporation of Santa Clara, California. Supplements were filed on October 3 and 7, 2016. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain silicon-on-insulator wafers by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,458,672 (“the '672 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,171,965 (“the '965 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain silicon-on-insulator wafers by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, 28 and 39 of the '672 patent and claims 1-3 and 5 of the '965 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Notwithstanding any Commission Rules that would otherwise apply, the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall hold an early evidentiary hearing, find facts, and issue an early decision, as to whether the complainant has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Any such decision shall be in the form of an initial determination (ID). Petitions for review of such an ID shall be due five calendar days after service of the ID; any replies shall be due three business days after service of a petition. The ID will become the Commission's final determination 30 days after the date of service of the ID unless the Commission determines to review the ID. Any such review will be conducted in accordance with Commission Rules 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45, 19 CFR 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45. The Commission expects the issuance of an early ID relating to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement within 100 days of institution, except that the presiding ALJ may grant a limited extension of the ID for good cause shown. The issuance of an early ID finding that complainants do not satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement shall stay the investigation unless the Commission orders otherwise; any other decision shall not stay the investigation or delay the issuance of a final ID covering the other issues of the investigation;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: Silicon Genesis Corporation, 2424 Walsh Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95054.
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate from South Africa and the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel plate from Belgium, South Africa, Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
Amelia Shister (202-205-2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 34), granting a motion of complainant United States Steel Corporation to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to correct the name of respondent “Shougang Group” to “Shougang Corporation.”
Megan M Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on June 2, 2016, based on a complaint filed by United States Steel Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“U.S. Steel”), alleging a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. 81 FR 35381 (June 2, 2016). The notice of investigation named numerous respondents, including Shougang Group and China Shougang International Trade & Engineering Corporation (“Shougang Trade”) both of Beijing, China.
On August 31, 2016, U.S. Steel filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to correct the name of respondent “Shougang Group” to “Shougang Corporation.” On September 12, 2016, respondent Shougang Trade responded to the motion, identifying an apparent error in the proposed amended Complaint but stating that it does not oppose the motion. No other responses were received.
On September 19, 2016, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting U.S. Steel's motion pursuant to Commission rule 210.14(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.14(b)(1)). The ID notes that on June 30, 2016, following institution of the investigation, Shougang Trade filed a response to the Complaint, stating that “Shougang Group” is not a legal entity. Shougang Trade also asserted that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shougang Corporation. U.S. Steel noted in its motion that the address for Shougang Corporation is the same address that was identified in the Complaint for “Shougang Group.” The ALJ found there is good cause to amend the pleadings to correct the name of a misidentified respondent. The ALJ also found that there is no prejudice in identifying Shougang Corporation at this stage of the investigation because Shougang Trade, its wholly owned subsidiary, was properly served the Complaint and Notice of Investigation and has entered an appearance.
No petitions for review were filed and the Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice (DOJ).
Final order.
This final order establishes the final adjusted 2016 aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.
This order is effective October 25, 2016.
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152, Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826),
The DEA published the 2016 established aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II and for the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine in the
Four DEA-registered entities submitted timely comments regarding a total of six schedule I and II controlled substances. Comments received proposed that the aggregate production quotas for amphetamine (for sale), etorphine hydrochloride, methadone, methadone intermediate, nabilone, and phencyclidine were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. The DEA received one comment from a non-DEA registered entity requesting the reduction of oxycodone (for sale) to pre-2013 levels. The DEA received one comment from a DEA registrant regarding the proposed removal of the additional 25% of the estimated medical, scientific, and research needs of the United States for the calendar year 2017 published in the
The DEA received one comment from a DEA-registered entity and two comments from non-DEA registered entities for the proposed adjustments to the 2016 assessment of annual needs for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. Comments received proposed that the annual assessment of needs for ephedrine (for sale) and pseudoephedrine (for sale) were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks.
In determining the final adjusted 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs, the DEA has taken into consideration the above comments along with the factors set forth in 21 CFR 1303.13 and 21 CFR 1315.13 in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826(a), and other relevant factors including the 2015 year-end inventories, initial 2016 manufacturing and import quotas, 2016 export requirements, actual and projected 2016 sales, research and product development requirements, and additional applications received. Based on all of the above, the Administrator has determined that the proposed adjusted 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for amphetamine (for sale), etorphine hydrochloride, dextropropoxyphene, levorphanol, nabilone, noroxymorphone (for sale), phencyclidine, and secobarbital required additional consideration, and hereby further adjusts the 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for these substances. This final order reflects those adjustments.
Regarding ephedrine (for sale), methadone, methadone intermediate, oxycodone (for sale), and pseudoephedrine (for sale) the Administrator hereby determines that the proposed adjusted 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for these substances and list I chemicals as published on July 22, 2016, (81 FR 47829) are sufficient to meet the current 2016 estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States and to provide for adequate reserve stock. This final order establishes these aggregate production quotas at the same amounts as proposed.
As described in the previously published notice establishing the 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs, the DEA has specifically considered that inventory allowances granted to individual manufacturers may not always result in the availability of sufficient quantities to maintain an adequate reserve stock pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826(a), as intended. 21 CFR 1303.24. This would be concerning if a natural disaster or other unforeseen event resulted in substantial disruption to the amount of controlled substances available to provide for legitimate public need. As such, the DEA included in all final schedule II aggregate production quotas, and certain schedule I aggregate production quotas, an additional 25% of the estimated medical, scientific, and research needs as part of the amount necessary to ensure the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. The resulting final aggregate production quotas will reflect these included amounts. This action will not affect the ability of manufacturers to maintain inventory allowances as specified by regulation. The DEA expects that maintaining this reserve in certain established aggregate production quotas will mitigate adverse public effects if an unforeseen event results in the substantial disruption to the amount of controlled substances available to provide for legitimate public need, as determined by the DEA. The DEA does not anticipate utilizing the reserve in the absence of these circumstances.
Pursuant to the above, the Administrator hereby finalizes the 2016 aggregate production quotas for the following schedule I and II controlled substances and the 2016 assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows:
Aggregate production quotas for all other schedule I and II controlled substances included in 21 CFR 1308.11 and 1308.12 remain at zero.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Program to Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before November 25, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Program to Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines information collection. Regulations 30 CFR 75.1702 prohibits a person from smoking or carrying smoking materials underground or in places where there is a fire or explosion hazard. Regulations 30 CFR 75.1702-1 requires a mine operator to submit a smoking prevention plan to the MSHA for approval. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 section 103(h) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Notice.
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will be submitting the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before November 25, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing
By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on October 19, 2016.
National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the National Council on the Humanities will meet to advise the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) with respect to policies, programs and procedures for carrying out his functions; to review applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 and make recommendations thereon to the Chairman; and to consider gifts offered to NEH and make recommendations thereon to the Chairman.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m., and Friday, November 18, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until adjourned.
The meeting will be held at Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. See
Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322;
The National Council on the Humanities is meeting pursuant to the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 951-960, as amended). The Committee meetings of the National Council on the Humanities will be held on November 17, 2016, as follows: the policy discussion session
The plenary session of the National Council on the Humanities will convene on November 18, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. in the Conference Center at Constitution Center. The agenda for the morning session (open to the public) will be as follows:
The remainder of the plenary session will be for consideration of specific applications and therefore will be closed to the public.
As identified above, portions of the meeting of the National Council on the Humanities will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4), 552b(c)(6) and 552b(c)(9)(b) of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The closed sessions will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, and discussion of certain information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.
Please note that individuals planning to attend the public sessions of the meeting are subject to security screening procedures. If you wish to attend any of the public sessions, please inform NEH as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Katherine Griffin at (202) 606-8322 or
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from September 27, 2016, to October 7, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on October 11, 2016.
Comments must be filed by November 25, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 27, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0214, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0214, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by December 27, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter “petition”), and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment, which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would modify the KPS renewed facility operating license by revising the emergency plan and revising the EAL scheme. KPS has permanently ceased operation and is permanently defueled. The proposed amendment is conditioned on all spent nuclear fuel being removed from wet storage in the spent fuel pool and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI. Occurrence of postulated accidents associated with spent fuel stored in a spent fuel pool is no longer credible in a spent fuel pool devoid of such fuel. The proposed amendment has no effect on plant systems, structures, and components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC. The proposed amendment would have no effect on any of the previously evaluated accidents in the KPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
Since KPS has permanently ceased operation, the generation of fission products has ceased and the remaining source term continues to decay. This continues to significantly reduce the consequences of previously postulated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment constitutes a revision of the emergency planning function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in radiological source term at KPS.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment as a result of the proposed amendment.
Similarly, the proposed amendment would not physically change any SSCs involved in the mitigation of any postulated accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new failure mode associated with any equipment or personnel failures. The credible events for the ISFSI remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for KPS no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible. With all nuclear spent fuel pool transferred out of wet storage from the spent fuel pool and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI, a fuel handling accident is no longer credible. There are no longer credible events that would result in any releases beyond the site boundary exceeding the EPA PAG [Environmental Protection Agency protective action guideline] exposure levels, as detailed in the EPA's “Protective Action Guide and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents,” Draft for Interim Use and Public Comment dated March 2013 (PAG Manual).
The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems, and components perform their safety function or their design margins. Because there is no change to the physical design of the plant, there is no change to any of these margins.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability of a heavy load drop onto fuel is unchanged by this amendment since the intermediate lift device is not used for handling loaded or unloaded spent fuel canisters in or around the spent fuel pool. Heavy load lifts in and around the spent fuel pool will continue to be performed per the current licensing basis.
The proposed amendment has no effect on the capability of any plant systems, structures, and components (SSCs) to perform their design functions. The spent fuel pool is unaffected by the proposed amendment. The design function of the auxiliary building crane is not changed. Other lifting devices and interfacing lifting points associated with spent fuel cask handling are designed in accordance with applicable NRC guidance pertaining to single failure proof lifting systems. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC. The proposed amendment would have no effect on any of the previously evaluated accidents in the KPS USAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not affect cask handling activities in or around the KPS spent fuel pool. Drops of heavy loads will continue to be very improbable events. Use of a different type of equipment to lift spent fuel canisters does not involve any new or different kind of accident.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. Similarly, the proposed amendment would not physically change any SSCs involved in the mitigation
The possibility of a heavy load drop onto fuel remains non-credible since the intermediate lift device is not used to handle spent fuel canisters in or around the spent fuel pool. Heavy load lifts in and around the spent fuel pool will continue to be performed per the current licensing basis. The proposed amendment does not impact safe shutdown equipment. The spent fuel pool, including its cooling and inventory makeup, is unaffected by the proposed amendment.
The current licensing basis (USAR Section 14.2.1) includes evaluations of the consequences of a fuel handling accident involving failure of fuel cladding. Postulation of a canister load drop creates the possibility of a new initiator of this previously evaluated accident (failure of fuel cladding) caused by the postulated non-mechanistic single failure of the intermediate lift device. The analysis concludes that the postulated drop of a canister loaded with fuel assemblies would not result in failure of canister integrity (and therefore there would be no radiological release). The consequences of a canister drop are bounded by the current licensing scenario of a fuel handling accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Heavy load handling will continue to be conducted in accordance with NRC approved methods. Analysis of a postulated load drop of a loaded spent fuel canister demonstrates satisfactory outcomes.
The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not significantly affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems, and components perform their safety function or their design margins. Because there is no change to the physical design of the plant, there is likewise no significant change to any of these margins.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would modify the CR-3 facility operating license and PDTS by deleting the portions of the license and PDTS that are no longer applicable to a facility with no spent nuclear fuel stored in the spent fuel pools, while modifying the remaining portions to correspond to all nuclear fuel stored within an ISFSI. This amendment will be implemented within 60 days following DEF's submittal of written notification to the NRC that all spent fuel assemblies have been transferred out of the spent fuel pools and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI.
The definition of safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) in 10 CFR 50.2 states that safety-related SSCs are those relied on to remain functional during and following design basis events to assure:
1. The integrity of the reactor coolant boundary;
2. The capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition; or
3. The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in potential offsite exposures comparable to the applicable guideline exposures set forth in 10 CFR 50.43(a)(1) or 100.11.
The first two criteria (integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and safe shutdown of the reactor) are not applicable to a plant in a permanently defueled condition. The third criterion is related to preventing or mitigating the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite exposures exceeding limits. However, after all nuclear spent fuel assemblies have been transferred to dry cask storage within an ISFSI, none of the SSCs at CR-3 are required to be relied on for accident mitigation. Therefore, none of the SSCs at CR-3 meet the definition of a safety-related SSC stated in 10 CFR 50.2. The proposed deletion of requirements in the PDTS does not affect systems credited in any accident analysis at CR-3.
Section 14 of the CR-3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) described the design basis accidents (DBAs) related to the spent fuel pools. These postulated accidents are predicated on spent fuel being stored in the spent fuel pools. With the removal of the spent fuel from the spent fuel pools, there are no remaining spent fuel assemblies to be monitored and there are no credible accidents that require the actions of a Certified Fuel Handler, Shift Manager, or a Non-certified Operator to prevent occurrence or mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the remaining decommissioning activities or any of their postulated consequences.
The proposed changes related to the relocation of certain administrative requirements do not affect operating procedures or administrative controls that have the function of preventing or mitigating any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated fuel or decommissioning of the facility.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes eliminate the operational requirements and certain design requirements associated with the storage of the spent fuel in the spent fuel pools, and relocate certain administrative controls to the Quality Assurance Program Description or other licensee controlled document.
After the removal of the spent fuel from the spent fuel pools and transfer to the ISFSI, there are no spent fuel assemblies that remain in the spent fuel pools. Coupled with a prohibition against storage of fuel in the spent fuel pools, the potential for fuel related accidents is removed. The proposed changes do not introduce any new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The removal of all spent nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pools into storage in casks within an ISFSI, coupled with a prohibition against future storage of fuel within the spent fuel pools, removes the potential for fuel related accidents.
The design basis and accident assumptions within the CR-3 FSAR and the PDTS relating to safe management and safety of spent fuel in the spent fuel pools are no longer applicable. The proposed changes do not affect remaining plant operations, systems, or components supporting decommissioning activities.
The requirements for systems, structures, and components (SSCs) that have been removed from the CR-3 PDTS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for any applicable postulated accident; and as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and alter only the format and location of programmatic controls and procedural details relative to explosive gas monitoring and liquid holdup tanks. Existing TS containing procedural details are being relocated to licensee control. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements will continue to be maintained. In addition, the proposed changes do not alter the conditions or assumptions in any of the previous accident analyses. Because the previous accident analyses remain bounding, the radiological consequences previously evaluated are not adversely affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for any plant system or component important to safety nor has any new limiting single failure been identified as a result of the proposed changes. Also, there will be no change in types or increase in the amounts of any effluents released offsite.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety and are considered administrative in nature. The proposed changes do not involve any actual change in the methodology used in the monitoring of explosive gas mixtures contained in the Gaseous Waste Processing System. HNP does not currently utilize unprotected outdoor liquid storage tanks; therefore, there are no associated methodology changes with this request. These changes provide for the relocation of procedural details outside of the technical specifications with the addition of appropriate administrative controls to provide continued assurance of compliance to applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a modification of any plant hardware; the probability and consequence of the Pressure Regulator Failure Open (PRFO) transient are essentially unchanged. The reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit (SL) from 785 psig to 685 psig provides greater margin to accommodate the pressure reduction
The proposed change will continue to support the validity range for the correlations and the calculation of Minimum Core Power Ratio (MCPR) as approved. The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal, accident or transient operating conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure SL from 785 psig to 685 psig is a change based upon previously approved documents and does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the change does not introduce a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. The proposed change in reactor dome pressure enhances the safety margin, which protects the fuel cladding integrity during a depressurization transient, but does not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment, which remains unchanged. The available pressure range is expanded by the change, thus offering greater margin for pressure reduction during the transient.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take effect until JAF has permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled condition. The proposed amendment would modify the JAF TS by deleting the portions of the TS that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility, while modifying the other sections to correspond to the permanently defueled condition.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the administrative controls do not directly affect the design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) necessary for safe storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and storage of such fuel in the fuel pool. The changes to the administrative controls are administrative in nature and do not affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the reactor.
In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accident is the fuel handling accident.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The administrative removal of or modifications of the TS that are related only to administration of facility cannot result in different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and JAF will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
The proposed deletion of requirements of the JAF TS do not affect systems credited in the accident analysis for the fuel handling accident at JAF. The proposed TS will continue to require proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses, such a condition does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for JAF will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel once the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) are submitted, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible. The only remaining credible accident is a fuel handling accident (FHA). The proposed
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the OL [operating license] and TS that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the JAF OL and TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the remaining applicable as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis. Postulated DBAs [design-basis accidents] involving the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and JAF will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS 4.0.5, Surveillance Requirements for inservice inspection and testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2 & 3 components, by revising the Inservice Testing Program and Inservice Inspection Program specification.
Most requirements in the IST Program are removed, as they are duplicative of requirements in the ASME OM Code, as clarified by Code Case OMN-20, “Inservice Test Frequency.” The remaining requirements in the TS Section 4.0.5, IST Program are eliminated because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined term, “Inservice Testing Program,” is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f).
Similarly, the requirements in the ISI Program are revised, as they are [ ] duplicative of requirements in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda.
Performance of inservice testing or inservice inspection is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with the exception that testing frequencies greater than two years may be extended by up to six months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a result, the availability of the affected components, as well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated, is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of inservice testing or inservice inspection performed. In most cases, the frequency of inservice testing and inservice inspection is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing or inspection would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates some provisions from the TS in lieu of provisions in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code Case OMN-20 (IST) or ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ISI). Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with frequencies greater than two years to be extended by six months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to respond to an accident as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. The proposed change will eliminate the existing TS SR 4.0.2 allowance to perform a specified surveillance time interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25% of the surveillance interval, unless there is a specific SR referencing usage of the INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM and TS SR 4.0.3 allowance to defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the requirements of any TS. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect on plant operation or safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TMI Emergency Plan do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of the onsite ERO [emergency response organization] to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The proposed changes remove onsite ERO positions no longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to the ERO minimum on-shift staffing.
The proposed changes are associated with the Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these proposed changes. The proposed changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary onsite ERO response staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of eliminating a non-conservative Required Action. The proposed TS change does not introduce new equipment or new equipment operating modes, nor does the proposed change alter existing system relationships. The proposed change does not affect normal plant operation. Further, the proposed change does not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any SSC [structure, system and component] or impact any analyzed accident. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected and there is no significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of eliminating a non-conservative Required Action. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of eliminating a non-conservative Required Action. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis assumptions and acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS Chapter 6, “Administrative Controls,” Section 6.8, “Procedures and Programs,” by eliminating the “Inservice Testing Program” specification. Most requirements in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as they are duplicative of requirements in the ASME OM Code, as clarified by Code Case OMN-20, “Inservice Test Frequency.” The remaining requirements in the Section 6.8 IST Program are eliminated [. . .]. A new defined term, “Inservice Testing Program,” is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f).
Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a result, the availability of the affected components, as well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated, is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates some requirements from the TS in lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to respond to an accident as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. The proposed change will eliminate the existing TS 4.0.3 allowance to defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment operability). Should the component be inoperable, the TS provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the requirements of any TS. [. . .] However, elimination of the statement will have no effect on plant operation or safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the field programmable gate array (FPGA) to function properly. The proposed change to the FPGA core power has no adverse effect on the operation of the output actuation relays. The function of the internal power supply has no input to plant safety analysis. The change to the CIM internal power supply has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc [volts direct current] supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on the CIM functionality.
The proposed changes to clarify how licensing basis design documentation reflects compliance with license basis requirements, and the proposed change to the ownership of safety remote node controller (SRNC) and CIM intellectual property, are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiator in the UFSAR, or affect the radioactive material releases in the UFSAR accident analyses. The proposed change does not alter the ability of the facility to prevent and mitigate abnormal events,
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the FPGA to function properly and does not involve accident initiators. The change to the CIM internal power supply has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on CIM functionality.
The proposed clarified descriptions and the proposed change to the ownership of SRNC and CIM intellectual property are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not affect other plant equipment or adversely affect the design of the CIM. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect any safety-related equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. No system or design function or equipment qualification would be adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, the proposed changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the FPGA to function properly. The function of the internal power supply has no input to plant safety analysis. The change to the CIM internal power supplies has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on the CIM functionality.
The proposed clarified descriptions and the proposed change to the ownership of SRNC and CIM intellectual property are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design, construction, or operation of any plant SSCs, including any equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no system function, design function, or equipment qualification will be adversely affected by the changes. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to revise plant-specific Tier 1, COL Appendix C, and [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] information concerning details of the IDS, specifically the addition of seven Class 1E fuse isolation panels at the interconnection of the non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and Class 1E IDS circuits, are necessary to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.75 Rev. 2 (consistent with UFSAR Appendix 1A exceptions) and IEEE 384-1981 to prevent a fault on non-Class 1E circuits or equipment from degrading the operation of Class 1E IDS circuits and equipment below an acceptable level. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design functions of the IDS, including the Class 1E battery banks and the battery monitors.
These proposed changes to revise plant-specific Tier 1, COL Appendix C, and UFSAR information concerning details of the IDS, specifically the addition of seven Class 1E fuse isolation panels at the interconnection of the non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and Class 1E IDS circuits as described in the current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions of any plant systems. The proposed changes do not adversely affect any plant electrical system and do not affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to revise plant-specific Tier 1, COL Appendix C, and UFSAR information concerning details of the IDS, specifically the addition of seven Class 1E fuse isolation panels at the interconnection of the non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and Class 1E IDS circuits, are necessary to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.75 Rev. 2 (consistent with UFSAR Appendix 1A exceptions) and IEEE 384-1981 to prevent a fault on non-Class 1E circuits or equipment from degrading the operation of Class 1E IDS circuits and equipment below an acceptable level. The proposed changes do not adversely affect any plant electrical system and do not adversely affect the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed changes do not result in a new failure mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design function described in the UFSAR is adversely affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There is no safety-related [structure, system, and component (SSC)] or function adversely affected by the proposed change to add IDS fuse isolation panels to non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and Class 1E IDS circuits. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes and no margin or safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps (WWS-MP-07A and WWS-MP-07B) to COL Appendix C Subsection 2.3.29 and corresponding Table 2.3.29-1 will provide consistency within the current licensing basis. The main turbine building sumps and sump pumps are not safety-related components and do not interface with any systems, structures, or components (SSCs) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events; thus, the probability of accidents evaluated within the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to accident conditions, thus the consequences of accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps to the non-safety waste water system (WWS) do not affect any safety-related equipment, nor do they add any new interface to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The WWS is a non-safety-related system that does not interface with any safety-related equipment. The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps do not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) provides flooding of the refueling cavity for normal refueling. The tank also serves as a heat sink during Passive Residual Heat Removal (PRHR) Heat Exchanger (HX) operation and in the event of a loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) provides injection in support of long-term RCS [reactor coolant system] cooling. This activity adds normally closed covers to the IRWST vents and overflow weirs to prevent debris from entering the tank, prevent over-pressurization and accommodate volume and mass increases in the tank. The vent and overflow weir covers open upon differential pressures between the IRWST and containment.
The rod drive MG sets provide the power to the control rod drive mechanisms through the reactor trip switchgear. This activity revises the equipment description and equipment tag associated with the risk-significant control relays which open to de-energize the rod drive MG sets and permit rods to drop.
The proposed changes to add the IRWST vent and overflow weir covers and to change the description of the equipment and equipment tag related to the rod drive MG sets does not inhibit the SSCs from performing their safety-related function. The design bases of the IRWST vents and overflow weirs are not modified as a result of the addition of the covers to the vents and overflow weirs and the change to the control cabinet relay description and equipment tag. This proposed amendment does not have an adverse impact on the response to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions because the functions of the SSCs are not changed. Required IRWST venting is not affected for any accident conditions. Required DAS functions are not affected for any accident conditions. Safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is not adversely affected by this change. The changes to include the IRWST covers and to change the control cabinet relay description and tag number do not involve an interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) modeling and analyses associated with the SSCs are not impacted by this change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the IRWST vent and overflow weir covers do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect plant safety or safety-related equipment as the simplistic design of the cover louvers and hinged flappers are not considered unique designs. No new credible failure modes are introduced by the addition of the covers.
The proposed changes to the description and equipment tag associated with the risk-significant control relays for the rod drive MG sets do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect plant safety or safety-related equipment because the design function of the control relays, control cabinets, or rod drive MG sets is not changed.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain compliance with the applicable Codes and Standards, thereby maintaining the margin of safety associated with these SSCs. The proposed changes do not alter any applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus the margin of safety is not reduced. Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by these changes, no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the field programmable gate array (FPGA) to function properly. The proposed change to the FPGA core power has no adverse effect on the operation of the output actuation relays. The function of the internal power supply has no input to plant safety analysis. The change to the CIM internal power supply has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc [volts direct current] supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on the CIM functionality.
The proposed changes to clarify how licensing basis design documentation reflects compliance with license basis requirements, and the proposed change to the ownership of safety remote node controller (SRNC) and CIM intellectual property, are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiator in the UFSAR, or affect the radioactive material releases in the UFSAR accident analyses. The proposed change does not alter the ability of the facility to prevent and mitigate abnormal events,
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the FPGA to function properly and does not involve accident initiators. The change to the CIM internal power supply has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on CIM functionality.
The proposed clarified descriptions and the proposed change to the ownership of SRNC and CIM intellectual property are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not affect other plant equipment or adversely affect the design of the CIM. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect any safety-related equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. No system or design function or equipment qualification would be adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, the proposed changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the FPGA to function properly. The function of the internal power supply has no input to plant safety analysis. The change to the CIM internal power supplies has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on the CIM functionality.
The proposed clarified descriptions and the proposed change to the ownership of SRNC and CIM intellectual property are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design, construction, or operation of any plant SSCs, including any equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no system function, design function, or equipment qualification will be adversely affected by the changes. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment contains no technical changes; all proposed changes are administrative. These changes are consistent with the intent of what has already been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are no accidents affected by this change, and therefore no increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment contains no technical changes; all proposed changes are administrative. These changes are consistent with the intent of what has already been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are no accidents affected by this change, and therefore no possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment contains no technical changes; all proposed changes are administrative. These changes are consistent with the intent of what has already been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are no accidents affected by this change, and therefore no reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical change to structures, systems, or components (SSCs) and do not alter the method of operation of any SSCs. The proposed change addresses a temporary condition during which Secondary Containment SRs are not met. The Secondary Containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. [Two accidents credit the Secondary Containment from a dose consequence perspective. They are the
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of any plant equipment. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are not setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function of credited equipment be changed. No alterations in the procedures that ensure the plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no changes are being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event described in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter the assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change addresses temporary conditions during which the Secondary Containment SR is not met. The allowance for both an inner and outer Secondary Containment access door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the reactor enclosure and refuel area Secondary Containments as the doors are promptly closed after entry of exit, thereby restoring the Secondary Containment boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent simultaneous opening and closing of redundant Secondary Containment personnel access doors during normal entry and exit conditions does not affect the ability of the SGTS to establish the required Secondary Containment vacuum. Therefore, the safety function of the Secondary Containment is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The requested action is a one-time extension to the performance interval for TS SRs [3.6.11.2] and 3.6.11.3. The performance of these surveillances, or the extension of these surveillances, is not a precursor to an accident. Performing these surveillances or failing to perform these surveillances does not affect the probability of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed delay in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
A delay in performing these surveillances does not result in a system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of this one-time extension request, the short period of additional time that the systems and components will be in service before the next performance of the surveillance will not affect the ability of those systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this action and the consequences remain consistent with previously evaluated accidents. On this basis, the proposed delay in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the one-time SR extensions being requested.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the performance interval of TS SRs [3.6.11.2] and 3.6.11.3. Extending these surveillance requirements does not involve a modification of any TS limiting conditions for operation. Extending these SRs does not involve a change to any limit on accident consequences specified in the license or regulations. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in how accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in a methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in any operating procedure or process.
Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems and components will be in service before the surveillances are next performed, as well as the operating experience that these surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is reasonable to conclude that the margins of safety associated with these SRs will not be affected by the requested extension.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the AOT for only one operable CPSW or MCR/ESGR AC flow path from 24 hours to 72 hours. The CPSW subsystem is a support system for the Charging/High Head Safety Injection (HHSI) pumps; the proposed CPSW AOT extension aligns the CPSW support system AOT with the AOT for the supported components (
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the AOT for only one operable CPSW or MCR/ESGRAC flow path from 24 hours to 72 hours. In addition, the proposed change deletes the now expired and no longer necessary requirements for the temporary SW jumper to the CCHXs. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the AOT for only one operable CPSW or MCR/ESGR AC flow path from 24 hours to 72 hours. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. There are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Furthermore, as noted above, a supporting PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] was performed for the proposed AOT changes. The PRA concluded that the increase in risk associated with the proposed changes is consistent with the RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and RG 1.177 acceptance guidelines for a permanent TS AOT change. This PRA evaluation demonstrates that defense-in-depth will not be significantly impacted by changing the AOTs for only one operable SW flow path to the CPSW subsystem and to the MCR/ESGR AC subsystem from 24 to 72 hours. In addition, the proposed change deletes the now expired and no longer necessary requirements for the temporary SW jumper to the CCHXs. The deletion of these temporary requirements is administrative in nature. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design function of the ESW pumps is to ensure that water can be provided to the intake canal (
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. There are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Furthermore, as noted above, a supporting PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] was performed for the proposed AOT change. The PRA concluded that the increase in risk associated with the proposed change is consistent with the RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and RG 1.177 acceptance guidelines for a permanent TS AOT change. This PRA evaluation demonstrates that defense-in-depth will not be significantly impacted by changing the AOT for one inoperable ESW pump from 7 to 14 days.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated October 5, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated October 3, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated September 29, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C Systems will hold a meeting on November 2, 2016, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the Proposed Rulemaking on Cyber Security for Fuel Cycle Facilities. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christina Antonescu (Telephone 301-415-6792 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on November 3, 2016, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or Email:
Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
October 24, 31, November 7, 14, 21, 28, 2016.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 7, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 14, 2016.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 21, 2016.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Generic communications; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing selected generic communications because their guidance no longer provides useful information, their guidance is superseded by updated guidance, or the information can be more effectively made available to interested stakeholders by other means.
The effective date of the withdrawals is October 25, 2016.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0101 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Angela M. Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976; email:
The NRC performs periodic reviews of generic communications and withdraws them when they no longer provide useful information or are superseded by technological innovations or updated guidance. A withdrawal includes the original generic communication and any supplements or revisions. The NRC is currently publishing withdrawals of generic communications on a quarterly basis.
Withdrawal of the original generic communication and supplements, if applicable, will not affect the public's ability to obtain this information. The original generic communication and supplements will remain accessible through ADAMS and the NRC's generic communications Web site. The NRC's generic communication Web site will be updated to reflect the generic communications status as withdrawn. The generic communications Web site is accessible at
The following generic communications, by category, are withdrawn.
This class of generic communications includes NRC requests for licensing action estimates, scheduling of acceptance reviews to determine budget, and requests for advance notice to pursue license renewals. This class of generic communications are routine
• Administrative Letter (AL) 1998-03, “Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,” May 6, 1998 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031110198);
• AL 1999-02, “Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,” June 3, 1999 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031110137);
• Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2000-04, “Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,” March 16, 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003687730);
• RIS 2001-08, “Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,” April 2, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML010880474);
• RIS 2001-21, “Licensing Action Estimates for Operating Reactors,” November 16, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML012840123);
• RIS 2014-13, “Planned Licensing Action Submittals for all Power Reactor Licensees,” December 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14329A165);
• RIS 2008-01, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews Based on Notification of Applicant Submission Dates for Early Site Permits, Combined Licenses and Design Certifications and Process for Determining Budget Needs for Fiscal Year 2010,” January 10, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080030011);
• RIS 2009-03, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews of New Reactor Licensing Applications After April 2009 and Process for Determining Budget Needs For Fiscal Year 2011,” February 12, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083260416);
• RIS 2010-01, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews of New Reactor Licensing Applications and Process for Determining Budget Needs for Fiscal Year 2012,” February 3, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093230517);
• RIS 2010-03, “Licensing Submittal Information for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” February 25, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100260855);
• RIS 2010-10, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews of New Reactor Licensing Applications and Process for Determining Budget Needs for Fiscal Year 2013,” November 15, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102720901);
• RIS 2011-02, “Licensing Submittal Information and Design Development Activities for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” February 2, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260128);
• RIS 2012-12, “Licensing Submittal Information and Design Development Activities for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” December 28, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A181);
• RIS 2013-08, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews of New Reactor Licensing and Design Certification Applications and Process for Determining Budget Needs for Fiscal Year 2016,” May 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13077A148);
• RIS 2013-18, “Licensing Submittal Information and Design Development Activities for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” November 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13263A227);
• RIS 2000-20, “Importance of Industry Providing NRC Advance Notice of Intent to Pursue License Renewal,” November 14, 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003752145); and
• RIS 2003-02, “Importance of Giving NRC Advance Notice of Intent to Pursue License Renewal,” February 3, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML030340042).
• RIS 2002-08, “Availability of the Topical Report Program Description and Status on Staff Reviews on the NRC's Web site,” dated May 22, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML012760489), is withdrawn because this RIS informed industry that the publication of NUREG-0390, “Topical Report Review Status,” was being discontinued and all information contained within the NUREG would be available on the NRC's Web site,
• Circular 1980-18, “10 CFR 50.59 [§ 50.59 of title 10 of the C
• The class of communications in reference to occupational dose or dose equivalent are withdrawn because the information contained within each RIS has been consolidated into the guidance in Regulatory Guide 8.40, “Methods for Measuring Effective Dose Equivalent from External Exposure,” dated July 31, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100610534). Therefore, these generic communications are being withdrawn:
○ RIS 2002-06, “Evaluating Occupational Dose for Individuals Exposed to NRC-Licensed Material and Medical X-Rays,” April 16, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML021080436);
○ RIS 2003-04, “Use of the Effective Dose Equivalent in Place of the Deep Dose Equivalent in Dose Assessments,” February 13, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML030370122);
○ RIS 2004-01, “Method for Estimating Effective Dose Equivalent from External Radiation Sources Using Two Dosimeters,” February 17, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040420042); and
○ RIS 2009-09, “Use of Multiple Dosimetry and Compartment Factors in Determining Effective Dose Equivalent from External Radiation Exposures, July 13, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML082320040).
• GL 1989-17, “Planned Administrative Changes to the NRC Operator Licensing Written Exam Process,” September 6, 1989 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031140236), is withdrawn because the eligibility requirements for taking the generic fundamentals examination section has been incorporated into Revision 10 of NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” December 31, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14352A297).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 477 (17 CFR 230.477) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would amend the DTC Operational Arrangements for Securities to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services (“OA”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would change the method of submission of Older Issue Eligibility Requests by Participants from the current email method to instead utilize DTC's Securities Origination, Underwriting and Reliable Corporate Action Environment (“UW SOURCE”) for this purpose.
In order for an Older Issue to be made eligible for Deposit and book-entry transfer services at DTC, a Participant must submit an Older Issue Eligibility Request to DTC
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, in an effort to improve processing efficiencies and provide a centralized, secure method for the submission of Older Issue Eligibility Requests, Participants would be required to submit their Older Issue Eligibility Requests, including required Eligibility Request Documents, through UW SOURCE with the designation as an “Eligibility Only” request.
Implementation of the proposed rule change would provide several advantages to Participants and DTC in relation to the current email-based method used for Participants to transmit Older Issue Eligibility Requests to DTC. First, UW SOURCE would enhance security in transmission of Older Issue Eligibility Requests by using a secure online system instead of the current email method.
Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would amend the text of the OA to:
i. State that Eligibility Request Documents must be submitted through UW SOURCE;
ii. update an Internet link to an informational page on DTCC's Web site relating to UW SOURCE; and
iii. update the copyright date of the OA.
In addition, DTC would amend the Guide to:
i. Delete text indicating that Older Issue Eligibility Requests are submitted either by providing DTC with copies of security certificates or a file on a diskette, and replacing it with text that would reflect the proposed UW SOURCE-based submission process;
ii. conform relevant text relating to the Older Issue Eligibility Request process to the text of the OA, as amended by this proposed rule change;
iii. provide the Internet address for the OA in order for Participants to reference additional information on the Eligibility Requirements and related documentation; and
iv. delete an incorrect statement indicating that when a certificate is received in connection with an Older Issue Eligibility Request that does not have a CUSIP number assigned to it, DTC would facilitate the assignment of a CUSIP number.
DTC would announce the implementation date for the proposed rule change via a DTC Important Notice.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Rule 17Ad-22(d)(6) promulgated under the Act
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any adverse impact, or impose any burden, on competition because DTC does not charge a fee for access to UW SOURCE and therefore the proposal would not impose additional costs on Participants in this regard. In addition, the process for Participant's to register for UW SOURCE is transparent and available on DTCC's Web site
DTC has not solicited and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding the proposed rule change. DTC has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties. To the extent DTC receives written comments on the proposed rule change, DTC will forward such comments to the Commission. DTC has issued an Important Notice to provide notice and related information with regard to the implementation of the proposal.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
(
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 1, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FLEX Options are customized equity or index contracts that allow investors to tailor contract terms for exchange-listed equity and index options.
The Exchange has proposed to allow market participants to trade FLEX options contracts in ByRDs. ByRDs are option contracts that have a fixed return in cash based on a set strike price and that may only be exercised at expiration pursuant to the Rules of the Options Clearing Corporation.
Through the use of FLEX ByRDs,
The Exchange has proposed to allow market participants to designate Asian or Cliquet settlement styles for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups.
FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups with Asian style settlement would be cash-settled call
In its filing, the Exchange provided the following example of an Asian option that expires in-the-money. On January 21, 2015, an investor hedging the value of XYZ Index over a year purchases an Asian FLEX call option expiring on January 22, 2016 with a strike price of 2000 and a contract multiplier of $100. The option has monthly observation dates occurring on the 23rd of each month.
In this
FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups with Cliquet style settlement would be cash-settled call
The parties to a Cliquet option would designate a set of monthly observation dates for each contract and an expiration date for each contract. The monthly observation date would be the date each month on which the closing price of the underlying broad stock index group would be observed for the purpose of calculating the exercise settlement value. In addition, the parties to a Cliquet option would designate a capped monthly return (
For example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad stock index group was 1.75% and the designated capped monthly return for a Cliquet option was 2%, the 1.75% value would be utilized (and not the 2%) as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. Using this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad stock index group was 3.30%, the 2% value would be utilized (and not the 3.30%) as the value of the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. This latter example illustrates that Cliquet options have a capped upside. Cliquet options do not, however, have a capped downside for the monthly return that would be utilized in determining the exercise settlement value. Drawing on this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad stock index group was −4.07%, the −4.07% value would be utilized as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. There would, however, be a floor for all Cliquet options in that if the sum of the monthly returns is negative, a Cliquet option would expire worthless.
Unlike other options, Cliquet options would not have a traditional exercise (strike) price. Rather, the exercise (strike) price field for a Cliquet option would represent the designated capped monthly return for the contract and would be expressed in dollars and cents. For example, a capped monthly return of 2.25% would be represented by the dollar amount of $2.25. The “strike” price for a Cliquet option could only be expressed in a dollar and cents amount and the “strike” price for a Cliquet option could only span a range between $0.05 and $25.95.
The first “monthly” return for a Cliquet option would be based on the initial reference value, which would be the closing value of the underlying broad stock index group on the date a new Cliquet option is listed. The time period measured for the first “monthly” return would be between the initial listing date and the first monthly observation date. For example, if a
Cliquet options would have European exercise style and could not be exercised prior to the expiration date.
In its filing, the Exchange provided the following example of a Cliquet option. On January 21, 2015, an investor hedging the value of XYZ Index over a year purchases a Cliquet FLEX call option expiring on January 22, 2016 with a capped monthly return of 2% and a contract multiplier of $100. The initial reference price of XYZ Index (closing value) on January 21, 2015 is 2000. The option has monthly observation dates occurring on the 23rd of
In this example, the exercise settlement amount would be $8,160. This amount would be determined by adding the capped monthly return for the XYZ Index on the 12 monthly observation dates, multiplying that amount by the initial reference price (4.08% * 2000 = 81.60) and adding that amount to the strike price
The Exchange stated that it would utilize the same procedures for FLEX Options utilizing the proposed settlement styles as it currently utilizes for other FLEX Options with standard settlement. The Exchange also represented that these surveillance procedures will be adequate to monitor trading in these options products. The Exchange noted that, for surveillance purposes, it would have access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.
The Exchange has proposed to modify how market participants may express exercise prices and premiums for FLEX Options. The Exchange noted that these modifications reflect changes in the marketplace and a move towards decimalization. The Exchange explained that when it adopted its rules for FLEX Options, strike prices were designated in one-eighth of a dollar and options were priced in fractions of a dollar, whereas now certain Exchange rules have been revised to reflect the decimal equivalent of the previously approved fractional amount.
In addition, with respect to both FLEX Index Options and FLEX Equity Options, proposed Rule 903G(b)(1) and (c)(2) would provide that exercise prices
Currently under the FLEX rules, the FLEX Specialist is responsible for handling various aspects of FLEX Options, including receiving and displaying the terms of Requests for Quotes. The Exchange has proposed to delete these references to a FLEX Specialist and replace them with a floor official, to be known as a “FLEX Official.”
Under the proposal, the Exchange would be able, at any time, to designate an Exchange employee to act as a FLEX Official in one or more classes of FLEX Options and to designate other qualified employees to assist the FLEX Official as needed.
Additionally, the Exchange has proposed to revise its rules to reflect that in its current trading environment, FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX Quotes are “disseminated,” rather than “displayed.”
The Exchange has proposed several additional modifications to the FLEX Options Rules. First, the Exchange has proposed to amend the title of Section 15 to add the abbreviation “FLEX.”
The Exchange also has proposed to clarify that each FLEX Request for Quotes or FLEX contract must contain, as a contract term, either the underlying security in the case of FLEX Equity Options or (rather than “and”) an underlying index in the case of FLEX Index Options.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Exchange has proposed several amendments to its rules related to FLEX Options. These amendments modify rules related to FLEX Options to offer new alternative terms for FLEX Options and to update rule text to more accurately reflect trading in FLEX Options on the Exchange. As is discussed in more detail below, the Commission finds these changes consistent with the Act.
The proposal to allow ByRDs to trade as FLEX Equity Options on NYSE MKT will allow market participants to flex strike prices and expiration dates and thus obtain strike prices and expiration dates that are not available in the standardized market on the Exchange in ByRDs. In its approval order originally approving ByRDs for Exchange trading, the Commission noted that the heightened initial and continued listing standards, as well the settlement price based on an all-day VWAP, were reasonably designed to address potential manipulation concerns.
The Commission also believes that establishing position limits for FLEX ByRDs to be the same as Non-FLEX ByRDs position limits, which are currently 25,000 contracts on the same side of the market,
The Commission believes that the Asian and Cliquet style settlements for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups may provide investors with additional trading and hedging tools. The Commission also believes that the Exchange's proposal to allow Asian and Cliquet style settlement for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups may give investors and other market participants the ability to individually tailor, within specified limits, certain terms of those options. Furthermore, the Commission believes that, since both Asian and Cliquet settlement styles depend on multiple measurements in determining the settlement value, both settlement styles could help to mitigate the potential for manipulation in the underlying security(ies).
The Commission notes that the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's FLEX Options with standard settlement to monitor trading in those options with Asian or Cliquet style settlement. The Exchange has represented that these surveillance procedures will be adequate to monitor trading in options on these option products. The Exchange has also stated that for surveillance purposes, the Exchange will have complete access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.
The Commission believes that the proposed modification in how exercise prices and premiums for FLEX Equity Options are stated may provide greater flexibility for market participants to tailor a contract to the needs of the investor. In addition, the Commission believes that the proposal to specify how exercise prices and premium for FLEX Index Options and FLEX Equity Options will be rounded and how they will be stated using a percentage-based methodology should provide greater clarity and allow market participants to specify contracts that meet their particular needs. Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposal to remove a reference to fractional pricing is consistent with the shift to decimal pricing found elsewhere in the Exchange's rules and would promote internal consistency.
The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal to replace certain duties of a FLEX Specialist with respect to FLEX Options transactions with duties assigned to a FLEX Official, who is an Exchange employee, is consistent with the FLEX rules of CBOE.
Finally, the Commission believes that the proposal's minor, conforming, and technical revisions to Section 15, Rules 900G through 909G are consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 in the
Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form F-1 (17 CFR 239.31) is used by certain foreign private issuers to register securities pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims;
Adjudicatory matters; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
• The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to the proxy rules relating to the use of universal proxy cards and disclosure about voting options and voting standards in director elections.
• The Commission will consider whether to adopt rule amendments related to Securities Act Rules 147 and 504 to facilitate intrastate and regional securities offerings and whether to repeal Securities Act Rule 505.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields in:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 establishes minimum standards with respect to business records that broker-dealers registered with the Commission must make and keep current. These records are maintained by the broker-dealer (in accordance with a separate rule), so they can be used by the broker-dealer and reviewed by Commission examiners, as well as other regulatory authority examiners, during inspections of the broker-dealer.
The collections of information included in Rule 17a-3 are necessary to provide Commission, self-regulatory organization and state examiners to conduct effective and efficient examinations to determine whether broker-dealers are complying with relevant laws, rules, and regulations. If broker-dealers were not required to create these baseline, standardized records, Commission, self-regulatory organization and state examiners could be unable to determine whether broker-dealers are in compliance with the Commission's antifraud and anti-manipulation rules, financial responsibility program, and other Commission, SRO, and State laws, rules, and regulations.
As of April 1, 2016 there were 4,104 broker-dealers registered with the Commission. The Commission estimates that these broker-dealer respondents
In addition, Rule 17a-3 contains ongoing operation and maintenance costs for broker-dealers, including the cost of postage to provide customers with account information, and costs for equipment and systems development. The Commission estimates that under Rule 17a-3(a)(17), approximately 41,143,233 customers will need to be provided with information regarding their account on a yearly basis. The Commission estimates that the postage costs associated with providing those customers with copies of their account record information would be approximately $13,577,267 per year (41,143,233 × $0.33).
Rule 17a-3 does not contain record retention requirements. Compliance with the rule is mandatory. The required records are available only to the staffs of the Commission, self-regulatory organizations of which the broker-dealer is a member, and the states during examination, inspections and investigations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form S-1 (17 CFR 239.11) is used by domestic issuers who are not eligible to use other forms to register a public offering of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 6.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4285-DR), dated 10/10/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina, dated 10/10/2016 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 5.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of NORTH CAROLINA (FEMA-4285-DR), dated 10/10/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina, dated 10/10/2016 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4284-DR), dated 10/17/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/17/2016, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 149238 and for economic injury is 149240.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4286-DR), dated 10/14/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/14/2016, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 149218 and for economic injury is 149220.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of SOUTH CAROLINA (FEMA-4286-DR), dated 10/14/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina, dated 10/14/2016 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4283-DR), dated 10/17/2016.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/17/2016, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 149258 and for economic injury is 149260.
Notice is hereby given of a change in date and location of the Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) meeting announced in the
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), filed with the Board a petition
CSXT states that the Line contains the following federally granted rights-of-way, each by Legislative Act: mileposts BC 274 to BC 274.9; mileposts BC 275.2 to BC 275.6; mileposts BC 280.35 to BC 281; mileposts BC 285.5 to BC 285.9; mileposts BC 292.5 to BC 293; and mileposts BC 295.5 to BC 296. Any documentation in CSXT's possession concerning title will be made available to those requesting it.
CSXT states that continued operation of the Line will create a burden on CSXT and on interstate commerce. According to CSXT, it operated the Line until June 10, 2016, when the Line was embargoed due to the condition of the ties on the Line. CSXT states that, before the embargo, the only commodity shipped by the last active shipper on the Line, ProBuild East, LLC (ProBuild), was lumber.
According to CSXT, the traffic on the Line is not sufficient to offset maintenance costs or the costs to rehabilitate the ties on the Line. CSXT states that local traffic on the Line has fallen to two cars in 2014, two cars in 2015, and no traffic to date in 2016. Additionally, CSXT states that all overhead traffic has been rerouted. CSXT proposes to discontinue service over the Line to avoid maintenance, inspection, operating, and rehabilitation costs while leaving the Line in place to be reactivated in the event traffic reemerges on the Line.
CSXT states that there is adequate alternate transportation available which ProBuild is using, and cites motor carrier options in the area and rail loading and unloading facilities at East St. Louis, Ill. According to CSXT, it does not believe that ProBuild will oppose the proposed discontinuance of service.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by January 23, 2017.
Because this is a discontinuance proceeding and not an abandonment proceeding, trail use/rail banking and public use conditions are not appropriate. Because there will be environmental review during abandonment, this discontinuance does not require an environmental review.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) to subsidize continued rail service will be due no later than February 2, 2017, or 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption, whichever occurs sooner. Each offer must be accompanied by a $1,600 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 750X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Louis E. Gitomer, Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Ave. Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204. Replies to this petition are due on or before November 14, 2016.
Persons seeking further information concerning discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238 or refer to the full abandonment and discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR pt. 1152. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for information on holder of supplemental type certificate (STC) prior to FAA declaring STC abandoned.
This notice requests the current holder(s) (or their heirs) of STC SA893CE come forward and identify themselves; otherwise, the FAA will declare the STC as abandoned. This notice is issued in accordance with § 302 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,
We must receive all correspondence by April 24, 2017.
Send all correspondence on this issue via certified mail to: Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Aircraft
The FAA has received a third party request for the release of data for STC SA893CE under the provisions the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The FAA cannot release the requested data under FOIA without the permission of the STC holder. The STC holder last listed on the certificate record is Mr. Wayne B. Millard in Minneapolis, MN. The FAA has been unsuccessful in contacting Mr. Millard by telephone, email, and/or certified mail. There has been no activity with this STC holder for more than 3 years.
If you are the owner, or heir, or a transferee of STC SA893CE, or have any knowledge regarding who may now hold STC SA893CE, please contact JoWanna Jenkins using a method described in the CONTACT INFORMATION of this notice. If you are the owner of STC SA893CE, you must provide a notarized copy of your Government issued identification (ID) with a letter and background establishing your ownership of the STC and/or relationship as the heir to the deceased holder of the STC (if that is the case).
If we do not receive any response by April 24, 2017, we will consider STC SA893CE abandoned and we will proceed with the release of the requested data.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For Caltrans: Adele Pommerenck, Senior Environmental Planner, California Department of Transportation—District 3, 703 B Street, Marysville, California, 95901, during normal business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., telephone (530) 741-4215 or email
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 326. Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans, has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that it has received an application from the American Concrete Pumping Association (ACPA) for an exemption from the 30-minute rest break provision of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. ACPA requests that concrete pump operators be allowed to use 30 minutes or more of on-duty “waiting time” to satisfy the requirement for the 30-minute rest break, provided they do not perform any other work during the break. The requested exemption would apply industry-wide to all concrete pump operators, concrete pumping companies and drivers who operate concrete pumps. Due to the nature of pumper operations, ACPA believes that compliance with the 30-minute rest break rule increases the risk of dangerous conditions on job sites. ACPA also asserts that concrete pump operators already take regular rest breaks throughout the typical day, depending on the work flow at the job site, so an additional 30-minute rest break does not enhance overall job safety. FMCSA requests public comment on ACPA's application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2016.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System Number FMCSA-2016-0342 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, please contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Telephone: (614) 942-6477; Email:
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2016-0342), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
On December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81133), FMCSA published a final rule amending its hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for drivers of property-carrying CMVs. The final rule adopted several changes to the HOS regulations, including a provision requiring drivers to take a rest break during the work day under certain circumstances. Drivers may drive a CMV only if 8 hours or less have passed since the end of the driver's last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of at least 30 minutes. FMCSA did not specify when drivers must take the 30-minute break, but the rule requires that they wait no longer than 8 hours after the last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of that length or longer to take the break if they want to drive a CMV.
ACPA seeks an exemption from the 30-minute rest break provision in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). The requested exemption would apply industry-wide to all concrete pump operators, concrete pumping companies and drivers who deliver, set-up, and operate concrete pumps across the United States. ACPA currently represents more than 600 member companies employing over 7,000 workers nationwide. The exemption would be applied to all interstate concrete pumper trucks and their operators. Although many of the trucks operate intrastate and would therefore not be covered by an FMCSA exemption, an unknown number of the pumping trucks are operated in metropolitan areas and do routinely cross State lines.
ACPA requests the exemption for the following reasons: First, it argues that the mandatory 30-minute rest break increases the risk of dangerous conditions on job sites. A mandatory 30-minute rest break during which the concrete pump operator is considered to be “off-duty” would require the concrete pump to be shut down, and likely cleaned out. Stopping the flow of concrete through the pump creates the risk of introducing air in the pump's pipe system. When air gets in the pump's pipe system, the risk of hose whipping is created, which can injure not only the pump operator, but any personnel within reach of the hose.
Secondly, concrete pump operators already take rest breaks throughout the typical day that reflect the work flow at the job site, so an additional minimum 30-minute rest break does not enhance job safety.
ACPA states that when concrete companies expect a 9-hour job and it ends up being 2-3 hours longer, most of that additional time is spent waiting on concrete and doing nothing more than recirculating the concrete in the pump about every 10-15 minutes to avoid hardening and the introduction of air pockets in the pipe system. Only a small percentage of the concrete pump operator's time is spent driving. On average, concrete pump operators spend between 25-32% of their time driving during a shift, and average daily driving distances are 20-25 miles. Another 30-minute break limits the operator's ability to return the concrete pump to the shop within the daily 14-hour driving window.
According to ACPA, concrete is a perishable product. The perishable nature of concrete also creates difficult schedule coordination issues due to concrete being needed on a just-in-time basis. A concrete pump operator cannot plan the timing of the 30-minute break, as they cannot interrupt their work activity without the threat of failure—failure to accept and deliver concrete within its perishable limits and failure by violating their contracts. Once the ingredients of ready-mixed concrete have been combined, there is a brief window during which the product can be pumped (roughly 90 minutes before the concrete hardens). Should the concrete pump operator be required to take a 30-minute off-duty break, it would cause a ripple effect on the ready-mix concrete trucks in line to supply the pump. Such a delay could cost thousands of dollars to rectify and could potentially violate a delivery contract. Once the concrete pump starts to receive a delivery, it must be completed, without disruption to conduct a safe and structurally sound pour.
Furthermore, ACPA adds that concrete pumping and placement companies work in collaboration with ready-mixed companies. Scheduling local business contracts in compliance with State and Federal regulations incorporating the 30-minute rest break is incredibly complicated, verging on impossible in cases when some concrete companies operate under different FMCSA rules. ACPA mentioned that the ready-mixed drivers were granted an exemption from the minimum 30-minute rest break provision.
ACPA believes that granting this exemption would achieve the same level of safety provided by the rule requiring the 30-minute rest break. The Association states that the concrete pumping industry has a solid safety record, and that concrete pump operators already receive numerous breaks throughout the work day. The ACPA Operation Certification Program ensures, encourages, and educates the industry on safe pumping and placement procedures. These safety practices allow concrete operators to maintain their safety record through careful training and well-developed safety guidelines.
A copy of the ACPA's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
FMCSA announces its denial of 74 applications from individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal diabetes standard applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the diabetes requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal diabetes standard for a renewable 2-year period if it finds “such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption.” The procedures for requesting an exemption are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 74 individual exemption requests on their merits and made a determination that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
The following 10 applicants met the diabetes requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) and do not need an exemption:
The following 34 applicants were not operating CMVs in interstate commerce:
The following applicant, Raphael N. Haynes (NY), had renal insufficiency.
The following 8 applicants have had more than one hypoglycemic episode requiring hospitalization or the assistance of others, or has had one such episode but has not had one year of stability following the episode:
The following 6 applicants had other medical conditions making the applicant otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations:
The following applicant, Kenneth W. Wilson (BC), currently resides in Canada. He is not eligible because the Federal exemption is for drivers operating only in the United States.
The following 5 applicants did not meet the minimum age criteria outlined in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) which states that an individual must be at least 21 years old to operate a CMV in interstate commerce:
The following 9 applicants were exempt from the diabetes standard:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is announcing a meeting that will be held in Washington, DC on November 3, 2016 to discuss older driver traffic safety program priorities and current research efforts. The Traffic Safety for Older Road Users meeting will include presentations and discussions on a number of topics including older driver demographics; research on understanding the dynamics, mechanisms, determinants and consequences of older driver safety; integration of law enforcement information, education of licensing agency personnel, aging services providers and medical personnel; identification and services for at-risk drivers; state and local mobility alternatives and the future potential of connected and automated vehicles for an aging population. Attendance at the meeting is limited to invited participants because of space limitations of the DOT Conference Center. However, the meeting will be available for live public viewing on the NHTSA Web site (
The meeting will be held on November 3, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the Media Center of the U.S. Department
Mr. Brian Chodrow, Telephone: 202-366-9765; email address:
NHTSA will host a meeting to focus on ways to improve the safety of older drivers over the next 5-10 years. The Traffic Safety for Older Road Users Meeting will begin with an introduction by NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind, followed by a discussion of the demographics of older road users, effective technologies to ensure safe driving for older people, and integrating information from law enforcement, licensing agencies, aging services providers and medical care providers. A panel discussion will then explore methods for identifying and serving at-risk drivers, leading to the identification of State and local alternatives. The meeting will conclude with a discussion on connected and automated vehicles—the future of mobility for an aging population.
Invited participants will include representatives from a number of fields including the behavioral and engineering sciences, traffic and highway safety, and public health, as well as from diverse organizations including advocacy groups, industry, state government, and other Federal Agencies.
NHTSA will facilitate sharing of important information regarding programs to improve the safety of older road users. Saving lives by preventing traffic deaths is a top priority of this Administration.
49 U.S.C. 30182.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2016.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permit.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2016.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications for Special Permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2016.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of Applications for Modification of Special Permit.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2016.
Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the renewal of an information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of an information collection titled, “Affiliate Marketing.”
Comments must be submitted on or before December 27, 2016.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0230, 400 7th Street SW., suite 3E-218, mail stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information that they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of title 44 requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Twelve CFR 1022.20-1022.27 requires financial institutions to issue notices informing consumers about their rights under section 214 of the FACT Act. Consumers use the notices to decide if they want to receive solicitations for marketing purposes or opt out. Financial institutions use the consumers' opt-out responses to determine the permissibility of making a solicitation for marketing purposes.
If a person receives certain consumer eligibility information from an affiliate, the person may not use that information to make solicitations to the consumer about its products or services, unless the consumer is given notice and a simple method to opt out of such use of the information, and the consumer does not opt out. Exceptions include, a person using eligibility information: (1) To make solicitations to a consumer with whom the person has a pre-existing business relationship; (2) to perform services for another affiliate subject to certain conditions; (3) in response to a communication initiated by the consumer; or (4) to make a solicitation that has been authorized or requested by the consumer. A consumer's affiliate marketing opt-out election must be effective for a period of at least five years. Upon expiration of the opt-out period, the consumer must be given a renewal notice and an opportunity to renew the opt-out before information received from an affiliate may be used to make solicitations to the consumer.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the information collection burden;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice.
This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Fiscal Service Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service). The PRB reviews the performance appraisals of career senior executives who are below the level of Assistant Commissioner/Executive Director and who are not assigned to the Office of the Commissioner in the Fiscal Service. The PRB makes recommendations regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay adjustments, and other appropriate personnel actions.
Effective on October 25, 2016.
Michael R. Goodwin, Acting Chief Human Capital Officer, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, (304) 480-5290.
This Notice announces the appointment of the following primary and alternate members to the Fiscal Service PRB:
5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of 4 individuals and 1 entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on October 20, 2016.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 20, 2016, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following 4 individuals and 1 entity pursuant to E.O. 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”:
1. KALLAS, Muhammad Al-Mukhtar (a.k.a. KALLAS, Mohamad El Mokhtar; a.k.a. KALLAS, Mohamed); DOB 09 Jan 1987; POB Haret Hreik, Lebanon; nationality Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; Passport RL0665670 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH; Linked To: TABAJA, Adham Husayn).
2. HAMDAR, Muhammad Ghaleb (a.k.a. AMADAR, Mohammed; a.k.a. AMADAR, Muamad; a.k.a. HAMDAR, Mohammed Galeb; a.k.a. HAMDAR, Mouhamad Ghaleb; a.k.a. HAMDAR, Muamad Ghaleb); DOB 01 Aug 1986; alt. DOB 01 Jan 1986; POB Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; Passport E0063360 (Sierra Leone); alt. Passport RL-1108616 (Lebanon) (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
3. AYAD, Yosef (a.k.a. AYAD, Yosef de Castro; a.k.a. AYAD, Youssef); DOB 27 Jan 1989; POB Lebanon; nationality Philippines; alt. nationality Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH).
4. JAMAL-AL-DIN, Hasan (a.k.a. JAMALEDDINE, Hassan); DOB 11 May 1983; POB Burj al-Burajne, Lebanon; nationality Lebanon; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations; Gender Male; Passport RL2589786 (Lebanon) expires 11 Feb 2019 (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH; Linked To: TABAJA, Adham Husayn).
1. GLOBAL CLEANERS S.A.R.L. (a.k.a. GLOBAL CLEANERS, INC.), Center Mzannar, Main Street, Second Floor, Baabda, Lebanon; Airport Road, Beirut, Lebanon; Street 21, Section 929, Al Karrada Area, Baghdad, Iraq; Additional Sanctions Information—Subject to Secondary Sanctions Pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations [SDGT] (Linked To: HIZBALLAH; Linked To: TABAJA, Adham Husayn).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this
Written comments should be received on or before December 27, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
To obtain additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact Elaine Christophe, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following forms, and reporting and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 940, Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment (FUTA) Tax Return, and Form 940-PR, Planilla para la Declaracion Federal Anual del Patrono de la Contribucion Federal para el Desempleo (FUTA).
Written comments should be received on or before December 27, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the collection tools should be directed to Sara Covington, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information gathering meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel for the Internal Revenue Service Environmental Scan for strategic planning. The Internal Revenue Service is seeking the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's input for this project.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 16, 2016.
Kim Vinci at 1-888-912-1227 or 916-974-5086.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Committee will be held Wednesday, November 16, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Kim Vinci. For more information please contact: Kim Vinci at 1-888-912-1227 or 916-974-5086, TAP Office, 4330 Watt Ave., Sacramento, CA 95821, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
EPA and NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation, are establishing rules for a comprehensive Phase 2 Heavy-Duty (HD) National Program that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel consumption from new on-road medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. NHTSA's fuel consumption standards and EPA's carbon dioxide (CO
This final rule is effective on December 27, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 27, 2016.
EPA and NHTSA have established dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827 (for EPA's docket) and NHTSA-2014-0132 (for NHTSA's docket). All documents in the docket are listed on the
This action will affect companies that manufacture, sell, or import into the United States new heavy-duty engines and new Class 2b through 8 trucks, including combination tractors, all types of buses, vocational vehicles including municipal, commercial, recreational vehicles, and commercial trailers as well as
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely covered by these rules. This table lists the types of entities that the agencies are aware may be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities are regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the referenced regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the persons listed in the preceding
This regulatory action is supported by influential scientific information. Therefore, EPA conducted a peer review consistent with OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. As described in Section II.C, a peer review of updates to the vehicle simulation model (GEM) for the Phase 2 standards has been completed. This version of GEM is based on the model used for the Phase 1 rule, which was peer reviewed by a panel of four independent subject matter experts. The peer review report and EPA's response to the peer review comments are available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827. We note that this rulemaking is based on a vast body of existing peer-reviewed work,
In June 2013, the President announced a comprehensive Climate Action Plan for the United States to reduce carbon pollution, prepare for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to address global climate change.
As part of his Climate Action plan, the President specifically directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set the next round of standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles pursuant to and consistent with the agencies' existing statutory authorities.
Through two previous rulemakings, EPA and NHTSA have worked with the auto industry to develop new fuel economy and GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles. Taken together with NHTSA's 2011 CAFE standards, the light-duty vehicle standards span model years 2011 to 2025 and are the first significant improvement in fuel economy in approximately two decades. Under the final program, average new car and light truck fuel economy is expected to nearly double by 2025
Similarly, EPA and NHTSA have previously developed joint GHG emission and fuel efficiency standards for MDVs and HDVs. Prior to these Phase 1 standards, heavy-duty trucks and buses—from delivery vans to the largest tractor-trailers—were required to meet pollution standards for soot and smog-causing air pollutants, but no requirements existed for the fuel efficiency or carbon pollution from these vehicles.
This rule builds on our commitment to robust collaboration with stakeholders and the public. It follows an expansive and thorough outreach effort in which the agencies gathered input, data and views from many interested stakeholders, involving over 400 meetings with heavy-duty vehicle and engine manufacturers, technology suppliers, trucking fleets, truck drivers, dealerships, environmental organizations, and state agencies.
The Phase 1 program covers new trucks and heavy vehicles in model years 2014 and later. That program includes specific standards for combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles and includes separate standards for both vehicles and engines. The program offers extensive flexibility, allowing manufacturers to reach standards through average fleet calculations, a mix of technologies, and the use of various credit and banking programs.
The Phase 1 program was developed by the agencies through close consultation with industry and other stakeholders, resulting in standards tailored to the specifics of each different class of vehicles and engines.
•
•
•
•
The Phase 1 standards were premised on utilization of technologies that were already in production on some vehicles at the time of the Phase 1 FRM and are adaptable to the broader fleet. The Phase 1 program provides flexibilities that facilitate compliance. These flexibilities help provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to make necessary technological improvements and reduce the overall cost of the program, without compromising overall environmental and fuel consumption objectives. The primary flexibility provisions are an engine averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program and a vehicle ABT program. These ABT programs allow for emission and/or fuel consumption credits to be averaged, banked, or traded within each of the averaging sets.
The Phase 1 program was projected to save 530 million barrels of oil and avoid 270 million metric tons of GHG emissions.
The Phase 2 GHG and fuel efficiency standards for MDVs and HDVs are a critical next step in improving fuel efficiency and reducing GHG emissions. The Phase 2 national program carries forward our commitment to meaningful collaboration with stakeholders and the public, as they build on more than 400 meetings with manufacturers, suppliers, trucking fleets, dealerships, state air quality agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders; over 200,000 public comments; and two public hearings to identify and understand the opportunities and challenges involved with this next level of fuel-saving technology. These meetings and public feedback, in addition to close coordination with CARB, have been invaluable to the agencies, enabling the development of a program that appropriately balances all potential impacts, effectively minimizes the possibility of unintended consequences, and allows manufacturers to continue to build a single fleet of vehicles and engines.
Phase 2 will include technology-advancing standards that will phase in over the long-term (through model year 2027) to result in an ambitious, yet achievable program that will allow manufacturers to meet standards through a mix of different technologies at reasonable cost. The terminal requirements go into effect in 2027, and would apply to MY 2027 and subsequent model year vehicles, unless modified by future rulemaking. The Phase 2 standards will maintain the underlying regulatory structure developed in the Phase 1 program, such as the general categorization of MDVs and HDVs and the separate standards for vehicles and engines. However, the Phase 2 program will build on and advance Phase 1 in a number of important ways including the following: basing standards not only on currently available technologies but also on utilization of technologies now under development or not yet widely deployed while providing significant lead time to assure adequate time to develop, test, and phase in these controls; developing first-time GHG and fuel efficiency standards for trailers; further encouraging innovation and providing flexibility; including vehicles produced by small business manufacturers with appropriate flexibilities for these companies; incorporating enhanced test procedures that (among other things) allow individual drivetrain and powertrain performance to be reflected in the vehicle certification process; and using an expanded and improved compliance simulation model.
The Phase 2 program will provide significant GHG reductions and save fuel by:
•
•
•
•
The following tables summarize the impacts of the Heavy-Duty Phase 2 rule.
This Preamble contains extensive discussion of the background, elements, and implications of the Phase 2 program, as well as updates made to the final program from the proposal based on new data, analysis, stakeholder feedback and public comments. Section I includes information on the MDV and HDV industry, related regulatory and non-regulatory programs, summaries of Phase 1 and Phase 2 programs, costs and benefits of the final standards, and relevant statutory authority for EPA and NHTSA. Section II discusses vehicle simulation, engine standards, and test procedures. Sections III, IV, V, and VI detail the final standards for combination tractors, trailers, vocational vehicles, and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. Sections VII and VIII discuss aggregate GHG impacts, fuel consumption impacts, climate impacts, and impacts on non-GHG emissions. Section IX evaluates the economic impacts of the final program. Sections X and XI present the alternatives analyses and consideration of natural gas vehicles. Finally, Sections XII and XIII discuss the changes that the Phase 2 rules will have on Phase 1 standards and other regulatory provisions. In addition to this Preamble, the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA),
The agencies issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on July 13, 2015, that proposed Phase 2 GHG and fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
Although the agencies describe the final requirements in this document, readers are encouraged to also read supporting materials that have been place into the public dockets for these rules. In particular, the agencies note:
This overview of the final Phase 2 GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards includes a description of the heavy-duty truck industry and related regulatory and non-regulatory programs, a summary of the Phase 1 GHG emissions and fuel efficiency program, a summary of the Phase 2 standards and requirements being finalized, a summary of the costs and benefits of the Phase 2 standards, discussion of EPA and NHTSA statutory authorities, and other issues.
For purposes of this Preamble (and consistent with all terminology used at proposal), the terms “heavy-duty” or “HD” are used to apply to all highway vehicles and engines that are not within the range of light-duty passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV) covered by separate GHG and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
Consistent with the President's direction, over the past three years as we have developed this rulemaking, the agencies have met on an on-going basis with a very large number of diverse stakeholders. This includes meetings, and in many cases site visits, with truck, trailer, and engine manufacturers; technology supplier companies and their trade associations (
EPA and NHTSA staff also participated in a large number of technical and policy conferences over the past three years related to the technological, economic, and environmental aspects of the heavy-duty trucking industry. The agencies also met with regulatory counterparts from several other nations who either have already or are considering establishing fuel consumption or GHG requirements, including outreach with representatives from the governments of Canada, the European Commission, Japan, and China.
These comprehensive outreach actions by the agencies provided us with information to assist in our identification of potential technologies that can be used to reduce heavy-duty GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency. The outreach has also helped the agencies to identify and understand the opportunities and challenges involved with these standards for the heavy-duty trucks, trailers, and engines detailed in this Preamble, including time needed for implementation of various technologies and potential costs and fuel savings. The scope of this outreach effort to gather input for the proposal and final rulemaking included well over 400 meetings with stakeholders. These meetings and conferences have been invaluable to the agencies. We believe they enabled us to refine the proposal in such a way as to appropriately consider all of the potential impacts and to minimize the possibility of unintended consequences in the final rules.
The heavy-duty sector is diverse in several respects, including the types of manufacturing companies involved, the range of sizes of trucks and engines they produce, the types of work for which the trucks are designed, and the regulatory history of different subcategories of vehicles and engines. The current heavy-duty fleet encompasses vehicles from the “18-wheeler” combination tractor-trailers one sees on the highway to the largest pickup trucks and vans, as well as vocational vehicles covering the range between these extremes. Together, the HD sector spans a wide range of vehicles with often specialized form and function. A primary indicator of the diversity among heavy-duty trucks is the range of load-carrying capability across the industry. The heavy-duty truck sector is often subdivided by vehicle weight classifications, as defined by the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which is a measure of the combined curb (empty) weight and cargo carrying capacity of the truck.
Unlike light-duty vehicles, which are primarily used for transporting passengers for personal travel, heavy-duty vehicles fill much more diverse operator needs. Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans (Classes 2b and 3) are used chiefly as work trucks and vans, and as shuttle vans, as well as for personal transportation, with an average annual mileage in the range of 15,000 miles. The rest of the heavy-duty sector is used for carrying cargo and/or performing specialized tasks. “Vocational” vehicles, which span Classes 2b through 8, vary widely in size, including smaller and larger van trucks, utility “bucket” trucks, tank trucks, refuse trucks, urban and over-the-road buses, fire trucks, flat-bed trucks, and dump trucks, among others. The annual mileage of these vehicles is as varied as their uses, but for the most part tends to fall in between heavy-duty pickups/vans and the large combination tractors, typically from 15,000 to 150,000 miles per year.
Class 7 and 8 combination tractor-trailers—some equipped with sleeper cabs and some not—are primarily used for freight transportation. They are sold as tractors and operate with one or more trailers that can carry up to 50,000 lbs or more of payload, consuming significant quantities of fuel and producing significant amounts of GHG emissions. Together, Class 7 and 8 tractors and trailers account for approximately 60 percent of the heavy-duty sector's total CO
Heavy-duty vehicles differ significantly from light-duty vehicles in other ways. In particular, we note that heavy-duty engines are much more likely to be rebuilt. In fact, it is common for Class 8 engines to be rebuilt multiple times. Commercial heavy-duty vehicles are often resold after a few years and may be repurposed by the second or third owner. Thus issues of resale value and adaptability have historically been key concerns for purchasers.
EPA and NHTSA have designed our respective standards in careful consideration of the diversity and complexity of the heavy-duty truck industry, as discussed in Section I.C.
To provide a context for EPA's program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, this subsection provides an overview of two important related areas. First, we summarize the history of EPA's heavy-duty regulatory program, which provides a basis for the compliance structure of this rulemaking. Next we summarize EPA prior assessments of the impacts of greenhouse gases on climate change, which provides a basis for much of the analysis of the environmental benefits of this rulemaking.
Since the 1980s, EPA has acted several times to address tailpipe emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics from heavy-duty vehicles and engines. During the last two decades these programs have primarily addressed emissions of particulate matter (PM) and the primary ozone precursors, hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
As required by the Clean Air Act (CAA), the emission standards implemented by these programs include standards that apply at the time that the vehicle or engine is sold and continue to apply in actual use. EPA's overall program goal has always been to achieve emissions reductions from the complete vehicles that operate on our roads. The agency has often accomplished this goal for many heavy-duty truck categories by regulating heavy-duty engine emissions. A key part of this success has been the development over many years of a well-established, representative, and robust set of engine test procedures that industry and EPA now use routinely to measure emissions and determine compliance with emission standards. These test procedures in turn serve the overall compliance program that EPA implements to help ensure that emissions reductions are being achieved. By isolating the engine from the many variables involved when the engine is installed and operated in a HD vehicle, EPA has been able to accurately address the contribution of the engine alone to overall emissions.
In 2009, the EPA Administrator issued the document known as the Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).
Climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens public health in multiple ways. By raising average temperatures, climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with increased deaths and illnesses. While climate change also decreases the likelihood of cold-related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases in heat mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold mortality in the United States. Compared to a future without climate change, climate change is expected to increase ozone pollution over broad areas of the U.S., including in the largest metropolitan areas with the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. Other public health threats also stem from projected increases in intensity or frequency of extreme weather associated with climate change, such as increased hurricane intensity, increased frequency of intense storms and heavy precipitation. Increased coastal storms and storm surges due to rising sea levels are expected to cause increased drownings and other adverse health impacts. Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to these climate-related health effects. See also 79 FR 75242 (December 17, 2014) (climate change, and temperature increases in particular, likely to increase O
Climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs also threatens public welfare in multiple ways. Climate changes are expected to place large areas of the country at serious risk of reduced water supplies, increased water pollution, and increased occurrence of extreme events such as floods and droughts. Coastal areas are expected to face increased risks from storm and flooding damage to property, as well as adverse impacts from rising sea level, such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence and habitat loss. Climate change is expected to result in an increase in peak electricity demand, and extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in certain settlements, particularly in Alaskan indigenous communities. Climate change also is very likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems over the 21st century. Though some benefits may balance adverse effects on agriculture and forestry in the next few decades, the body of evidence points towards increasing risks of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production, agriculture and forest productivity as temperature continues to rise. These impacts are global and may exacerbate problems outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the U.S. See also 79 FR 75382 (December 17, 2014) (welfare effects of O
As outlined in Section VIII.A of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, EPA's approach to providing the technical and scientific information to inform the Administrator's judgment regarding the question of whether GHGs endanger public health and welfare was to rely primarily upon the recent, major assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. These assessments addressed the scientific issues that EPA was required to examine, were comprehensive in their coverage of the GHG and climate change issues, and underwent rigorous and exacting peer review by the expert community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S. government review. Since the administrative record concerning the Endangerment Finding closed following EPA's 2010 Reconsideration Denial, a number of new major, peer-reviewed scientific assessments have been released. These include the IPCC's 2012 “Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” (SREX) and the 2013-2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the USGCRP's 2014 “Climate Change Impacts in the United States” (Climate Change Impacts), and the NRC's 2010 “Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean” (Ocean Acidification), 2011 “Report on Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia” (Climate Stabilization Targets), 2011 “National Security Implications for U.S. Naval Forces” (National Security Implications), 2011 “Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate Future” (Understanding Earth's Deep Past), 2012 “Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future,” 2012 “Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis” (Climate and Social Stress), and 2013 “Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change” (Abrupt Impacts) assessments.
EPA has reviewed these new assessments and finds that the improved understanding of the climate system they present further strengthens the case that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare.
In addition, these assessments highlight the urgency of the situation as the concentration of CO
Emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of Earth's climate. Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe. Therefore, emission reductions choices made today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia.
Moreover, due to the time-lags inherent in the Earth's climate, the Climate Stabilization Targets assessment notes that the full warming from any given concentration of CO
The most recent USGCRP “National Climate Assessment”
These assessments underscore the urgency of reducing emissions now. Today's emissions will otherwise lead to raised atmospheric concentrations for thousands of years, and raised Earth system temperatures for even longer. Emission reductions today will benefit the public health and public welfare of current and future generations.
Finally, it should be noted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to rise dramatically. In 2009, the year of the Endangerment Finding, the average concentration of carbon dioxide as measured on top of Mauna Loa was 387 parts per million.
On May 7, 2010, EPA and NHTSA finalized the first-ever National Program for light-duty cars and trucks, which set GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for model years 2012-2016 (see 75 FR 25324). More recently, the agencies adopted even stricter standards for model years 2017 and later (77 FR 62624, October 15, 2012). The agencies have used the light-duty National Program as a model for the HD National Program in several respects. This is most apparent in the case of heavy-duty pickups and vans, which are similar to the light-duty trucks addressed in the light-duty National Program both technologically as well as in terms of how they are manufactured (
Due to the diversity of the remaining HD vehicles, there are fewer parallels with the structure of the light-duty program. However, the agencies have maintained the same collaboration and coordination that characterized the development of the light-duty program throughout the Phase 1 rulemaking and the continued efforts for Phase 2. Most notably, as with the light-duty program, manufacturers will continue to be able to design and build vehicles to meet a closely coordinated, harmonized national program, and to avoid unnecessarily duplicative testing and compliance burdens. In addition, the averaging, banking, and trading provisions in the HD program, although structurally different from those of the light-duty program, serve the same purpose, which is to allow manufacturers to achieve large reductions in fuel consumption and emissions while providing a broad mix of products to their customers. The agencies have also worked closely with CARB to provide harmonized national standards.
EPA's voluntary SmartWay Transport Partnership program encourages businesses to take actions that reduce fuel consumption and CO
The U.S. Department of Energy launched its SuperTruck I initiative in 2009. SuperTruck I was a DOE partnership with four industry teams, who at this point have either met the SuperTruck I 50 percent fuel efficiency improvement goal (relative to a 2009 best-in-class truck) or have laid the groundwork to succeed. Teams from Cummins/Peterbilt, Daimler, and Volvo exceeded the 50 percent efficiency improvement goal, with Navistar on track to exceed this target later this year. Research vehicles developed under SuperTruck I are Class 8 combination tractor-trailers that have dramatically increased fuel and freight efficiency through the use of advanced technologies. These technologies include tractor and trailer aerodynamic devices, engine waste heat recovery systems, hybrids, automated transmissions and lightweight materials. In March 2016 DOE announced SuperTruck II, which is an $80M follow-on to SuperTruck I, where DOE will continue to partner with industry teams to collaboratively fund new projects to research, develop, and demonstrate technologies to further improve heavy-truck freight efficiency—by more than 100 percent, relative to a manufacturer's best-in-class 2009 truck. Achieving these kinds of Class 8 truck efficiency increases will require an integrated systems approach to ensure that the various components of the vehicle work well together. SuperTruck II projects will utilize a wide variety of truck and trailer technology approaches to achieve performance targets, such as further improvements in engine efficiency, drivetrain efficiency, aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, and vehicle weight.
The agencies leveraged the outcomes of SuperTruck I by projecting how these tractor and trailer technologies could continue to advance from this early developmental stage toward the prototype and production stages. For a number of the SuperTruck technologies, the agencies are projecting advancement into production, given appropriate lead time. For example, a number of the aerodynamic and transmission technologies are projected to be in widespread production by 2021, and the agencies are finalizing 2021 standards based in part on performance of these SuperTruck technologies. For other more advanced SuperTruck technologies, such as organic Rankine cycle waste heat recovery systems, the agencies are projecting that additional lead time is needed to ensure that these technologies will be effective and reliable in production. For these technologies, the agencies are finalizing 2027 standards whose stringency reflects a significant market adoption rate of advanced technologies, including waste heat recovery systems. Furthermore, the agencies are encouraged by DOE's announcement of SuperTruck II. We believe that the combination of HD Phase 2 and SuperTruck II will provide both a strong motivation and a proven means for manufacturers to fully develop these technologies within the lead times we have projected.
California has established ambitious goals for reducing GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and engines as part of an overall plan to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in California.
California has long had the unique ability among states to adopt its own separate new motor vehicle standards per section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although section 209(a) of the CAA expressly preempts states from adopting and enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines (such as state controls for new heavy-duty engines and vehicles), CAA section 209(b) directs EPA to waive this preemption under certain conditions. Under the waiver process set out in CAA section 209(b), EPA has granted CARB a waiver for its initial heavy-duty vehicle GHG regulation.
As discussed above, California operates under state authority to establish its own new heavy-duty vehicle and engine emission standards, including standards for CO
EPA and NHTSA believe that through this information sharing and dialog we have enhanced the potential for the Phase 2 program to result in a National Program that can be adopted not only by the Federal agencies, but also by the State of California, given the strong interest from the regulated industry for a harmonized State and Federal program. In its public comments, California reiterated its support for a harmonized State and Federal program, although it identified several areas in which it believed the proposed program needed to be strengthened.
On March 13, 2013, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), which is EPA's Canadian counterpart, published its own regulations to control GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and engines, beginning with MY 2014. These regulations are closely aligned with EPA's Phase 1 program to achieve a common set of North American standards. ECCC has expressed its intention to amend these regulations to further limit emissions of greenhouse gases from new on-road heavy-duty vehicles and their engines for post-2018 MYs. As with the development of the current regulations, ECCC is committed to continuing to work closely with EPA to maintain a common Canada-United States approach to regulating GHG emissions for post-2018 MY vehicles and engines. This approach will build on the long history of regulatory alignment between the two countries on vehicle emissions pursuant to the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement.
The Government of Canada, including ECCC and Transport Canada, has also been of great assistance during the development of this Phase 2 rule. In particular, the Government of Canada supported aerodynamic testing, and conducted chassis dynamometer emissions testing.
In April 2010, as mandated by Congress in the EISA, the National Research Council (NRC) under the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report to NHTSA and to Congress evaluating medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency improvement opportunities, titled “Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicles.” That NAS report was far reaching in its review of the technologies that were available and that might become available in the future to reduce fuel consumption from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. In presenting the full range of technical opportunities, the report included technologies that may not be available until 2020 or even further into the future. The report provided not only a valuable list of off-the-shelf technologies from which the agencies drew in developing the Phase 1 program, but also provided useful information the agencies have considered when developing this second phase of regulations.
In April 2014, the NAS issued another report: “Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two, First Report.”
The agencies are adopting many of these recommendations into the Phase 2 program, including recommendations relating to the GEM simulation tool and to trailers.
The EPA Phase 1 mandatory GHG emission standards commenced in MY 2014 and include increased stringency for standards applicable to MY 2017 and later MY vehicles and engines. NHTSA's fuel consumption standards were voluntary for MYs 2014 and 2015, due to lead time requirements in EISA, and apply on a mandatory basis thereafter. They also increase in stringency for MY 2017. Both agencies allowed voluntary early compliance starting in MY 2013 and encouraged manufacturers' participation through credit incentives.
Given the complexity of the heavy-duty industry, the agencies divided the industry into three discrete categories for purposes of setting our respective Phase 1 standards—combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles—based on the relative degree of homogeneity among trucks within each category. The Phase 1 rules also include separate standards for the engines that power combination tractors and vocational vehicles. For each regulatory category, the agencies adopted related but distinct program approaches reflecting the specific challenges in these segments. In the following paragraphs, we briefly summarize EPA's Phase 1 GHG emission standards and NHTSA's Phase 1 fuel consumption standards for the three regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles and for the engines powering vocational vehicles and
The agencies proposed and are adopting Phase 2 standards based on test procedures that differ from those used for Phase 1, including the revised GEM simulation tool. Significant revisions to GEM are discussed in Section II and in the RIA Chapter 4, and other test procedures are discussed further in the RIA Chapter 3. The pre-proposal revisions from Phase 1 GEM reflected input from both the NAS and from industry.
Because the numeric values of the Phase 2 tractor and vocational standards are not directly comparable to their respective Phase 1 standards, the Phase 1 numeric standards were not appropriate baseline values to use to determine Phase 2's improvements. To address this situation, the agencies applied all of the new Phase 2 test procedures and GEM software to tractors and vocational vehicles equipped with Phase 1 compliant levels of technology. The agencies used the results of this approach to establish appropriate Phase 1 baseline values, which
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and their engines contribute the largest portion of the total GHG emissions and fuel consumption of the heavy-duty sector, approximately 60 percent, due to their large payloads, their high annual miles traveled, and their major role in national freight transport. These vehicles consist of a cab and engine (tractor or combination tractor) and a detachable trailer. The primary manufacturers of combination tractors in the United States are Daimler Trucks North America, Navistar, Volvo/Mack, and PACCAR. Each of the tractor manufacturers and Cummins (an independent engine manufacturer) also produce heavy-duty engines used in tractors. The Phase 1 standards require manufacturers to reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption for these tractors and engines, which we expect them to do through improvements in aerodynamics and tires, reductions in tractor weight, reduction in idle operation, as well as engine-based efficiency improvements.
The Phase 1 tractor standards differ depending on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) (
For Phase 1, tractor manufacturers demonstrate compliance with the tractor CO
In addition to the Phase 1 tractor-based standards for CO
Heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR between 8,501 and 10,000 lb. are classified as Class 2b motor vehicles. Heavy-duty vehicles with a GVWR between 10,001 and 14,000 lb. are classified as Class 3 motor vehicles. Class 2b and Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles (referred to in these rules as “HD pickups and vans”) together emit about 23 percent of today's GHG emissions from the heavy-duty vehicle sector.
The majority of HD pickups and vans are
For the light-duty GHG and fuel economy standards, the agencies based the emissions and fuel economy targets on vehicle footprint (the wheelbase times the average track width). For those standards, passenger cars and light trucks with larger footprints are assigned higher GHG and lower fuel economy target levels reflecting their inherent tendency to consume more fuel and emit more GHGs per mile. For HD pickups and vans, the agencies believe that setting standards based on vehicle attributes is appropriate, but have found that a work-based metric is a more appropriate attribute than the footprint attribute utilized in the light-duty vehicle rulemaking, given that work-based measures such as towing and payload capacities are critical elements of these vehicles' functionality. EPA and NHTSA therefore adopted standards for HD pickups and vans based on a “work factor” attribute that combines their payload and towing capabilities, with an added adjustment for 4-wheel drive vehicles.
Each manufacturer's fleet average Phase 1 standard is based on production volume-weighting of target standards for all vehicles, which in turn are based on each vehicle's work factor. These target standards are taken from a set of curves (mathematical functions), with separate curves for gasoline and diesel vehicles.
NHTSA allowed manufacturers to select one of two fuel consumption standard alternatives for MYs 2016 and later. The first alternative defined individual gasoline vehicle and diesel vehicle fuel consumption target curves that will not change for MYs 2016-2018, and are equivalent to EPA's 67-67-67-100 percent target curves in MYs 2016-2017-2018-2019, respectively. The second alternative defined target curves that are equivalent to EPA's 40-60-100 percent target curves in MYs 2016-2017-2018, respectively. NHTSA allowed manufacturers to opt voluntarily into the NHTSA HD pickup and van program in MYs 2014 or 2015 at target curves equivalent to EPA's target curves. If a manufacturer chose to opt in for one category, they would be required to opt in for all categories. In other words, a manufacturer would be unable to opt in for Class 2b vehicles, but opt out for Class 3 vehicles.
EPA also adopted an alternative phase-in schedule for manufacturers wanting to have stable standards for model years 2016-2018. The standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans, like those for light-duty vehicles, are expressed as set of target standard curves, with increasing stringency in each model year. The Phase 1 EPA standards for 2018 (including a separate standard to control air conditioning system leakage) are estimated to represent an average per-vehicle reduction in GHG emissions of 17 percent for diesel vehicles and 12 percent for gasoline vehicles (relative to pre-control baseline vehicles). The NHTSA standard will require these vehicles to achieve up to about 15 percent reduction in fuel consumption by MY 2018 (relative to pre-control baseline vehicles). Manufacturers demonstrate compliance based on entire vehicle chassis certification using the same duty cycles used to demonstrate compliance with criteria pollutant standards.
Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles include a wide variety of vehicle types, and serve a vast range of functions. Some examples include service for parcel delivery, refuse hauling, utility service, dump, concrete mixing, transit service, shuttle service, school bus, emergency, motor homes, and tow trucks. In Phase 1, we defined Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles as all heavy-duty vehicles that are not included in either the heavy-duty pickup and van category or the Class 7 and 8 tractor category. EPA's and NHTSA's Phase 1 standards for this vocational vehicle category generally apply at the chassis manufacturer level. Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles and their engines emit approximately 17 percent of the GHG emissions and burn approximately 17 percent of the fuel consumed by today's heavy-duty truck sector.
The Phase 1 program for vocational vehicles has vehicle standards and separate engine standards, both of which differ based on the weight class of the vehicle into which the engine will be installed. The vehicle weight class groups mirror those used for the engine standards—Classes 2b-5 (light heavy-duty or LHD in EPA regulations), Classes 6 and 7 (medium heavy-duty or MHD in EPA regulations) and Class 8 (heavy heavy-duty or HHD in EPA regulations). Manufacturers demonstrate compliance with the Phase 1 vocational vehicle CO
The agencies established separate Phase 1 performance standards for the engines manufactured for use in vocational vehicles and Class 7 and 8 tractors.
Phase 1 deferred greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards for any manufacturers of heavy-duty engines, manufacturers of combination tractors, and chassis manufacturers for vocational vehicles that meet the “small business” size criteria set by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 13 CFR 121.201
The agencies stated that they would consider appropriate GHG and fuel consumption standards for these entities as part of a future regulatory action. This includes both U.S.-based and foreign small-volume heavy-duty manufacturers that introduce new products into the U.S.
Overall, EPA and NHTSA estimated that the Phase 1 HD National Program will cost the affected industry about $8 billion, while saving vehicle owners fuel costs of nearly $50 billion over the lifetimes of MY 2014-2018 vehicles. The agencies also estimated that the combined standards will reduce CO
EPA estimated the benefits of reduced ambient concentrations of particulate matter and ozone resulting from the Phase 1 program to range from $1.3 to $4.2 billion in 2030.
In total, we estimated the combined Phase 1 standards will reduce GHG emissions from the U.S. heavy-duty fleet by approximately 76 million metric tons of CO
As noted above, the agencies adopted numerous provisions designed to give manufacturers a degree of flexibility in complying with the Phase 1 standards. These provisions, which are essentially identical in structure and function in EPA's and NHTSA's regulations, enabled the agencies to consider overall standards that are more stringent and that will become effective sooner than we could consider with a more rigid program, one in which all of a manufacturer's similar vehicles or engines would be required to achieve the same emissions or fuel consumption levels, and at the same time.
Phase 1 included four primary types of flexibility: Averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions; early credits; advanced technology credits (including hybrid powertrains); and innovative technology credit provisions. The ABT provisions were patterned on existing EPA and NHTSA ABT programs (including the light-duty GHG and fuel economy standards) and will allow a vehicle manufacturer to reduce CO
In total, the Phase 1 program divides the heavy-duty sector into 14 subcategories of vehicles and 4 subcategories of engines. These subcategories are grouped into 4 vehicle averaging sets and 4 engine averaging sets in the ABT program. For tractors and vocational vehicles, the fleet averaging sets are: Light heavy-duty (Classes 2b-5); medium heavy-duty (Class 6-7); and heavy heavy-duty (Class 8). Complete HD pickups and vans (both spark-ignition and compression-ignition) are the final vehicle averaging set. For engines, the fleet averaging sets are spark-ignition engines, compression-ignition light heavy-duty engines, compression-ignition medium heavy-duty engines, and compression-ignition heavy heavy-duty engines. ABT allows the exchange of credits within an averaging set. This means that a Class 8 day cab tractor can exchange credits with a Class 8 sleeper tractor but not with a smaller Class 7 tractor. Also, a Class 8 vocational vehicle can exchange credits with a Class 8 tractor. However, we did not allow trading between engines and chassis (
In addition to ABT, the other primary flexibility provisions in the Phase 1 program involve opportunities to generate early credits, advanced technology credits (including for use of hybrid powertrains), and innovative technology credits.
For other vehicle or engine technologies that can reduce CO
Manufacturers have already begun complying with the Phase 1 standards. In some cases manufacturers voluntarily chose to comply early, before compliance was mandatory. The Phase 1 rule allowed manufacturers to generate credits for such early compliance. The market appears to be very accepting of the new technologies, and the agencies have seen no evidence of “pre-buy” effects in response to the standards. In fact sales have been higher in recent years than they were before Phase 1. Moreover, manufacturers' compliance plans indicate intention to utilize the Phase 1 flexibilities, and we have yet to see significant non-compliance with the standards.
The D.C. Circuit rejected all challenges to the agencies' Phase 1 regulations. The court did not reach the merits of the challenges, holding that none of the petitioners had standing to bring their actions, and that a challenge to NHTSA's denial of a rulemaking petition could only be brought in District Court. See
The agencies are adopting new standards that build on and enhance existing Phase 1 standards, and are adopting as well the first-ever standards for certain trailers used in combination with heavy-duty tractors. Taken together, the Phase 2 program comprises a set of largely technology-advancing standards that will achieve greater GHG and fuel consumption savings than the Phase 1 program. As described in more detail in the following sections, the agencies are adopting these standards because, based on the information available at this time and careful consideration of all comments, we believe they best fulfill our respective statutory authorities when considered in the context of available technology, feasible reductions of emissions and fuel consumption, costs, lead time, safety, and other relevant factors.
The Phase 2 standards represent a more technology-forcing
The standards being adopted provide approximately ten years of lead time for manufacturers to meet these 2027 standards, which the agencies believe is appropriate to implement the technologies industry could use to meet these standards. For some of the more advanced technologies production prototype parts are not yet available, though they are in the research stage with some demonstrations in actual vehicles.
As discussed later, the agencies are also adopting new standards in MYs 2018 (trailers only), 2021, and 2024 to ensure that manufacturers make steady progress toward the 2027 standards, thereby achieving steady and feasible reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption in the years leading up to the MY 2027 standards.
Providing additional lead time can often enable manufacturers to resolve technological challenges or to find lower cost means of meeting new regulatory standards, effectively making them more feasible in either case. See generally
Another important consideration was the possibility of disrupting the market, which would be a risk if compliance required application of new technologies too suddenly. Several of the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers, fleets, and commercial truck dealerships informed the agencies that for fleet purchases that are planned more than a year in advance,
NHTSA has the broad discretion to weigh and balance the aforementioned factors in order to accomplish EISA's mandate of determining maximum feasible standards. The fact that the factors may often be at odds gives NHTSA significant discretion to decide what weight to give each of the competing factors, policies and concerns and then determine how to balance them—as long as NHTSA's balancing does not undermine the fundamental purpose of the EISA: Energy conservation, and as long as that balancing reasonably accommodates “conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute.”
EPA also has significant discretion in assessing, weighing, and balancing the relevant statutory criteria. Section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2)) requires that the standards “take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.” This language affords EPA considerable discretion in how to weight the critical statutory factors of emission reductions, cost, and lead time (76 FR 57129-57130). Section 202(a)(2) also allows (although it does not compel) EPA to adopt technology-forcing standards. Id. at 57130.
Sections II through VI of this Preamble explain the consideration that the agencies took into account based on careful assessment and balancing of the statutory factors under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1) and (2), and under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k).
Phase 2 is carrying over many of the compliance approaches developed for Phase 1, with certain changes as described below. Readers are referred to the regulatory text for much more detail. Note that the agencies have adapted some of these Phase 1 provisions in order to address new features of the Phase 2 program, notably provisions related to trailer compliance. The agencies have also reevaluated all of the compliance provisions to ensure that they will be effective in achieving the projected reductions without placing an undue burden on manufacturers.
The agencies received significant comments from vehicle manufacturers emphasizing the potential for the structure of the compliance program to impact stringency. Although the agencies do not agree with all of these comments (which are discussed in more detail in later sections), we do agree that it is important to structure the compliance program so that the effective stringency of standards is consistent with levels established by regulation. The agencies have made appropriate improvements to the compliance structure in response to these comments.
EPA and NHTSA are applying the same general certification procedures for Phase 2 as are currently being used for certifying to the Phase 1 standards. Tractors and vocational vehicles will continue to be certified using the vehicle simulation tool (GEM). The agencies, however, revised the Phase 1 GEM simulation tool to develop a new version, Phase 2 GEM, that more specifically reflects improvements to engines, transmissions, and drivetrains.
The Phase 1 certification process for engines used in tractors and vocational vehicles was based on EPA's process for showing compliance with the heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant standards using engine dynamometer testing, and the agencies are continuing it for Phase 2. We also will continue certifying HD pickups and vans using the Phase 1 chassis dynamometer testing results and vehicle certification process, which is very similar to the light-duty vehicle certification process. The Phase 2 trailer certification process will resemble the Phase 2 tractor certification approach, but with a simplified version of Phase 2 GEM. The trailer certification process allows trailer manufacturers to use a simple equation to determine GEM-equivalent g/ton-mile emission rates without actually running GEM.
EPA and NHTSA are also clarifying provisions related to confirming a manufacturer's test data during certification (
In response to comments, we are making several changes to the proposed EPA confirmatory testing provisions. First, the regulations being adopted specify that EPA will conduct triplicate tests for engine fuel maps to minimize the impact of test-to-test variability. The final regulations also state that we will consider entire fuel maps rather than individual points. Engine manufacturers objected to EPA's proposal that individual points could be replaced based on a single test, arguing that it effectively made the vehicle standards more stringent due to point-to-point and test-to-test variability. We believe that the changes being adopted largely address these concerns. We are also applying this approach for axle and transmission maps for similar reasons.
As described in Sections III and IV, EPA has also modified the SEA regulations for verifying aerodynamic performance. These revised regulations differ somewhat from the standard SEA regulations to address the unique challenges of measuring aerodynamic drag. In particular EPA recognizes that for coastdown testing, test-to-test variability is expected to be large relative to production variability. This differs fundamentally from traditional compliance testing, in which test-to-test variability is expected to be
Some commenters suggested that the agencies should apply a compliance margin to confirmatory and SEA test results to account for test variability. However, other commenters supported following EPA's past practice, which has been to base the standards on technology projections that assume manufacturers will apply compliance margins to their test results for certification. In other words, they design their products to have emissions below the standards by some small margin so that test-to-test or lab-to-lab variability would not cause them to exceed any applicable standards. Consequently, EPA has typically not set standards precisely at the lowest levels achievable, but rather at slightly higher levels—expecting manufacturers to target the lower levels to provide compliance margins for themselves. As discussed in Sections II through VI, the agencies have applied this approach to the Phase 2 standards.
The Phase 1 ABT provisions were patterned on established EPA ABT programs that have proven to work well. In Phase 1, the agencies determined this flexibility would provide an opportunity for manufacturers to make necessary technological improvements and reduce the overall cost of the program without compromising overall environmental and fuel economy objectives. Commenters generally supported this approach for engines, pickups/vans, tractors, and vocational vehicles. Thus, we are generally continuing this Phase 1 approach with few revisions to the engine and vehicle segments. However, as described in Section IV, in response to comments, we are finalizing a much more limited averaging program for trailers that will not go into effect until 2027. We are adopting some other provisions for certain vocational vehicles, which are discussed in Section V.
The agencies see the overall ABT program as playing an important role in making the technology-advancing standards feasible, by helping to address many issues of technological challenges in the context of lead time and costs. It provides manufacturers flexibilities that assist the efficient development and implementation of new technologies and therefore enable new technologies to be implemented at a more aggressive pace than without ABT.
ABT programs are more than just add-on provisions included to help reduce costs. They can be, as in EPA's Title II programs generally, an integral part of the standard setting itself. A well-designed ABT program can also provide important environmental and energy security benefits by increasing the speed at which new technologies can be implemented (which means that more benefits accrue over time than with later-commencing standards) and at the same time increase flexibility for, and reduce costs to, the regulated industry and ultimately consumers. Without ABT provisions (and other related flexibilities), standards would typically have to be numerically less stringent since the numerical standard would have to be adjusted to accommodate issues of feasibility and available lead time. See 75 FR 25412-25413. By offering ABT credits and additional flexibilities the agencies can offer progressively more stringent standards that help meet our fuel consumption reduction and GHG emission goals at a faster and more cost-effective pace.
The agencies proposed to continue the five-year credit life provisions from Phase 1, and not to adopt any general restriction on the use of banked Phase 1 credits in Phase 2. In other words, Phase 1 credits in MY 2019 could be used in Phase 1 or in Phase 2 in MYs 2021-2024. CARB commented in support of a more restrictive approach for Phase 1 credits, based on the potential for manufacturers to delay implementation of technology in Phase 2 by using credits generated under Phase 1. We also received comments asking the agencies to provide a path for manufacturers to generate credits for applying technologies not explicitly included in the Phase 1 program. In response to these comments, the agencies have analyzed the potential impacts of Phase 1 credits on the Phase 2 program for each sector and made appropriate adjustments in the program. For example, as described in Section II.D.(5), the agencies are adopting some restrictions on the carryover of windfall Phase 1 engine credits that result from the Phase 1 vocational engine standards.
In contrast to the Phase 1 tractor program, the Phase 1 vocational chassis program currently offers fewer opportunities to generate credits for potential carryover into Phase 2. To address comments related to this particular situation and also to provide a new Phase 1 incentive to voluntarily apply certain Phase 2 technologies, which are available today but currently not being adopted, the agencies are finalizing a streamlined Phase 1 off-cycle credit approval process for these Phase 2 technologies. For vocational chassis, these technologies include workday idle reduction technologies such as engine stop-start systems, automatic engine shutdown systems, shift-to-neutral at idle automatic transmissions, automated manual transmissions, and dual-clutch transmissions. The agencies are also finalizing a streamlined Phase 1 off-cycle credit approval process for Phase 2 automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS), for both tractors and vocational chassis. The purpose for offering these streamlined off-cycle approval processes for Phase 1 is to encourage more early adoption of these Phase 2 technologies during the remaining portion of the Phase 1 program (
The agencies are also including a provision allowing exempt small business manufacturers of vocational chassis to opt into the Phase 1 program for the purpose of generating credits which can be used throughout the Phase 2 program, as just described.
In conjunction with this provision allowing manufacturers to receive credit in Phase 1 for pulling ahead certain Phase 2 technologies, the agencies are providing an extended credit life for the Light and Medium heavy-duty vocational vehicle averaging sets (see next subsection) to provide additional Phase 2 transition flexibility for these vehicles. Unlike the HD Phase 1 pickup/van and tractor programs, where the averaging sets are broad; where manufacturers have many technology choices from which to earn credits (
Although, as we have already noted, the numerical values of Phase 2 standards are not directly comparable in an absolute sense to the existing Phase 1 standards (in other words, a given vehicle would have a different g/ton-mile emission rate when evaluated using Phase 1 GEM than it would when evaluated using Phase 2 GEM), we believe that the Phase 1 and Phase 2 credits are largely equivalent. Because the standards and emission levels are included in a relative sense (as a difference), it is not necessary for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards to be directly equivalent in an absolute sense in order for the credits to be equivalent.
This is best understood by examining the way in which credits are calculated. For example, the credit equations in 40 CFR 1037.705 and 49 CFR 535.7 calculate credits as the product of the difference between the standard and the vehicle's emission level (g/ton-mile or gallon/1,000 ton-mile), the regulatory payload (tons), production volume, and regulatory useful life (miles). The Phase 2 payloads, production volumes, and useful lives for tractors, medium and heavy heavy-duty engines, or medium and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles are equivalent to those of Phase 1. However, EPA is changing the regulatory useful lives of HD pickups and vans, light heavy-duty vocational vehicles, spark-ignited engines, and light heavy-duty compression-ignition engines. Because useful life is a factor in determining the value of a credit, the agencies proposed to apply interim adjustment factors to ensure banked credits maintain their value in the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2.
For Phase 1, EPA aligned the useful life for GHG emissions with the useful life already in place for criteria pollutants. After the Phase 1 rules were finalized, EPA updated the useful life for criteria pollutants as part of the Tier 3 rulemaking.
We note that the primary purpose of allowing manufacturers to bank credits is to provide flexibility in managing transitions to new standards. The five-year credit life is substantial, and allows credits generated in either Phase 1 or early in Phase 2 to be used for the intended purpose. The agencies believe a credit life longer than five years is unnecessary to accomplish this transition. Restrictions on credit life serve to reduce the likelihood that any manufacturer will be able to use banked credits to disrupt the heavy-duty vehicle market in any given year by effectively limiting the amount of credits that can be held. Without this limit, one manufacturer that saved enough credits over many years could achieve a significant cost advantage by using all the credits in a single year. The agencies
EPA has historically restricted averaging to some extent for its HD emission standards to avoid creating unfair competitive advantages or environmental risks due to credits being inconsistent. It also helps to ensure a robust and manageable compliance program. Under Phase 1, averaging, banking and trading can only occur within and between specified “averaging sets” (with the exception of credits generated through use of specified advanced technologies). As proposed, we will continue this regime in Phase 2, retaining the existing vehicle and engine averaging sets, and creating new trailer averaging sets. We are also continuing the averaging set restrictions from Phase 1 in Phase 2. (See Section V for certain other provisions applicable to vehicles certified to special standards.) These general averaging sets for vehicles are:
These restrictions have generally worked well for Phase 1, and we continue to believe that these averaging sets create flexibility without creating an unfair advantage for manufacturers with integrated portfolios, including engines and vehicles. See 76 FR 57240.
The Phase 1 regulations allow manufacturers to carry-forward deficits for up to three years. This is an important flexibility because the program is designed to address the diversity of the heavy-duty industry by allowing manufacturers to sell a mix of engines or vehicles that have very different emission levels and fuel efficiencies. Under this construct, manufacturers can offset sales of engines or vehicles not meeting the standards by selling others (within the same averaging set) that perform better than the standards require. However, in any given year it is possible that the actual sales mix will not balance out, and the manufacturer may be short of credits for that model year. The three-year provision allows for this possibility and creates additional compliance flexibility to accommodate it.
At the time of the proposal, the agencies believed it was no longer appropriate to provide extra credit for any of the technologies identified as advanced technologies for Phase 1, although we requested comment on this issue. The Phase 1 advanced technology credits were adopted to promote the implementation of advanced technologies that were not included in our basis of the feasibility of the Phase 1 standards. Such technologies included hybrid powertrains, Rankine cycle waste heat recovery systems on engines, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles (see 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(7), 1036.150(h), and 1037.150(p)). The Phase 2 heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards are premised on the use of some of these technologies, making them equivalent to other fuel-saving technologies in this context. We believe the Phase 2 standards themselves will provide sufficient incentive to develop those specific technologies.
Although the agencies proposed to eliminate all advanced technology incentives, we remained open to targeted incentives that would address truly advanced technology. We specifically requested comment on this issue with respect to electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell technologies. Although the Phase 2 standards are premised on some use of Rankine cycle waste heat recovery systems on engines and hybrid powertrains, none of these standards are based on projected utilization of these other even more-advanced technologies (
Our intention in adopting these multipliers is to create a meaningful incentive to those considering adopting these qualifying advanced technologies into their vehicles. The values being
Another important consideration in the adoption of these larger multipliers is the tendency of the heavy-duty sector to significantly lag the light-duty sector in the adoption of advanced technologies. There are many possible reasons for this, such as:
• Heavy-duty vehicles are more expensive than light-duty vehicles, which makes it a greater monetary risk for purchasers to invest in unproven technologies.
• These vehicles are work vehicles, which makes predictable reliability even more important than for light-duty vehicles.
• Sales volumes are much lower for heavy-duty vehicles, especially for specialized vehicles.
As a result of factors such as these, adoption rates for these advanced technologies in heavy-duty vehicles are essentially non-existent today and seem unlikely to grow significantly within the next decade without additional incentives.
The agencies believe it is appropriate to provide such large multipliers for these very advanced technologies at least in the short term, because they have the potential to provide very large reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption and advance technology development substantially in the long term. However, because they are so large, we also believe that we should not necessarily allow them to continue indefinitely. Therefore, the agencies are adopting them as an interim program that will continue through MY 2027. If the agencies determine that these credit multipliers should be continued beyond MY 2027, we could do so in a future rulemaking.
As discussed in Section I.C.(1)(d), the agencies are not specifically accounting for upstream emissions that might occur from production of electricity to power these advanced vehicles. This approach is largely consistent with the incentives offered for electric vehicles in the light-duty National Program. 77 FR 62810. For light-duty vehicles, the agencies also did not require manufacturers to account for upstream emissions during the initial years, as the technologies are being developed. While we proactively sunset this allowance for light-duty due to concerns about potential impacts from very high sales volumes, we do not have similar concerns for heavy-duty. Nevertheless, in this program we are only adopting these credit multipliers through MY 2027, and should we not promulgate a future rulemaking to extend them beyond MY 2027, these multipliers would essentially sunset in MY 2027.
One feature of the Phase 1 advanced technology program that is not being continued in Phase 2 is the allowance to use advanced technology credits across averaging sets. We believe that combined with the very large multipliers being adopted, there could be too large a risk of market distortions if we allowed the use of these credits across averaging sets.
Some manufacturers commented that the proposed engine regulations did not offer sufficient flexibility. Although these commenters acknowledge that the tractor and vocational
The agencies have considered these comments carefully. See,
This optional provision has three aspects:
Thus, the final rule provides the option of an extended credit life for the medium heavy-duty and heavy heavy-duty engines so that all credits generated in MY 2018 and later will last at least until MY 2030.
Once having opted into this alternative compliance path, engine manufacturers would have to adhere to that path for the remainder of the Phase 2 program. The choice would be made when certifying MY 2020 engines. Instead of certifying engines to the final year of the Phase 1 engine standards, manufacturers electing the alternative would indicate that they are instead certifying to the MY 2021 Phase 2 engine standard.
Because these engine manufacturers would be reducing emissions of engines otherwise subject to the MY 2020 Phase 1 engine standards (and because engine reductions were not reflected in the Phase 1
This alternative also does not have adverse implications for the vehicle standards. As just noted, the vehicle standards themselves are unaffected. Thus, these voluntary standards would not reduce the GHG reductions or fuel savings of the program. Vehicle manufacturers using the alternative MYs 2024-2026 engines would need to adopt additional vehicle technology (
In sum, the agencies view this alternative as being positive from the environmental and energy conservation perspectives, and believe it will provide significant flexibility for manufacturers that may reduce their compliance costs. It also provides a hedge against potential premature introduction of advanced engine technologies, providing more lead time to assure in-use reliability.
The agencies are continuing the Phase 1 innovative technology program (reflecting certain streamlining features as just discussed), but re-designating it as an off-cycle program for Phase 2. In other words, beginning in MY 2021 technologies that are not accounted for in the GEM simulation tool, or by compliance dynamometer testing (for engines or chassis certified vehicles) will be considered “off-cycle,” including those technologies that may no longer be considered innovative technologies.
The final rules provide that in order for a manufacturer to receive these credits for Phase 2, the off-cycle technology will still need to meet the requirement that it was not in common use prior to MY 2010. Although we have not identified specific off-cycle technologies at this time that should be excluded, we believe it is prudent to continue this requirement to avoid the potential for manufacturers to receive windfall credits for technologies that they were already using before MY 2010, and that are therefore reflected in the Phase 2 (and possibly Phase 1) baselines. However, because the Phase 2 program will be implemented in MY 2021 and extend at least through MY 2027, the agencies and manufacturers may have difficulty in the future determining whether an off-cycle technology was in common use prior to MY 2010. In order to avoid this approach becoming an unnecessary hindrance to the off-cycle program, the agencies will presume that off-cycle technologies were not in common use in 2010 unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. Neither the agencies nor manufacturers will be required to demonstrate that the technology meets this 2010 criteria. Rather, the agencies will simply retain the authority to deny a request for off-cycle credits if it is clear that the technology was in common use in 2010 and thus part of the baseline.
Manufacturers will be able to carry over innovative technology credits from Phase 1 into Phase 2, subject to the same restrictions as other credits. Manufacturers will also be able to carry over the improvement factor (not the credit value) of a technology, if certain criteria are met. The agencies will require documentation for all off-cycle requests similar to those required by EPA for its light-duty GHG program.
Additionally, the agencies will not grant any off-cycle credits for crash avoidance technologies. The agencies will also require manufacturers to consider the safety of off-cycle technologies and will request a safety assessment from the manufacturer for all off-cycle technologies.
Similar principles apply to off-cycle credits in this heavy-duty Phase 2 program as under the light-duty vehicle rules. Thus, technologies which are part of the basis of a Phase 2 standard would not be eligible for off-cycle credits. Their benefits have been accounted for in developing the stringency of the Phase 2 standard, as have their costs. See 77 FR 62835 (October 15, 2012). In addition, technologies which are integral or inherent to the basic vehicle design and are recognized in GEM or under the FTP (for pickups and vans), including engine, transmission, mass reduction, passive aerodynamic design, and base tires, will not be eligible for off-cycle credits. 77 FR 62836.
Just as some technologies that were considered off-cycle for Phase 1 are being adopted as primary technologies in Phase 2 on whose performance standard stringency is calculated, the agencies may revise the regulation in a future rulemaking to create a more direct path to recognize technologies currently considered off-cycle. For example, although we are including specific provisions to recognize certain electrified accessories, recognizing others would require the manufacturer to go through the off-cycle process. However, it is quite possible that the agencies could gather sufficient data to allow us to adopt specific provisions in a future rulemaking to recognize other accessories in a simpler manner. Because such a change would merely represent a simpler way to receive the same credit as could be obtained under the regulations being adopted today (rather than a change in stringency), it would not require us to reconsider the standards.
The agencies will largely continue the Phase 1 approach for engines and vehicles fueled by fuels other than gasoline and diesel.
We are also applying the Phase 2 standards at the vehicle tailpipe. That is, compliance is based on vehicle fuel consumption and GHG emission reductions, and does not reflect any so-called lifecycle emission properties. The agencies have explained why it is reasonable that the heavy-duty standards be fuel neutral in this manner and adhere to this reasoning here. See 76 FR 57123; see also 77 FR 51705 (August 24, 2012) and 77 FR 51500 (August 27, 2012). In particular, EPA notes that there is a separate, statutorily-mandated program under the Clean Air Act which encourages use of renewable fuels in transportation fuels, including renewable fuel used in heavy-duty diesel engines. This program considers lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum fuel. NHTSA notes that the fuel efficiency standards are necessarily tailpipe-based, and that a lifecycle approach would likely render it impossible to harmonize the fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards, to the great detriment of our goal of achieving a coordinated program. 77 FR 51500-51501; see also 77 FR 51705 (similar finding by EPA); see also Section I.F.(1)(a) below, Section 1.8 of the RTC, and Section XI.B.
The agencies received mixed comments on this issue. Many commenters supported the proposed approach, generally agreeing with the agencies' arguments. However, some other commenters opposed this approach. Opposing commenters generally fell into two categories:
• Commenters concerned that upstream emissions of methane occurring during the production and distribution of natural gas would offset some or all of the GHG emission reductions observed at the tailpipe.
• Commenters concerned that tailpipe-only standards ignore the GHG benefits of using renewable fuels.
The agencies are not issuing rules that effectively would turn these rules into a fuel program, rather than an emissions reduction and fuel efficiency program. Nor will the agencies disharmonize the program by having GHG standards reflect upstream emissions having no relation to fuel efficiency. See
The agencies note further that a consequence of the tailpipe-based approach is that the agencies will treat vehicles powered by electricity the same as in Phase 1. In Phase 1, EPA treated all electric vehicles as having zero tailpipe emissions of CO
EPA adopted several flexibilities for the Phase 1 program (40 CFR 86.1819-14(k), 1036.150 and 1037.150) as interim provisions. Because the existing regulations do not have an end date for Phase 1, most of these provisions did not have an explicit end date. NHTSA adopted similar provisions. With few exceptions, the agencies are not continuing these provisions for Phase 2. These will generally remain in effect for the Phase 1 program. In particular, the agencies note that we are not continuing the blanket exemption for small
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that EPA is to adopt emissions standards that are applicable for the useful life of the vehicle and for the engine. EPA finalized in-use standards for the Phase 1 program, whereas NHTSA's rules do not include these standards. For the Phase 2 program, EPA will carry-over its in-use provisions, and NHTSA is adopting EPA's useful life requirements for its vehicle and engine fuel consumption standards to ensure manufacturers consider in the design process the need for fuel efficiency standards to apply for the same duration and mileage as EPA standards. If EPA determines a manufacturer fails to meet its in-use standards, civil penalties may be assessed.
CAA section 207(c)(1) requires “the manufacturer” to remedy certain in-use problems. The remedy process is to recall the nonconforming vehicles and bring them into conformity with the standards and the certificate. The regulations for this process are in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F. EPA is also adopting regulatory text addressing recall obligations for component manufacturers and other non-certifying manufacturers. We note that the CAA does not limit this responsibility to certificate holders, consistent with the definition of a “manufacturer” as “any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines, or importing such vehicles or engines for resale, or who acts for and is under the control of any such person in connection with the distribution of new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines, but shall not include any dealer with respect to new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines received by him in commerce.”
As discussed in Section I.E.(1) below, this definition was not intended to restrict the definition of “manufacturer” to a single person per vehicle. Under EPA regulations, we can require any person meeting the definition of manufacturer for a nonconforming vehicle to participate in a recall. However, we would normally presume the certificate holder to have the primary responsibility.
EPA requested comment on adding regulatory text that would explicitly apply these provisions to tire manufacturers. Comments from the tire industry generally opposed this noting that they are not the manufacturer of the vehicle. These comments are correct that tires are not incomplete vehicles and hence that the recall authority does not apply for companies that only manufacture the tires. However, EPA remains of the view that in the event that vehicles (
EPA proposed to largely continue the Phase 1 engine and vehicle labeling requirements, but to eliminate the requirement for tractor and vocational vehicle manufacturers to list emission control on the label. The agencies consider it crucial that authorized compliance inspectors are able to identify whether a vehicle is certified, and if so whether it is in its certified condition. To facilitate this identification in Phase 1, EPA adopted labeling provisions for tractors that included several items. The Phase 1 tractor label must include the manufacturer, vehicle identifier such as the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), vehicle family, regulatory subcategory, date of manufacture, compliance statements, and emission control system identifiers (see 40 CFR 1037.135). EPA proposed to apply parallel requirements for trailers.
In Phase 1, the emission control system identifiers are limited to vehicle speed limiters, idle reduction technology, tire rolling resistance, some aerodynamic components, and other innovative and advanced technologies. However, the number of emission control systems for greenhouse gas emissions in Phase 2 has increased significantly for tractors and vocational vehicles. For example, all aspects of the engine transmission and drive axle; accessories; tire radius and rolling resistance; wind averaged drag; predictive cruise control; idle reduction technologies; and automatic tire inflation systems are controls which can be evaluated on-cycle in Phase 2 (
Although we are largely finalizing the proposed labeling requirements, we remain interested in finding a better approach for labeling. Under the agencies' existing authorities, manufacturers must provide detailed build information for a specific vehicle upon our request. Our expectation is that this information should be available to us via email or other similar electronic communication on a same-day basis, or within 24 hours of a request at the latest. The agencies have started to explore ideas that would provide inspectors with an electronic method to identify vehicles and access on-line databases that would list all of the engine-specific and vehicle-specific emissions control system information. We believe that electronic and Internet technology exists today for using scan tools to read a bar code or radio frequency identification tag affixed to a vehicle that could then lead to secure on-line access to a database of manufacturers' detailed vehicle and
Although we are not finalizing such a program in this rulemaking, we remain very interested in the use of electronic labels that could be used by the agencies to access vehicle information and may pursue these in a future rulemaking. Such a rulemaking would likely consider the feasibility of accessing dynamic link libraries in real-time to view each manufacturer's build records (and perhaps pending orders). The agencies envision that this could be very useful for our inspectors by providing them access to the build information by VIN to confirm that each vehicle has the proper emission control features.
The agencies proposed to continue the Phase definitions of “model year” for compliance with GHG emissions and fuel efficiency standards. However, in response to comments, the agencies are revising the definition slightly for Phase 2 tractors and vocational vehicles to match the model years of the engines installed in them. The revised definition generally sets the vehicle model year to be the calendar year of manufacture, but allows the vehicle manufacturer the option to select the prior year if the vehicle uses an engine manufactured in the prior model year.
This section briefly summarizes the Phase 2 standards for each category and identifies the technologies that the agencies project will be needed to meet the standards. Given the large number of different regulatory categories and model years for these standards, the actual numerical standards are not listed. Readers are referred to Sections II through IV for the tables of standards.
The agencies are continuing the basic Phase 1 structure for the Phase 2 engine standards. There will be separate standards and test cycles for tractor engines, vocational diesel engines, and vocational gasoline engines. However, as described in Section II, we are adopting a revised test cycle for tractor engines to better reflect actual in-use operation. After consideration of comments, including those specifically addressing whether the agencies should adopt an alternative with accelerated stringency targets, the agencies are adopting engine standards that can generally be characterized as more stringent than the proposed alternative.
Specifically, for diesel tractor engines, the agencies are adopting standards for MY 2027 that are more stringent than the preferred alternative from the proposal, and require reductions in CO
The agencies project that these reductions will be maximum feasible and reasonable for diesel engines based on technological changes that will improve combustion and reduce energy losses. For most of these improvements, the agencies project (
As described in Section III.D.(1)(b)(i), the agencies project that some engine manufacturers will be able to achieve larger reductions for at least some of their tractor engines. So in developing the tractor
For gasoline vocational engines, we are not adopting more stringent
As explained in Section III, the agencies will largely continue the structure of the Phase 1 tractor program, but adopt new standards and update test procedures, as summarized in Table I-6. The tractor standards for MY 2027 will achieve up to 25 percent lower CO
The agencies have enhanced the Phase 2 GEM vehicle simulation tool to recognize these technologies, as described in Section II.C. The agencies' evaluation shows that some of these technologies are available today, but have very low adoption rates on current vehicles, while others will require some lead time for development and deployment. In addition to the proposed alternative for tractors, the agencies solicited comment on an alternative that reached similar ultimate stringencies, but at an accelerated pace.
We have also determined that there is sufficient lead time to introduce many of these tractor and engine technologies into the fleet at a reasonable cost starting in the 2021 model year. The
In addition to the CO
The final rules contain a set of GHG emission and fuel consumption standards for manufacturers of new trailers that are used in combination with tractors. These standards will significantly reduce CO
The agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards that will phase-in beginning in MY 2018 and be fully phased-in by 2027. These standards are predicated on use of aerodynamic and tire improvements, with trailer OEMs making incrementally greater improvements in MYs 2021 and 2024 as standard stringency increases in each of those model years. EPA's GHG emission standards will be mandatory beginning in MY 2018, while NHTSA's fuel consumption standards will be voluntary beginning in MY 2018, and be mandatory beginning in MY 2021. In general, the trailer standards being finalized apply only for box vans, flatbeds, tankers, and container chassis.
As described in Section XIV.D and Chapter 12 of the RIA, the agencies are adopting special provisions to minimize the impacts on small business trailer manufacturers. These provisions have been informed by and are largely consistent with recommendations from the SBAR Panel that EPA conducted pursuant to section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Broadly, these provisions provide additional lead time for small business manufacturers, as well as simplified testing and compliance requirements. The agencies also are not finalizing standards for various trailer types, including most specialty types of non-box trailers. Excluding these specialty trailers also reduces the impacts on small businesses.
As explained in Section V, the agencies are adopting new vocational vehicle standards that expand upon the Phase 1 Program. These new standards reflect further subcategorization from Phase 1, with separate standards based on mode of operation: Urban, regional, and multi-purpose. The agencies are also adopting optional separate standards for emergency vehicles and other custom chassis vehicles.
The agencies project that the vocational vehicle standards could be met through improvements in the engine, transmission, driveline, lower rolling resistance tires, workday idle reduction technologies, weight reduction, and some application of hybrid technology. These are described in Section V of this Preamble and in Chapter 2.9 of the RIA. These MY 2027 standards will achieve up to 24 percent lower CO
Similar to the tractor program, we have determined that there is sufficient lead time to introduce many of these new technologies into the fleet starting in MY 2021. Therefore, we are adopting new standards for MY 2021 and 2024. Based on our analysis, the MY 2021 standards for vocational vehicles will achieve up to 12 percent lower CO
In Phase 1, EPA adopted air conditioning (A/C) refrigerant leakage standards for tractors, as well as for heavy-duty pickups and vans, but not for vocational vehicles. For Phase 2, EPA believes that it will be feasible to apply similar A/C refrigerant leakage standards for vocational vehicles, beginning with the 2021 model year. The certification process for vocational vehicles to certify low-leakage A/C components is identical to that already required for tractors.
The agencies are adopting new Phase 2 GHG emission and fuel consumption standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans that will be applied in largely the same manner as the Phase 1 standards. These standards are based on the extensive use of most known and proven technologies, and could result in some use of mild or strong hybrid powertrain technology. These standards will commence in MY 2021. By 2027, these standards are projected to be 16 percent more stringent than the 2018-2019 standards.
Similar to Phase 1, the agencies are adopting for Phase 2 a set of continuous equation-based standards for HD pickups and vans. Please refer to Section VI for a description of these standards, including associated tables and figures.
This section summarizes the projected costs and benefits of the NHTSA fuel consumption and EPA GHG emission standards. See Sections VII through IX and the RIA for additional details about these projections.
For these rules, the agencies used two analytical methods for the heavy-duty pickup and van segment by employing both DOT's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model. The agencies used EPA's MOVES model to estimate fuel consumption and emissions impacts for tractor-trailers (including the engine that powers the tractor), and vocational vehicles (including the engine that powers the vehicle). Additional calculations were performed to determine corresponding monetized program costs and benefits. For heavy-duty pickups and vans, the agencies performed separate analyses, which we refer to as “Method A” and “Method B.” In Method A, a new version of the CAFE model was used to project a pathway the industry could use to comply with each regulatory alternative and the estimated effects on fuel consumption, emissions, benefits and costs. In Method B, the CAFE model from the NPRM was used to project a pathway the industry could use to comply with each regulatory alternative, along with resultant impacts on per-vehicle costs. However, the MOVES model was used to calculate corresponding changes in total fuel consumption and annual emissions for pickups and vans in Method B. Additional calculations were performed to determine corresponding
The No Action Alternatives for today's analysis, alternatively referred to as the “baselines” or “reference cases,” assume that the agencies did not issue new rules regarding MD/HD fuel efficiency and GHG emissions. These are the baselines against which costs and benefits for these standards are calculated. The reference cases assume that model year 2018 engine, tractor, vocational vehicle, and HD pickup and van standards will be extended indefinitely and without change. They also assume that no new standards would be adopted for trailers.
The agencies recognize that if these Phase 2 standards had not been adopted, manufacturers would nevertheless continue to introduce new heavy-duty vehicles in a competitive market that responds to a range of factors, and manufacturers might have continued to improve technologies to reduce heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption. Thus, as described in Section VII, both agencies fully analyzed these standards and the regulatory alternatives against two reference cases. The first case uses a baseline that projects no improvement in new vehicles in the absence of new Phase 2 standards, and the second uses a more dynamic baseline that projects some significant improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. NHTSA considered its primary analysis to be based on the dynamic baseline, where certain cost-effective technologies are assumed to be applied by manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency beyond the Phase 1 requirements in the absence of new Phase 2 standards. EPA considered both reference cases. The results for all of the regulatory alternatives relative to both reference cases, derived via the same methodologies discussed in this section, are presented in Section X of the Preamble.
The agencies received limited comments on these reference cases. Some commenters expressed support for a flat baseline in the context of the need for the regulations, arguing that little improvement would occur without the regulations. Others supported the less dynamic baseline because they believe it more fully captures the costs. A number of commenters expressed that purchasers are willing to and do pay for fuel efficiency improving technologies, provided the cost for the technology is paid back through fuel savings within a certain period of time; this is the premise for a dynamic baseline. Some commenters thought it reasonable that the agencies consider both baselines given the uncertainty in this area. No commenters opposed the consideration of both baselines.
The agencies have continued to analyze two different baselines for the final rules because we recognize that there are a number of factors that create uncertainty in projecting a baseline against which to compare the future effects of this 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. 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 (
The tables below summarize the benefits and costs for the program in two ways: First, from the perspective of a program designed to improve the Nation's energy security and to conserve energy by improving fuel efficiency and then from the perspective of a program designed to reduce GHG emissions. The individual categories of benefits and costs presented in the tables below are defined more fully and presented in more detail in Chapter 8 of the RIA.
Lifetime fuel savings, GHG reductions, benefits, costs and net benefits for model years 2018 through
Table I-10 shows benefits and costs for these standards from the perspective of a program designed to improve the Nation's energy security and conserve energy by improving fuel efficiency. From this viewpoint, technology costs occur when the vehicle is purchased. Fuel savings are counted as benefits that occur over the lifetimes of the vehicles produced during the model years subject to the Phase 2 standards as they consume less fuel.
Table I-11 shows benefits and cost from the perspective of reducing GHG. As shown below in terms of MY lifetime GHG reductions, and in RIA Chapter 5 in terms of year-by-year GHG reductions, the final program is expected to reduce more GHGs over the long run than the proposed program. In general, the greater reductions can be attributed to increased market penetration and effectiveness of key technologies, based on new data and comments, leading to increases in stringency such as with the diesel engine standards (Section I.C.(2)(a) above).
Table I-12 breaks down by vehicle category the benefits and costs for these standards using the Method A analytical approach. For additional detail on per-vehicle break-downs of costs and benefits, please see RIA Chapter 10.
An important metric to vehicle purchasers is the payback period that can be expected on any new purchase. In other words, there is greater willingness to pay for new technology if that new technology “pays back” within an acceptable period of time. The agencies make no effort to define the acceptable period of time, but seek to estimate the payback period for others to make the decision themselves. The payback period is the point at which reduced fuel expenditures outpace increased vehicle costs, including increased maintenance, insurance premiums and taxes. The payback periods for vehicles meeting the standards considered for the final year of implementation are shown in Table I-15, and are similar for both Method A and Method B.
These regulations implement section 32902(k) of EISA and section 202(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act. Through the 2007 EISA, Congress directed NHTSA to create a medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement by considering appropriateness, cost effectiveness, and technological feasibility to determine maximum feasible standards.
Considering that Congress enacted EPCA and EISA to, among other things, address the need to conserve energy, the agencies have evaluated these standards in terms of costs per gallon of fuel conserved. We also considered the similar metric of cost of technology per ton of CO
As discussed below, the agencies estimate that over the lifetime of heavy-duty vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. during model years 2018-2029, these standards will cost about $30 billion and conserve about 75 billion gallons of fuel, such that the first measure of cost effectiveness will be about 40 cents per gallon. Relative to fuel prices underlying the agencies' analysis, the agencies have concluded that today's standards will be cost effective.
With respect to the second measure, which is useful for comparisons to other GHG rules, these standards will have overall $/ton costs similar to the HD Phase 1 rule. As Chapter 7 of the RIA shows, social costs will amount to about $30 per metric ton of GHG (CO
The following table include the overall per-unit costs of both gallons of fuel conserved and metric tons of GHG emissions abated using both a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate. Table I-16 gives these values under the Method A analysis.
When considering these values, it is important to emphasize two points:
1. As is shown throughout this rulemaking, the Phase 2 standards represent the most stringent standards that are technologically feasible and reliably implementable within the lead time provided.
2. These are not the marginal cost-effectiveness values.
Without understanding these two points, some readers might assume that because the tractor-trailer standards are more cost-effective overall than the other standards that manufacturers would choose to over-comply with the more cost-effective tractor or trailer standards and do less for other vehicles. However, the agencies believe this is not a technologically feasible option. Because the tractor and trailer standards represent maximum feasible standards, they will effectively require manufacturers to deploy all available technology to meet the standards. The agencies do not project that manufacturers would be able to over-comply with the 2027 standards by a significant margin.
The third measure deducts fuel savings from costs, which also is useful for comparisons to other GHG rules. As shown in Table I-18, the agencies have also calculated the cost per metric ton of CO
In addition, while the net economic benefits (
EPA and NHTSA received many comments suggesting that more
This section briefly summarizes the respective statutory authority for EPA and NHTSA to promulgate the Phase 1 and Phase 2 programs. For additional details of the agencies' authority, see Section XV of this document as well as the Phase 1 rule.
Statutory authority for the emission standards in this rule is found in CAA section 202(a)(1) and (2) (which requires EPA to establish standards for emissions of pollutants from new motor vehicles and engines which emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare), and in CAA sections 202(a)(3), 202(d), 203-209, 216, and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7521 (a)(1) and (2), 7521(d), 7522-7543, 7550, and 7601).
Title II of the CAA provides for comprehensive regulation of mobile sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions of air pollutants from all mobile source categories. When acting under Title II of the CAA, EPA considers such issues as technology effectiveness, its cost (both per vehicle, per manufacturer, and per consumer), the lead time necessary to implement the technology, and based on this the feasibility and practicability of potential standards; the impacts of potential standards on emissions reductions of both GHGs and non-GHG emissions; the impacts of standards on oil conservation and energy security; the impacts of standards on fuel savings by customers; the impacts of standards on the truck industry; other energy impacts; as well as other relevant factors such as impacts on safety.
This action implements a specific provision from Title II, section 202(a). Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA states that “the Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles . . ., which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” With EPA's December 2009 final findings that certain greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare and that emissions of GHGs from section 202(a) sources cause or contribute to that endangerment, section 202(a) requires EPA to issue standards applicable to emissions of those pollutants from new motor vehicles. See
Other aspects of EPA's legal authority, including its authority under section 202(a), its testing authority under section 203 of the Act, and its enforcement authorities under sections 205 and 207 of the Act are discussed fully in the Phase 1 rule, and need not be repeated here. See 76 FR 57129-57130.
In this final rule, EPA is establishing first-time CO
EPA also proposed a number of changes and clarifications for rules respecting glider kits and glider vehicles. 80 FR 40527-40530. As shown in Figure I.1, a glider kit is a tractor chassis with frame, front axle, interior and exterior cab, and brakes.
It is intended for self-propelled highway use, and becomes a glider vehicle when an engine, transmission, and rear axle are added. Engines are often salvaged from earlier model year vehicles, remanufactured, and installed in the glider kit. The final manufacturer of the glider vehicle,
Many commenters to both the proposed rule and the NODA supported EPA's interpretation. However, a number of commenters, including Daimler, argued that glider kits are not motor vehicles and so EPA lacks the authority to impose any rules respecting their sale or configuration. Comments of Daimler, pp. 122-23; Comments of Daimler Trucks (April 1, 2016) pp. 2-3. We respond to these comments below, with a more detailed response appearing in RTC Section 1.3.1 and 14.2.
Under the Act, “motor vehicle” is defined as “any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway.” CAA section 216(2). At proposal, EPA maintained that tractor-trailers are motor vehicles and that EPA therefore has the authority to promulgate emission standards for complete and incomplete vehicles—both the tractor and the trailer. 80 FR 40170. The same proposition holds for glider kits and glider vehicles. Id. at 80 FR 40528. The argument that a trailer, or a glider kit, standing alone, is not self-propelled, and therefore is not a motor vehicle, misses the key issues of authority under the Clean Air Act to promulgate emission standards for motor vehicles produced in discrete segments, and the further issue of the entities—namely “manufacturers”—to which standards and certification requirements apply. Simply put, EPA is authorized to set emission standards for complete and incomplete motor vehicles, manufacturers of complete and incomplete motor vehicles can be required to certify to those emission standards, and there can be multiple manufacturers of a motor vehicle, each of which can be required to certify.
Section 202(a)(1) authorizes EPA to set standards “applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any . . . new motor vehicles.” There is no question that EPA is authorized to establish emission standards under this provision for complete new motor vehicles, and thus can promulgate emission standards for air pollutants emitted by tractor-trailers and by glider vehicles.
Daimler maintained in its comments that although a glider vehicle is a motor vehicle, it is not a “new” motor vehicle because “glider vehicles, when constructed retain the identity of the donor vehicle, such that the title has already been exchanged, making the vehicles not `new' under the CAA.” Daimler Comments p. 121; see also the similar argument in Daimler Truck Comments (April 1, 2016), p. 4. Daimler maintains that because title to the powertrain from the donor vehicle has already been transferred, the glider vehicle to which the powertrain is added cannot be “new.” Comments of April 1, 2016 p. 4. Daimler also notes that NHTSA considers a truck to be “newly manufactured” and subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards when a new cab is used in its assembly, “unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.” 49 CFR 571.7(e). Daimler urges EPA to adopt a parallel provision here.
First, this argument appears to be untimely. In Phase 1, EPA already indicated that glider vehicles are new motor vehicles, at least implicitly, by
Section 202(a)(1) not only authorizes EPA to set standards “applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any . . . new motor vehicles,” but states further that these standards are applicable “whether such vehicles . . . are designed as complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such pollution.” The Act in fact thus not only contemplates, but in some instances, directly commands that EPA establish standards for incomplete vehicles and vehicle components. See CAA section 202(a)(6) (standards for onboard vapor recovery systems on “new light-duty vehicles,” and requiring installation of such systems); section 202(a)(5)(A) (standards to control emissions from refueling motor vehicles, and requiring consideration of, and possible design standards for, fueling system components); 202(k) (standards to control evaporative emissions from gasoline-fueled motor vehicles). Both TTMA and Daimler argued, in effect, that these provisions are the exceptions that prove the rule and that without this type of enumerated exception, only entire, complete vehicles can be considered to be “motor vehicles.” This argument is not persuasive. Congress did not indicate that these incomplete vehicle provisions were exceptions to the definition of motor vehicle. Just the opposite. Without amending the new motor vehicle definition, or otherwise indicating that these provisions were not already encompassed within Title II authority over “new motor vehicles”, Congress required EPA to set standards for evaporative emissions from a portion of a motor vehicle. Congress thus indicated in these provisions: (1) That standards should apply to “vehicles” whether or not the “vehicles” were designed as complete systems; (2) that some standards should explicitly apply only to certain components of a vehicle that are plainly not self-propelled. Congress thus necessarily was of the view that incomplete vehicles can be motor vehicles.
Emission standards EPA sets pursuant to this authority thus can be, and often are focused on emissions from the new motor vehicle, and from portions, systems, parts, or components of the vehicle. Standards thus apply not just to exhaust emissions, but to emissions from non-exhaust portions of a vehicle, or from specific vehicle components or parts. See the various evaporative emission standards for light duty vehicles in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B (
EPA thus can set standards for all or just a portion of the motor vehicle notwithstanding that an incomplete motor vehicle may not yet be self-propelled. This is not to say that the Act authorizes emission standards for any part of a motor vehicle, however insignificant. Under the Act it is reasonable to consider both the significance of the components in comparison to the entire vehicle and the significance of the components for achieving emissions reductions. A vehicle that is complete except for an ignition switch can be subject to standards even though it is not self-
TTMA and Daimler each maintained that this claim of authority is open-ended, and can be extended to the least significant vehicle part. As noted above, EPA acknowledges that lines need to be drawn, but whether looking at the relation between the incomplete vehicle and the complete vehicle, or looking at the relation between the incomplete vehicle and the emissions control requirements, it is evident that trailers and glider kits should properly be treated as vehicles, albeit incomplete ones.
Incomplete vehicle standards must, of course, be reasonably designed to control emissions caused by that particular vehicle segment. The standards for trailers would do so and account for the tractor-trailer combination by using a reference tractor in the trailer test procedure (and, conversely, by use of a reference trailer in the tractor test procedure). The Phase 2 rule contains no emission standards for glider kits in isolation, but the standards for glider vehicles necessarily reflect the contribution of the glider kit.
In some ways, the critical issue is to whom these emission standards apply. As explained in this section, the emission standards apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles, and manufacturers thus are required to test and to certify compliance to those standards. Moreover, the Act contemplates that a motor vehicle can have multiple manufacturers. With respect to the further question of which manufacturer certifies and tests in multiple manufacturer situations, EPA rules have long contained provisions establishing responsibilities where a vehicle has multiple manufacturers. We are applying those principles in the Phase 2 rules. The overarching principle is that the entity with most control over the particular vehicle segment due to producing it is usually the most appropriate entity to test and certify.
Emission standards are implemented through regulation of the manufacturer of the new motor vehicle. See,
The Act further distinguishes between manufacturers of motor vehicles and manufacturers of motor vehicle parts. See,
Thus, the question here is whether a trailer manufacturer or glider kit manufacturer can be a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and thereby become subject to the certification and related requirements for manufacturers, or must necessarily be classified as a manufacturer of a motor vehicle part or component. EPA may reasonably classify trailer manufacturers and glider kit manufacturers as motor vehicle manufacturers.
Section 216(1) defines a “manufacturer” as “any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines, or importing such vehicles or engines for resale, or who acts for and is under the control of any such person in connection with the distribution of new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines, but shall not include any dealer with respect to new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle engines, new nonroad vehicles or new nonroad engines received by him in commerce.”
It appears plain that this definition was not intended to restrict the definition of “manufacturer” to a single person per vehicle. The use of the conjunctive, specifying that a manufacturer is “
The provision also applies both to entities that manufacture and entities that assemble, and does so in such a way as to encompass multiple parties: Manufacturers “or” (rather than ‘and’) assemblers are included. Nor is there any obvious reason that only one person can be engaged in vehicle manufacture or vehicle assembling.
Reading the Act to provide for multiple motor vehicle manufacturers reasonably reflects industry realities, and achieves important goals of the CAA. Since title II requirements are generally imposed on “manufacturers” it is important that the appropriate parties be included within the definition of manufacturer—“any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new motor vehicles.” Indeed, as set out in Chapter 1 of the RIA, most heavy duty vehicles are manufactured or assembled by multiple entities; see also Comments of Daimler (October 1, 2015) p. 103.
It is reasonable to view the trailer manufacturer as “engaged in” (section 216(1)) the manufacturing or assembling of the tractor-trailer. The trailer manufacturer designs, builds, and assembles a complete and finished portion of the tractor-trailer. All components of the trailer—the tires, axles, flat bed, outsider cover, aerodynamics—are within its control and are part of its assembling process. The trailer manufacturer sets the design specifications that affect the GHG emissions attributable to pulling the trailer. It commences all work on the trailer, and when that work is complete, nothing more is to be done. The trailer is a finished product. With respect to the trailer, the trailer manufacturer is analogous to the manufacturer of the light duty vehicle, specifying, controlling, and assembling all aspects of the product from inception to completion. GHG emissions attributable to the trailer are a substantial portion of the total GHG emissions from the tractor-trailer.
This interpretation of section 216(1) is also reasonable in light of the various provisions noted above relating to implementation of the emissions standards—certification under section 206, prohibitions on entry into commerce under section 203, warranty and recall under section 207, and recordkeeping/reporting under section 208. All of these provisions are naturally applied to the entity responsible for manufacturing the trailer, which manufacturer is likewise responsible for its GHG emissions.
TTMA maintains that if a tractor-trailer is a motor vehicle, then only the entity connecting the trailer to the tractor could be subject to regulation.
Application of these same principles indicate that a glider kit manufacturer is a manufacturer of a motor vehicle and, as an entity responsible for assuring that glider vehicles meet the Phase 2 vehicle emission standards, can be a party in the certification process as either the certificate holder or the entity which provides essential test information to the glider vehicle manufacturer. As noted above, glider kits include the entire tractor chassis, cab, tires, body, and brakes. Glider kit manufacturers thus control critical elements of the
EPA rules have long provided provisions establishing responsibilities where there are multiple manufacturers of motor vehicles. See 40 CFR 1037.620 (responsibilities for multiple manufacturers), 40 CFR 1037.621 (delegated assembly), and 40 CFR 1037.622 (shipment of incomplete vehicles to secondary vehicle manufacturers). These provisions, in essence, allow manufacturers to determine among themselves as to which should be the certificate holder, and then assign respective responsibilities depending on that decision. The end result is that incomplete vehicles cannot be introduced into commerce without one of the manufacturers being the certificate holder.
Under the Phase 1 rules, glider kits are considered to be incomplete vehicles which may be introduced into commerce to a secondary manufacturer for final assembly. See 40 CFR 1037.622(b)(1)(i) and 1037.801 (definition of “vehicle” and “incomplete vehicle”) of the Phase 1 regulations (76 FR 57421). Note that 40 CFR 1037.622(b)(1)(i) was originally codified as 40 CFR 1037.620(b)(1)(i). EPA is expanding somewhat on these provisions, but in essence, as under Phase 1, glider kit and glider vehicle manufacturers could operate under delegated assembly provisions whereby the glider kit manufacturer would be the certificate holder. See 40 CFR 1037.621 of the final regulations. Glider kit manufacturers would also continue to be able to ship uncertified kits to secondary manufacturers, and the secondary manufacturer must assemble the vehicle into certifiable condition. 40 CFR 1037.622.
Even if, against our view, trailers and glider kits are not considered to be “motor vehicles,” and the entities engaged in assembling trailers and glider kits are not considered to be manufacturers of motor vehicles, the Clean Air Act still provides authority for the testing requirements adopted here. Section 208 (a) of the Act authorizes EPA to require “every manufacturer of new motor vehicle or engine parts or components” to “perform tests where such testing is not otherwise reasonably available.” This testing can be required to “provide information the Administrator may reasonably require to determine whether the manufacturer . . . has acted or is acting in compliance with this part,” which includes showing whether or not the parts manufacturer is engaged in conduct which can cause a prohibited act. Testing would be required to show that the trailer will conform to the vehicle emission standards. In addition, testing for trailer manufacturers would be necessary here to show that the trailer manufacturer is not causing a violation of the combined tractor-trailer GHG emission standard either by manufacturing a trailer which fails to comply with the trailer emission standards, or by furnishing a trailer to the entity assembling tractor-trailers inconsistent with tractor-trailer certified condition. Testing for glider kit manufacturers is necessary to prevent a glider kit manufacturer furnishing a glider kit inconsistent with the tractor's certified condition. In this regard, we note that section 203 (a)(1) of the Act not only prohibits certain acts, but also prohibits “the causing” of those acts. Furnishing a trailer not meeting the trailer standard would cause a violation of that standard, and the trailer manufacturer would be liable under section 203 (a)(1) for causing the prohibited act to occur. Similarly, a glider kit supplied in a condition inconsistent with the tractor standard would cause the manufacturer of the glider vehicle to violate the GHG emission standard, so the glider kit manufacturer would be similarly liable under section 203 (a)(1) for causing that prohibited act to occur.
In addition, section 203 (a)(3)(B) prohibits use of `defeat devices'—which include “any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle . . . where a principal effect of the part or component is to . . . defeat . . . any . . . element of design installed . . . in a motor vehicle” otherwise in compliance with emission standards. Manufacturing or installing a trailer not meeting the trailer emission standard could thus be a defeat device causing a violation of the emission standard. Similarly, a glider kit manufacturer furnishing a glider kit in a configuration that would not meet the tractor standard when the specified engine, transmission, and axle are installed would likewise cause a violation of the tractor emission standard. For example, providing a tractor with a coefficient of drag or tire rolling resistance level inconsistent with tractor certified condition would be a violation of the Act because it would cause the glider vehicle assembler to introduce into commerce a new tractor that is not covered by a
In the memorandum accompanying the Notice of Data Availability, EPA solicited comment on adopting additional regulations based on these principles. EPA has decided not to adopt those provisions, but again notes
At proposal, EPA indicated that engines used in glider vehicles are to be certified to standards for the model year in which these vehicles are assembled. 80 FR 40528. This action is well within the agency's legal authority. As noted above, the Act's definition of “new motor vehicle engine,” includes any “engine in a new motor vehicle” without regard to whether or not the engine was previously used. Given the Act's purpose of controlling emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicle engines, with special concern for pollutant emissions from heavy-duty engines (see,
Daimler challenged this aspect of EPA's proposal, maintaining that it amounted to regulation of vehicle rebuilding, which (according to the commenter) is beyond EPA's authority. Comments of Daimler, p. 123; Comments of Daimler Trucks (April 1, 2016) p. 3. This comment is misplaced. The EPA has authority to regulate emissions of pollutants from engines installed in new motor vehicles. As explained in subsection (a) above, glider vehicles are new motor vehicles. As also explained above, the Act's definition of “new motor vehicle engine” includes any “engine in a new motor vehicle” without regard to whether or not the engine was previously used. CAA section 216(3). Consequently, a previously used engine installed in a glider vehicle is within EPA's multiple authorities. See CAA sections 202(a)(1) (GHGs), 202(a)(3)(A) and (B)(ii) (hydrocarbon, CO, PM and NO
As explained in more detail in Section XIII.B, the final rule requires that as of January 1, 2017, glider kit and glider vehicle production involving engines not meeting criteria pollutant standards corresponding to the year of glider vehicle assembly be allowed at the highest annual production for any year from 2010 to 2014. See section 1037.150(t)(3). (Certain exceptions to this are explained in Section XIII.B.) The rule further requires that as of January 1, 2018, engines in glider vehicles meet criteria pollutant standards and GHG standards corresponding to the year of the glider vehicle assembly, but allowing certain small businesses to introduce into commerce vehicles with engines meeting criteria pollutant standards corresponding to the year of the engine for up to 300 vehicles per year, or up to the highest annual production volume for calendar years 2010 to 2014, whichever is less. Section 1037.150(t)(1)(ii) (again subject to various exceptions explained in Section XIII.B). Glider vehicles using these exempted engines will not be subject to the Phase 1 GHG
With regard to the issue of lead time, EPA indicated at proposal that the agency has long since justified the criteria pollutant standards for engines installed in glider kits. 80 FR 40528. EPA further proposed that engines installed in glider vehicles meet the emission standard for the year of glider vehicle assembly, as of January 1, 2018 and solicited comment on an earlier effective date. Id. at 40529. The agency noted that CAA section 202(a)(3)(D)
Various commenters, however, argued that the EPA must provide four years lead-time and three-year stability pursuant to section 202(a)(3)(C) of the Act, which applies to regulations for criteria pollutant emissions from heavy duty vehicles or engines. For criteria pollutant standards, CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) establishes lead time and stability requirements for “[a]ny standard promulgated or revised under this paragraph and applicable to classes or categories of heavy duty vehicles or engines.” In this rule, EPA is generally requiring large manufacturers of glider vehicles to use engines that meet the standards for the model year in which a vehicle is manufactured. EPA is not promulgating new criteria pollutant standards. The NO
We are not amending these provisions or promulgating new criteria pollutant standards for heavy duty engines here. EPA interprets the phrase “classes or categories of heavy duty vehicles or engines” in CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) to refer to categories of vehicles established according to features such as their weight, functional type, (
EPA believes this approach is most consistent with the statutory language and the goals of the Clean Air Act. The date of promulgation of the criteria pollutant standards was 2001. There has been plenty of lead time for the criteria pollutant standards and as a result, manufacturers of glider vehicles have many options for compliant engines that are available on the market today—just as manufacturers of other new heavy-duty vehicles do. We are even providing additional compliance flexibilities to glider manufacturers in recognition of the historic practice of salvaging a small number of engines from vehicles involved in crashes. See Section XIII.B. We do not believe that Congress intended to allow changes in how motor vehicles are manufactured to be a means of avoiding existing, applicable engine standards. Obviously, any industry attempts to avoid or circumvent standards will not become apparent until the standards begin to apply. The commenters' interpretation would effectively preclude EPA from curbing many types of avoidance, however dangerous, until at least four years from detection.
As to Daimler's further argument that the lead time provisions in section 202(3)(C) not only apply but also must trump those specifically applicable to heavy duty engine rebuilding, the usual rule of construction is that the more specific provision controls. See,
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 mandates a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the various facets of the need to conserve energy. In December 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), amending EPCA to require, among other things, the creation of a medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency program for the first time.
Statutory authority for the fuel consumption standards in this final rule is found in EISA section 103, 49 U.S.C. 32902(k). This section authorizes a fuel efficiency improvement program, designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement to be created for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks, to include appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective and technologically feasible.
NHTSA has responsibility for fuel economy and consumption standards, and assures compliance with EISA through rulemaking, including standard-setting; technical reviews, audits and studies; investigations; and enforcement of implementing regulations including penalty actions. This rule continues to fulfill the requirements of section 103 of EISA, which instructs NHTSA to create a fuel efficiency improvement program for “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks” by rulemaking, which is to include standards, test methods, measurement metrics, and enforcement protocols. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2).
Congress directed that the standards, test methods, measurement metrics, and compliance and enforcement protocols be “appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible” for the vehicles to be regulated, while achieving the “maximum feasible improvement” in fuel efficiency. NHTSA has broad discretion to balance the statutory factors in section 103 in developing fuel consumption standards to achieve the maximum feasible improvement.
As discussed in the Phase 1 final rule, NHTSA has determined that the five year statutory limit on average fuel economy standards that applies to passengers and light trucks is not applicable to the HD vehicle and engine standards. As a result, the Phase 1 HD engine and vehicle standards remain in effect indefinitely at their 2018 or 2019 MY levels until amended by a future rulemaking action. As was contemplated in that rule, NHTSA is finalizing a Phase 2 rulemaking action. Therefore, the Phase 1 standards will not remain in effect at their 2018 or 2019 MY levels indefinitely; they will remain in effect until the MY Phase 2 standards begin. In accordance with section 103 of EISA, NHTSA will ensure that not less than four full MYs of regulatory lead-time and three full MYs of regulatory stability are provided for in the Phase 2 standards.
With respect to the proposal, many stakeholders opined in their comments as to NHTSA's legal authority to issue the Phase 2 medium- and heavy-duty standards (Phase 2 standards), in whole or in part. NHTSA addresses these comments in the following discussion.
Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison) questioned NHTSA's authority to issue the Phase 2 Standards. Allison stated that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
NHTSA maintains that EISA allows the agency to promulgate medium- and heavy duty fuel efficiency standards beyond the Phase 1 standards. EISA states that NHTSA:
Allison equates the process by which Congress specified NHTSA promulgate standards—a rulemaking proceeding—to mean a limitation or constraint on NHTSA's ability to create, amend, or update the medium- and heavy duty fuel efficiency program. NHTSA believes the charge in 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) discusses “a rulemaking proceeding” only insofar as the statute specifies the process by which NHTSA would create a medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program and its associated standards.
Allison and TTMA commented that EISA only refers to an initial NAS study, meaning EISA only specified that NHTSA issue one set of standards based on that study. As NHTSA stated in the NPRM, EISA requires NAS to issue updates to the initial report every five years through 2025.
Allison also noted that the language in EISA discussing lead time and stability refers to a single medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel economy standard.
TTMA asserted that NHTSA has no more than 24 months from the completion of the NAS study to issue regulations related to the medium- and heavy-duty program and therefore regulations issued after 2013 “lack congressional authorization.” This argument significantly misinterprets the Congressional purpose of this provision. Section 32902(k)(2) requires that, 24 months after the completion of the NAS study, NHTSA begin implementing through a rulemaking proceeding a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement
POP Diesel stated that the word “fuel” has not been defined by Congress, and therefore NHTSA should use its authority to define the term “fuel” as “fossil fuel,” allowing the agencies to assess fuel efficiency based on the carbon content of the fuels used in an engine or vehicle. Congress has already defined the term “fuel” in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(10) as gasoline, diesel oil, or other liquid or gaseous fuel that the Secretary decides to include. As Congress has already spoken to the definition of fuel, it would be inappropriate for the agency to redefine “fuel” as “fossil fuel.”
Additionally, POP Diesel asserted that NHTSA's metric for measuring fuel efficiency is contrary to the mandate in EISA. Specifically, POP Diesel stated that many dictionaries define “efficiency” as a ratio of work performed to the amount of energy used, and NHTSA's load specific fuel consumption metric runs afoul of the plain meaning of statute the Phase 2 program implements. POP Diesel noted that Congressional debate surrounding what is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) included a discussion that envisioned NHTSA and EPA having separate regulations, despite having overlapping jurisdiction.
NHTSA continues to believe its use of load specific fuel consumption is an appropriate metric for assessing fuel efficiency as mandated by Congress. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) states, as POP Diesel noted, that NHTSA shall develop a medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency program. The section further states that NHTSA “. . . shall adopt and implement appropriate test methods [and] measurement metrics . . . for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks.” In the Phase 1 rulemaking, NHTSA, aided by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report, assessed potential metrics for evaluating fuel efficiency. NHTSA found that fuel economy would not be an appropriate metric for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Instead, NHTSA chose a metric that considers the amount of fuel consumed when moving a ton of freight (
As contemplated in the Phase 1 proposed and final rules, the agencies proposed standards for trailers in the Phase 2 rulemaking. Because Phase 1 did not include standards for trailers, NHTSA did not discuss its authority for regulating them in the proposed or final rules; that authority is described here.
NHTSA is finalizing fuel efficiency standards applicable to heavy-duty trailers as part of the Phase 2 program. NHTSA received several comments on the proposal relating to the agency's statutory authority to issue standards for trailers as part of the Phase 2 program. In particular, TTMA commented that NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate trailers as part of the medium- and heavy-duty standards. TTMA took issue with NHTSA's use of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as an aid in defining an undefined term in EISA. Additionally, TTMA stated that EISA's use of GVWR instead of gross combination weight rating (GCWR) to define the vehicles subject to these regulations was intended to exclude trailers from the regulation.
As stated in the proposal, EISA directs NHTSA to “determine in a rulemaking proceeding how to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement . . . .”
Both the tractor and the trailer are vehicles subject to regulation by NHTSA in the Phase 2 program. Although EISA does not define the term “vehicle,” NHTSA's authority to regulate motor vehicles under its organic statute, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Safety Act”), does. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as “a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways. . . .”
Additionally, it is worth noting that the dictionary definition of “vehicle” is “a machine used to transport goods or persons from one location to another.”
TTMA pointed to language in the Phase 1 NPRM where the agencies stated that GCWR included the weight of a loaded trailer and the vehicle itself. TTMA interprets this language to mean that standards applicable to vehicles defined by GVWR must inherently exclude trailers. The language TTMA cited is a clarification from a footnote in an introductory section describing the heavy-duty trucking industry. This statement was not a statement of NHTSA's legal authority over medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. NHTSA continues to believe a trailer is a vehicle under EISA if its GVWR fits within the definitions in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a), and is therefore subject to NHTSA's applicable fuel efficiency regulations.
Finally, in a comment on the Notice of Data Availability, TTMA stated that because NHTSA's statutory authority instructs the agency to develop a fuel efficiency program for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles, and trailers themselves do not consume fuel, trailers cannot be regulated for fuel efficiency. The agency disagrees with this assertion. A tractor-trailer is designed for the purpose of holding and transporting goods. While heavy-duty trailers themselves do not consume fuel, they are immobile and inoperative without a tractor providing motive power. Inherently, trailers are designed to be pulled by a tractor, which in turn affects the fuel efficiency of the tractor-trailer as a whole. As previously discussed, both a tractor and trailer are motor vehicles under NHTSA's authority. Therefore it is reasonable to consider all of a tractor-trailer's parts—the engine, the cab-chassis, and the trailer—as parts of a whole. As such they are all parts of a vehicle, and are captured within the scope of NHTSA's statutory authority. As EPA describes above, the tractor and trailer are both incomplete without the other. Neither can fulfill the function of the vehicle without the other. For this reason, and the other reasons stated above, NHTSA interprets its authority to regulate commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles, including tractor-trailers, as encompassing both tractors and trailers.
NHTSA did not regulate recreational vehicles as part of the Phase 1 medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency standards, although EPA did regulate them as vocational vehicles for GHG emissions. In the Phase 1 NPRM, NHTSA interpreted “commercial medium- and heavy duty on-road vehicle” to mean that recreational vehicles, such as motor homes, were not to be included within the program because recreational vehicles are not commercial. Following comments to the Phase 1 proposal, NHTSA reevaluated its statutory authority and proposed that recreational vehicles be included in the Phase 2 standards, and that early compliance be allowed for manufacturers who want to certify during the Phase 1 period.
The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) and Newell Coach Corporation (Newell) asserted that NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate recreational vehicles (RVs). RVIA and Newell stated that NHTSA's authority under EISA is limited to commercial medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and that RVs are not commercial. RVIA pointed to the fact that EISA gives NHTSA fuel efficiency authority over “commercial medium- and heavy-duty vehicles” and “work trucks,” the latter of which is not prefaced with the word “commercial.” Because of this difference, RVIA argued that NHTSA is ignoring a limitation on its authority—that is, that NHTSA only has authority over medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that are commercial in nature. RVIA stated that RVs are not used for commercial purposes, and are therefore not subject to Phase 2.
NHTSA's authority to regulate medium- and heavy-duty vehicles under EISA extends to “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles”
RVIA further stated that NHTSA's current fuel efficiency regulations are not consistent with EISA and do not purport to grant NHTSA authority to regulate vehicles simply based on weight. NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 523.6 define, by cross-reference the language in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7) and (19), and consistent with the discussion above, include recreational vehicles.
Finally, NHTSA notes that excluding recreational vehicles in Phase 2 could create illogical results, including treating similar vehicles differently, as determinations over whether a given vehicle would be covered by the program would be based upon either its intended or actual use, rather than the actual characteristics of the vehicle. Moreover, including recreational vehicles under NHTSA regulations furthers the agencies' goal of one national program, as EPA regulations will continue to regulate recreational vehicles. NHTSA will allow early compliance for manufacturers that want to certify during the Phase 1 period.
In addition to establishing new Phase 2 standards, this document addresses several other issues related to those standards. The agencies are adopting some regulatory provisions related to the Phase 1 program, as well as amendments related to other EPA and NHTSA regulations. These other issues are summarized briefly here and discussed in greater detail in later sections.
The EPA has the authority under section 202 of the Clean Air Act to establish, and from time to time revise, emission standards for certain air pollutants emitted from heavy-duty on-highway engines and vehicles. The emission standards that EPA has developed for heavy-duty on-highway engines have become progressively more stringent over the past 40 years, with the most recent NO
NO
In the past year, EPA has received requests from several state and local air quality districts and other organizations asking that EPA establish more stringent NO
In addition to CARB, EPA received compelling letters and comments from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, the Ozone Transport Commission, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District explaining the critical and urgent need to reduce NO
On June 3, 2016, the EPA received a Petition for Rulemaking from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (California), the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (Arizona), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (California), the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, the Delaware Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the Washoe County Health District (Nevada), the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the Akron Regional Air Quality Management District (Ohio), the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air
Since the establishment of the current heavy-duty on-highway standards in January of 2001,
EPA believes the opportunity exists to develop, in close coordination with CARB and other stakeholders, a new, harmonized national NO
• Substantially lower NO
• Improvements to emissions warranties;
• Consideration of longer useful life, reflecting actual in-use activity;
• Consideration of rebuilding/remanufacturing practices;
• Updated certification and in-use testing protocols;
• Incentives to encourage the transition to next-generation cleaner technologies as soon as possible;
• Improvements to test procedures and test cycles to ensure emission reductions occur in the real-world, not only over the applicable certification test cycles.
Based on the air quality need, the requests described above, the continued progress in emissions control technology, and the June 2016 petitions for rulemaking, EPA plans to engage with a range of stakeholders to discuss the opportunities for developing more stringent federal standards to further reduce the level of NO
This combined rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA is designed to regulate two separate characteristics of heavy duty vehicles and engines: GHGs and fuel consumption. In the case of diesel or gasoline powered vehicles, there is a one-to-one relationship between these two characteristics. For alternatively fueled vehicles, which use no petroleum, the situation is different. For example, a natural gas vehicle that achieves approximately the same fuel efficiency as a diesel powered vehicle will emit 20 percent less CO
In addition to use of low-leak components in air conditioning system design, manufacturers can also decrease the global warming impact of any refrigerant leakage emissions by adopting systems that use alternative, lower global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants, to replace the refrigerant most commonly used today, HFC-134a (R-134a). HFC-134a is a potent greenhouse gas with a GWP 1,430 times greater than that of CO
Under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program,
None of these alternative refrigerants can simply be “dropped” into existing HFC-134a air conditioning systems. In order to account for the unique properties of each refrigerant and address use conditions required under SNAP, changes to the systems will be necessary. Typically these changes will need to occur during a vehicle redesign cycle but can also occur during a refresh. For example, because CO
EPA is not aware of any significant development of A/C systems designed to use alternative refrigerants in heavy-duty vehicles.
As mentioned above, EPA has listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, two lower-GWP refrigerants, R-744 (CO
In another rulemaking action under the SNAP program, on July 20, 2015, EPA published a final rule (80 FR 42870) that will change the listing status of HFC-134a to unacceptable for use in newly manufactured LD motor vehicles beginning in MY 2021 (except as allowed under a narrowed use limit for use in newly manufactured LD vehicles destined for use in countries that do not have infrastructure in place for servicing with other acceptable refrigerants through MY 2025). In that same rule, EPA listed the refrigerant blends SP34E, R-426A, R-416A, R-406A, R-414A, R-414B, HCFC Blend Delta, Freeze 12, GHG-X5, and HCFC Blend Lambda as unacceptable for use in newly manufactured light-duty vehicles beginning in MY 2017. EPA's decisions were based on the availability of other substitutes that pose less overall risk to human health and the environment, when used in accordance with required use conditions. Neither the April 2016 proposed rule nor the July 2015 final rule consider a change of listing status for HFC-134a in HD vehicles.
LD vehicle manufacturers are currently making investments in systems designed for lower-GWP refrigerants, both domestically and on a global basis. In support of the LD GHG rule, EPA projected a full transition of LD vehicles to lower-GWP alternatives in the United States by MY 2021. We expect the costs of transitioning to decrease over time as alternative refrigerants are adopted across all LD vehicles and trucks, in part due to increased availability of components and the continuing increases in refrigerant production capacity, as well as knowledge gained through experience. As lower-GWP alternatives become widely used in LD vehicles, some HD vehicle manufacturers may wish to also transition their vehicles. Transitioning could be advantageous for a variety of reasons, including platform standardization and company environmental stewardship policies.
In the proposal for this Phase 2 HD rule, EPA proposed another action related to alternative refrigerants. EPA proposed to allow a manufacturer to be “deemed to comply” with the leakage standard if its A/C system used a refrigerant other than HFC-134a that was both listed as an acceptable substitute refrigerant for heavy-duty A/C systems under SNAP, and was identified in the LD GHG regulations at 40 CFR 86.1867-12(e). 80 FR 40172. By slightly reducing the regulatory burden of compliance with the leakage standard for a manufacturer that used an alternative refrigerant, the “deemed to comply” provision was intended to provide a modest incentive for the use of such refrigerants. There were comments in support of this approach,
For several reasons, EPA has reconsidered the proposed “deemed to comply” provision for this rule, and instead, the Phase 2 program retains the Phase 1 requirement that manufacturers attest that they are using low-leak components, regardless of the refrigerant they use. CARB and several NGO commenters expressed concerns about the proposed “deemed to comply” provision, primarily citing the potential for manufacturers to revert to less leak-tight components if they were no longer required to attest to the use of low-leak A/C system components because they used a lower-GWP refrigerant. In general, we expect that the progress LD vehicle manufacturers are making toward more leak-tight A/C systems will continue and that this progress will transfer to HD A/C systems. Still, we agree that continued improvements in low-leak performance HD vehicles is an important goal, and that continuing the Phase 1 leakage requirements in the Phase 2 program should discourage manufacturers from reverting to higher-leak and potentially less expensive components. It is also important to note that there is no “deemed to comply” option in the parallel LD-GHG program—manufacturers must attest to meeting the leakage standard. There is no compelling reason to have a different regime for heavy duty applications.
Although leakage of lower-GWP refrigerants is of less concern from a climate perspective than leakage of higher GWP refrigerants, we also agree with several commenters that expressed a concern related to the servicing of lower-GWP systems with higher-GWP refrigerants in the aftermarket. We agree that this could result due to factors such as price differentials between aftermarket refrigerants. However, as is the case for Phase 1, as a part of certification, HD manufacturers will attest both to the use of low-leak components as well as to the specific refrigerant used. Thus, in the future, a manufacturer wishing to certify a vehicle with an A/C system designed for an alternative refrigerant will attest to the use of that specific refrigerant. In that situation, any end-user servicing and recharging that A/C system with any other refrigerant would be considered tampering with an emission-related component under Title II of the CAA. For example, recharging an A/C system certified to use a lower-GWP refrigerant, such as HFO-1234yf, with any other refrigerant, including but not limited to HFC-134a, would be considered a violation of Title II tampering provisions.
At the same time, EPA does not believe that finalizing the “deemed to comply” provision would have had an impact on any future transition of the HD industry to alternative refrigerants. As discussed above, two lower-GWP refrigerants are already acceptable for use in HD vehicles, and EPA has proposed to list HFO-1234yf as acceptable, subject to use conditions, for limited HD vehicle types. As also discussed above, and especially in light of the rapid expansion of alternative refrigerants that has been occurring in the LD vehicle market, similar trends may develop in the HD vehicle market, regardless of EPA's action regarding leakage of alternative refrigerants in this final rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See generally 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The RFA analysis is discussed in Section XIV.
Pursuant to section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially will be subject to the rule's requirements. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to elements of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). A copy of the Panel Report was included in the docket for this rule.
The agencies previously determined that the Phase 2 regulations could potentially have a significant economic impact on small entities. Specifically, the agencies identified four categories of directly regulated small businesses that could be impacted:
To minimize these impacts the agencies are adopting certain regulatory flexibilities—both general and category-specific. In general, we are delaying new requirements for EPA GHG emission standards by one initial year and simplifying certification requirements for small businesses. Even with this one year delay, small businesses will be required to comply with EPA's standards before NHTSA's fuel efficiency standards are mandatory. Because of this timing, compliance with NHTSA's regulations will not be delayed, as small business manufacturers will be accommodated through EPA's initial one year delay. The agencies are also providing the following specific relief:
•
•
•
•
These flexibilities are described in more detail in Section XIV, in RIA Section 12 and in the Panel Report. Flexibilities specific to glider vehicle assemblers are described in Section XIII.
The agencies received mixed comments regarding the question of whether GEM inputs should be made available to public. Some commenters supported making this information available, while others thought it should
With regard to NHTSA's treatment of confidential business information, manufacturers must submit a request for confidentiality with each electronic submission specifying any part of the information or data in a report that it believes should be withheld from public disclosure as trade secret or other confidential business information. A form is available through the NHTSA Web site to request confidentiality. NHTSA does not consider manufacturers to continue to have a business case for protecting pre-model report data after the vehicles contained within that report have been introduced into commerce.
In EPA's existing regulations (40 CFR 1068.261), we allow engine manufacturers to sell or ship engines that are missing certain emission-related components if those components will be installed by the vehicle manufacturer. These provisions already apply to Phase 1 vehicles as well, providing a similar allowance for
Under delegated assembly, it is the upstream manufacturer that holds the certificate and assumes primary responsibility for all compliance requirements. Our experience applying this approach has shown that holding the upstream manufacturer responsible ensures that they will exercise due diligence throughout the process.
EPA proposed to apply this new section broadly. However, commenters raised valid questions about whether it is necessary to apply this formal process as broadly as proposed. In response, we have reconsidered the proposed approach and have determined that it would be appropriate to allow a less formal process with components for which market forces will make it unlikely that a secondary manufacturer would not complete assembly properly. In those cases, the certifying manufacturers will be required to provide sufficiently detailed installation instructions to the secondary manufacturers, who would then be obligated to complete assembly properly before the vehicles are delivered to the ultimate purchasers.
One example of a case for which market forces could ensure that assembly is completed properly would be air conditioning leakage requirements. Purchasers will have the expectation that the systems will not leak, and a secondary manufacturer should have no incentive to not follow the certifying manufacturer's instructions.
As revised, § 1037.621 will require the formal delegated assembly process for the following technologies if they are part of the OEM's certified configuration but not shipped with the vehicle:
Certificate holders will remain responsible for other certified components, but will not automatically be required to comply with the formal delegated assembly requirements. That determination will be made case-by-case as part of the certification process. We are also explicitly making the flexibility in 40 CFR 1037.621 available for HD pickups and vans certified to the standards in 40 CFR part 86. As is currently specified in 40 CFR 1068.261, EPA will retain the authority to apply additional necessary conditions (at the time of certification) to the allowance to delegate assembly of emission to secondary manufacturers (when emission control equipment is not shipped with the vehicle to the secondary manufacturer, as just noted). In particular, we would likely apply such additional conditions for manufacturers that we determine to have previously not completed assembly properly. Issues of delegated assembly are addressed in more detail in Section 1.4.4 of the RTC.
We received comment on what policies we should adopt to address the situation where the engine and the vehicle are subject to emission standards over different useful-life periods. For example, a medium heavy-duty engine may power vehicles in weight classes ranging from 2b to 8, with correspondingly different regulatory useful lives for those vehicles. As provided in 40 CFR 1037.140 of the final regulations, we have structured the vehicle regulations to generally apply the same useful life for the vehicle that applies for the engines. However, these regulations also allow vehicle manufacturers to certify their vehicles to longer useful lives. The agencies see no problem with allowing vehicles to have longer useful lives than the engines.
The agencies received comment on the NPRM from two environmental organizations requesting that the agencies make available to the public data and information that would enable the public to track trends in technology sales over time, as well as track company-specific compliance data. The commenters suggested that this should include an agency publication of an annual compliance report for the Heavy-duty Phase 2 program. The commenters requested this information to allow all stakeholders to see how individual companies, as well as the industry overall, were performing relative to their compliance obligations (see comments from ACEEE and NRDC).
The agencies agree with this comment. In the context of the light-duty vehicle GHG standards, EPA has already published four annual compliance reports which has made available to the public detailed information regarding both how individual light-duty vehicle companies have been meeting their compliance obligations, as well as summary information at the light-duty fleet level. NHTSA makes the up-to-date information on the light-duty fuel economy program available through its
The agencies received many comments expressing concerns about establishing the GHG and fuel consumption standards as tailpipe standards that do not account for upstream emissions or other life cycle impacts. However, many other commenters supported this approach. Comments specifically related to alternative fuels or electric vehicles are addressed in Section I.C.(1)(d) and in Section XI.B. This section addresses the issue more broadly.
As discussed below, the agencies do not see how we could accurately account for life cycle emissions in our vehicle standards, nor have commenters shown that such an accounting is needed. In addition, NHTSA has already noted that the fuel efficiency standards are necessarily tailpipe-based, and that a lifecycle approach would likely render it impossible to harmonize the fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards, to the great detriment of our goal of achieving a national, harmonized program. See 76 FR 57125.
It is also worth noting that EPA's engine and vehicle emission standards and NHTSA's vehicle fuel consumption standards (including those for light-duty vehicles) have been in place for decades as tailpipe standards. The agencies find no reasonable basis in the comments or elsewhere to change fundamentally from this longstanding approach.
Although the final standards do not account for life cycle emissions, the agencies have estimated the upstream emission impact of reducing fuel consumption for heavy-duty vehicles. As shown in Section VII and VIII, these upstream emission reductions are significant and worth estimating, even with some uncertainty. However, this analysis would not be a sufficient basis for inclusion in the standards themselves.
Commenters supporting accounting for life cycle emissions generally did so in the context of one or more specific technologies. However, the agencies cannot accurately address life-cycle emissions on a technology specific basis at this time for two reasons:
• We lack data to address each technology, and see no path to selectively apply a life cycle analysis to some technologies, but not to others.
• Actual life cycle emissions are dependent on factors outside the scope of the rulemaking that may change in the future.
With respect to the first reason, even if we were able to accurately and fully account for life cycle impacts of one technology (such as weight reduction), this would not allow us to address life cycle emissions for other technologies. For example, how would the agencies address potential differences in life cycle emissions for shifting from a manual transmission to and AMT, or the life cycle emissions of aerodynamic fairings? If we cannot factor in life cycle impacts for all technologies, how would we do it for weight reductions? Given the complexity of these rules and the number of different technologies involved, we see no way to treat the technologies equitably. Commenters do not provide the information necessary to address this challenge, nor are the agencies aware of such information.
The second reason is just as problematic. This rulemaking is setting standards for vehicles under specific statutory provisions. It is not regulating manufacturing processes, distribution practices, or the locations of manufacturing facilities. And yet each of these factors could impact life cycle emissions. So while we could take a snapshot of life cycle emissions at this point in time for specific manufacturers, it may or may not have any relation to life cycle emissions in 2027, or for other manufacturers. Consider, for example, two component manufacturers: One that produces its components near the vehicle assembly plant, and relies on natural gas to power its factory; and a second that is located overseas and relies on coal-fired power. How would the agencies equitably (or even non-arbitrarily) factor in these differences without regulating these processes? To the extent commenters provided any information on life cycle impacts, they did not address this challenge.
The agencies acknowledge that a full and accurate accounting of life cycle emissions (if it were possible) could potentially make the Phase 2 program marginally better. However, we do not agree that this is an issue of fundamental importance. While some commenters submitted estimates of the importance of life cycle emissions for light-duty vehicles, life cycle emissions are less important for heavy-duty vehicles. Consider, for example, the difference between a passenger car and a heavy-duty tractor. If the passenger car achieves 40 mile per gallon and travels 150,000 miles in its life, it would consume less than 4,000 gallons of fuel in its life. On the other hand, a tractor that achieves 8 miles per gallon and travels 1,000,000 miles would consume 125,000 gallons of fuel in its life, or more than 30 times the fuel of the passenger car. Commenters provide no basis to assume the energy consumption associated with tractor production would be 30 times that of the production of a passenger car.
The agencies are revising some test procedures and compliance provisions used for Phase 1. These changes are described in Section XII. This includes both amendments specific to Phase 1, as well as amendments that apply more broadly than Phase 1, such as the revisions to the delegated assembly provisions. As a drafting matter, EPA notes that we are moving the GHG standards for Class 2b and 3 pickups and vans from 40 CFR 1037.104 to 40 CFR 86.1819-14.
NHTSA is also amending 49 CFR part 535 to make technical corrections to its Phase 1 program to better align with EPA's compliance approach, standards and CO
The agencies received few comments on these changes, with most supporting the proposed changes or suggesting improvements. These comments as well as the few comments opposing any of these changes are discussed in Section XII and in the RTC.
EPA is finalizing certain other changes to regulations that we proposed, which are not directly related to the HD Phase 1 or Phase 2 programs, as detailed in Section XIII. For these amendments, there are no corresponding changes in NHTSA regulations. Some of these amendments relate directly to heavy-duty highway engines, but not to the GHG programs. Others relate to nonroad engines. This latter category reflects the regulatory structure EPA uses for its mobile source regulations, in which regulatory provisions applying broadly to different types of mobile sources are codified in common regulatory parts such as 40 CFR part 1068. This approach creates a broad regulatory structure that regulates highway and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment collectively in a common program. Thus, it is appropriate to include some amendments to nonroad regulations in addition to the changes applicable only for highway engines and vehicles.
Except as noted below, the agencies received relatively few significant comments on these issues. All comments are discussed in more detail in Section XIII and in the RTC. One area, for which we did receive significant comment was the issue of competition vehicles. As described in Section XIII, EPA is not finalizing the proposed clarification related to highway vehicles used for competition.
EPA regulations currently allow used pre-2013 engines to be installed into new glider kits without meeting currently applicable standards. As described in Section XIII.B, EPA is amending its regulations to allow only engines that have been certified to meet standards for the model year in which the glider vehicle is assembled (
Nonconformance penalties (NCPs) are monetary penalties established by regulation that allow a vehicle or engine manufacturer to sell engines that do not meet the emission standards. Manufacturers unable to comply with the applicable standard pay penalties, which are assessed on a per-engine basis.
On September 5, 2012, EPA adopted final NCPs for heavy heavy-duty diesel engines that could be used by manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines unable to meet the current oxides of nitrogen (NO
EPA and manufacturers have gained substantial experience with in-use testing over the last four or five years. This has led to important insights in ways that the test protocol can be adjusted to be more effective. We are accordingly making changes to the regulations in 40 CFR part 86, subparts N and T.
As part of the Phase 1 GHG standards, we applied the exemption and importation provisions from 40 CFR part 1068, subparts C and D, to heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles. We also specified that the defect reporting provisions of 40 CFR 1068.501 were optional. In an earlier rulemaking, we applied the selective enforcement auditing under 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E (75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010). We are adopting the rest of 40 CFR part 1068 for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles, with certain exceptions and special provisions.
As described above, we are applying all the general compliance provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 to heavy-duty engines and vehicles subject to 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037. We are also applying the recall provisions and the hearing procedures from 40 CFR part 1068 for highway motorcycles and for all vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
EPA is updating and consolidating the regulations related to formal and informal hearings in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G. This will allow us to rely on a single set of regulations for all the different categories of vehicles, engines, and equipment that are subject to emission standards. We also made an effort to write these regulations for improved readability.
We are also making a number of changes to part 1068 to correct errors, to add clarification, and to make adjustments based on lessons learned from implementing these regulatory provisions.
EPA is making several changes to our engine testing procedures specified in
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for marine diesel engines under the Clean Air Act and the act to Prevent Pollution from Ships are identified in 40 CFR parts 1042 and 1043, respectively. EPA is amending these regulations with respect to continuous NO
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for locomotives under the Clean Air Act are identified in 40 CFR part 1033. EPA is making several minor revisions to these regulations.
NHTSA proposed to amend 49 CFR parts 512 and 537 to allow manufacturers to submit required compliance data for the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program electronically, rather than submitting some reports to NHTSA via paper and CDs and some reports to EPA through its VERIFY database system. NHTSA is not finalizing this proposal in this rulemaking and will consider electronic submission for CAFE reports in a future action.
This Section II. describes two regulatory program elements that are
In this final action, the agencies have built on the success of the Phase 1 GEM-based approach for the certification of tractors and vocational chassis. To better recognize the real-world impact of vehicle technologies, we have expanded the number of required and optional vehicle inputs into GEM. Inputting these additional details into GEM results in more accurate representations of vehicle performance and greater opportunities to demonstrate reductions in CO
Based on our assessments of the technological feasibility; cost effectiveness; requisite lead times for implementing new and additional tractor and vocational vehicle technologies; and based on comments we received in response to our notice of proposed rulemaking and in response to our more recent notice of additional data availability, the agencies are finalizing steadily increasing stringencies of the CO
For Phase 2 we are finalizing, as proposed, the same Phase 1 certification approach for all of the GHG and fuel efficiency separate engine standards for those engines installed in tractors and vocational chassis. For the separate engine standards, we will continue to require the Phase 1 engine dynamometer certification test procedures, which were adopted substantially from EPA's existing heavy-duty engine emissions test procedures. In this action we are finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the weighting factors of the tractor engine 13-mode steady-state test cycle (
Based on our assessments of the technological feasibility; cost effectiveness; requisite lead times for implementing new and additional engine technologies; and based on comments we received in response to our notice of proposed rulemaking and in response to our more recent notice of additional data availability, the agencies are finalizing steadily increasing stringencies of the CO
As proposed, in this final action the agencies have built on the success of the Phase 1 GEM-based approach for the certification of tractors and vocational chassis, while also maintaining the Phase 1 separate engine standards approach to engine certification. While the regulatory structures of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 are quite similar, there are a number of new elements for Phase 2. Note that we are not applying these new
These modifications for Phase 2 are consistent with the agencies' Phase 1 commitments to consider a range of regulatory approaches during the development of future regulatory efforts (76 FR 57133), especially for vehicles not already subject to full vehicle chassis dynamometer testing. For example, we committed to consider a more sophisticated approach to vehicle testing to more completely capture the complex interactions within the total vehicle, including the engine and powertrain performance. We also committed to consider the potential for full vehicle certification of complete tractors and vocational chassis using a chassis dynamometer test procedure. We also considered chassis dynamometer testing of complete tractors and vocational chassis as a complementary approach for validating a more complex vehicle simulation approach. We committed to consider the potential for a regulatory program for some of the trailers hauled by tractors. After considering these various approaches, the agencies proposed a structure in which regulated tractor and vocational chassis manufacturers would additionally enter engine and powertrain-related inputs into GEM, which was not part of in Phase 1.
The basic structure in the proposal was widely supported by commenters, although some commenters supported changing certain aspects. Some commenters suggested revising GEM to recognize additional technologies, such as tire pressure monitoring systems and electronic controls that decrease fuel consumption while a vehicle is coasting. To the extent that the agencies were able to collect and receive sufficient data to support such revisions in GEM, these changes were made. See Section II.C. for details. For determining certain GEM inputs, some commenters suggested more cost-effective test procedures for separate engine and transmission testing, compared to the engine-plus-transmission powertrain test procedure that the agencies proposed. In collaboration with researchers at engine manufacturer test laboratories, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and at Southwest Research Institute, the agencies completed a number of laboratory evaluations of these suggested test procedures.
Some commenters expressed concern about GEM and our proposed tractor standards appropriately accounting for the performance of powertrain technologies installed in some of the largest specialty tractors. We have addressed this concern by finalizing a new “heavy-haul” tractor sub-category, with a unique payload and vehicle masses in GEM, which result in a unique set of numeric standards for these vehicles. This is explained in detail in Section III.D. Other commenters expressed concern about the greater complexity of GEM's additional inputs and the appropriateness of our proposed vocational chassis standards, as applied to certain custom-built vocational chassis. We have addressed these concerns by finalizing a limited number of optional custom chassis standards, tailored according to a vocational chassis' final application (
Some vehicle manufacturers did not support the agencies finalizing separate engine standards. However, as described below, the agencies continue to believe that separate engine standards are necessary and appropriate. Thus, the agencies are finalizing the basic rule structure that was proposed, but with a number of refinements.
For trailer manufacturers, which will be subject to first-time standards under Phase 2, we will apply the standards using a GEM-based certification, but to do so without actually running GEM. More specifically, based on the agencies' analysis of the results of running GEM many times and varying GEM's trailer configurations, the agencies have developed a simple equation that replicates GEM results, based on inputting certain trailer values into the equation. Use of the equation, rather than full GEM, should significantly facilitate trailer certification. As described in Chapter 2.10.5 of the RIA, the equation has a nearly perfect correlation with GEM, so that they can be used instead of GEM, without impacting stringency. This is a result of the relative simplicity of the trailer inputs as compared to the tractor and vocational vehicle inputs.
To follow-up on the commitment to consider other approaches, the agencies spent significant time and resources before the proposal in evaluating six different options for demonstrating compliance with the proposed Phase 2 standards as shown in Figure II.1
As shown in Figure II.1 these six options include:
1. Full vehicle simulation, where vehicle inputs are entered into simulation software.
2. Vehicle simulation, supplemented with separate engine standards.
3. Controllers-in-the-loop simulation, where an actual electronic transmission controller module (TCM) and an actual engine controller module (ECM) are tested in hardware.
4. Engine-in-the-loop simulation, with or without a TCM, where at least the engine is tested in hardware.
5. Vehicle simulation with powertrain-in-the-loop, where the engine and transmission are tested in hardware. One variation involves an engine standard.
6. Full vehicle chassis dynamometer testing.
The agencies evaluated these options in terms of the capital investment required of regulated manufacturers to conduct the testing and/or simulation, the cost per test, the accuracy of the simulation, and the challenges of validating the results. Other considerations included the representativeness compared to the real world behavior, maintaining existing Phase 1 certification approaches that are known to work well, enhancing the Phase 1 approaches that could use improvements, the alignment of test procedures for determining GHG and non-GHG emissions compliance, and the potential to circumvent the intent of the test procedures. The agencies presented our evaluations in the proposal, and we received comments on some of these approaches, and these comments were considered carefully in our evaluations for this final action. Notably, in this final action we are adopting a combination of these options, where some are mandatory and others are optional for certification via GEM. We have concluded that this combination of these options strikes an optimal balance between their costs, accuracy with respect to real-world performance, and robustness for ensuring compliance. In this section we present our evaluation and rationale for finalizing these Phase 2 certification approaches.
Chassis dynamometer testing (Option 6) is used extensively in the development and certification of light-duty vehicles. It also is used in Phase 1 to certify complete Class 2b/3 pickups and vans, as well as to certify certain incomplete vehicles (at the manufacturer's option). The agencies considered chassis dynamometer testing more broadly as a heavy-duty fuel efficiency and GHG certification option because chassis dynamometer testing has the ability to evaluate a vehicle's performance in a manner that most closely resembles the vehicle's in-use performance. Nearly all of the fuel efficiency technologies can be evaluated simultaneously on a chassis dynamometer, including the vehicle systems' interactions that depend on the behavior of the engine, transmission, and other vehicle electronic controllers. One challenge associated with the application of wide-spread heavy-duty chassis testing is the small number of heavy-duty chassis test sites that are available in North America. As discussed in RIA Chapter 3, the agencies were only able to locate 11 heavy-duty chassis test sites. However, more recently we have seen an increased interest in building new sites since issuing the Phase 1 Final Rule. For example, EPA is currently building a heavy-duty chassis dynamometer with the ability to test up to 80,000 pound vehicles at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Nevertheless, the agencies continue to be concerned about requiring a chassis test procedure for certifying tractors or vocational chassis due to the initial cost of a new test facility and the large number of heavy duty tractor and vocational chassis variants that could require testing. We have also concluded that for heavy-duty tractors and vocational chassis, there can be increased test-to-test variability under chassis dynamometer test conditions, versus other approaches. First, the agencies recognize that such testing
Another option considered for certification involves testing a vehicle's powertrain in a modified engine dynamometer test facility, which is part of option 5 shown in Figure II.1. In this case the engine and transmission are installed together in a laboratory test facility, and a dynamometer is connected to the output shaft of the transmission. GEM or an equivalent vehicle simulation computer program is then used to control the dynamometer to simulate vehicle speeds and loads. The step-by-step test procedure considered for this option was initially developed as an option for hybrid powertrain testing for Phase 1. We are not finalizing this approach as mandatory, but we are allowing this as an option for manufacturers to generate powertrain inputs for use in GEM. For Phase 2 we generally require this test procedure for evaluating hybrid powertrains for inputs into GEM, but there are certain exceptions where engine-only test procedures may be used to certify hybrids via GEM (
A key advantage of the powertrain test approach is that it directly measures the effectiveness of the engine, the transmission, and the integration of these two components. Engines and transmissions are particularly challenging to simulate within a computer program like GEM because the engines and transmissions installed in vehicles today are actively and interactively controlled by their own sophisticated electronic controls; namely the ECM and TCM.
We believe that the capital investment impact on manufacturers for powertrain testing is reasonable; especially for those who already have heavy-duty engine dynamometer test facilities. We have found that, in general, medium-duty powertrains can be tested in heavy-duty engine test cells. EPA has successfully completed such a test facility conversion at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in San Antonio, Texas has completed a similar test cell conversion. Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee has been operating a recently constructed heavy heavy-duty powertrain dynamometer facility, and EPA currently has an interagency agreement with DOE to fund EPA powertrain testing at ORNL. The results from this testing were published for a 30-day comment period, as part of the NODA.
Furthermore, the agencies have worked with key transmission suppliers to develop an approach to define transmission families. Coupled with the agencies' existing definitions of engine families (40 CFR 1036.230 and 1037.230), we are finalizing powertrain family definitions in 40 CFR 1037.231 and axle and transmission families in 40 CFR 1037.232.
Even though there is conclusive evidence that powertrain testing is a
Another regulatory structure option considered by the agencies was engine-only testing over the GEM duty cycles over a range of simulated vehicle configurations, which is part of Option 4 in Figure II.1. This is essentially a “cycle-average approach,” which would use GEM to generate engine duty cycles by simulating a range of transmissions and other vehicle variations. These engine-level duty cycles would then be programmed into a separate controller of a dynamometer connected to an engine's output shaft. The agencies requested comment on this approach, and based on continued research that has been conducted since the proposal, and based on comments we received in response to the NODA, we are finalizing this approach as mandatory for determining the GEM inputs that characterize an engine's transient engine performance within GEM over the ARB Transient duty cycle. We are also finalizing this approach as optional for characterizing the more steady-state engine operation in GEM over the 55 mph and 65 mph duty cycles with road grade, in lieu of steady-state engine mapping for these two cycles. We are also finalizing this approach as an option for certifying pre-transmission hybrids, in lieu of powertrain testing. We are calling this approach the “cycle-average” approach, which generates a cycle-average engine fuel map that is input into GEM. This map simulates an engine family's performance over a given vehicle drive cycle, for the full range of vehicles into which that engine could be installed. Unlike the chassis dynamometer or powertrain dynamometer approaches, which could have significant test facility construction or modification costs, this engine-only approach necessitates little capital investment because engine manufacturers already have engine test facilities to both develop engines and to certify engines to meet both EPA's non-GHG standards and the agencies' Phase 1 fuel efficiency and GHG separate engine standards. This option has received significant attention since our notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA and others have published peer reviewed journal articles demonstrating the efficacy of this approach,
The agencies also considered simulating the engine, transmission, and vehicle using a computer program; while having the actual transmission electronic controller connected to the computer running the vehicle simulation program, which is part of Option 3 in Figure II.1. The output of the simulation would be an engine cycle that would be used to test the engine in an engine test facility. Just as in the cycle-average approach, this procedure would not require significant capital investment in new test facilities. An additional benefit of this approach would be that the actual transmission controller would be determining the transmission gear shift points during the test, without a transmission manufacturer having to reveal their proprietary transmission control logic. This approach comes with some significant technical challenges, however. The computer model would have to become more complex and tailored to each new transmission and controller to make sure that the controller would operate properly when it is connected to a computer instead of an actual transmission. Some examples of the transmission specific requirements would be simulating all the Controller Area Network (CAN) communication to and from the transmission controller and the specific sensor responses both through simulation and hardware. Each vehicle manufacturer would have to be
Finally, the agencies considered full vehicle simulation plus separate engine standards (Option 2 in Figure II.1), which is the required approach being finalized for Phase 2. This approach is discussed in more detail in the following sections. It should be noted before concluding this subsection that the agencies do provide a regulatory path for manufacturers to apply for approval of alternative test methods that are different than those the agencies specify. See 40 CFR part 1065, subpart A. Therefore, even though we have not finalized some of the certification approaches and test procedures that we investigated, our conclusions about these procedures do not prevent a manufacturer from seeking agency approval of any of these procedures or any other alternative procedures.
Under the final Phase 2 structure, tractor and vocational chassis manufacturers will be required to provide engine, transmission, drive axle(s) and tire inputs into GEM (as well as the inputs already required under Phase 1). For Phase 1, GEM used fixed default values for all of these, which limited the types of technologies that could be recognized by GEM to show compliance with the standards. We are expanding GEM to account for a wider range of technological improvements that would otherwise need to be recognized through the more cumbersome off-cycle crediting approach in Phase 1. Additional technologies that will now be recognized in GEM also include lightweight thermoplastic materials, automatic tire inflation systems, tire pressure monitoring systems, advanced cruise control systems, electronic vehicle coasting controls, engine stop-start idle reduction systems, automatic engine shutdown systems, hybrids, and axle configurations that decrease the number of drive axles. The agencies are also continuing separate engine standards. As described below, we see advantages to having both engine-based and vehicle-based standards. Moreover, the advantages described here for full vehicle simulation do not necessarily correspond to disadvantages for engine testing or vice versa.
The agencies' primary purpose in developing fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards is to increase the use of vehicle technologies that improve fuel efficiency and decrease GHG emissions. Under the Phase 1 tractor and vocational chassis standards, there is no
The new Phase 2 approach will create three new specific regulatory incentives. First, vehicle manufacturers will have an incentive to use the most efficient engines. Since GEM will no longer use the agency default engine in simulation, manufacturers will have their own engines recognized in GEM. Under Phase 1, engine manufacturers have a regulatory incentive to design efficient engines, but vehicle manufacturers do not have a similar regulatory incentive to use the most efficient engines in their vehicles. Second, the new Phase 2 approach will create incentives for both engine and vehicle manufacturers to design engines and vehicles to work together to ensure that engines actually operate as much as possible near their most efficient points. This is because Phase 2 GEM will require the vehicle manufacturers to input specific transmission, axle, and tire characteristics, thus recognizing powertrain optimization, such as engine down-speeding, and different transmission architectures and technologies, such as automated manual transmissions, automatic transmissions, and different numbers of transmission gears, transmission gear ratios, axle ratios and tire revolutions per mile. No matter how well designed, all engines have speed and load operation points with differing fuel efficiency and GHG emissions. The speed and load point with the best fuel efficiency (
In addition to providing regulatory incentives to use more fuel efficient technologies, expanding GEM to recognize engine and other powertrain component improvements will provide important flexibility to vehicle manufacturers. Providing flexibility to effectively trade engine and other powertrain component improvements against the other vehicle improvements that are recognized in GEM will allow vehicle manufacturers to better optimize their vehicles to achieve the lowest cost for specific customers. Because of the improvements in GEM, GEM will recognize this deeper level of vehicle optimization. Vehicle manufacturers could use this flexibility to reduce overall compliance costs and/or address special applications where certain vehicle technologies are not preferred or
One disadvantage of recognizing engines and transmission in GEM is that it will increase complexity for the vehicle standards. For example, vehicle manufacturers will be required to conduct additional engine tests and to generate additional GEM inputs for compliance purposes. However, we believe that most of the burden associated with this increased complexity will be an infrequent burden of engine testing and updating information systems to track these inputs. Furthermore, the agencies are requiring that engine manufacturers certify their respective GEM inputs; namely, their own engine maps. Because there are a relatively small number of heavy-duty engine manufacturers who will be responsible for generating and complying with their declared engine maps for GEM, the overall engine testing burden to the heavy-duty vehicle industry is small. With this approach, the large number of vocational chassis manufacturers will not have to conduct any engine testing.
Another potential disadvantage to GEM-based vehicle certification is that because GEM measures performance over specific duty cycles intended to represent average operation of vehicles in-use, this approach might also create an incentive to optimize powertrains and drivetrains for the best GEM performance rather than the best in-use performance for a particular application. This is always a concern when selecting duty cycles for certification, and so is not an issue unique to GEM. There will always be instances, however infrequent, where specific vehicle applications will operate differently than the duty cycles used for certification. The question is would these differences force manufacturers to optimize vehicles to the certification duty cycles in a way that decreases fuel efficiency and increases GHG emissions in-use? We believe that the certification duty cycles will not create a disincentive for manufacturers to properly optimize vehicles for customer fuel efficiency. First, the impact of the certification duty cycles versus any other real-world cycle will be relatively small because they affect only a small fraction of all vehicle technologies. Second, the emission averaging and fleet average provisions mean that the regulations will not require all vehicles to meet the standards. Vehicles exceeding a standard over the duty cycles because they are optimized for different in-use operation can be offset by other vehicles that perform better over the certification duty cycles. Third, vehicle manufacturers also have the ability to lower such a vehicle's measured GHG emissions by adding technology that would improve fuel efficiency both over the certification duty cycles and in-use (and to be potentially eligible to generate off-cycle credits in doing so). These standards are not intended to be at a stringency where manufacturers will be expected to apply all technologies to all vehicles. Thus, there should be technologies available to add to vehicle configurations that initially fail to meet the Phase 2 standards. Fourth, we are further sub-categorizing the vocational vehicle segment compared to Phase 1, tripling the number of subcategories within this segment from three to nine. These nine subcategories will divide each of the three Phase 1 weight categories into three additional vehicle speed categories. Each of the three speed categories will have unique duty cycle weighting factors to recognize that different vocational chassis are configured for different vehicle speed applications. This further subdivision better recognizes technologies' performance under the conditions for which the vocational chassis was configured to operate. This also decreases the potential of the certification duty cycles to encourage manufacturers to configure vocational chassis differently than the optimum configuration for specific customers' applications. Similarly, for the tractor
Another disadvantage of our full vehicle simulation approach is the potential requirement for engine manufacturers to disclose information to vehicle manufacturers who install their engines that engine manufacturers might consider to be proprietary. Under this approach, vehicle manufacturers may need to know some additional details about engine performance long before production, both for compliance planning purposes, as well as for the actual submission of applications for certification. Moreover, vehicle manufacturers will need to know details about the engine's performance that are generally not publicly available—specifically the detailed steady-state fuel consumption map of an engine. Some commenters expressed significant concern about the Phase 2 program forcing the disclosure of proprietary steady-state engine performance information to business competitors; especially prior to an engine being introduced into commerce. It can be argued that a sufficiently detailed steady-state engine map, such as the one required for input into GEM, can reveal proprietary engine design elements such as intake air, turbo-charger, and exhaust system design; exhaust gas recirculation strategies; fuel injection strategies; and exhaust after-treatment thermal management strategies. Conversely, the agencies also received comments requesting that all GEM inputs be made public, as a matter of transparency and public interest.
It is unclear at this point whether such information is truly proprietary. In accordance with Federal statutes, EPA does not release information from certification applications (or other compliance reports) that we determine to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR part 2. Consistent with section 114(c) of the CAA, EPA does not consider emission test results to be CBI
To further address the specific concern about the Phase 2 program forcing the disclosure of proprietary steady-state engine maps to business competitors, especially prior to an engine being introduced into commerce, the agencies are finalizing an option for engine manufacturers to certify only “cycle average” engine maps over the 55-mph and 65-mph GEM cycles and separately mandating the cycle average approach for use over the ARB Transient cycle. See Section II.B. above. The advantage to this approach is that each data point of a cycle average map represents the average emissions over an entire cycle. Therefore, the cycle average engine map approach does not reveal any potentially proprietary information about an engine's performance at a particular steady-state point of operation.
For engines installed in tractors and vocational vehicle chassis, we are maintaining separate engine standards for fuel consumption and GHG emissions in Phase 2 for both spark-ignition (SI, generally but not exclusively gasoline-fueled) and compression-ignition (CI, generally but not exclusively diesel-fueled) engines. Moreover, we are adopting a sequence of new more stringent engine standards for CI engines for engine model years 2021, 2024 and 2027. While the vehicle standards alone are intended to provide sufficient incentive for improvements in engine efficiency, we continue to see important advantages to maintaining separate engine standards for both SI and CI engines. The agencies believe the advantages described below are critical to fully achieve the goals of the EPA and NHTSA standards.
First, EPA has a robust compliance program based on separate engine testing. For the Phase 1 standards, we applied the existing criteria pollutant compliance program to ensure that engine efficiency in actual use reflected the improvements manufacturers claimed during certification. With engine-based standards, it is straightforward to hold engine manufacturers accountable by testing in-use engines in an engine dynamometer laboratory. If the engines exceed the standards, manufacturers can be required to correct the problem or perform other remedial actions. Without separate engine standards in Phase 2, addressing in-use compliance would be more subjective. Having clearly defined compliance responsibilities is important to both the agencies and to the manufacturers.
Second, engine standards for CO
It is worth noting that these first two advantages foster fair competition within the marketplace. In this respect, the separate engine standards help assure manufacturers that their competitors are not taking advantage of regulatory ambiguity. The agencies believe that the absence of separate engine standards would leave open the opportunity for a manufacturer to choose a high-risk compliance strategy by gaming the NO
Finally, the existence of meaningful separate engine standards allows the agencies to exempt certain vehicles from some or all of the vehicle standards and requirements without forgoing the engine improvements. A good example of this is the off-road vehicle exemption in 40 CFR 1037.631 and 49 CFR 535.3, which exempts vehicles “intended to be used extensively in off-road environments” from the vehicle requirements. The engines used in such vehicles must still meet the engine standards of 40 CFR 1036.108 and 49 CFR 535.5(d). The agencies see no
In the past there has been some confusion about the Phase 1 separate engine standards somehow preventing the recognition of engine-vehicle optimization that vehicle manufacturers perform to minimize a vehicle's overall fuel consumption. It was not the existence of separate engine standards that prevented recognition of this optimization. Rather it was that the agencies did not allow manufacturers to enter inputs into GEM that characterized unique engine performance. For Phase 2 we are requiring that manufacturers input such data because we intend for GEM to recognize this engine-vehicle optimization. The continuation of separate engine standards in Phase 2 does not undermine in any way the recognition of this optimization in GEM.
GEM was originally created for the certification of tractors and vocational vehicle chassis to the agencies' Phase 1 CO
In Phase 1 the agencies adopted a regulatory structure where regulated entities are required to use GEM to simulate and certify tractors and vocational vehicle chassis. This computer program is provided free of charge for unlimited use, and the program may be downloaded by anyone from EPA's Web site:
Similar to other vehicle simulation computer programs, GEM combines various vehicle inputs with known physical laws and justified assumptions to predict vehicle performance for a given period of vehicle operation. GEM represents this information numerically, and this information is integrated as a function of time to calculate CO
Over each of the three driving patterns or “duty cycles,” GEM simulates the driver's behavior of pressing the accelerator, coasting, or applying the brakes. GEM also simulates how the engine operates as the gears in the vehicle's transmission are shifted and how the vehicle's weight, aerodynamics, and tires resist the forward motion of the vehicle. GEM combines the driver behavior over the duty cycles with the various vehicle inputs and other assumptions to determine how much fuel must be consumed to move the vehicle forward at each point during the simulation. For Phase 2 the agencies added the effect of road grade. In GEM the effect of road grade on fuel consumption is simulated by increasing fuel consumption uphill, by the amount of fuel consumed by the engine to provide the power needed to raise the mass of the vehicle and its payload against the force of Earth's gravity—while at the same time maintaining the duty cycle's vehicle speed. Downhill road grades are simulated by decreasing the engine's fuel consumption, by the amount of power returned to the vehicle by it moving in the same direction as Earth's gravity. To maintain vehicle speed downhill, simulated brakes are sometimes applied, and the energy lost due to braking results in a certain amount of fuel consumption as well. For each of the three duty cycles, GEM totals the amount of fuel consumed and then divides that amount by the product of the miles travelled and tons of payload carried. The tons of payload carried are specified by the agencies for each vehicle type and weight class, and these cannot be changed in GEM.
In addition to determining fuel consumption over these duty cycles, for Phase 2, GEM calculates a vehicle's fuel consumption rate when it is stopped in traffic with the driver still operating the vehicle (
For Phase 1 GEM's tractor inputs include vehicle aerodynamics information, tire rolling resistance, and whether or not a vehicle is equipped with lightweight materials, a tamper-proof speed limiter, or tamper-proof idle reduction technologies. Other vehicle and engine characteristics in GEM were fixed as defaults that cannot be altered by the user. These defaults included tabulated data of engine fuel rate as a function of engine speed and torque (
For Phase 2 new inputs are required and other new inputs are allowed as options. These include the outputs of new test procedures to “map” an engine to generate steady-state and transient, cycle-average, engine fuel rate inputs to represent the actual engine in a vehicle. As described in detail in RIA Chapter 4, certification to the Phase 2 standards will require entering new inputs into GEM to describe the vehicle's transmission type and its number of gears and gear ratios. Manufacturers must also enter attributes that describe the vehicle's drive axle(s) type, axle ratio and tire revolutions per mile. We are also finalizing a number of options to conduct additional component testing for the purpose of replacing some of the agencies' “default values” in GEM with inputs that are based on component testing. These include optional axle and transmission power loss test procedures. We are also finalizing an optional powertrain test procedure that would replace both the required engine mapping and the agencies' default values for a transmission and its automated shift strategy. We are also finalizing an option to generate cycle-average maps for the 55 mph and 65 mph cycles in GEM. In addition, we have made a number of improvements to the aerodynamic coast-down test procedures and associated aerodynamic data analysis techniques. While these aerodynamic test and data analysis improvements are primarily intended for tractors, for Phase 2 we are providing a streamlined off-cycle credit pathway for vocational vehicle aerodynamic performance to be recognized in GEM.
As proposed, we are finalizing a significantly expanded number of technologies that are recognized in GEM. These include recognizing lightweight thermoplastic materials, automatic tire inflation systems, advanced cruise control systems, workday idle reduction systems, and axle configurations that decrease the number of drive axles. In response to comments and data submitted to the agencies on the Phase 2 proposal we are also finalizing inputs related to tire pressure monitoring systems and advanced electronically controlled vehicle coast systems.
Although GEM is similar in concept to a number of other commercially available vehicle simulation computer programs, the applicability of GEM is unique. First, GEM was designed exclusively for manufacturers and regulated entities to certify tractor and vocational vehicle chassis to the agencies' fuel consumption and CO
Similar to Phase 1, GEM for Phase 2 is available free of charge for unlimited use, and the GEM source code is open source. That is, the programming source code of GEM is freely available upon request for anyone to examine, manipulate, and generally use without restriction. In contrast, commercially available vehicle simulation programs are generally not free and open source. Additional details of GEM are included in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
GEM is a computer software program, and like all other software development processes the agencies periodically released a number of developmental versions of the GEM software for others to review and test during the Phase 2 rulemaking process. This type of user testing significantly helps the agencies detect and fix any problems or “bugs” in the GEM software.
As part of Phase 1, the agencies conducted a peer review of GEM version 1.0, which was the version released for the Phase 1 proposal.
The agencies have provided numerous opportunities for comment on GEM, and its iterative development. Shortly after the Phase 2 proposal's publication in July 2015 (and before the end of the public comment period), the agencies received comments on GEM. Based on these early comments, the agencies made minor revisions to fix a few bugs in GEM and in August 2015 released an updated version of GEM to the public for additional comment, which also included new information on GEM road grade profiles. The agencies also extended the public comment period on the proposal, which provided at least 30 days for public comment on this slightly updated version of GEM.
• Revised road grade profiles for 55- and 65-mph cruise cycles, only minor changes since August 2015.
• Revised idle cycles for vocational vehicles with new vocational cycle weightings, weightings released for public comment in NODA.
• Made changes to the input file structures. Examples includes additions of columns for axle configuration (“6×2,” “6×4,” “6×4D,” “4×2”), and additions of a few more technology improvement inputs, such as “Neutral Idle,” “Start/Stop,” and “Automatic Engine Shutdown.” These were minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Made changes to the output file structures. Examples include an option to allow the user to select an output of detailed results on average speed, average work at the input and output of the transmission, and the numbers of shifts for each cycle (
• Added an input file for optional axle power losses (function of axle output speed and torque) and replaced a single axle efficiency value with lookup table of power loss. These were minor changes to streamline the use of GEM, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Modified engine torque response to be more realistic, with a fast response region scaled by engine displacement, and a slower torque response in the turbo-charger's highly boosted region. These were minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added least-squares regression models to interpret cycle-average fuel maps for all cycles. These were minor changes to streamline the use of GEM, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added different fuel properties according to 40 CFR 1036.530. This was a fix to align GEM with regulations.
• Improved shift strategy based on testing data and comments received. These were minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added scaling factors for transmission loss and inertia, per regulatory subcategory. These were minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added optional input table for transmission power loss data. These were minor changes to streamline the use of GEM, all were in NODA version of GEM.
• Added minimum torque converter lock-up gear user input for automatic transmissions. This was a minor change to streamline the use of GEM, this change was in the NODA version of GEM.
• Revised the default transmission power loss tables, based on test data. This was a minor change to streamline the use of GEM, this change was in the NODA version of GEM.
• Added neutral idle and start/stop effects idle portions of the ARB Transient cycle. These were minor changes, all were in NODA version of GEM
• Adjusted shift and torque converter lockup strategy. This was a minor change to streamline the use of GEM, this change was in the NODA version of GEM.
Notwithstanding these numerous opportunities for public comment (as well as many informal opportunities via individual meetings), some commenters maintained that they still had not received sufficient notice to provide informed comment because each proposal represented too much of a “moving target.”
As explained above, GEM is a computer program that was originally developed by EPA specifically for manufacturers to use to certify to the Phase 1 tractor and vocational chassis standards. GEM mathematically combines the results of vehicle component test procedures with other vehicle attributes to determine a vehicle's certified levels of fuel consumption and CO
For this rulemaking, GEM has been modified as proposed and validated against a set of experimental data that represent over 130 unique vehicle variants conducted at powertrain and chassis dynamometers with the manufacturers' provided transmission shifting tables. In addition, GEM has been validated against different types of tests when the EPA transmission default auto-shift strategy is used, which includes powertrain dynamometer tests and two truck tests running in a real-world driving route. Detailed comparisons can be seen in Chapter 4 of the RIA. As noted above, the agencies believe that this new version of GEM is an accurate and cost-effective alternative to measuring fuel consumption and CO
As noted above, we are significantly expanding the number of technologies that are recognized in GEM. These include recognizing lightweight thermoplastic materials, automatic tire inflation systems, advanced cruise control systems, engine stop-start idle reduction systems, and axle configurations that decrease the number of drive axles. To better reflect real-world operation, we are also revising the vehicle simulation computer program's urban and rural highway duty cycles to include changes in road grade, and including a new duty cycle to capture the performance of technologies that reduce the amount of time a vehicle's engine is at idle during a workday. Finally, to better recognize that vocational vehicle powertrains are configured for particular applications, we are further subdividing the vocational chassis category into three different vehicle speed categories, where GEM weights the individual duty cycles' results of each of the speed categories differently. Section 4.2 of the RIA details all these modifications. The following sub-sections provide further details on some of these key modifications to GEM.
Before describing the Phase 2 approach, this section first reviews how engines are simulated for vehicle certification in Phase 1. As noted earlier, GEM for Phase 1 simulates the same generic engine for any vehicle in a given regulatory subcategory with a data table of steady-state engine fuel consumption mass rates (g/s) versus a series of steady-state engine output shaft speeds (revolutions per minute, rpm) and loads (torque, N·m). This data table is also sometimes called a “fuel map” or an “engine map,” although the term “engine map” can mean other kinds of data in different contexts. The engine speeds in this map range from idle to maximum governed speed and the loads range from engine motoring (negative load) to the maximum load of an engine. When GEM executes a simulation over a vehicle duty cycle, this data table is linearly interpolated to find a corresponding fuel consumption mass rate at each engine speed and load that is demanded by the simulated vehicle operating over the duty cycle. The fuel consumption mass rate of the engine is then integrated over each duty cycle in GEM to arrive at the total mass of fuel consumed for the specific vehicle and duty cycle. Under Phase 1, manufacturers were not allowed to input their own engine fuel maps to represent their specific engines in the vehicle being simulated in GEM. Because GEM was programmed with fixed engine fuel maps for Phase 1 that all manufacturers had to use, the tables themselves did not have to exactly represent how an actual engine might operate over these three different duty cycles.
In contrast, for Phase 2 we are requiring manufacturers to generate their own engine fuel maps to represent each of their engine families in GEM. This Phase 2 approach is consistent with the 2014 NAS Phase 2 First Report recommendation.
A number of reasons explain this consistent trend. For example, under rapidly changing (
To account for these effects in GEM, the agencies have developed and are finalizing a test procedure called “cycle average” mapping to account for this transient behavior (40 CFR 1036.540). Detailed analyses and presentation of the test procedure was published in two peer-reviewed journal articles.
EPA solicited comment on the cycle average approach at proposal. 80 FR 40193. EPA also specifically provided notice and a 30-day opportunity for public comment on the possibility of requiring use of the cycle average mapping approach for the ARB Transient cycle. This was included in the version of GEM that was made available for public comment as part of the NODA
While the agencies are finalizing the cycle average engine mapping test procedure as mandatory for the ARB Transient cycle, for the 55 mph and 65 mph GEM drive cycles, the agencies are finalizing the same steady-state mapping procedure that the agencies originally proposed. The only difference is that we are finalizing about 85 unique steady-state map points, versus the about 143 points that were proposed. See 40 CFR 1036.535 for details. We are adopting a lower number of points because many of the originally proposed points were specified for use with the ARB Transient cycle.
GEM for Phase 1 simulates the same generic human driver behavior and manual transmission shifting patterns for all vehicles. The simulated driver responds to changes in the target vehicle speed of the duty cycles by changing the simulated positions of the vehicle's accelerator pedal, brake pedal, clutch pedal, and gear shift lever. For simplicity, in Phase 1 the GEM driver shifted at pre-specified vehicle speeds and the manual transmission was simulated as an ideal transmission that did not have any delay time (
In GEM for Phase 2 we are allowing manufacturers to select one of four types of transmissions to represent the transmission in the vehicle they are certifying: Manual transmission (MT), automated manual transmission (AMT), automatic transmission (AT) and dual clutch transmission (DCT). For Phase 2 the agencies proposed unique transmission shifting patters to
In the final version of GEM, the driver behavior and the different transmission types are simulated in the same basic manner as in Phase 1, but each transmission type features unique transmission responses that match the transmission responses we measured during vehicle testing of these three transmission types. In general the transmission gear shifting strategy for all of the transmissions is designed to shift the transmission so that it is in the most efficient gear for the current vehicle demand, while staying within certain limits to prevent unrealistically high frequency shifting (
Prior to the proposal, we considered an alternative approach where transmission manufacturers would provide vehicle manufacturers with detailed information about their automated transmissions' proprietary shift strategies for representation in GEM. NAS also recommended this approach.
In GEM for Phase 1 the axle ratio of the primary drive axle and the energy losses assumed in the simulated axle itself were the same for all vehicles. For Phase 2 the vehicle manufacturer will be required to input into GEM the axle ratio of the primary drive axle. This input will recognize the design to operate the engine at a particular engine speed when the transmission is operating in its highest transmission gear; especially for the 55 mph and 65 mph duty cycles in GEM. This input facilitates GEM's recognition of vehicle designs that take advantage of operating the engine at the lowest possible engine speeds. This is commonly known as “engine down-speeding,” and the general rule-of-thumb for heavy-duty engines is that for every 100 rpm decrease in engine speed, there can be about a 1 percent decrease in fuel consumption and CO
We proposed to use a fixed axle ratio energy efficiency of 95.5 percent at all speeds and loads, but requested comment on whether this pre-specified efficiency is reasonable. 80 FR 40185. In general, commenters stated that the efficiency of the axle actually varies as a function of axle ratio, axle speed, and axle input torque. Therefore, we have modified GEM to accept an input data table of power loss as a function of axle speed and axle torque. The modified version of GEM subsequently interpolates this table over each of the duty cycles to represent a more realistic axle efficiency at each point of each duty cycle. The agencies specify a default axle efficiency table in GEM for any manufacturer to use. We are also finalizing an optional axle power loss test procedure that requires the use of a dynamometer test facility (40 CFR 1037.560). With this optional test procedure, a manufacturer can create an axle efficiency table for use in lieu of the EPA default table. We requested comment on this test procedure in the proposal, and we received supportive comments. Refer to 40 CFR 1037.560 of the Phase 2 regulations, which contain this test procedure.
Moreover, the final regulations allow the manufacturers to develop analytical methods to derive axle efficiency tables for untested axle configurations, based on testing of similar axles. This would be similar to the analytically derived CO
In addition to requiring the primary drive axle ratio input into GEM (and an option to input an actual axle power loss data table), we are requiring that the vehicle manufacturer input into GEM whether one or two drive axles are driven by the engine. When a heavy-duty vehicle is equipped with two rear axles where both are driven by the engine, this is called a “6×4” configuration. “6” refers to the total number of wheel hubs on the vehicle. In the 6×4 configuration there are two front wheel hubs for the two steer wheels and tires plus four rear wheel hubs for the four rear wheels and tires (or more commonly four
The agencies proposed to continue the approach from Phase 1 whereby GEM uses a fixed power consumption value to simulate the fuel consumed for powering accessories such as steering pumps and alternators. 80 FR 40186. The final rule continues the Phase 1 approach, as proposed. However, Phase 2 GEM provides an option to provide a GEM input reflecting technology improvement inputs for the accessory loads. This allows the manufacturers to receive credit for those technologies that are not modeled in GEM. Manufacturers seeking credit for those technologies that are not modeled in GEM would generally follow the off-cycle credit program procedures in 40 CFR 1037.610.
Phase 2 GEM simulates aerodynamic drag in using C
The results of these tests determine into which bin a tractor or trailer is assigned. GEM uses the aerodynamic drag coefficient applicable to the bin, which is the same for all tractors (or trailers) within a given bin. This approach helps to account for limits in the repeatability of aerodynamic testing and it creates a compliance margin since any test result which keeps the vehicle in the same aerodynamic bin is considered compliant. For Phase 2 we are establishing new boundary values for the bins themselves and we are adding two additional tractor bins in order to recognize further advances in
In addition to these changes, we are making a number of aerodynamic drag test procedure improvements. One improvement is to update the “standard trailer” that is prescribed for use during aerodynamic drag testing of a tractor. Using the C
For trailer certification, the agencies use GEM in a different way than it is used for tractor certification. As described in Section IV, the agencies developed a simple equation to replicate GEM performance. The trailer standards are based on this equation, and trailer manufacturers use this GEM-based equation for certification. The only technologies recognized by this GEM-based equation for trailer certification are aerodynamic technologies, tire technologies (including tire rolling resistance and tire pressure systems), and weight reduction. Note that since the purpose of this equation is to replicate GEM performance, it can be considered as simply another form of the model using a different input interface. Thus, for simplicity, the remainder of this Section II.C. sometimes discusses GEM as being used for trailers, without regard to how manufacturers will actually input GEM variables. As with all of the standards in Phase 2, compliance is measured consistent with the same test methods used by the agencies to establish the standard.
Similar to tractor certification, trailer manufacturers will use data from aerodynamic testing (
Finally, GEM has been modified to accept an optional delta C
For GEM in Phase 1 tractor and vocational chassis manufacturers input the tire rolling resistance of steer and drive tires directly into GEM. The agencies prescribed an internationally recognized tire rolling resistance test procedure, ISO 28580, for determining the tire rolling resistance value that is input into GEM, as described in 40 CFR 1037.520(c). For Phase 2 we will continue this same approach and the use of ISO 28580, and we are expanding these requirements to trailer tires as well.
In addition to tire rolling resistance, Phase 2 vehicle manufacturers will enter into GEM the tire manufacturer's specified revolutions per distance directly (revs/mile) for the vehicle's drive tires. This value is commonly reported by tire manufacturers already so that vehicle speedometers can be adjusted appropriately. This input value is needed so that GEM can accurately convert simulated vehicle speed into axle speed, transmission speed, and ultimately engine speed.
For tractors and trailers, we proposed to allow manufacturers to specify whether or not an automatic tire inflation system (ATIS) is installed. 80 FR 40187. Based on comments and as discussed further in Sections III, IV, and V, in the Phase 2 final rule we are adopting provisions that allow manufacturers of tractors, trailers, and vocational vehicle chassis to input a percent decrease in overall fuel consumption and CO
Phase 2 GEM continues the weight reduction recognition approach in Phase 1, where the agencies prescribe fixed weight reductions, or “deltas,” for using certain lightweight materials for certain vehicle components. In Phase 1 the agencies published a list of weight reductions for using high-strength steel and aluminum materials on a part by part basis. For Phase 2 we use updated values for high-strength steel and aluminum parts for tractors and for trailers and we have scaled these values for use in certifying the different weight classes of vocational chassis. In addition we use a similar part by part weight reduction list for tractor parts made from thermoplastic material. We proposed to assign a fixed weight increase to natural gas fueled vehicles to reflect the weight increase of natural gas fuel tanks versus gasoline or diesel tanks, but we are not finalizing that provision based on comments. 80 FR 40187. Commenters opposing this provision generally noted that the proposed provision was not consistent with how the agencies were treating other technologies. We agree that
For tractors, we will continue the same mathematical approach in GEM to assign
In Phase 1, there are three GEM vehicle duty cycles that represent stop-and-go city driving (ARB Transient), urban highway driving (55 mph), and rural interstate highway driving (65 mph). In Phase 1 these cycles were time-based. That is, they were specified as a function of simulated time and the duty cycles ended once the specified time elapsed in simulation. The agencies proposed to continue to use these three drive cycles in Phase 2, but with some revisions. 80 FR 40187. We are finalizing revisions similar but not identical to those that were proposed. First, GEM will simulate these cycles on a distance-based specification, rather than on a time-based specification. A distance-based specification ensures that even if a vehicle in simulation does not always achieve the target vehicle speed, the vehicle will have to continue in simulation for a longer period to complete the duty cycle. This ensures that vehicles are evaluated over the complete distance of the duty cycle and not just the portion of the duty cycle that a vehicle completes in a given time period. A distance-based duty cycle specification also facilitates a straightforward specification of road grade as a function of distance along the duty cycle. As noted in above, for Phase 2, the agencies have enhanced the 55 mph and 65 mph duty cycles by adding representative road grade to exercise the simulated vehicle's engine, transmission, axle, and tires in a more realistic way. A flat road grade profile over a constant speed test does not properly simulate a transmission with respect to shifting gears, and may have the unintended consequence of enabling underpowered vehicles or excessively down-sped drivetrains to generate credits, when in actuality the engine does not remain down-sped in-use when the vehicle encounters road grades. The road grade profile being finalized is the same hill and valley profile for both the 55 mph and 65 mph duty cycles, and is based on statistical analysis of the United States' national distribution of road grades. Although the final profile is different than that proposed, the agencies provided notice of the analysis that was used to generate the final profile.
In the Phase 1 program, reduction in idle emissions was recognized only for sleeper cab tractors, and only with respect to hoteling idle, where a driver needs power to operate heating, ventilation, air conditioning and other electrical equipment in order to use the sleeper cab to eat, rest, or conduct other business. As described in Section V, GEM for Phase 2 will recognize technologies that reduce workday idle emissions, such as automatic stop-start systems, daytime parked idle automatic engine shutdown systems, and transmissions that either automatically or inherently shift to neutral at idle while in drive. Many vocational vehicle applications operate on patterns implicating workday idle cycles, and the agencies use test procedures in GEM to account specifically for these cycles and potential idle controls. GEM will recognize these idle controls in two ways. For technologies like neutral-idle transmissions and stop-start systems that address idle that occurs during vehicle operation when the vehicle is stopped at a stop light, GEM will interpolate lower fuel rates from the engine map during the idle portions of the ARB Transient and during a separate GEM “drive idle cycle.” For technologies like start-stop and auto-shutdown that eliminate some of the idle that occurs when a vehicle is stopped or parked, GEM will assign a value of zero fuel rate during a separate GEM “parked idle cycle.” The idle cycles will be weighted along with the 65 mph, 55 mph, and ARB Transient duty cycles, according to the new vocational chassis duty cycle weighting factors. These weighting factors are different for each of the three vocational chassis speed categories for Phase 2. For tractors, only neutral idle and hotel idle will be addressed in GEM.
The core simulation algorithms in GEM have not changed significantly since the proposal. Most of the changes since proposal focused on streamlining how manufacturers input data into GEM; revising to the drive cycles in GEM; and updating how GEM weights these different drive cycles to determine a composite fuel consumption value. These changes did not alter the fundamental way that GEM simulates varying vehicle “road load” and how GEM converts vehicle speed to engine speed and then interpolates engine maps to determine vehicle fuel consumption and CO
Refinements to GEM since the time of proposal that did alter GEM's simulation performance include modifying the default transmissions' shift strategies and their power losses. Another key refinement was cycle average mapping engines for simulation of the ARB Transient cycle. Each time the agencies made such modifications to GEM, GEM's correlation to the agencies collection of laboratory-generated engine and vehicle data was checked. Potential refinements to GEM were accepted if GEM's correlation was improved versus this set of experimental data. If potential refinements resulted in GEM's correlation to the experimental data
In the first validation step, the agencies compared GEM to over 130 vehicle variants, consistent with the recommendation made by the NAS in their Phase 2-First Report.
In addition to this successful validation against experimental results, the agencies have also conducted a peer review of the GEM source code. This peer review has been submitted to Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827.
The second validation step was to repeat the first step's GEM simulations with the agencies' default transmission shift strategies.
As explained above and in Chapter 4.3.2.3 of the RIA, it is challenging to achieve absolute correlation between any computer simulation and real-world vehicle operation. Therefore, the agencies focused on relative comparisons. Following the SAE standard procedure SAE J1321 “Type II,” two trucks have been tested and these real-world results were compared to GEM simulations. In summary, the relative comparisons between GEM simulations and the real-world testing of trucks showed a 2.4 percent difference. The details of this testing and correlation analysis is presented in Chapter 4.3.2.3 of the RIA.
In conclusion, the agencies completed a number of validation steps to ensure that GEM demonstrates a reasonable degree of absolute accuracy, but more importantly a high degree of relative accuracy, versus both laboratory and real-world experimental data.
As in Phase 1, for most tractors and vocational vehicles, compliance with the Phase 2 g/ton-mile vehicle standards could be evaluated by directly comparing the GEM result to the standard. However, in Phase 1, manufacturers incorporating innovative or advanced technologies could apply improvement factors to lower the GEM result before comparing to the standard.
For Phase 2, the agencies largely continue the existing Phase 1 innovative technology approach, but we name it “off-cycle” to better reflect its purpose.
In Phase 1 the agencies adopted an emissions credit generating opportunity that applied to new and innovative technologies that reduce fuel consumption and CO
We recognize that the Phase 1 testing burden associated with the innovative technology credit provisions discouraged some manufacturers from applying. To streamline recognition of many technologies, default values have been integrated directly into GEM. For example, automatic tire inflation systems have fixed default values, and such technologies are now recognized through a post-simulation adjustment approach, discussed in Chapter 4 of the RIA. This is similar to the technology “pick list” from our light-duty programs. See 77 FR 62833-62835 (October 15, 2012). If manufacturers wish to receive additional credit beyond these fixed values, then the off-cycle technology credit provisions provide a regulatory path toward that additional recognition.
Beyond the additional technologies that the agencies have added to GEM, the agencies also believe there are several emerging technologies that are being developed today, but will not be accounted for in GEM because we do not have enough information about these technologies to assign fixed values to them in GEM. Any credits for these technologies will need to be based on the off-cycle technology credit generation provisions. These require the assessment of real-world fuel consumption and GHG reductions that can be measured with verifiable test methods using representative operating conditions typical of the engine or vehicle application.
As in Phase 1, the agencies continue to provide two paths for approval of the test procedure to measure the CO
Sections III and V separately describe tractor and vocational vehicle technologies, respectively, that the agencies anticipate may qualify for these off-cycle credit provisions.
As described in Section III.E.(2)(j), The agencies are requiring tractor manufacturers to annually chassis test five production vehicles over the GEM cycles to verify that relative reductions simulated in GEM are being achieved in production. See 40 CFR 1037.665. We do not expect absolute correlation between GEM results and chassis testing. GEM makes many simplifying assumptions that do not compromise its usefulness for certification, but do cause it to produce emission rates different from what would be measured during a chassis dynamometer test. Given the limits of correlation possible between GEM and chassis testing, we would not expect such testing to accurately reflect whether a vehicle was compliant with the GEM standards. Therefore, we are not applying GHG compliance liability to such testing. Rather, this testing will be for data collection and informational purposes only. The agencies will continue to evaluate in-use compliance
As in Phase 1, the agencies are setting specific numerical standards against which tractors and vocational vehicles will be certified using GEM (box trailers will use a GEM-based equation, and some trailers and custom chassis vocational vehicles may optionally use a non-GEM certification path). Although these standards are performance-based standards, which do not specifically require the use of any particular technologies,
The purpose of this rulemaking is to achieve in-use emission and fuel consumption reductions by requiring manufacturers to demonstrate that they meet the promulgated emission standards. Thus, it is important that GEM simulations be reasonably representative of in-use operation. Testing that is unrepresentative of actual in-use operation does not necessarily tell us anything about whether any emission reductions occur. However, we recognize that certain simplifications are necessary for practical simulations. In the past, EPA has addressed this issue by including in our testing regulations a process by which EPA can work with manufacturers to adjust test procedures to make them more representative of in-use operation. For engine testing, this provision is in 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1), where EPA requires manufacturers to notify us in cases in which they determine that the specified test procedures would result in measurements that do not represent in-use operation.
Although we are not adopting an equivalent provision for GEM at this time, we expect similar principles to apply. To the extent that GEM fails to represent in-use emission, we would expect to work with manufacturers to address the issue—under the existing regulations where possible, or by promulgating a new rulemaking.
We recognize that many compromises must be made between the practicality of testing/simulation and the matching of in-use operation. We have considered many aspects of the test procedures in this respect for the engines, vehicles, and emission controls of which we are currently aware. We have concluded that the procedures will generally result in emission simulations that are sufficiently representative of in-use emissions, even though not all in-use operation will occur during simulation. Nevertheless, we have identified several areas that deserve some additional discussion.
GEM is structured to simulate a single vehicle weight (curb weight plus payload) per regulatory subcategory. However, we know that actual in-use weights will rarely be exactly the same as the simulated weights. Nevertheless, since the representativeness of the simulated weights (or lack thereof) is being fully considered in the setting of the standards, there would be no need to modify the procedures to account for different curb weights or payloads.
GEM simulates vehicle emissions over three drive cycles plus two idle cycles, and weights the cycle results based on the type of vehicle being certified. These cycles and weightings reflect
Finally, GEM includes default values for axle and transmission efficiency derived from baseline technologies. However, we generally expect manufacturers to use more efficient axles and transmissions for Phase 2 vehicles. As noted above, based on comments, the agencies are allowing manufacturers to optionally input measured efficiencies to better represent these more efficient technologies. We would not consider GEM unrepresentative if manufacturers chose to use the default values rather than measure these efficiencies directly.
As already noted, GEM correlates very well with powertrain testing. To the extent they differ, it would be expected to be primarily related to how transmission performance is modeled in GEM. Although GEM includes a sophisticated model of transmissions, it cannot represent a transmission better than a powertrain test of the same transmission. Thus, the agencies consider powertrain testing to be as good as or better than GEM run using engine-only fuel maps; hence the provision in the final rules allowing results from powertrain testing to be used as a GEM input.
In some respects, powertrain testing can be considered to be a reference method for this rulemaking. Because manufacturers have the option to perform powertrain testing instead of engine-only fuel mapping, the stringency of the final standards can be traced to powertrain testing. In other words, methods that can be shown to be equivalent to powertrain testing can be considered to be consistent with the testing that was used as the basis of the final Phase 2 standards.
In a related context, it may be useful in the future to consider equivalency to powertrain testing as an appropriate criterion for evaluating changes to GEM to address new technologies. Consider, for example, a new technology that is not represented in GEM, but that is reflected in powertrain testing. The agencies could determine that it would be appropriate to modify GEM to reflect the technology rather than to require manufacturers to perform powertrain testing. In such a case, the agencies would not consider the modification to GEM to impact the effective stringency of the Phase 2 standards because the new version of GEM would be equivalent to performing powertrain testing.
In addition to the Phase 1 GEM-based vehicle certification of tractors and vocational chassis, the agencies also set Phase 1 separate CO
There are some differences in how these non-GHG test procedures are applied in Phase 1 and Phase 2. In EPA's non-GHG engine emissions standards, heavy-duty engines must meet brake-specific standards for emissions of total oxides of nitrogen (NO
In response to the agencies' proposed engine standards, we received a number of public comments. The agencies considered those comments, and the following list summarizes key changes we've made in response, and more detailed descriptions of these changes are presented in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA:
• Recalculated the SET baseline using the new Phase 2 SET weighting factors.
• Recalculated the FTP baseline, based on MY 2016 FTP certification data from Cummins, DTNA, Volvo, Navistar, Hino, Isuzu, Ford, GM and FCA. These included HHD, MHD, and LHD engines.
• Projected how manufacturers would modify maximum fuel rates as a function of speed to strategically relocate SET mode points to achieve lowest SET results.
• Projected a higher market penetration of WHR in 2027, versus what we proposed.
• Decreased our projected impact of engine technology dis-synergies by increasing the magnitude of our so-called “dis-synergy factors;” accounting for these changes by increasing the research and development costs needed for this additional optimization.
The following section first describes the engine test procedures used to certify engines to the Phase 2 separate engine standards. Sections that follow describe the Phase 2 CO
The SET cycle was adopted by EPA in 2000 and modified in 2005 from a discrete-mode test to a ramped-modal cycle to broadly cover the most significant part of the speed and torque map for heavy-duty engines, defined by three non-idle speeds and three relative torques. The low speed is called the “A speed,” the intermediate speed is called the “B speed,” and the high speed is called the “C speed.” As is shown in Table II-1, the SET cumulatively weights these three speeds at 23 percent, 39 percent, and 23 percent.
The C speed is typically in the range of 1800 rpm for current heavy heavy-duty engine designs. However, it is becoming much less common for engines to operate at such a high speeds in real-world driving conditions, and especially not during cruise vehicle speeds in the 55 to 65 mph vehicle speed range. This trend has been corroborated by engine manufacturers' in-use data that has been submitted to the agencies in comments and presented at technical conferences.
To address this trend toward in-use engine down-speeding, the agencies are finalizing as proposed refined SET weighting factors for the Phase 2 CO
Although GEM does not apply directly to engine certification, Phase 2 will require engine manufacturers to generate and certify full load and motoring torque curves and engine fuel rate maps for input into GEM for tractor and vocational chassis manufacturers to demonstrate compliance to their respective standards. The full load and motoring torque curve procedures were previously defined in 40 CFR part 1065, and these are already required for non-GHG emissions certification. The Phase 2 final default test procedure for generating an engine map for GEM's 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles is the “steady-state” mapping procedure. However, the agencies are finalizing an option for manufacturers to use the “cycle average” mapping procedure for GEM's 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles. The test procedure for generating an engine map for GEM's ARB Transient drive cycle is the “cycle-average” mapping procedure, and the agencies are not finalizing any other mapping options for the ARB Transient drive cycle. Note that if an engine manufacturer elects to conduct powertrain testing to generate inputs for GEM, then steady-state and cycle-average engine maps would not be required for those GEM vehicle configurations to which the powertrain test inputs would apply. The steady-state and cycle-average test procedures are specified in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1065. The technical and confidential business information motivations for finalizing these test procedures are explained in II. B. (2), along with a summary of comments we received.
One important consideration is the need to correct measured fuel consumption rates for the carbon and energy content of the test fuel. As proposed, we will continue the Phase 1 approach, which is specified in 40 CFR 1036.530. We are specifying a similar approach to GEM fuel maps in Phase 2.
As proposed, the agencies are requiring that engine manufacturers certify fuel maps for GEM, as part of their certification to the engine standards. However, there were a number of manufacturer comments strongly questioning the particular proposed requirement that engine manufacturers provide these maps to vehicle manufacturers starting in MY 2020 for the certification of vehicles commercially marketed as MY 2021 vehicles in calendar year 2020. This is a normal engine and vehicle manufacturing process, where many vehicles may be produced with engines having an earlier model year than the commercial model year of the vehicle. For example, we expect that some MY 2021 vehicles will be produced with MY 2020 engines. Thus, we proposed to require engine manufacturers to begin providing GEM fuel maps for MY 2020 engines so that vehicle manufacturers could run GEM to certify MY 2021 vehicles with MY 2020 engines. EMA and some of its members commented that MY 2020 engines should not be subject to Phase 2 requirements, based on NHTSA's statutory 4-year lead-time requirement and because the potential higher fuel consumption of MY 2020 (
The current engine test procedures also require the development of regeneration emission rate and frequency factors to determine infrequent regeneration adjustment factors (IRAFs) that account for the emission changes for
At the time of the proposal, we did not specifically adjust baseline levels to include additional IRAF emissions because we believed them to be negligible and decreasing. Commenters opposing this proposed provision provided no data to dispute this belief. We continue to believe that regeneration strategies can be engineered to maintain these negligible rates. Thus, we do not believe they are of fundamental significance for our baselines in the FRM. Highway operation includes enough high temperature operation to make active regenerations unnecessary. Furthermore, recent improvements in exhaust after-treatment catalyst formulations and exhaust temperature thermal management strategies, such as intake air throttling, minimize CO
We are not including fuel consumption due to after-treatment regeneration in the creation of fuel maps used in GEM for vehicle compliance. We believe that the IRAF requirements for the separate SET and FTP engine standards, along with market forces that already exist to minimize regeneration events, will create sufficient incentives to reduce fuel consumption during regeneration over the entire fuel map.
The agencies are finalizing a powertrain test option to afford a robust mechanism to quantify the benefits of CO
To limit the amount of testing under this rule, powertrains can be divided into families and are tested in a limited number of simulated vehicles that will cover the range of vehicles in which the powertrain will be used. A matrix of 8 to 9 tests will be needed per vehicle cycle, to enable the use of the powertrain results broadly across all the vehicles in which the powertrain will be installed. The individual tests differ by the vehicle that is being simulated during the test. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.6 of the RIA.
The agencies are expanding upon the test procedures defined 40 CFR 1037.550 for Phase 1 hybrid vehicles. The Phase 2 expansion will migrate the current Phase 1 test procedure to a new 40 CFR 1037.555 and will modify the current test procedure in 40 CFR 1037.550, allowing its use for Phase 2 only. The Phase 2 modifications relative to 40 CFR 1037.550 include the addition of the rotating inertia of the driveline and tires, and the axle efficiency. This revised procedure also requires that each of the powertrain components be cooled so that the temperature of each of the components is kept in the normal operation range. We are extending the powertrain procedure to PHEV powertrains.
Powertrain testing contains many of the same requirements as engine dynamometer testing. The main differences are where the test article connects to the dynamometer and the software that is used to command the dynamometer and operator demand setpoints. The powertrain procedure finalized in Phase 2 allows for the dynamometer(s) to be connected to the powertrain either upstream of the drive axle or at the wheel hubs. The output of the transmission is upstream of the drive axle for conventional powertrains. In addition to the transmission, a hydraulic pump or an electric motor in the case of a series hybrid may be located upstream of the drive axle for hybrid powertrains. If optional testing with the wheel hub is used, two dynamometers will be needed, one at each hub. Beyond these points, the only other difference between powertrain testing and engine testing is that for powertrains, the dynamometer and throttle setpoints are not set by fixed speed and torque targets prescribed by the cycle, but are calculated in real time by the vehicle model. The powertrain test procedure requires a forward calculating vehicle model, thus the output of the model is the dynamometer speed setpoints. The vehicle model calculates the speed target using the measured torque at the previous time step, the simulated brake force from the driver model, and the vehicle parameters (tire rolling resistance, drag area, vehicle mass, rotating mass, and axle efficiency). The operator demand that is used to change the torque from the engine is controlled such that the powertrain follows the vehicle speed target for the cycle instead of being controlled to match the torque or speed setpoints of the cycle. The emission measurement procedures and calculations are identical to engine testing.
As described in Section II.B.(2)(b), the agencies are finalizing the proposed powertrain test option to quantify the benefits of CO
As proposed, engine manufacturers certifying powertrain performance (instead of or in addition to the multi-point fuel maps) will be held responsible for powertrain test results. If the engine manufacturer does not certify powertrain performance and instead certifies only the steady-state and/or cycle-average fuel maps, it will held responsible for fuel map performance rather than the powertrain test results. Engine manufacturers certifying both will be responsible for both.
Some commenters objected to the potential liability for such engine-only tests. However, it appears they do not understand our intent. This provision states clearly that this approach could be used only where “the test engine's operation represents the engine operation observed in the powertrain test.” Also, since the manufacturers perform all SEA testing themselves, this would be an option for the manufacturer rather than something imposed by EPA. Thus, this concern should be limited to the narrow circumstance in which EPA performs confirmatory engine testing of an engine that was certified using powertrain testing, follows the manufacturer's specified engine test cycle, and ensures that the test accurately represents the engine's performance during the powertrain test. However, it is not clear why this would be problematic. It is entirely reasonable to assume that testing the engine in this way would result in equivalent emission results. To the extent manufacturer concerns remain, each manufacturer would be free to certify their engines based on engine-only fuel maps rather than powertrain testing.
For diesel engines utilizing urea SCR emission control systems for NO
We note that this correction will be voluntary for manufacturers, and we expect that some manufacturers may determine that the correction is too small to be of concern. The agencies will use this correction for CO
We are not allowing this correction for engine test results with respect to the engine CO
We are largely maintaining the existing Phase 1 regulatory structure for engine standards, which had separate standards for spark-ignition engines (such as gasoline engines) and compression-ignition engines (such as diesel engines), and for HHD, MHD and LHD engines, but we are changing how these standards will apply to alternative fuel engines as described in Section XII.A.2.
Phase 1 applied different test cycles depending on whether the engine is used for tractors, vocational vehicles, or both, and we are continuing this approach. Tractor engines are subject to standards over the SET, while vocational engines are subject to standards over the FTP. Table II-3 shows the Phase 1 standards for diesel engines.
In the Phase 2 proposal we assumed that these numeric values of the Phase 1 standards were the baselines for Phase 2. We applied our technology assessments to these baselines to arrive at the Phase 2 standards for MY 2021, MY 2024 and MY 2027. In other words, for the Phase 2 proposal we projected that starting in MY 2017 engines would, on average, just meet the Phase 1 standards and not over-comply. However, based on comments we received on how to consistently apply our new SET weighting factors in our analysis and based on recent MY 2016 engine certification data, we are updating our Phase 2 baseline assumptions for both the SET and FTP.
First, with respect to the SET, in the proposal we compared our proposed Phase 2 standards, which are based on these new Phase 2 weighting factors, to the Phase 1 numeric standards, which are based on the current Phase 1 weighting factors. Because we continue to use the same 13-mode brake specific CO
Second, the agencies made adjustments to the FTP baselines, but these adjustments were not made because of a calculation error. Rather, MY 2016 FTP certification data showed an unexpected step-change improvement in engine fuel consumption and CO
As just noted, at the time of Phase 1 we had not realized that these improvements were not already in the Phase 1 baseline. These include optimizing the use of an intake throttle to decrease excess intake air at idle and SCR catalyst reformulation to maintain SCR efficiency at lower temperatures. Based on this information, which was provided to the agencies by engine manufacturers, but only after we specifically requested this information, the agencies concluded that in Phase 1 we did not account for how much further these kinds of improvements could still impact FTP fuel consumption. Conversely, only by reviewing the new MY 2016 certification data did we realize how little SCR thermal management optimization actually occurred for the engine model years that we used to establish the Phase 1 baseline—namely MY 2009 and MY 2010 engines. Because we never accounted for this kind of improvement in our Phase 2 proposal's stringency analysis for meeting the Phase 2 proposed FTP standards, this baseline shift does not alter our projected effectiveness and market adoption rates from the proposal. Therefore, we continue to apply the same improvements that we proposed, but we apply them to the updated FTP baseline. See Section II.D.(5) for a discussion on how this impacts carry-over of Phase 1 emission credits.
Table II-4 shows the Phase 2 diesel engine final CO
As described below, the agencies are adopting standards for new compression-ignition engines for Phase 2, commencing in MY 2021, that will require additional reductions in CO
For diesel engines to be installed in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, the agencies are adopting the SET standards shown in Table II-5.
For diesel engines to be installed in vocational chassis, the agencies are adopting the FTP standards shown in Table II-6. The MY 2027 FTP standards for engines installed in vocational chassis will require engine manufacturers to achieve, on average, a 4.2 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO
In this section, the agencies discuss our assessment of the feasibility of the engine standards and the extent to which they conform to our respective statutory authorities and responsibilities. More details on the technologies discussed here can be found in RIA Chapter 2.3. The feasibility of these standards is further discussed in RIA Chapter 2.7 for tractor and vocational vehicle engines. While the projected technologies are discussed here separately, as is discussed at the beginning of this Section II.D, the agencies also accounted for dis-synergies between technologies. Note that Section II.D.(2)(e) discusses the potential for some manufacturers to achieve greater emission reductions by introducing new engine platforms, and how and why these reductions are reflected in the tractor and vocational
Based on the technology analysis described below, the agencies project that a technology path exists that will allow engine manufacturers to meet the final Phase 2 standards by 2027, and to meet the MY 2021 and 2024 standards. The agencies also project that these manufacturers will be able to meet these standards at a reasonable cost and without adverse impacts on in-use reliability.
In general, engine performance for CO
• Combustion optimization
• Turbocharger design and optimization
• Engine friction and other parasitic loss reduction
• Exhaust after-treatment pressure drop reduction
• Intake air and exhaust system pressure drop reduction (including EGR system)
• Engine down-sizing to improve core engine efficiency
• Engine down-speeding over the SET, and in-use, by lug curve shape optimization
• Waste heat recovery system installation and optimization
• Physics model based electronic controls for transient performance optimization
The agencies are gradually phasing in the separate engine standards from 2021 through 2027 so that manufacturers can gradually introduce these technology improvements. For most of these, the agencies project manufacturers could begin applying these technologies to about 45-50 percent of their heavy-duty engines by 2021, 90-95 percent by 2024, and ultimately apply them to 100 percent of their heavy-duty engines by 2027. However, for some of these improvements (such as waste heat recovery and engine downsizing) we project lower application rates in the Phase 2 time frame. This phase-in structure is consistent with the normal manner in which manufacturers introduce new technology to manage limited R&D budgets as well as to allow them to work with fleets to fully evaluate in-use reliability before a technology is applied fleet-wide. The agencies believe the phase-in schedule will allow manufacturers to complete these normal processes. See RIA 2.3.9.
Based on our technology assessment described below, the engine standards appear to be consistent with the agencies' respective statutory authorities. All of the technologies with high penetration rates above 50 percent have already been demonstrated to some extent in the field or in research laboratories, although some development work remains to be completed. We note that our feasibility analysis for these engine standards is not based on projecting 100 percent application for any technology until 2027. We believe that projecting less than 100 percent application is appropriate and gives us additional confidence that the 2021 and 2024 MY standards are feasible.
Because this analysis considers reductions from engines meeting the Phase 1 standards, it assumes manufacturers will continue to include the same compliance margins as in Phase 1. In other words, a manufacturer currently declaring FCLs 10 g/bhp-hr above its measured emission rates (in order to account for production and test-to-test variability) will continue to do the same in Phase 2. Both the costs and benefits are determined relative to these baselines, and so are reflective of these compliance margins.
The agencies have carefully considered the costs of applying these technologies, which are summarized in Section II.D.(2)(d). These costs appear to be reasonable on both a per engine basis, and when considering payback periods.
Although manufacturers are making significant improvements in combustion to meet the Phase 1 engine standards, the agencies project that even more improvement is possible after 2018. For example, improvements to fuel injection systems will allow more flexible fuel injection capability with higher injection pressure, which can provide more opportunities to improve engine fuel efficiency. Further optimization of piston bowls and injector tips will also improve engine performance and fuel efficiency. We project that a reduction of up to 1.0 percent is feasible in the 2024 model year through the use of
Another important area of potential improvement is advanced engine control incorporating model based calibration to reduce losses of control during transient operation. Improvements in computing power and speed will make it possible to use much more sophisticated algorithms that are more predictive than today's controls. Because such controls are only beneficial during transient operation, they will reduce emissions over the FTP cycle, over the ARB Transient cycle's cycle-average mapping procedure, and during in-use operation, but this technology will not reduce emissions over the SET cycle or over the steady-state engine mapping procedure. Thus, the agencies are projecting model based control reductions only for vocational engines' FTP standards and for projecting improvements captured by the cycle-average mapping over the ARB Transient cycle. Although this control concept is not currently available and is still under development, we project model based controls achieving a 2 percent improvement in transient emissions. Based on model based controls already in widespread use in engine laboratories for the calibration of simpler controllers and based on recent model based control development under the DOE SuperTruck partnership (
Many advanced turbocharger technologies can be brought into production in the time frame between 2021 and 2027, and some of them are already in production, such as mechanical or electric turbo-compounding, more efficient variable geometry turbines, and Detroit Diesel's patented asymmetric turbocharger. A turbo-compound system, like those installed on some of Volvo's EURO VI compliant diesels and on some of DTNA's current U.S. offerings (supplied to DTNA by a division of Cummins), extracts energy from the exhaust to provide additional power. Mechanical turbo-compounding includes a power turbine located downstream of the turbine which in turn is connected to the crankshaft to supply additional power. On-highway demonstrations of this technology began in the early 1980s. It was used first in heavy duty production in the U.S. by Detroit Diesel for their DD15 and DD16 engines and reportedly provided a 3 to 5 percent fuel consumption reduction. Results are duty cycle dependent, and require significant time at high load to realize an in-use fuel efficiency improvement. Lightly loaded vehicles on flat roads or at low vehicle speeds can expect little or no benefit. Volvo reports two to four percent fuel consumption improvement in line haul applications.
The friction associated with each moving part in an engine results in a small loss of engine power. For example, frictional losses occur at bearings, in the valve train, and at the piston ring-cylinder interface. Taken together such losses represent a measurable fraction of all energy lost in an engine. For Phase 1, the agencies projected a 1-2 percent reduction in fuel consumption due to friction reduction. However, new information leads us to project that an additional 1.4 percent reduction is possible for some engines by 2021 and all engines by 2027. These reductions are possible due to improvements in bearing materials, lubricants, and new accessory designs such as variable-speed pumps.
All heavy duty diesel engine manufacturers are already using diesel particulate filters (DPFs) to reduce particulate matter (PM) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to reduce NO
Note that this improvement is independent of cold-start improvements made recently by some manufacturers with respect to vocational engines. Thus, the changes being made to the FTP baseline engines do not reduce the likelihood of the benefits of re-optimizing after-treatment projected here.
Various high efficiency air handling for both intake air and exhaust systems could be produced in the 2020 and 2024 time frame. To maximize the efficiency of such processes, induction systems may be improved by manufacturing more efficiently designed flow paths (including those associated with air cleaners, chambers, conduit, mass air flow sensors and intake manifolds) and by designing such systems for improved thermal control. Improved turbocharging and air handling systems will likely include higher efficiency EGR systems and intercoolers that reduce frictional pressure losses while maximizing the ability to thermally control induction air and EGR. EGR systems that often rely upon an adverse pressure gradient (exhaust manifold pressures greater than intake manifold pressures) must be reconsidered and their adverse pressure gradients
Proper sizing of an engine is an important component of optimizing a vehicle for best fuel consumption. This Phase 2 rule will require reductions in road load due to aerodynamic resistance, tire rolling resistance and weight, which will result in a drop in the vehicle power demand for most operation. This drop moves the engine operating points down to a lower load zone, which can move the engine away from operating near its peak thermal efficiency (a.k.a. the “sweet spot”). Engine downsizing combined with engine down speeding can allow the engine to move back to higher loads and a lower speed zone, thus achieving better fuel efficiency in the real world. However, because of the way engines are tested, little of the benefit of engine downsizing would be detected during engine testing (if power density remains the same) because the engine test cycles are de-normalized based on the full torque curve. Thus, the separate engine standards are not the appropriate standards for recognizing the benefits of engine downsizing. Nevertheless, we project that some small benefit can be measured over the engine test cycles depending on the characteristics of the engine fuel map and how the SET points are determined as a function of the engine's lug curve.
After the proposal we received comments recommending that we should recognize some level of engine down speeding within the separate engine standards. Based on this comment and some additional confidential business information that we received, we believe that engine lug curve reshaping to optimize the locations of the 13-mode points is a way that manufacturers can demonstrate some degree of engine down-speeding over the engine test. As pointed out in Chapter 2.3.8 and 2.7.5 of the RIA, down speeding via lug curve reshaping alone can provide SET reductions in the range of 0.4 percent depending on the engine map characteristics.
More than 40 percent of all energy loss in an engine is lost as heat to the exhaust and engine coolant. For many years, manufacturers have been using turbochargers to convert some of this waste heat in the exhaust into usable mechanical power that is then used to compress the intake air. Manufacturers have also been developing a Rankine cycle-based system to extract additional heat energy from the engine. Such systems are often called waste heat recovery (WHR) systems. The possible sources of waste heat energy include the exhaust, recirculated exhaust gases, compressed charge air, and engine coolant. The basic approach with WHR is to use waste heat from one or more of these sources to evaporate a working fluid, which is passed through a turbine or equivalent expander to create mechanical or electrical power, then re-condensed.
For the proposal, the agencies projected that by 2027, 15 percent of tractor engines would employ WHR systems with an effectiveness of better than three percent. We received many comments on this projection, which are discussed briefly below and in more detail in the RTC. In particular, we note that some of the comments included confidential data related to systems not yet on the market. After carefully considering all of these comments, we have revised our projections to increase the effectiveness, decrease costs, and project higher adoption rates than we proposed.
Prior to the Phase 1 Final Rule, the NAS estimated the potential for WHR to reduce fuel consumption by up to 10 percent.
Alternatively, a number of commenters including Cummins, ICCT, CARB, ACEEE, EDF, Honeywell, ARB and others stated that the agencies should increase the assumed application rate of WHR in the final rule and the overall stringency of the engine standards. They argued the agencies' WHR technology assessment was outdated and too conservative, the fuel savings and GHG reduction estimation for WHR were too low, and the agencies' cost estimates were based on older WHR systems where costs were confounded with hybrid component costs and that these have since been improved upon. In addition, the agencies received CBI information supporting the arguments of some of these commenters.
Cummins stated the agencies underestimated the commercial viability of WHR and that we overstated the development challenges and timing in the NPRM. They said WHR can provide a 4 to 5 percent improvement in fuel consumption on tractor drive cycles and that WHR would be commercially viable and available in production as early as 2020 and will exceed the agencies' estimates for market penetration over the period of the rule. According to Cummins, the reliability of their WHR system has improved with each generation of the technology and they have developed a smaller system footprint, improved integration with the engine and vehicle and a low-GWP working fluid, resulting in a much more compact and integrated system. They added that their system would be evaluated in extended customer testing by the end of 2015, and that results of that experience will inform further technology development and product engineering leading to expected commercial product availability in the 2020 timeframe. Furthermore, they said multiple product development cycles over the implementation timeframe of the rule would provide opportunities for further development for reduced cost and improved performance and reliability.
Some commenters, including EDF, said the agencies' assumed design had little in common with the latest designs planned for production. They cited several publications, including the NAS 21st Century Truck Program report #3 and stated WHR effectiveness is much higher than the agencies estimated. Gentham cited an ICCT study saying that up to a 12 percent fuel consumption reduction from a 2010 baseline engine is possible with the application of advanced engine technologies and WHR.
The agencies recognize that much work remains to be done, but we are providing significant lead time to bring WHR to market. Based on our assessment of each manufacturer's work to date, we are confident that a commercially-viable WHR capable of reducing fuel consumption by over three percent will be available in the 2021 to 2024 time frame. Concerns about the system's cost and complexity may remain high enough to limit the use of such systems in this time frame. Moreover, packaging constraints and lower effectiveness under transient conditions will likely limit the application of WHR systems to line-haul tractors. Refer to RIA Chapter 2.3.9 for a detailed description of these systems and their applicability. For our analysis of the engine standards, the agencies project that WHR with the Rankine technology could be used on 1 percent of tractor engines by 2021, on 5 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027, with nearly all being used on sleeper cabs. We project this sharper increase in market adoption in the 2027 timeframe because we have noted that most technology adoption rate curves follow an S-shape: Slow initial adoption, then more rapid adoption, and then a leveling off as the market saturates (not always at 100 percent).
Commenters opposing the agencies' WHR projections argued that the real-world GHG and fuel consumption savings will be less than in prototype systems. DTNA said a heat rejection increase of 30 percent to 40 percent with WHR systems will require larger radiators, resulting in more aerodynamic drag and lower fuel savings from WHR systems. DTNA cited a Volvo study showing a 2 percent loss of efficiency with the larger frontal areas needed to accommodate heat rejection from WHR systems. Daimler stated effectiveness may be lower than expected since there is large drop off in fuel savings when the tractor is not operating on a steady state cycle and the real world performance of WHR systems will be hurt by transient response issues. Daimler and ACEEE said the energy available from exhaust and other waste heat sources could diminish as tractor aerodynamics improve, thus lowering the expected fuel savings from WHR. Daimler said because of this, WHR estimated fuel savings was overestimated by the agencies. Navistar said WHR working fluids will have a significant GHG impact based on their high global warming potential. They commented that fuel and GHG reductions will be lower in the real world with the re-weighting of the RMC which results in lower engine load, and thus lower available waste heat. However, none of these commenters have access to the full range of data available to the agencies, which includes CBI.
It is important to note that the net cost and effectiveness of future WHR systems depends on the sources of waste heat. Systems that extract heat from EGR gases may provide the side benefit of reducing the size of EGR coolers or eliminating them altogether. To the extent that WHR systems use exhaust heat, they increase the overall cooling system heat rejection requirement and likely require larger radiators. This could have negative impacts on cooling fan power needs and vehicle aerodynamics. Limited engine compartment space under the hood could leave insufficient room for additional radiator size increasing. Many of these issues disappear if exhaust waste heat is not recovered from the tailpipe and brought under the hood for conversion to mechanical work. In fact, it is projected that if a WHR system only utilizes heat that was originally within the engine compartment (
Several commenters stated that costs are highly uncertain for WHR technology, but argued that the agencies' assumption of a $10,523 cost in 2027 are likely significantly lower than reality. Volvo estimated a cost of $21,700 for WHR systems. Volvo said that in addition to hardware cost being underestimated, the agencies had not properly accounted for other costs such as the R&D needed to bring the technology into production within a vehicle. Volvo said they would lose $17,920 per unit R&D alone, excluding other costs such as materials and administrative expenses. Daimler said that costs almost always inflate as the complexity of real world requirements drive up need for more robust designs, sensors, controls, control hardware, and complete vehicle integration. They added that development costs will be large and must be amortized over limited volumes. Furthermore, OOIDA said the industry experience with such complex systems is that maintenance, repair, and down-time cost can be much greater than the initial purchase cost. ATA and OOIDA said that potential downtime associated with an unproven technology is a significant concern for the industry.
On the other hand, some commenters argued that the agencies had actually overestimated WHR costs in the proposal. These commenters generally argued that engineering improvements to the WHR systems that will go into production in the Phase 2 time frame would lower costs, in particular by reducing components. The agencies largely agree with these commenters and we have revised our analysis to reflect these cost savings. See RIA 2.11.2.15 for additional discussion.
This Section (a)(viii) describes technology packages that the agencies project could be applied to Phase 1 tractor engines to meet the Phase 2 SET separate engine standards. Section II.D.(2)(e) also describes additional improvements that the agencies project some engine manufacturers will be able to apply to their engines.
We received comments on the tractor engine standards in response to the proposal and in response to the NODA. These comments can be grouped into two general themes. One theme expressed by ARB, non-governmental environmentally focused organizations, Cummins and some technology suppliers like Honeywell, recommended higher engine stringencies, up to 10-15 percent in some comments. Another theme, generally expressed by vertically integrated engine and vehicle manufacturers supported either no Phase 2 engine standards at all, or they supported the proposal's standards, but none of these commenters supported standards that were more stringent than what we proposed. An example of the contrast between these two themes can be shown in one report submitted to the docket and another submission rebutting the statements made in the
The agencies carefully considered this wide range of views, and based on the best data available, the agencies modified some of our technology projections between the proposal and the final rule.
Table II-5 lists our projected technologies together with our projected effectiveness and market adoption rates for tractor engines. The reduction values shown as ”SET reduction” are relative to our Phase 2 baseline values, as shown in Table II-7. It should be pointed out that the reductions in Table II-7 are based on the Phase 2 final SET weighting factors, shown in Table II-2. RIA Chapter 2.7.5 details the reasoning supporting our projection of improvements attributable to this fleet average technology package.
The weighted reductions shown in this table have been combined using the “Π-formula,” which has been augmented to account for technology dis-synergies that occur when combining multiple technologies. A 0.85 dis-synergy factor was used for 2021, and a 0.90 dis-synergy factor was used for 2024 and 2027.
Figure II.3 2018 HHD Figure II.4 are the samples of the HHD engine fuel maps used for the agencies' MY 2018 baseline engine and MY 2027 sleeper cab engine for tractors. As can be seen from these two figures, the torque curve shapes are different. This is because engine down speeding optimization for the SET is taken into consideration, where the engine peak torque is increased and the engine speed is shifted to lower speed. All maps used by GEM for all vehicles are shown in Chapter 2.7 of the RIA.
For diesel engines (and other compression-ignition engines) used in vocational vehicles, the MY 2021 standards will require engine manufacturers to achieve, on average, a 2.3 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO
Most of the potential engine technologies discussed previously for tractor engines can also be applied to vocational engines. However, neither of the waste heat technologies, Rankine cycle nor turbo-compound, are likely to be applied to vocational engines because they are less effective under transient operation, which is weighted more heavily for all of the vocational sub-categories. Given the projected cost and complexity of such systems, we believe that for the Phase 2 time frame manufacturers will focus their WHR development work on tractor applications (which will have better payback for operators), rather than on vocational applications. In addition, the benefits due to engine downsizing, which can be realized in some tractor engines, may not be realized at all in in the vocational sector, again because this control technology produces few benefits under transient operation.
One of the most effective technologies for vocational engines is the optimization of transient controls with physics model based control, which would replace current look-up table based controls. These are described more in detail in Chapter 2.3 of the RIA. We project that more advanced transient controls, including different levels of model based control, discussed in Chapter 2.3 of the RIA, would continue to progress and become more broadly applicable throughout the Phase 2 timeframe.
Other effective technologies include parasitic load/friction reduction, as well as improvements to combustion, air handling systems, turbochargers, and after-treatment systems. Table II-8 below lists those potential technologies together with the agencies' projected market penetration rates for vocational engines. Again, similar to tractor engines, the technology reduction and market penetration rates are estimated by combining manufacturer-submitted confidential business information, together with estimates reflecting the agencies' judgment, which is informed by historical trends in the market adoption of other fuel efficiency improving technologies. The reduction values shown as “percent reduction” are relative to the Phase 2 FTP baselines, which are shown in Table II-3. The overall reductions combine the technology reduction values with their market adoption rates. The same set of the dis-synergy factors as the tractor are used for MY 2021, 2024, and 2027.
Figure II.5 is a sample of a 2018 baseline engine fuel map for a MHD vocational engine.
The HD Phase 2 standards are based on projected adoption rates for technologies that the agencies regard as the maximum feasible for purposes of EISA section 32902 (k) and appropriate under CAA section 202(a) based on the technologies discussed above and in RIA Chapter 2. The agencies believe these technologies can be adopted at the estimated rates for these standards within the lead time provided, as discussed in RIA Chapter 2.7. The 2021 and 2024 MY standards are phase-in standards on the path to the 2027 MY standards, and these earlier standards were developed using less aggressive application rates and therefore have lower technology package costs than the 2027 MY standards.
As described in Section II.D.(2)(d) below, the costs to comply with these standards are estimated to range from $275 to $1,579 per engine. This is slightly higher than the costs for Phase 1, which were estimated to be $234 to $1,091 per engine. Although the agencies did not separately determine fuel savings or emission reductions due to the engine standards apart from the vehicle program, it is expected that the fuel savings will be significantly larger than these costs, and the emission reductions will be roughly proportional to the technology costs when compared to the corresponding vehicle program reductions and costs. Thus, we regard these standards as cost-effective. This is true even without considering payback period. The phase-in 2021 and 2024 MY standards are less stringent and less costly than the 2027 MY standards. Given that the agencies believe these standards are technologically feasible, are highly cost effective, and highly cost effective when accounting for the fuel savings, and have no apparent adverse potential impacts (
For gasoline vocational engines, we are not adopting more stringent
The agencies received many comments suggesting that technologies be applied to increase the stringency of the SI engine standard. These comments were essentially misplaced, since the agencies already had premised the Phase 1 SI MY 2016 FTP engine standards on 100 percent adoption of these technologies. The commenters thus did not identify any additional engine technologies that the agencies did not already consider and account for in setting the MY 2016 FTP engine standard. Therefore, the Phase 1 SI engine FTP standard for these engines will remain in place. However, as noted above, projected engine improvements are being reflected in the stringency of the vehicle standard for the vehicle in which the engine will be installed. In part this is because the GEM cycles result in very different engine operation than what occurs when an engine is run over the engine FTP cycle. We believe that certain technologies will show a fuel consumption and CO
As part of the certification process for the Phase 2 vehicle standards, tractor and vocational vehicle manufacturers will need to represent their vehicles' actual engines in GEM. Although the vehicle standards recognize the same engine technologies as the separate engine standards, each have different test procedures for demonstrating compliance. As explained earlier in Section II.D.(1), compliance with the tractor separate
Our first step in aligning our engine technology assessment at both the engine and vehicle levels was to separately identify how each technology impacts performance at each of the 13 individual test points of the SET steady-state engine duty cycle. For example, engine friction reduction technology is expected to have the greatest impact at the highest engine speeds, where frictional energy losses are the greatest.
As described in Chapters 2 and 7 of the RIA, the agencies estimated costs for each of the engine technologies discussed here. All costs are presented relative to engines projected to at least comply with the model year 2017 standards—
Our engine cost estimates include a separate analysis of the incremental part costs, research and development activities, and additional equipment. Our general approach used elsewhere in this action (for HD pickup trucks, gasoline engines, Class 7 and 8 tractors, and Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles) estimates a direct manufacturing cost for a part and marks it up based on a factor to account for indirect costs.
While the agencies' technological feasibility analysis for the engine standards focuses on what is achievable for existing engine platforms, we recognize that it could be possible to achieve greater reductions by designing entirely new engine platforms. Unlike existing platforms, which are limited with respect to peak cylinder pressures (precluding certain efficiency improvements), new platforms can be designed to have higher cylinder pressure than today's engines. New designs are also better able to incorporate recent improvements in materials and manufacturing, as well as other technological developments. Considered together, it is likely that a new engine platform could be about 2 percent better than engines using older platforms. Moreover, the agencies have seen CBI data that suggests improvement of more than 3 percent are possible. However, because designing and producing a new engine platform requires hundreds of millions of dollars in capital investment and significant lead time for research and development, it would not be appropriate to project that each engine manufacturer could complete a complete redesign of all of its engines within the Phase 2 time frame. Unlike light-duty, heavy-duty sales volumes are not large enough to support short redesign cycles. As a result, it can take 20 years for a manufacturer to generate the necessary return on the investment associated with an engine redesign. Forcing a manufacturer to redesign its engines prematurely could easily result in significant financial strain on a company.
On the other hand, how far the various manufacturers are into their design cycles suggests that one or more manufacturers will probably introduce a new engine platform during the Phase 2 time frame. This would not enable other engine manufacturers to meet more stringent standards, and thus it would not be an appropriate basis to justify more stringent engine standards (and certainly not engine standards reflecting 100 percent use of technologies premised on existence of new platforms). However, the availability of some more efficient engines on the market will provide the opportunity for
As discussed in Section III.D.(1)(b)(i), the agencies project that at least one engine manufacturer (and possibly more) will have completed a redesign for tractor engines by 2027. Accordingly, we project that 50 percent of tractor engines in 2027 will be redesigned engines and be 1.6 percent more efficient than required by the engine standards, so the average engine would be 0.8 percent better. However, we could have projected the same overall improvement by projecting 25 percent of engine getting 3.2 percent better. Based on the CBI information available to us, we believe projecting a 0.8 percent improvement is reasonable, but may be somewhat conservative.
Adding this 0.8 percent improvement to the 5.1 percent reduction
We are making a similar new engine platform projection for vocational vehicles. This is because many of tractor and vocational engines, such as HHD, would likely share the same engine hardware with the exception of WHR. In addition, the model based control discussed in Chapter 2.3 of the RIA could integrate engines better with transmissions on the vehicle side. We believe manufacturers will first focus their efforts on improving tractor engines but still believe that the 2027 vocational engine will be significantly better than required by the engine standards.
EPA will continue to apply the Phase 1 N
In the proposal we considered reducing both the standard and deterioration factor to 0.05 and 0.01 g/bhp-hr respectively because engines certified in model year 2014 were generally meeting the proposed standard. We also explained the process behind N
While we still believe that further optimization of SCR systems is possible to reduce N
EPA will continue to apply the Phase 1 methane engine standards to the Phase 2 program. EPA adopted the cap standards for CH
EPA continues to believe that manufacturers of most engine technologies will be able to comply with the Phase 1 CH
The agencies are continuing most of the Phase 1 compliance provisions and flexibilities for the Phase 2 engine standards.
The agencies' general approach to averaging is discussed in Section I. We did not propose to offer any new or special credits to engine manufacturers to comply with any of the separate engine standards. Except for early credits, the agencies are retaining all Phase 1 credit flexibilities and limitations to continue for use in the Phase 2 engine program.
As discussed below and as proposed, EPA is changing the useful life for LHD engines for GHG emissions from the current 10 years/110,000 miles to 15 years/150,000 miles to be consistent with the useful life of criteria pollutants recently updated in EPA's Tier 3 rule. In order to ensure that banked credits maintain their value in the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2, EPA and NHTSA are adopting the proposed adjustment factor of 1.36 (
Finally, the agencies are limiting the carryover of certain Phase 1 engine credits into the Phase 2 program. As described in Section II.D.(2) the agencies made adjustments to the FTP baselines, to address the unexpected step-change improvement in engine fuel consumption and CO
The Phase 1 rule included a compliance flexibility that allowed heavy-duty manufacturers and conversion companies to comply with the respective methane or nitrous oxide standards by means of over-complying with CO
EPA will continue this provision for Phase 2. However, since the Phase 1 rule was finalized, a new IPCC report has been released (the Fifth Assessment Report), with new GWP estimates. This caused us to look again at the relative GWP equivalency of methane and nitrous oxide and to seek comment on whether the methane and nitrous oxide GWPs used to establish the equivalency value for the CO
EPA is updating the GWP value to convert CO
Consistent with section 202(a)(1) and 202(d) of the CAA, for Phase 1, EPA established in-use standards for heavy-duty engines. Based on our assessment of testing variability and other relevant factors, we established in-use standards by adding a 3 percent adjustment factor to the full useful life CO
In Phase 1, EPA set the useful life for engines and vehicles with respect to GHG emissions equal to the respective useful life periods for criteria pollutants. In April 2014, as part of the Tier 3 light-duty vehicle final rule, EPA extended the regulatory useful life period for criteria pollutants to 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever comes first, for Class 2b and 3 pickup trucks and vans and some light-duty trucks (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014). As proposed, EPA is applying the same useful life of 150,000 miles or 15 years for the Phase 2 GHG standards for engines primarily intended for use in vocational vehicles with a GVWR at or below 19,500 lbs. NHTSA will use the same useful life values as EPA for all heavy-duty vehicles.
As proposed, we will continue the regulatory allowance in 40 CFR 1036.150(g) that allows engine manufacturers to use assigned deterioration factors (DFs) for most engines without performing their own durability emission tests or engineering analysis. However, the engines will still be required to meet the standards in actual use without regard to whether the manufacturer used the assigned DFs. This allowance is being continued as an interim provision and may be discontinued for later phases of standards as more information becomes known. Manufacturers are allowed to use an assigned additive DF of 0.0 g/bhp-hr for CO
In the Phase 1 rulemaking, the agencies allowed certification to alternate CO
EPA is also making certain clarifying changes to its rules regarding classification of natural gas engines. This relates to standards for all emissions, both greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants. These clarifying changes are intended to reflect the status quo, and therefore should not have any associated costs.
EPA emission standards have always applied differently for gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled engines. The regulations in 40 CFR part 86 implement these distinctions by dividing engines into Otto-cycle and Diesel-cycle technologies. This approach led EPA to categorize natural gas engines according to their design history. A diesel engine converted to run on natural gas was classified as a diesel-cycle engine; a gasoline engine converted to run on natural gas was classified as an Otto-cycle engine.
The Phase 1 rule described our plan to transition to a different approach, consistent with EPA's non-road programs, in which we divide engines into compression-ignition and spark-ignition technologies based only on the thermodynamic operating characteristics of the engines.
Under the existing EPA regulatory definitions of “compression-ignition” and “spark-ignition,” a natural gas engine would generally be considered compression-ignition if it operates with lean air-fuel mixtures and uses a pilot injection of diesel fuel to initiate combustion, and would generally be considered spark-ignition if it operates with stoichiometric air-fuel mixtures and uses a spark plug to initiate combustion.
EPA's basic premise here is that natural gas engines performing similar in-use functions as diesel engines should be subject to similar regulatory requirements. The compression-ignition emission standards and testing requirements reflect the operating characteristics for the full range of heavy-duty vehicles, including substantial operation in long-haul service characteristic of tractors. The spark-ignition emission standards and testing requirements do not include some of those provisions related to use in long-haul service or other applications where diesel engines predominate, such as steady-state testing, Not-to-Exceed standards, and extended useful life. We believe it would be inappropriate to apply the spark-ignition standards and requirements to natural gas engines that are being used in applications mostly served by diesel engines today. We therefore proposed to replace the interim provision described above with a differentiated approach to certification of natural gas engines across all of the EPA standards—for both GHGs and criteria pollutants. 80 FR 40207. Under the proposed amendment, we would require manufacturers to divide all their natural gas engines into primary intended service classes, as we already require for compression-ignition engines, whether or not the engine has features that otherwise could (in theory) result in classification as SI under the current rules. We proposed that any natural gas engine qualifying as a medium heavy-duty engine (19,500 to 33,000 lbs. GVWR) or a heavy heavy-duty engine (over 33,000 lbs. GVWR) would be subject to all the emission standards and other requirements that apply to compression-ignition engines. However, based on comments, we are finalizing this change only for heavy heavy-duty engines. Commenters identified medium heavy-duty applications in which SI alternative fuel engines compete significantly with gasoline engines, which is not consistent with the premise of the proposal. Thus, we are not finalizing the proposed change for medium heavy-duty engines.
Table II-15 describes the provisions that apply differently for compression-ignition and spark-ignition engines:
The onboard diagnostic requirements already differentiate requirements by fuel type, so there is no need for those provisions to change based on the considerations of this section.
We are not aware of any currently certified engines that will change from compression-ignition to spark-ignition under this approach. Nonetheless, because these proposed changes could result in a change in standards for engines currently under development, we believe it is appropriate to provide additional lead time. We will therefore continue to apply the existing interim provision through model year 2020.
These provisions will apply equally to engines fueled by any fuel other than gasoline or ethanol, should such engines be produced in the future. Given the current and historic market for vehicles above 33,000 lbs. GVWR, the agencies believe any alternative-fueled vehicles in this weight range will be competing primarily with diesel vehicles and should be subject to the same requirements as them. See Sections XI and XII for additional discussion of natural gas fueled engines.
EPA proposed to require that all natural gas-fueled engines have closed crankcases, rather than continuing the provision that allows venting to the atmosphere all crankcase emissions from all compression-ignition engines. 80 FR 40208. However, EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement at this time.
Open crankcases have been allowed as long as these vented crankcase emissions are measured and accounted for as part of an engine's tailpipe emissions. This allowance has historically been in place to address the technical limitations related to recirculating diesel-fueled engines' crankcase emissions, which have high PM emissions, back into the engine's air intake. High PM emissions vented into the intake of an engine can foul turbocharger compressors and after cooler heat exchangers. In contrast, historically EPA has mandated closed crankcase technology on all gasoline fueled engines and all natural gas spark-ignition engines.
Some commenters suggested that the agencies should apply a compliance margin to confirmatory and SEA test results to account for variability of engine maps and emission tests. However, EPA's past practice has been to base the standards on technology projections that assume manufacturers will apply compliance margins to their test results for certification. In other words, they design their products to have emissions below the standards by some small margin so that test-to-test or lab-to-lab variability would not cause them to exceed any applicable standards. Consequently, EPA has typically not set standards precisely at the lowest levels achievable, but rather at slightly higher levels—expecting manufacturers to target the lower levels to provide compliance margins for themselves. The agencies have applied this approach to the Phase 2 standards. Thus, the feasibility and cost analyses reflect the expectation that manufacturers will target lower values to provide compliance margins.
The agencies have also improved the engine test procedures and compliance provisions to reduce the agencies' and the manufacturers' uncertainty of engine test results. For example, in the agencies' confirmatory test procedures we are requiring that the agencies use the average of at least three tests (
In addition to the test procedure improvements and the +1 percent margin we incorporated into our standards, the agencies are also committed to a process of continuous improvement of test procedures to further reduce test result uncertainty. To contribute to this effort, in mid-2016 EPA committed $250,000 to fund research to further evaluate individual sources of engine mapping test procedure uncertainty. This work will occur at SwRI. Should the results of this work or other similar future work indicate test procedure improvements that would further reduce test result uncertainty, the agencies will incorporate these improvements through appropriate guidance or through technical amendments to the regulations via a notice and comment rulemaking. If we determine in the future through the SwRI work or other work that such improvements eliminate the need to require the agencies to conduct triplicate confirmatory testing of GEM engine fuel maps, we will promulgate technical amendments to the regulations to remove this requirement. If we determine in the future through the SwRI work or other work that the +1.0 percent we factored into our stringency analysis was inappropriately low or high, we will promulgate technical amendments to the regulations to address any inappropriate impact this +1.0 percent had on the stringency of the engine and vehicle standards.
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors-trailers contribute the largest portion of the total GHG emissions and fuel consumption of the heavy-duty sector, approximately 60 percent, due to their large payloads, their high annual miles traveled, and their major role in national freight transport.
As we found during the development in Phase 1 and as continues to be true in the industry today, the heavy-duty combination tractor-trailer industry consists of separate tractor manufacturers and trailer manufacturers. We are not aware of any manufacturer that typically assembles both the finished truck and the trailer and introduces the combination into commerce for sale to a buyer. There are also large differences in the kinds of manufacturers involved with producing tractors and trailers. For HD highway tractors and their engines, a relatively limited number of manufacturers produce the vast majority of these products. The trailer manufacturing industry is quite different, and includes a large number of companies, many of which are relatively small in size and production volume. Setting standards for the products involved—tractors and trailers—requires recognition of the large differences between these manufacturing industries, which can then warrant consideration of different regulatory approaches. Thus, although tractor-trailers operate essentially as a unit from both a commercial standpoint and for purposes of fuel efficiency and CO
Based on these industry characteristics, EPA and NHTSA believe that the most appropriate regulatory approach for combination tractors and trailers is to establish standards for tractors separately from trailers. As discussed below in Section IV, the agencies are also adopting standards for certain types of trailers.
The design of each tractor's cab and drivetrain determines the amount of power that the engine must produce in moving the truck and its payload down the road. As illustrated in Figure III-1, the loads that require additional power from the engine include air resistance (aerodynamics), tire rolling resistance, and parasitic losses (including accessory loads and friction in the drivetrain). The importance of the engine design is that it determines the basic GHG emissions and fuel consumption performance for the variety of demands placed on the vehicle, regardless of the characteristics of the cab in which it is installed.
Accordingly,
The Phase 1 tractor standards were based on several key attributes related to GHG emissions and fuel consumption that reasonably represent the many differences in utility and performance among these vehicles. Attribute-based standards in general recognize the variety of functions performed by vehicles and engines, which in turn can affect the kind of technology that is available to control emissions and reduce fuel consumption, or its effectiveness. Attributes that characterize differences in the design of vehicles, as well as differences in how the vehicles will be employed in-use, can be key factors in evaluating technological improvements for reducing CO
In Phase 1, the agencies allowed manufacturers to certify certain types of combination tractors as vocational vehicles. These are tractors that do not typically operate at highway speeds, or would otherwise not benefit from efficiency improvements designed for line-haul tractors (although standards still apply to the engines installed in these vehicles). The agencies created a subcategory of “vocational tractors,” or referred to as “special purpose tractors” in 40 CFR part 1037, because real world operation of these tractors is better represented by our Phase 1 vocational vehicle duty cycle than the tractor duty cycles. Vocational tractors are subject to the standards for vocational vehicles rather than the combination tractor standards. In addition, specific vocational tractors and heavy-duty vocational vehicles primarily designed to perform work off-road or having tires installed with a maximum speed rating at or below 55 mph are exempted from the Phase 1 standards.
In Phase 1, the agencies also established separate performance standards for the engines manufactured for use in these tractors. EPA's engine-based CO
Manufacturers demonstrate compliance with the Phase 1 tractor standards using the GEM simulation tool. As explained in Section II above, GEM is a customized vehicle simulation model which is the preferred approach to demonstrating compliance testing for combination tractors rather than chassis dynamometer testing used in light-duty vehicle compliance. As discussed in the development of HD Phase 1 and recommended by the NAS 2010 study, a simulation tool is the preferred approach for HD tractor compliance because of the extremely large number of vehicle configurations.
In addition to the final Phase 1 tractor-based standards for CO
The Phase 1 program also provided several flexibilities to advance the goals of the overall program while providing alternative pathways to achieve compliance. The primary flexibility is the averaging, banking, and trading program which allows emissions and fuel consumption credits to be averaged within an averaging set, banked for up to five years, or traded among manufacturers. Manufacturers with credit deficits were allowed to carry-forward credit deficits for up to three model years, similar to the LD GHG and CAFE carry-back credits. Phase 1 also included several interim provisions, such as incentives for advanced technologies and provisions to obtain credits for innovative technologies (called off-cycle in the Phase 2 program) not accounted for by the HD Phase 1 version of GEM or for certifying early.
The HD Phase 2 program is similar in many respects to the Phase 1 approach. The agencies are keeping the Phase 1 attribute-based regulatory structure in terms of dividing the tractor category into the same nine subcategories based on the tractor's GVWR, cab configuration, and roof height. This structure is working well in the implementation of Phase 1. EMA and Daimler supported this approach again in their comments to the Phase 2 NPRM. The one area where the agencies are changing the regulatory structure is related to heavy-haul tractors. As noted above, the Phase 1 regulations include a set of provisions that allow vocational tractors to be treated as vocational vehicles. However, because the agencies are including the powertrain as part of the technology basis for the tractor and vocational vehicle standards in Phase 2, we are classifying a certain set of these vocational tractors as heavy-haul tractors and subjecting them to a separate tractor standard that reflects their unique powertrain requirements and limitations in application of technologies to reduce fuel consumption and CO
The agencies will retain much of the certification and compliance structure developed in Phase 1. The Phase 2 tractor CO
Even though many aspects of the HD Phase 2 program are similar to Phase 1, there are some key differences. While Phase 1 focused on reducing CO
To evaluate the effectiveness of a more comprehensive set of technologies in Phase 2, the agencies are including several additional inputs to the Phase 2 GEM. The set of inputs includes the Phase 1 inputs plus parameters to assess the performance of the engine, transmission, and driveline. Specific inputs for, among others, predictive cruise control, automatic tire inflation systems, and 6x2 axles will now be required. The final Phase 2 program includes some changes to the proposed Phase 2 technology inputs to GEM. These changes from proposal include the use of cycle-averaged fuel maps for use when evaluating a vehicle over the transient cycle, optional transmission efficiency inputs, optional axle efficiency inputs, an increase in the types of idle reduction technologies recognized in GEM, and the ability to recognize the effectiveness of tire pressure monitoring systems, neutral coast, and neutral idle. As in Phase 1, in Phase 2 manufacturers will conduct component testing to obtain the values for these technologies (should they choose to use them), then the testing values will be input into the GEM simulation tool. See Section III.D.1 below. To effectively assess performance of the technologies, the agencies are adopting a revised version of the road grade profiles proposed for Phase 2. Finally, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 regulations with clarified selective enforcement and confirmatory testing requirements for the GEM inputs that differ from the Phase 2 NPRM based on the comments received.
The key aerodynamic assessment areas that the agencies proposed to change in Phase 2 relative to Phase 1 were the use of a more aerodynamic reference trailer, the inclusion of the impact of wind on the tractor, and changes to the aerodynamic test procedures. We are adopting these changes in Phase 2 with some further revisions from those proposed for Phase 2 based on comments. To reflect the evolving trailer market, the agencies are adopting as proposed the addition of trailer skirts (an aerodynamic improving device) to the reference trailer (
Another key change to the final rule is the adoption of more stringent particulate matter (PM) standards for auxiliary power units (APU) installed in new tractors.
The agencies are also ending some of the interim provisions developed in Phase 1 to reflect the maturity of the program and the reduced need and justification for some of the Phase 1 flexibilities. Further discussions on all of these matters are covered in the following sections.
EPA is adopting CO
This section describes these standards in detail.
The Phase 2 fuel consumption and CO
The agencies' analyses, as discussed briefly below and in more detail later in this Preamble and in the RIA Chapter 2.4 and 2.8, indicate that these standards are the maximum feasible (within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)) and are appropriate under each agency's respective statutory authorities.
As the agencies noted in the Preamble to the proposed standards, the HD Phase 2 CO
The agencies are adopting Phase 2 CO
The technologies on whose performance the final tractor standards are predicated include: improvements in the engine, transmission, driveline, aerodynamic design, tire rolling resistance, other accessories of the tractor, and extended idle reduction technologies. These technologies, and other accessories of the tractor, are described in RIA Chapter 2.4 and 2.8. The agencies' evaluation shows that some of these technologies are available today, but have very low adoption rates on current vehicles, while others will require some lead time for development. EPA and NHTSA also present the estimated costs and benefits of the Class 7 and 8 combination tractor standards in RIA Chapter 2.8 and 2.12, explaining as well the basis for the agencies' stringency level.
As explained below in Section III.D, EPA and NHTSA have determined that there will be sufficient lead time to introduce various tractor and engine technologies into the fleet starting in the 2021 model year and fully phasing in by the 2027 model year. This is consistent with NHTSA's statutory requirement to provide four full model years of regulatory lead time for standards. As was adopted in Phase 1, the agencies are adopting provisions for Phase 2 that allow manufacturers to generate and use credits from Class 7 and 8 combination tractors to show compliance with the standards. This is discussed further in Section III.F.
Based on our analysis, the 2027 model year standards for combination tractors and engines represent up to a 25 percent reduction in CO
EPA is also continuing the Phase 1 standards to control non-CO
The final Phase 2 heavy-duty engine standards for both N
Manufacturers can reduce hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions from air conditioning (A/C) leakage emissions in two ways. First, they can utilize leak-tight A/C system components. Second, manufacturers can largely eliminate the global warming impact of leakage emissions by adopting systems that use an alternative, low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerant, to replace the commonly used R-134a refrigerant. EPA is maintaining the A/C leakage standards adopted in HD Phase 1 (see 40 CFR 1037.115). EPA believes the Phase 1 use of leak-tight components is at an appropriate level of stringency while maintaining the flexibility to produce the wide variety of A/C system configurations required in the tractor category. Please see Section I.F.(1)(b) for a discussion related to alternative refrigerants.
Auxiliary power units (APUs) can be used in lieu of operating the main engine during extended idle operations to provide climate control and additional hotel power for the driver. As noted above, APUs can reduce fuel consumption, NO
After considering the numerous comments submitted on this issue and our consideration of feasibility of PM controls, EPA is adopting a new PM standard of 0.02 g/kW-hr that applies exclusively to APUs installed in MY 2024 and later new tractors. EPA is also amending the Phase 1 GHG standards to provide that as of January 1, 2018 and through MY 2020, a tractor can receive credit for use of an AESS with an APU installed at the factory only if the APU engine is certified under 40 CFR part 1039 with a deteriorated emission level for PM that is at or below 0.15 g/kW-hr. For MY 2021 through 2023, this same emission level applies as a standard for all new tractors with an APU installed. Starting in MY 2024, any APU installed in a new tractor must be certified to a PM emission standard of 0.02 g/kW-hr over the full useful life as specified in 40 CFR 1039.699. Engine manufacturers may alternatively meet the APU standard by certifying their engines under 40 CFR part 1039 with a Family Emission Limit for PM at or below 0.02 g/kW-hr. APUs installed on MY 2024 and later tractors must have a label stating that the APU meets the PM requirements of 40 CFR 1039.699. Tractor manufacturers will be subject to a prohibition against selling new MY 2024 and later tractors with APUs that are not certified to the specified standards, and manufacturers will similarly be subject to a prohibition against selling new MY 2021 through 2023 tractors with APUs that do not meet the specified emission levels. This applies for both new and used APUs installed in such new tractors. Manufacturers of new nonroad engines and new APUs may continue to produce and sell their products for uses other than installation in new tractors without violating these prohibitions. However, nonroad engine manufacturers and APU manufacturers would be liable if they are found to have caused a tractor manufacturer to violate this prohibition, such as by mislabeling an APU as compliant with this standard. Note also that the PM standard for APUs applies for new tractors, whether or not the engine and APU are new; conversely, the PM standard does not apply for APU retrofits on tractors that are no longer new, even if the engine and APU are new.
We discuss below the principal comments we received on whether to adopt a standard to control PM emissions from APUs used for tractor idle emission control, the basis for the amended standards, and how EPA envisions the standards operating in practice.
Among the comments we received were those from the American Lung Association, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Coalition for Clean Air/California Cleaner Freight Coalition, Moving Forward Network, Ozone Transport Commission, and the Center for Biological Diversity that urged EPA to amend the standards for PM emissions from these engines in order to reduce PM emission increases resulting from increased APU use. Bendix commented that EPA should consider the full vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, including the APU, to create a more accurate comparison when considering alternatives to diesel powered APUs. California's ARB supported the development of a federal rule that requires DPFs on APUs, similar to the requirements already in place in California because diesel PM poses a large public health risk.
In contrast, EMA commented that EPA should not impose any new emission requirements on APU engines because they already meet the Tier 4 nonroad standards and argued further that this rulemaking is not the proper forum for amending nonroad engine emission standards. Ingersoll Rand commented that they have significant concerns with regard to a nationwide requirement for use of DPFs in diesel-powered APUs, and strongly urged EPA not to impose such a perceived burden on the trucking industry. Ingersoll Rand's concerns are that the additional cost would push owners away from diesel-powered APUs to battery-powered APUs that, according to Ingersoll Rand, are not yet mature enough to serve as a replacement for diesel-powered APUs. Ingersoll Rand believes that high-capacity battery-powered APUs will eventually become a commercially available and cost-effective alternative to diesel-powered APUs. Ingersoll Rand stated that, although Thermo King has been dedicating resources to research and development in this area for some time, mandating this technology today would significantly decrease consumer choice, competitiveness in the APU marketplace, and driver comfort and safety. ATA is concerned that efforts to place additional emissions controls, and therefore additional costs, on APUs by making PM standards more stringent will discourage the use of this fuel efficient technology. EPA considered Ingersoll Rand's comments in developing a phased-in approach to the new PM standards for new tractors using APUs to, having the principal standard apply commencing with MY 2024 tractors in order to provide sufficient lead time.
Following is discussion of our analysis of this issue in light of the information we received and of our decision to establish a new PM standard for these units.
EPA conducted an analysis using MOVES, which evaluates the potential impact on PM emissions due to an increase in APU adoption rates. In this analysis, EPA assumed that PM emission rates from current technology APUs would be unchanged in the future. We estimated an average in-use APU emission rate of 0.96 grams PM per hour from three in-use APUs (model years 2006 and 2011), measured in
The results from these MOVES runs are shown below in Table III-3. These results show that an increase in use of APUs could lead to an overall increase in PM emissions if no additional PM emission standards were put in place. Column three labeled “Final Phase 2 GHG Program PM
As EPA discussed in the NPRM, there are DPFs in the marketplace today that can reduce PM emissions from APUs. 80 FR 40213. Since January 1, 2008, California ARB has restricted the idling of sleeper cab tractors during periods of sleep and rest.
EPA received comments from Daimler, Idle Smart, MECA, and Proventia addressing the feasibility of PM reductions from APU engines. Daimler stated that they supply APUs that currently meet ARB's PM emission requirements and encouraged EPA to simply adopt ARB's regulations. Proventia commented that they have produced an ARB-approved actively regenerating DPF to fit the Thermo King Tripac APU since 2012 and that it is proven, reliable, and commercially available. Idle Smart commented that their start-stop idle reduction solution emits less PM emissions than a diesel APU without a DPF. MECA commented that a particulate filter in this application would be a wall flow device and, due to the relatively cold exhaust temperature of these small engines, the filters would need to use either all active or a combination of passive and active regeneration to periodically clean the soot from the filter. MECA stated that active regeneration could be achieved through the use of a fuel burner or electric heather upstream of the filter. MECA also stated that ARB's regulations demonstrate that it is feasible to control PM from small APU engines and that the technology has been available since 2008.
California's Clean Idle program requires that diesel-powered APUs be fitted with a verified DPF. In some cases, limits are put on the PM emission level at the engine outlet (upstream of the DPF). For example, the ThermoKing APU approval utilizing a Yanmar engine requires that engine is certified to a PM level of 0.2 g/kW-hr or less (upstream of the DPF).
EPA believes that these comments confirm our discussion at proposal that PM standards reflecting performance of a diesel particulate filter are technically feasible.
Using MOVES, EPA evaluated the impact of requiring further PM control from APUs nationwide. As shown in Table III-3 and Table III-4, EPA projects that the HD Phase 2 program without additional PM controls would increase PM
EPA does not project any cost for meeting the requirement, commencing on January 1, 2018, that tractor manufacturers using APUs as part of a compliance path to meeting the Phase 1 GHG standards only receive credit in GEM for use of the APU if they use an APU with an engine with deteriorated PM emissions at or below 0.15 g/kW-hr. The same conclusion applies for MY 2021, when we adopt the PM emission level of 0.15 g/kW-hr as an emission standard, not only as a qualifying condition for using AESS for demonstrating compliance with the CO
PM emission reductions from APU engines beginning in MY 2024 would most likely be achieved through installation of a diesel particulate filter (DPF).
EPA requested comment on DPF costs in the NPRM and received comments from MECA, Proventia, and Ingersoll Rand. MECA agreed with EPA's range of DPF costs discussed in the NPRM. Proventia stated that the $2,240 end user price cited in the NPRM is for an aftermarket retrofit device. Proventia estimated that the direct manufacturing cost of materials and manufacturing (which is less than the retail price equivalent) for quantities exceeding 10,000 annually would be $975 for an actively regenerating device. The basis for this estimate is Proventia's current production cost in the quantity of 50 units of $1069. Proventia stated that EPA's estimate of $580 for a 150hp engine is likely to be for a catalyzed passively regenerating DPF because those engines have higher exhaust temperatures. Proventia also stated that a cost of an actively regenerating DPF is significantly higher than for passively regenerating devices. Ingersoll Rand commented that Thermo King currently offers a DPF option on its line of diesel-powered APUs and the incremental price of the DPF option can be as high as $3,500. ATA commented that adding a DPF to an APU increases the cost of the device by up to 20 percent. Daimler provided DPF costs as CBI.
EPA considered the comments and more closely evaluated NHTSA's contracted TetraTech cost report which found the total retail price of a diesel-powered APU that includes a DPF to be $10,000.
EPA regards these costs as reasonable. First, the PM standard is necessary to avoid an unintended consequence of GHG idle control. The standard adopted is also appropriate for APUs used in on-highway applications, since it is comparable to the heavy-duty on-highway standard after considering rounding conventions (the PM standard for a tractor's main engine is 0.01 g/hp-hr as specified in 40 CFR 86.007-11(a)(1)(iv))). The standard is also voluntary in the sense that tractor
It is also worth noting that the reductions also have monetized benefits far greater than the costs of the standard. Section IX.H.1 of this Preamble discusses the economic value of reductions in criteria pollutants. In this analysis, EPA estimates the economic value of the human health benefits associated with the resulting reductions in PM
EPA considered the lead time of the new PM standards for APUs installed in new tractors. The 2018 provision restricting GEM credit for use of APUs is not a new standard, but rather a compliance constraint. There should be ample time for tractor manufacturers to consider how to obtain APUs certified to the designated deteriorated PM emissions level should they wish to receive GEM credit for use of APUs. As noted in (d) above, we concluded that the reasonable feasible lead time is to implement these provisions on January 1, 2018 because the manufacturer's contemplating use of APUs in conjunction with a Phase 1 compliance strategy using AESS would need time to adapt their certification systems, which we believe requires lead time of at least several months.
In MY 2021, tractor manufacturers will be subject to a prohibition against selling new MY 2021 through 2023 tractors with APUs that do not meet those specified PM emission levels. For the reasons just given, there is ample time to meet this requirement.
The diesel particulate filter-based standard for APUs installed in new tractors begins in MY 2024. This allows several years for the development and application of diesel particulate filters to these APUs. We have concluded that, given the timing of the PM emission standards finalized in this document and the availability of the technologies, APUs can be designed to meet the new standards with the lead time provided (and, again, noting that tractor manufacturers have available compliance pathways available not involving APUs).
In terms of safety, EPA considered the fact that diesel particulate filters are a known technology. DPFs have been installed on a subset of diesel powered APUs since the beginning of the California requirements and have been used with on-highway diesel engines since the sale of MY 2007 engines. We are unaware of any safety issues with this technology. We are adopting these APU requirements because they allow for reduced fuel consumption; this also leads to a positive impact with respect to energy.
EPA has a choice as to whether to adopt these provisions as a tractor vehicle standard or as a standard for the non-road engine in the APU. Under either approach, EPA is required to consider issues of technical feasibility, cost, safety, energy, and lead time. EPA has addressed all of these factors above, and finds the 2018, 2021, and 2024 provisions, and associated lead time, to be justified.
The final rule applies most directly to tractor manufacturers. However, other entities potentially affected are the manufacturer of the APU, the manufacturer of the engine installed in the APU, and a different entity (if any) separately installing a DPF on the APU engine. At present, all engines used in APUs must certify to the PM standard in 40 CFR 1039.101, and must label the engine accordingly (see 40 CFR 1039.135). The provisions we are adopting for MY 2024 require that any APU engine being certified to the 0.02 g/kW-hr PM standard have a label indicating that the APU or engine is so certified. This puts any entity receiving that engine on notice that the APU (and its engine) can be used in a new tractor. Conversely, the absence of such a label indicates that the engine cannot be so used. Consequently, if a tractor manufacturer receives an APU without the supplemental label, it can only use the APU in a new tractor if it installs a DPF or otherwise retrofits the APU engine to meet the PM standard.
The APU certification provisions in 40 CFR 1039.699 are simplified to account for the fact that the APU manufacturer would generally be adding emission control hardware without modifying the engine from its certified configuration. Note that engine manufacturers, tractor manufacturers or others installing the emission control hardware may also certify to the 0.02 g/kW-hr standard. Since the prohibition applies to the tractor manufacturer, we would not expect the delegated assembly provisions of 40 CFR 1037.621 or the secondary vehicle manufacturer provisions of 40 CFR 1037.622 to apply for APU manufacturers.
As described above, we are aware that the PM standards as adopted would not prevent a situation in which tractors are retrofitted with diesel APUs after they are no longer new, without meeting the PM standards described above. We believe that vehicle manufacturers will strongly desire to apply the benefit of AESS with low-PM diesel APUs to help them meet CO
The agencies proposed and are adopting provisions in Phase 2 to set standards for a new subcategory of heavy-haul tractors. In addition and as noted above, in Phase 1 the agencies adopted provisions to allow tractor manufacturers to reclassify certain tractors as vocational vehicles, also called Special Purpose Tractors.
For Phase 2, the agencies proposed and are adopting an additional subcategory to the tractor category for heavy-haul tractors that are designed to haul much heavier loads than conventional tractors. The agencies recognize the need for manufacturers to build these types of vehicles for specific applications and also recognize that such heavy-haul tractors are not fully represented by the way GEM simulates conventional tractors. We believe the appropriate way to prevent effectively penalizing these vehicles is to set separate standards recognizing a heavy-haul vehicle's unique needs, which include the need for a higher horsepower engine and different transmissions. In addition drivetrain technologies such as 6x2 axles, may not be capable of handling the heavier loads. The agencies are adopting this change in Phase 2 because, unlike in Phase 1, the engine, transmission, and drivetrain technologies are included in the technology packages used to determine the stringency of the tractor standards and are included as manufacturer inputs in GEM. The agencies also recognize that certain technologies used to determine the stringency of the Phase 2 tractor standards are less applicable to the heavy-haul tractors designed for the U.S. market. For example, heavy-haul tractors in the U.S. are not typically used in the same manner as long-haul tractors with extended highway driving, and therefore will experience less benefit from aerodynamics. This means that the agencies are adopting a standard that reflects individualized performance of these technologies in particular applications, in this case, heavy-haul tractors, and further, have a means of reliably assessing individualized performance of these technologies at certification.
The typical tractor is designed in the U.S. with a Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) of approximately 80,000 pounds due to the effective weight limit on the federal highway system, except in states with preexisting higher weight limits. The agencies proposed in Phase 2 to consider tractors with a GCWR over 120,000 pounds as heavy-haul tractors. Based on comments received during the development of HD Phase 1 (76 FR 57136-57138) and because we did not propose in Phase 2 a sales limit for heavy-haul as we have for the vocational tractors in Phase 1, the agencies also believed it would be appropriate to further define the heavy-haul vehicle characteristics to differentiate these vehicles from the vehicles in the other nine tractor subcategories. The two additional requirements in the Phase 2 proposal included a total gear reduction greater than or equal to 57:1 and a frame Resisting Bending Moment (RBM) greater than or equal to 2,000,000 in-lbs per rail or rail and liner combination. Heavy-haul tractors typically require the large gear reduction to provide the torque necessary to start the vehicle moving. These vehicles also typically require frame rails with extra strength to ensure the ability to haul heavy loads. We requested comment on the proposed heavy-haul tractor specifications, including whether Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) or Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) would be a more appropriate metric to differentiate between a heavy-haul tractor and a typical tractor.
We received comments from several manufacturers about the proposed heavy-haul subcategory. None of the commenters were averse to creating such a subcategory, and many manufacturers directly supported such an action. Navistar supported creating a new heavy-haul subcategory maintaining that this type of vehicle is specified uniquely and is not designed for standard trailers. Volvo supported this addition since heavy-haul tractors require large engines and increased cooling capacity and most heavy-haul rigs have some requirement for off-road access to pick up machinery, bulk goods, and unusual loads.
We received comments from several manufacturers about the criteria proposed to define the heavy-haul tractor subcategory. Allison commented that for heavy-haul tractors equipped with an automatic transmission, the gear reduction ratio should be greater than or equal to 24.9:1 because an automatic transmission with a torque converter provides a torque multiplying effect and better launch capability. EMA and other manufacturers commented that the proposed specifications for heavy-haul tractors do not allow the relevant vehicles to meet the proposed total gear reduction ratio of 57:1 or greater. EMA commented that the Allison 7-speed 4700 transmission and the Eaton 9LL products both are specifically designed for heavy-haul operations, could meet a 53:1 specification, but not a 57:1 ratio. PACCAR also commented that an automatic transmission torque converter ratio should be included in the Total Reduction ratio calculation to properly incorporate the slip and first gear ratio combination that is inherent in an automatic transmission. EMA, PACCAR, and Volvo recommended that the agencies should change the rear axle ratio for the baseline vehicle to attain the 53:1 total reduction ratio because the proposed baseline heavy-haul vehicle did not meet the proposed total reduction ratio. Daimler commented that the agencies should remove both the frame resistance bending moment requirement and the gear reduction requirement.
EMA and some of the manufacturers commented that the agencies should revise the definition of heavy-haul tractor to be “equal to or greater than 120,000 pounds GCWR” rather than “greater than 120,000 pounds GCWR.” They stated that the specifications for the heavy-haul market start with and include 120,000 pounds GCWR. Daimler suggested that the minimum GCWR be set at 105,000 pounds to better catch the large number of Canadian vehicles that are heavy-haul. Daimler stated that this broader weight definition catches a very small number of US vehicles (0.1 to 0.9 percent of the vehicles, depending on other factors) but catches the large number of Canadian vehicles that Daimler considers to be heavy-haul.
Volvo commented that there are multiple types of heavy-haul tractors, each with their own specific characteristics based on operational considerations: High-roof highway sleeper tractors pulling box vans at or above 120,000 pounds GCWR (
In part to follow up on the comments made by manufacturers, EPA held discussions with Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) after the NPRM was released regarding the Special Purpose tractors and heavy-haul tractors.
For the FRM, EPA and NHTSA are revising the heavy-haul tractor provisions to balance the certainty that vehicles are regulated in an appropriate subcategory along with the potential to better harmonize the U.S. and Canadian regulations. Based on our assessment, the tractors with GCWR greater than or equal to 120,000 pounds truly represent heavy-haul applications in the U.S. Therefore, we are adopting criteria only based on GCWR, not the proposed RBM or total gear reduction ratios. The agencies are adopting Phase 2 heavy-haul standards for this subset of vehicles, similar to the standards proposed for Phase 2 and detailed below in Section III.D.1.
In Canada, due to their differences in weight and dimension requirements, it is primarily tractors with a GCWR of equal to or greater than 140,000 pounds that are truly heavy-haul vehicles. This leaves a set of tractors sold in Canada with a GCWR between 120,000 and 140,000 pounds that are used in ways that are similar to the way tractors with a GCWR less than 120,000 pounds (the typical Class 8 tractor) are used in the U.S. These tractors sold in Canada could benefit from the deployment of additional GHG-reducing technologies beyond what is being required for heavy-haul tractors in the U.S., such as aerodynamic and idle reduction improvements. Most manufacturers tend to rely on U.S. certificates as their evidence of conformity for products sold into Canada to reduce compliance burden. Therefore, in Phase 2 the agencies are adopting provisions that allow the manufacturers the option to meet standards that reflect the appropriate technology improvements, along with the powertrain requirements that go along with higher GCWR. While these heavy Class 8 tractor standards will be optional for tractors sold into the U.S. market, we expect that Canada will consider adopting these as mandatory requirements as part of their regulatory development and consultation process. Given the unique circumstances in the Canadian fleet, we believe that there is a reasonable basis for considering such an approach for Canadian tractors. As such, the agencies have coordinated these requirements with ECCC. The agencies are only adopting optional heavy Class 8 standards for MY 2021 at this time. The expectation is that ECCC will develop their own heavy-duty GHG regulations to harmonize with this Phase 2 rulemaking through its own domestic regulatory process. We expect that ECCC will include a mandate that heavy Class 8 tractors be certified to the MY 2021 heavy Class 8 tractor standards, but could also specify more stringent standards for later years for these vehicles. We plan to coordinate with ECCC to incorporate any needed future changes in a timely manner. Details of these optional standards are included in Section III.D.1.
During the development of Phase 1, the agencies received comments from several stakeholders supporting an approach for an alternative treatment of a subset of tractors because they were designed to operate at lower speeds, in stop and go traffic, and sometimes operate off-road or at higher weights than the typical line-haul tractor. These types of applications have limited potential for improvements in aerodynamic performance to reduce CO
In the Phase 2 proposal, the agencies proposed to remove the third type of vocational tractors, heavy-haul tractors with a GCWR over 120,000 pounds, from the Phase 2 Special Purpose Tractor category and set unique standard for heavy-haul tractors. 80 FR 40214. The agencies requested comment on the Special Purpose Tractor criteria and received comments from the manufacturers. EMA and PACCAR commented there is a group of special purpose tractors with a gross combination weight rating over 120,000 pounds that fall in between the proposed regulatory categories for heavy-haul tractors and Class 8 tractors that need to be accounted for in a separate and distinct manner. They stated that such vehicles are still appropriately categorized as Special Purpose Tractors and should be included at the manufacturer's option in the vocational tractor family, even though they may not meet the proposed total gear reduction requirement or the frame rail requirements. PACCAR and Volvo also requested a modification to the definition to include “equal to 120,000 GCWR.”
Volvo provided a list of recommended Special Purpose Tractor criteria. Volvo stated that these characteristics differentiate these vehicles from line haul operation, especially in terms of fuel economy as well as the significant added costs for these features. Volvo's
The heavy-haul tractor standards that the agencies are adopting in Phase 2 apply to tractors with a GCWR greater than or equal to 120,000 pounds. As stated above, the agencies are adopting heavy-haul tractor criteria based only on GCWR, and are not adopting the proposed criteria of RBM or total gear reduction. With these Phase 2 changes to the proposed heavy-haul tractor definition, all tractors that would have been considered as Special Purpose Tractors in Phase 1 due to the GCWR criteria listed in EPA's 40 CFR 1037.630 and NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR 523.2 will now qualify as heavy-haul tractors in Phase 2. Therefore, we no longer believe that it is necessary for heavy-haul tractors to be treated as Special Purpose Tractors. The agencies also reviewed Volvo's suggested criteria and concluded that the Phase 1 approach and Special Purpose Tractor criteria are working well; therefore, we do not see the need to adopt more restrictive criteria. Consequently, the agencies are adopting in Phase 2 provisions in EPA's 40 CFR 1037.630 and NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR 523.2 to only allow the following two types of vocational tractors to be eligible for reclassification to Special Purpose Tractors by the manufacturer:
(1) Low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery, such as those that deliver bottled beverages to retail stores.
(2) Tractors intended for off-road operation (including mixed service operation), such as those with reinforced frames and increased ground clearance.
These provisions apply only for purposes of Phase 2. The agencies are not amending the Phase 1 provisions for special purposes tractors.
Volvo also requested that the agencies add a Vocational Heavy-Haul Tractor subcategory that allows for a heavy-haul tractor which benefits from the utilization of a powertrain optimized to meet the vocational operational requirements of this segment, a technology package corresponding to those operational characteristics, and with a corresponding duty cycle and, most importantly, a payload representative of heavy-haul operation. The agencies considered this request and analyzed the expected technology package differences between the vocational and tractor program. As described in Section III.D.1, the agencies are only adopting technologies in the heavy-haul tractor category that would be applicable to the operation of these vehicles. For example, we are not adopting standards that are premised on any improvements to aerodynamics or extended idle reduction. Therefore, we concluded that there is no need to develop another vocational subcategory to account for heavy-haul tractors.
Because the difference between some vocational tractors and line-haul tractors is potentially somewhat subjective, and because of concerns about relative stringency, we also adopted in Phase 1 and proposed to continue in Phase 2 a rolling three year sales limit of 21,000 vocational tractors per manufacturer consistent with past production volumes of such vehicles to limit the use of this provision. We proposed in Phase 2 to carry-over the existing three year sales limit with the recognition that heavy-haul tractors would no longer be permitted to be treated as vocational vehicles (suggesting a lower volume cap could be appropriate) but that the heavy-duty market has improved since the development of the HD Phase 1 rule (suggesting the need for a higher sales cap). The agencies requested comment on whether the proposed sales volume limit is set at an appropriate level looking into the future. 80 FR 40214.
Several of the manufacturers commented that it would be reasonable to remove the sales cap limit. Allison stated that this limitation may have been reasonable in the initial years of the program as a precaution against unreasonably assigning too many tractors to the vocational vehicle category. However in Phase 2, Allison recommended that the agencies should remove the cap for three reasons: (1) Vehicle configurations change over time; (2) the Phase 2 vocational program drives technology improvements of powertrains; and (3) Phase 2 better represents the diversity of vocational vehicle uses that would allow for better alignment of vehicles with duty cycles that most represent their real world operation. Daimler stated that they think that with the addition of heavy-haul tractor standards, there will be less need for a sales volume limit on special purpose tractors. In Volvo Group's opinion, the proposed volume limit is overly constraining and burdensome and should be removed. Volvo stated that given the recent product lineup overhauls across the industry they do not believe that there are many models still on the market that are sold in large numbers into both highway tractor and vocational tractor segments, nor is there sufficient reason that any OEM cannot identify specific vehicle attributes in order to classify a tractor as suitable solely for highway use, or for on/off-road use. Volvo Group suggested that the agencies remove the vocational tractor volume restrictions and employ a guideline based on specific vehicle characteristics.
The agencies evaluated the sales cap limit proposed for special purpose tractors and the comments addressing the issue of a sales cap. EPA calculated the number of vocational tractors certified in MY 2014 and MY 2015. The number of tractors ranged between approximately 2,600 and 6,200 per year per manufacturer that certified special purpose tractors, but one manufacturer did not use this provision at all.
In Phase 1, EPA determined that manufacturers that met the small business criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201 for “Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing” should not be subject to the initial phase of greenhouse gas emissions standards in 40 CFR 1037.106.
The agencies received comments on the second stage manufacturer options for small manufacturers discussed in the proposal. American Reliance Industries (ARI) raised concerns related to the proposed alternative methods for excluding or exempting second stage manufacturers performing cab sleeper modifications. ARI is concerned that treating these vehicles as vocational vehicles may mean that other regulations related to vocational vehicles would become applicable and have unanticipated adverse results and that the vehicles would not be certified as vocational vehicles when originally certified by an OEM. ARI commented that if EPA and NHTSA adopt a frontal area approach for second stage manufacturers making cab sleeper modifications, that the section be revised to ensure greater clarity as to the intention and effect of this section. In building a custom sleeper cab, ARI stated that they may use wind fairings, fuel tank fairings, roof fairings, and side extenders that can modify the frontal area of the tractor in height and width as compared to the frontal area of the vehicle used to obtain the original certification. ARI also commented that depending on the custom cab sleeper modification, ARI may replace an aerodynamic fairing from the tractor in order to provide better aerodynamic results in light of the cab sleeper modification. ARI does not want to be precluded from continuing to provide these benefits to clients. ARI encourages the agencies to take a similar approach to small business exemption under the Phase 1 regulation in the Phase 2 regulation.
Daimler commented on the agencies' two proposed approaches for second stage manufacturers that build custom sleepers. Daimler's main concern is to clarify that where the primary manufacturer has certified a vehicle as a day cab, the second stage manufacturer's actions do not draw the primary manufacturer into noncompliance. Daimler stated that in many cases, they do not know that a vehicle will be altered by a second stage manufacturer. Daimler did not have a preference on the way that the agencies proposed to regulate these secondary vehicle manufacturers, as long as the primary vehicle manufacturers could continue to sell vehicles with the expectation that anyone changing them from the compliant state in which it was built would certify those changes.
In response to these comments, EPA is clarifying in 40 CFR 1037.622 that small businesses may modify tractors as long as they do not modify the front of the vehicle and so long as the sleeper compartment is no more than 102 inches wide or 162 inches in height. As an interim provision, to allow for a better transition to Phase 2, EPA is finalizing a more flexible compliance path in 40 CFR 1037.150(r). This option allows small manufacturers to convert a low or mid roof tractor to a high roof configuration without recertification, provided it is for the purpose of building a custom sleeper tractor or for conversion to a natural gas tractor. Although this more flexible allowance to convert low and mid roof tractors to high roof tractors is being adopted as an interim provision, we have not established an end date at this time. We expect to reevaluate as manufacturers begin to make use of and may decide to revise it in the future, potentially deciding to make it a permanent allowance. To be eligible for this option, the secondary manufacturer must be a small manufacturer and the original low or mid roof tractor must be covered by a valid certificate of conformity. The modifications may not increase the frontal area of the tractor beyond the frontal area of the equivalent high roof tractor paired with a standard box van. With respect to Daimler's comment, 40 CFR 1037.130 only applies to vehicles sold in an uncertified condition and does not apply to vehicles sold in a certified condition.
As described in Section XIII.B, EPA is adopting new provisions related to glider vehicles, including glider tractors.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed to revise the provisions applicable to glider vehicles so that the engines used in these vehicles would need to meet the standards for the year of the new glider vehicle. EPA's resolution of issues relating to glider vehicles, including glider tractors, and glider kits, is discussed fully in Section XIII.B and RTC Section 14.2.
Similarly, NHTSA considered including glider vehicles under its Phase 2 program. After assessing the impact glider vehicles have on the tractor segment, NHTSA has elected not to include glider vehicles in its Phase 2 program. NHTSA may reconsider fuel efficiency regulations for glider vehicles in a future rulemaking.
As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA would like to reiterate its safety authority over gliders—notably, that it has become increasingly aware of potential noncompliance with its regulations applicable to gliders. While there are instances in which NHTSA regulations allow gliders to use a “donor VIN” from a “donor tractor,” NHTSA has learned of manufacturers that are creating glider vehicles that are new vehicles under 49 CFR 571.7(e); however, the manufacturers are not certifying them and obtaining a new VIN as required. NHTSA plans to pursue enforcement actions as applicable against noncompliant manufacturers. In addition to enforcement actions, NHTSA may
We believe that the agencies having different policies for glider kits and glider vehicles under the Phase 2 program will not result in problematic disharmony between the NHTSA and EPA programs, because of the small number of vehicles that will be involved. EPA believes that its changes will result in the glider market returning to the pre-2007 levels, in which fewer than 1,000 glider vehicles will be produced in most years. Only non-exempt glider vehicles will be subject to different requirements under the NHTSA and EPA regulations. However, we believe that this is unlikely to exceed a few hundred vehicles in any year, which will be few enough not to result in any meaningful disharmony between the two agencies.
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that EPA is to adopt emissions standards that are applicable for the useful life of the vehicle. The in-use Phase 2 standards that EPA is adopting will apply to individual vehicles and engines, just as EPA adopted for Phase 1. NHTSA is also adopting the same useful life mileage and years as EPA for Phase 2.
EPA is also not adopting any changes to the existing provisions that require that the useful life for tractors with respect to CO
This section describes the agencies' technical feasibility and cost analysis. Further detail on all of these technologies can be found in the RIA Chapter 2.
Class 7 and 8 tractors are used in combination with trailers to transport freight. The variation in the design of these tractors and their typical uses drive different technology solutions for each regulatory subcategory. As noted above, the agencies are continuing the Phase 1 provisions that treat vocational tractors as vocational vehicles instead of as combination tractors, as noted in Section III.C.4. The focus of this section is on the feasibility of final standards for combination tractors including the heavy-haul tractors, but not the vocational tractors.
EPA and NHTSA collected information on the cost and effectiveness of fuel consumption and CO
Commenters generally supported the agencies' projection that manufacturers can reduce CO
EPA and NHTSA project that CO
Based on information available at the time of the NPRM, the agencies proposed Phase 2 standards that projected by 2027, all high-roof tractors would have aerodynamic performance equal to or better today's SmartWay performance—which represents the best of today's technology. This would equate to having 40 percent of new high roof sleeper cabs in 2027 complying with the current best practices and 60 percent of the new high-roof sleeper cab tractors sold in 2027 having better aerodynamic performance than the best tractors available today. For tire rolling resistance, we premised the proposed standards on the assumption that nearly all tires in 2027 would have rolling resistance equal to or superior to tires meeting today's SmartWay designation. At proposal, the agencies assumed the 2027 MY engines would achieve an additional 4 percent improvement over Phase 1 engines and we projected 15 percent adoption of waste heat recovery (WHR) and many other advanced engine technologies. In addition, we proposed standards that projected improvements to nearly all of today's transmissions, incorporation of extended idle reduction technologies on 90 percent of sleeper cabs, and significant adoption of
The agencies also discussed several other alternatives in the proposal. When considering alternatives, it is necessary to evaluate the impact of a regulation in terms of CO
The agencies solicited comment on all of these issues and again noted the possibility of adopting, in a final action, standards that are more accelerated than those in Alternative 3, notably what we termed at proposal, Alternative 4 which would have involved a three year pull ahead of the proposed 2027 standards. 80 FR 40211. The agencies also assumed in the NPRM that both the proposed standards and Alternative 4 could be accomplished with all changes being made during manufacturers' normal product design cycles. However, we noted that doing so would be more challenging for Alternative 4 and may require accelerated research and development outside of design cycles with attendant increased costs. Commenters were encouraged in the NPRM to address all aspects of feasibility analysis, including costs, the likelihood of developing the technology to achieve sufficient relaibility within the lead time, and the extent to which the market could utilize the technology.
The agencies received several general comments on the overall stringency of the proposed Phase 2 standards. Several entities encouraged the agencies to adopt more stringent tractor standards, including adoption of Alternative 4. They pointed out that DOE's SuperTruck program demonstrated over 40 percent improvement over 2010 levels, including 10.7 mpg by Cummins-Peterbuilt and 12.2 mpg by Daimler. CBD stated that the technology forcing nature of Clean Air Act section 202(a)(2)
In contrast to the commenters that called for more stringent standards than those proposed, several other commenters cautioned the agencies from adopting final standards that are more stringent than those proposed. Diesel Technology Forum commented that the agencies should proceed with caution on technologies that are not in wide use that have not demonstrated reliability or commercial availability. The International Foodservice Distributors Association is concerned about Alternative 4 in terms of reliability, commenting that it would require their members to purchase unproven and unreliable equipment in order for OEMs to meet the requirements. OOIDA commented if owners fear a reduction in reliability, increased operating costs, reduced residual value, or large increases in purchase prices, they will adjust their purchase plans.
PACCAR commented about the importance of lead time because their customers need time to determine if a technology meets their specific needs in their specific application and need assurance that a technology will be reliable in use. PACCAR also stated that the timing provided in the NPRM Alternative 3 provides the “greatest likelihood for a successful program.” Volvo commented that SuperTruck demonstration vehicles serve only the purpose of demonstration but are not proven with respect to cost, reliability, and durability. Volvo stated that the purpose of SuperTruck was narrow in applicability of matched tractor-trailers and that it did not result in a cost effective tractor because each project cost between $40 and $80 million to produce a single vehicle. Volvo also commented that not all SuperTruck technologies should be forced into all applications and duty cycles and if they are a pre-buy (or no-buy) could result.
The agencies considered all of the general comments associated with the proposed Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 tractor standards. We believe there is merit in many of the detailed comments received regarding technologies. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. Instead of merely choosing from among the proposed alternatives, the agencies have developed a set of final tractor standards that reflect our reevaluation of the ability to pull ahead certain technologies, the limitations in adoption rates and/or effectiveness of other technologies, and consideration of additional technologies. In general, the final Phase 2 tractor standards are similar in overall stringency as the levels proposed in Alternative 3, but have been determined using new technology packages that reflect consideration of all of the technology comments, and in some respects reflect greater stringency than the proposed Alternative 3.
As can be seen from the comments, there is uncertainty and a wide range of opinions regarding the extent to which these technologies can be applied to heavy-duty tractors. Vehicle manufacturers tended to take the conservative position for each technology and argue that the agencies should not project effectiveness or adoption rates beyond that which is certain. Many other commenters took a more optimistic view and argued for the agencies to assume that each potential technology will be highly effective in most applications. However the agencies believe the most likely outcome will be that some technologies
The fuel efficiency and CO
As noted earlier, the Phase 1 2017 model year tractor standards (based on Phase 1 GEM and test procedures) and the baseline 2017 model year tractor results (using Phase 2 GEM and test procedures) are not directly comparable. The same set of aerodynamic and tire rolling resistance technologies were used in both setting the Phase 1 standards and determining the baseline of the Phase 2 tractors. However, there are several aspects that differ. First, a new version of GEM was developed and validated to provide additional capabilities, including more refined modeling of transmissions and engines. Second, the determination of the HD Phase 2 C
The agencies used the same adoption rates of tire rolling resistance for the Phase 2 baseline as we used to set the Phase 1 2017 MY standards. See 76 FR 57211. The tire rolling resistance level assumed to meet the 2017 MY Phase 1 standard high roof sleeper cab is considered to be a weighted average of 10 percent pre-Phase 1 baseline rolling resistance, 70 percent Level 1, and 20 percent Level 2. The tire rolling resistance to meet the 2017MY Phase 1 standards for the high roof day cab, low roof sleeper cab, and mid roof sleeper cab includes 30 percent pre-Phase 1 baseline level, 60 percent Level 1 and 10 percent Level 2. Finally, the low and mid roof day cab 2017 MY standards were premised on a weighted average rolling resistance consisting of 40 percent baseline, 50 percent Level 1, and 10 percent Level 2. The agencies did not receive comments on the tire packages used to develop the Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM.
The agencies sought comment on the baseline vehicle attributes described in the NPRM. The agencies received comments related to the baseline adoption rate of automatic engine shutdown systems (AESS) and the baseline aerodynamics assessment. In the proposal, the agencies noted that the manufacturers were not using tamper-proof AESS to comply with the Phase 1 standards so the agencies reverted back to the baseline APU adoption rate of 30 percent used in the Phase 1 baseline. EMA and TRALA commented that the agencies confused the use of an APU with the use of tamper-proof idle technologies in assessing the baseline for the proposed Phase 2 standards. They stated that a 30 percent penetration rate of APUs is not the same as a 30 percent penetration rate of tamper-proof idle systems. ATA and Volvo also commented that the assumption that 30 percent of 2017 sleeper tractors will utilize the tamper-proof automatic engine shutdown is too high. EMA and PACCAR commented that virtually all tractors in the field have an automatic shutdown programmed in their engine; however, less than one percent of vehicles sold in recent years have tamper-proof AESS that are triggered in less than five minutes and cannot be reprogrammed for 1.259 million miles. In response to these comments, the agencies reassessed the baseline idle reduction adoption rates. The latest NACFE confidence report found that 9 percent of tractors had auxiliary power units and 96 percent of vehicles are equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.
The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards. Volvo, EMA, and other manufacturers also commented that the aerodynamic drag baseline for 2017 tractors included in the NPRM was too aerodynamically efficient. EMA commented that some of the best aerodynamic tractors available were tested by the agencies and then declared to be the baseline. According to the manufacturers, the average tractor—the true baseline—is a full bin worse than these best tractors. While the agencies agree with the commenters that it is important to develop an accurate baseline so that the appropriate aerodynamic technology package effectiveness and costs can be evaluated in determining the final Phase 2 standards, there appears to be some confusion regarding the NPRM baseline aerodynamic assessment. The Phase 2 baseline in the NPRM was determined based on the aerodynamic bin adoption rates used to determine the Phase 1 MY 2017 tractor standards (see 76 FR 57211). The baseline was not determined by or declared to be the average results of the vehicles tested, as some commenters maintained. The vehicles that were tested prior to the NPRM were used to develop the proposed aerodynamic bin structure for Phase 2. In both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The Phase 2 bins were developed so that tractors that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as Bin III tractors in Phase 2. Additional details regarding how the agencies refined the aerodynamic bin values for Phase 2 for the final rule can be found in Section III.E.2.a. The baseline aerodynamic value for the Phase 2 final rulemaking was determined in the same manner as the NPRM, using the adoption rates of the bins used to determine the Phase 1 standards, but reflect the final Phase 2 bin C
In the NPRM, we used a transmission top gear ratio of 0.73 and drive axle ratio of 3.70 in the baseline 2017 MY tractor. UCS commented that the baseline axle ratio is too high. The agencies determined the rear axle ratio and final drive ratio in the baseline tractor based on axle market information shared by Meritor,
The agencies are using the specific attributes of each tractor subcategory as are listed below in Table III-6 for the Phase 2 baselines. Using these values, the agencies assessed the CO
The agencies also received comments related to the baseline heavy-haul tractor parameters. Volvo did not agree that certain segments of the heavy-haul population are appropriately represented by the baseline in the NPRM. Volvo stated that these types of vehicles typically utilize an 18-speed transmission, since they require the very close gear ratios and nearly all heavy-haul tractors have deeper drive axle ratios than the agencies have assumed
The baseline 2017 MY heavy-haul tractor will emit 56.9 grams of CO
The fuel consumption and CO
The agencies' assessment of the technology effectiveness was developed through the use of the GEM in coordination with modeling conducted by Southwest Research Institute. The agencies developed these standards through a three-step process, similar to the approach used in Phase 1. First, the agencies developed estimates of technology performance characteristics and effectiveness in terms of reducing CO
As discussed in Section I.C.1.a, we assume manufacturers will incorporate appropriate compliance margins for all measured GEM inputs. In other words, they will declare values slightly higher than their measured values. As discussed in Section II.D.5, compliance margins associated with fuel maps are likely to be approximately one percent. For aerodynamic inputs, we believe the bin structure will eliminate the need for C
The agencies then determined the adoption rates feasible for each
There are several technologies that could be used to improve the efficiency of diesel engines used in tractors. These technologies include friction reduction, combustion system optimization, and waste heat recovery using the Rankine cycle. Details of the engine technologies, adoption rates, and overall fuel consumption and CO
As noted in Section II.D.2.e, it is import to note that these new platforms will be developed based on normal market forces rather than as a result of this rulemaking. Some engine manufacturers have developed new platforms with the last ten years, and we do not expect these engines to be replaced within the Phase 2 time frame. However, other engines have not been fundamentally redesigned recently and will be due for replacement by 2027. Because these new platforms will occur because of market forces rather than this rulemaking, these reductions are in some ways windfalls for vehicle manufacturers. Thus, we have not included the cost of these new platforms as part of our rulemaking analysis.
We have factored these levels into our analysis of the vehicle efficiency levels that will be achievable in MY 2027. These additional engine improvements will result in vehicles having lower GEM results. Thus, they make more stringent vehicle standards feasible, and the final standards are structured so that these improved engines are not able to generate windfall credits against the engine standards, but rather that their projected performance is reflected in the stringency of the final tractor vehicle standard. It is important to also note that manufacturers that do not achieve this level of engine reduction would be able to make up the difference by applying one of the many other available and cost-effective tractor technologies to a greater extent or more effectively, so that there are multiple technology paths for meeting the final standards. In other words, a manufacturer that does not invest in updating engine platforms in the Phase 2 time frame is likely to be able to invest in improving other vehicle technologies. (Note that these same reductions cannot be assumed as part of the engine standards because engine manufacturers will not have this same flexibility). These reductions from the engine will show up in the fuel maps used in GEM to set the Phase 2 tractor stringencies.
There are opportunities to reduce aerodynamic drag from the tractor by further optimization of body components, but it is sometimes difficult to assess the benefit of individual aerodynamic features. Therefore, reducing aerodynamic drag requires optimizing of the entire system. The potential areas to reduce drag include all sides of the truck—front, sides, top, rear and bottom. The grill, bumper, and hood can be designed to minimize the pressure created by the front of the truck. Technologies such as aerodynamic mirrors and fuel tank fairings can reduce the surface area perpendicular to the wind and provide a smooth surface to minimize disruptions of the air flow. Roof fairings provide a transition to move the air smoothly over the tractor and trailer. Side extenders can minimize the air entrapped in the gap between the tractor and trailer. Lastly, underbelly treatments can manage the flow of air underneath the tractor. DOE has partnered with the heavy-duty industry to demonstrate high roof sleeper cab tractor and box trailer combinations that achieve a 50 percent improvement in freight efficiency evaluated as a 65,000 pound vehicle operating on the highway under somewhat controlled circumstances. However, these demonstration vehicles developed in SuperTruck are not necessarily designed to handle the rigors of daily use over actual in-use roads. For example, they generally have very limited ground clearance that would likely preclude operation in snow, and would be very susceptible to damage from potholes or other road hazards. Nevertheless, this SuperTruck program has led to significant advancements in the aerodynamics of combination tractor-trailers. While the agencies cannot simply apply the SuperTruck program achievements directly into the Phase 2 program because of the significant differences in the limited purpose of SuperTruck and the plenary applicability of a regulation to all operating conditions and duty cycles, it is helpful to assess the achievements and evaluate how the technologies could be applied into mass production into a variety of real world applications while maintaining performance throughout the full useful life of the vehicle. A manufacturer's SuperTruck demonstration vehicle achieved approximately a seven percent freight efficiency improvement over a 2009 MY baseline vehicle due to improvements in tractor aerodynamics and approximately 16 percent overall for the tractor-trailer combination.
The Phase 2 aerodynamic packages are categorized as Bin I, Bin II, Bin III, Bin IV, Bin V, Bin VI, or Bin VII based on the wind averaged drag aerodynamic performance determined through testing conducted by the manufacturer. Bin I represents the least aerodynamic tractors, while Bins V-VII would be more aerodynamic than any tractor on the road today. A more complete description of these aerodynamic packages is included in Chapter 2.8.2.2 of the RIA. In general, the C
The agencies received comments on our aerodynamic technology assessment. A de F Limited commented that wheel covers improve the aerodynamics of tractors and trailers, though the results may be lost in the noise when evaluated on tractors and trailers separately. Daimler commented that they found in their SuperTruck work that there are diminishing opportunities for tractor aerodynamics improvements and there may be impediments to some due to the need to access the back of cab and reliability concerns. AIR CTI commented that they have built a truck with aerodynamic technologies such as a front spoiler that automatically deploys at vehicle speeds over 30 mph, aerodynamic mirrors, and wheel covers over the rear wheels. ICCT found in their workshop that opportunities exist for high roof line haul tractor aerodynamic improvements that could lead to a three to nine percent improvement in fuel consumption over a 2010 baseline.
The agencies' assessment is that the most aerodynamic tractor tested by EPA in 2015 achieved Bin IV performance. See RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2. This vehicle did not include all of the possible aerodynamic technologies, such as wheel covers or active aerodynamics like a grill shutter or front air dam. Upon further analysis of simulation modeling of a SuperTruck tractor with a Phase 2 reference trailer with skirts, we agree with the manufacturers that a SuperTruck tractor technology package would only achieve the Bin V level of C
As discussed in Section III.E.2, the agencies are increasing the number of aerodynamic bins for low and mid roof tractors from the two levels adopted in Phase 1 to seven levels in Phase 2. The agencies adopted an increase in the number of bins for these tractors to reflect the actual range of aerodynamic technologies effective in low and mid roof tractor applications. The aerodynamic improvements to the bumper, hood, windshield, mirrors, and doors are developed for the high roof tractor application and then carried over into the low and mid roof applications.
A tire's rolling resistance is a function of the tread compound material, the architecture and materials of the casing, tread design, the tire manufacturing process, and its operating conditions (surface, inflation pressure, speed, temperature, etc.). Differences in rolling resistance of up to 50 percent have been identified for tires designed to equip the same vehicle. Since 2007, SmartWay designated tractors have had steer tires with rolling resistance coefficients of less than 6.5 kg/metric ton for the steer tire and less than 6.6 kg/metric ton for the drive tire.
ICCT found in their workshop that opportunities exist for improvements in rolling resistance for tractor tires that could lead to a two to six percent improvement in fuel consumption when compared to a 2010 baseline tractor.
The agencies have evaluated this comment and find it persuasive. The agencies analyzed the 2014MY certification data for tractors between the NPRM and final rulemaking. We found that the lowest rolling resistance value submitted for 2014 MY GHG and fuel efficiency certification for tractors was 4.9 and 5.1 kg/metric ton for the steer and drive tires respectively, while the highest rolling resistance tire had a CRR of 9.8 kg/metric ton.
Proper tire inflation is critical to maintaining proper stress distribution in the tire, which reduces heat loss and rolling resistance. Tires with low inflation pressure exhibit a larger footprint on the road, more sidewall flexing and tread shearing, and therefore, have greater rolling resistance than a tire operating at its optimal inflation pressure. Bridgestone tested the effect of inflation pressure and found a 2 percent variation in fuel consumption over a 40 psi range.
Proper tire inflation pressure can be maintained with a rigorous tire inspection and maintenance program or with the use of tire pressure and inflation systems. According to a study conducted by FMCSA in 2003, about 1 in 5 tractors/trucks is operating with 1 or more tires underinflated by at least 20 psi.
Tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) notify the operator of tire pressure, but require the operator to manually inflate the tires to the optimum pressure. Because of the dependence on the operator's action, the agencies did not propose an emission reduction value for tire pressure monitoring systems. Instead, we requested comment on this approach and sought data from those that support a reduction value be assigned to tire pressure monitoring systems. 80 FR 40218.
Many commenters including OOIDA, ATA, the truck manufacturers, RMA, UPS, Bendix, Doran, First Industries, NADA, and others suggested that the agencies should recognize TPMS as a technology in GEM, with the effectiveness value set at an equal level as ATIS. On the other hand, ARB generally supported the use of ATIS but not TPMS because it requires action from the driver. Many stakeholders stated that TPMS offers similar benefit, but at a lower cost, so is more acceptable in the market. UPS commented that they prefer TPMS because TPMS gives the truck owner an affirmative indication that there is a tire pressure problem, so it can be fixed, whereas the ATIS does not and they are concerned that ATIS simply keeps adding tire pressure automatically, wasting energy, and the truck owner may never know it. Bendix believes that both ATIS and TPMS should be available in the market in the Phase 2 timeframe for tractors. RMA cited a NHTSA study of LD vehicles of model years 2004-2007 and found that the presence of a TPMS system led to a 55.6 percent reduction in the likelihood that a vehicle would have one tire that is significantly underinflated (25 percent or greater).
After consideration of the comments, the agencies found them persuasive and are adopting provisions in Phase 2 GEM that allow manufacturers flexibility to
The agencies also considered the comments to determine the effectiveness of TPMS and ATIS. The agencies conducted a further review of the FCMSA study cited by commenters and we interpret the results of the study to indicate that overall a combination of TPMS and ATIS in the field achieved 1.4 percent reduction. However, it did not separate the results from each technology, and therefore did not indicate that TPMS and ATIS achieved the same levels of reduction. Therefore, we set the effectiveness of TPMS slightly lower than ATIS to reflect that operators will be required to take some action to insure that the proper inflation pressure is maintained. The input values to the Phase 2 GEM are set to 1.2 percent reduction in CO
EPA proposed a definition of ATIS in 40 CFR 1037.801 to qualify it as a technology input to GEM. The proposed definition stated that “Automatic tire inflation system means a system installed on a vehicle to keep each tire inflated to within 10 percent of the target value with no operator input.” The agencies received comment about this definition. Meritor suggested adopting the historical industry definition of ATIS as “Automatic Tire Inflation Systems maintain tire pressure at a single preset level and are pneumatically or electronically activated. These systems eliminate the need to manually inflate tires.” Meritor is concerned with the proposed definition of ATIS that required the system must “keep each tire inflated to within 10 percent” to qualify as a technology input to GEM. Meritor commented that the proposed definition is not consistent with the manner in which these systems are used in practice. Meritor stated that an ATIS assures that tires will always be running at the recommended cold tire inflation pressure. The agencies are adopting changes to reflect the appropriate definition of ATIS in the final rule (see 40 CFR 1037.801).
Auxiliary power units (APU), fuel operated heaters (FOH), battery supplied air conditioning, and thermal storage systems are among the technologies available today to reduce fuel consumption and CO
The agencies did not differentiate between the various idle reduction technologies in terms of effectiveness because we adopted in Phase 1 and proposed in Phase 2 a conservative effectiveness level to recognize that some vehicles may be sold with only an AESS but may then install an idle reduction technology after it leaves the factory (76 FR 57207). The effectiveness for AESS in Phase 1 and proposed in Phase 2 was determined by comparing the idle fuel consumption of the main engine at approximately 0.8 gallons per hour to the fuel consumption of a diesel powered APU that consumes approximately 0.2 gallons per hour. This difference equates to a five percent reduction in overall CO
The agencies received a number of comments regarding “mandating APU” or “mandating AESS.” There is a misconception of the proposed Phase 2 program where stakeholders thought that the agencies were mandating use of APUs. This is incorrect. The tractor standards are performance standards. The agencies merely
The agencies received a significant number of comments about idle reduction for sleeper cabs, including recommendations to the agencies to assess the emission reduction for a variety of idle reduction technologies instead of just a tamper-proof AESS. ATA, NADA, and others commented that fleets have a variety of choices available in providing the driver power and comfort in-lieu of idling including use of APUs, FOHs, stop-start (main engine turns on only to recharge the battery after several hours), shore power, battery stand-by, stand-alone anti-idling infrastructure establishments, slip-seat operations, and hotel accommodations. Convoy Solutions stated that IdleAir's electrified parking spaces are an important bridge technology to more electrified solutions. IdleAir commented it may be possible to recognize off board behavior at the OEM level as a buyer of a new truck could enter into a contract with an EPS provider prior to accepting delivery. ATA and First Industries support efficiency credits for idling reduction options installed by fleets either at the OEM point-of-sale or installed in the after-market.
The agencies also received comments regarding the level of effectiveness of idle reduction technologies. ICCT found in their workshop that opportunities exist for line haul tractor idle reduction improvements that could lead to a four to seven percent improvement in fuel consumption.
The agencies also received a significant number of comments about idle reduction encouraging the agencies to consider recognizing adjustable AESS instead of only a tamper-proof AESS. ATA commented that most fleets already purchase “programmable” idle shutdown timers to limit idling due to the national patchwork of anti-idling laws currently in place. ATA continued to say that these timers are typically set for a given period of time throughout the initial fleet's ownership period. ATA also stated as witnessed under Phase I, fleets are unwilling to purchase hard-programmed, tamper-proof AESS given their need for flexibility regarding their resale of used equipment on the secondary market. Caterpillar also noted that fleets do not purchase tamper-resistant automatic engine shutdown systems; therefore, AESS should not be part of the stringency setting, unless the agencies also consider programmable versions of AESS. PACCAR, Volvo and EMA request the agencies to consider partial credit for AESS that are programmed to a 5-minute or sooner shutdown but are not tamper-resistant to changes by an owner. Daimler and Navistar also commented that the agencies should consider adjustable AESS as a technology input to GEM. Daimler found that less than one percent of the adjustable AESS systems set at or below 5 minutes that were installed in customer tractors were deactivated or reprogrammed to a value longer than 5 minutes. PACCAR viewed the proposed tamper-proof AESS for 1.259 million miles as unrealistic and not reflecting current market conditions.
While the agencies do not necessarily believe that customer reluctance in the initial years of Phase 1 should be considered insurmountable, we do agree with commenters that the agencies should allow adjustable AESS to be a technology input to GEM and should differentiate effectiveness based on the idle reduction technology installed by the tractor manufacturer. We will still apply the Phase 1 requirement that the AESS be programmed to 5 minutes or less at the factory to qualify as a technology input in GEM (see 40 CFR 1037.660), but for Phase 2 will allow a variety of both tamper-proof and adjustable systems to qualify for some reduction (
The agencies developed effectiveness levels for the extended idle technologies from literature, SmartWay work, and the 2010 NAS report. The agencies also reviewed the NACFE report on programmable engine parameters which included a fleet survey on how often the fleets change programmable parameters, such as automatic engine shutdown timers.
In addition to extended idling (or hoteling) by sleeper cabs, the agencies discussed work day idle by day cabs in the Phase 2 NPRM. 80 FR 40217. Day cab tractors often idle while cargo is loaded or unloaded, as well as during the frequent stops that are inherent with driving in urban traffic conditions near cargo destinations. Prior to issuing the Phase 2 NPRM, the agencies reviewed literature to quantify the amount of idling which is conducted outside of hoteling operations. One study, conducted by Argonne National Laboratory, identified several different types of trucks which might idle for extended amounts of time during the work day.
The agencies received a significant number of comments regarding day cab idle reduction. CARB commented that the agencies should include idle reduction technologies for day cabs, similar to the proposed vocational vehicle approach. CARB stated that even if the first owners do not see significant emission reductions, many of the day cab tractors are used in port and drayage applications in their second life where they would see significant reductions. CARB suggested that the GEM composite weighting factor for idle should be between 5 and 10 percent. Bendix would like to see the vocational vehicle idle reduction approach extended to day cab tractors based on their data which found that there are many applications of day cab tractors that spend a significant portion of their day's drive time at idle, especially pick-up and delivery type applications and a growing number of fleets that run hub and spoke type operations. MEMA supported extending neutral idle and stop-start technologies to day cab tractors. MEMA recommends that the agencies set the effectiveness of day cabs idle reduction technologies at a value equal to 35 percent of the effectiveness associated with a comparable technology in a Class 8 sleeper cab. Allison stated that agencies should include automatic neutral in all tractors. Allison stated that automatic neutral is standard with the Allison TC10 and is available with the Allison 3000 and 4000 Series transmissions.
Daimler commented that they have not validated that stop-start strategies are viable for Class 7 and 8 applications and considers it premature for the agencies to project that stop-start strategies are viable for this class of engines. Daimler stated that lubrication of critical bearing surfaces is lacking or severely compromised during engine start up due to the lack of lubricating oil pressure and this lack of lubrication leads to metal to metal contact, wear, and ultimately failure. In addition, Daimler commented that firing pressures inherent to compression ignition engines further exacerbate wear as compared to, for example, spark ignition engines where stop-start technology is being increasingly applied. Daimler also stated that these known problems, coupled with the extremely long million mile plus service life expectations for this heavier class of heavy-duty engines, together pose a development challenge that is significantly more challenging than that posed to spark ignition engines in passenger cars. Daimler further stated that heat soak of temperature critical parts and temporary disruption of their lubrication/cooling systems will have to be understood and possible degradations handled through modifications at either component or system basis, the extent of which is not yet fully quantified. Daimler also stated that similarly, on the turbocharger side, the larger speed swings will shorten turbocharger wheel life, which is increasingly challenged in vocational applications that are characteristically more transient as compared to the relatively steady operation nature of line haul.
The agencies considered the comments, both supporting and raising concerns over idle reduction in day cabs. The agencies determined that neutral idle for automatic transmissions is an appropriate technology for use in tractors. Therefore, the agencies are adopting provisions in Phase 2 to recognize neutral-idle in automatic transmissions as an input to GEM. Our analysis shows that neutral idle effectiveness is approximately 0.8 to one percent over the composite day cab tractor cycles, as shown in RIA Chapter 2.8.2.6.2. The agencies will also include neutral idle as a GEM input for sleeper cabs, though the effectiveness is very low. The agencies are predicating the standards for day cabs based on a technology package that includes neutral idle.
In terms of stop-start technologies in tractors, the agencies are not including it as a technology input to GEM because we believe the technology, as applied to tractors, needs further development. If this technology is developed in the future for tractors, then manufacturers may consider applying for off-cycle technology credits. Since the agencies are not predicating the Phase 2 standards on adoption of start-stop technologies, the agencies are also not including this technology as a GEM input.
As discussed in the 2010 NAS report, automatic (AT) and automated manual transmissions (AMT) may offer the ability to improve vehicle fuel consumption by optimizing gear selection compared to an average driver.
The benefits for automated manual, automatic, and dual clutch transmissions were developed from literature, from simulation modeling conducted by Southwest Research Institute, and powertrain testing conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The proposed Phase 2 benefit of these transmissions in GEM was set at a two percent improvement over a manual transmission due to the automation of the gear shifting. 80 FR 40217.
Allison Transmission commented that their real world studies indicate that automatic transmissions perform as well or better than AMTs or DCTs in terms of GHG and fuel efficiency impact. Allison commented that their ATs can exceed the 2 percent level estimated at proposal, but believe it is a reasonable level to apply this level of effectiveness for ATs and AMTs. Allison stated that automatic transmissions in tractors have neutral at stop capability, first gear lockup operation, load-based and grade-based shift algorithms and acceleration rate management that contribute to the overall fuel efficiency of ATs in tractors. Allison also commented that although DCTs should logically perform better than the MT baseline, there was no record information to support that assumption. Volvo commented that fuel consumption with their I-Shift DCT is the same as the I-Shift AMT. PACCAR recommends that the agencies take a more detailed approach to assessing transmission advances and revise the
UCS commented that as much as 1.3 to 2.0 percent savings from tractor-trailers could be added to the proposed stringency to reflect the true potential from tractor-trailers from powertrain optimization, particularly since every major manufacturer already offers at least one “integrated powertrain” option in its long-haul fleet. ICCT referred to two studies related to tractor-trailer technologies in their comments.
The agencies' assessment of the comments is that Allison, ICCT, and Volvo support the proposed two percent effectiveness for AT and AMT transmission types. In addition, the agencies reviewed the NACFE report on electronically controlled transmissions (AT, AMT, and DCT).
The benefit of the AMT's automatic shifting compared to a manual transmission is recognized in Phase 2 GEM by simulating the MT as an AMT and increasing the emission results from the simulation by two percent. For ATs, the agencies developed the default automatic transmission inputs to GEM to represent a typical heavy-duty automatic transmission, which is less efficient than the TC10 (the transmission tested at Oak Ridge National Lab). The agencies selected more conservative default transmission losses in GEM so that we would not provide a false efficiency improvement for the less efficient automatic transmissions that exist in the market today. Under the regulations in this rulemaking, manufacturers that certify using the TC10 transmission would need to either conduct the optional transmission gear efficiency testing or powertrain testing to recognize the effectiveness of this type of automatic transmission in GEM. In our technology packages developed to set the Phase 2 standard stringencies, the agencies used a two percent effectiveness for automatic transmissions with neutral idle under the assumption that either powertrain or transmission gear efficiency tests would be conducted. The compliance costs for this type of testing (which crosses over both the vocational and tractor programs) are included as noted in RIA Chapter 7.2.1.2.
The agencies agree with PACCAR that we should consider future transmission advances. There are three certification pathways for manufacturers to assess benefits of future transmissions; that is, to generate a value reflecting greater improvement than the two percent GEM input. The first is an optional powertrain test (40 CFR 1037.550), the second is an optional transmission efficiency test (40 CFR 1037.565), and the third is off-cycle credits (40 CFR 1037.610).
The agencies acknowledge UCS's comment about increasing the stringency of the tractor program due to the opportunity to further improve powertrain optimization through powertrain testing. For the Phase 2 final rule, we have made several changes that capture much of the improvement potential highlighted by UCS. First, the required use of a cycle average fuel map in lieu of a steady state fuel map for evaluating the transient cycle in GEM will recognize improvements to transient fuel control of the engine. The agencies are including the impact of improved transient fuel control in the engine fuel maps used to derive the final standards. Second, the optional transmission efficiency test will recognize the benefits of improved gear efficiencies. The agencies have built some improvements in transmission gear efficiency into the technology package used to derive the final standards. This leaves only the optimization of the transmission shift strategy, which would need to be captured on a powertrain test. The agencies believe that the opportunity of shift strategy optimization is less for tractors than for other types of vocational vehicles because a significant portion of the tractor drive cycles are at highway speeds with limited transmission shifting. Therefore, we have not included the powertrain optimization portion only recognized through powertrain testing into the standard setting for the final rule.
The agencies also proposed standards that considered the efficiency benefit of transmissions that operate with top gear direct drive instead of overdrive. In the proposal, we estimated that direct drive had two percent higher gear efficiency than an overdrive gear. 80 FR 40229. The benefit of direct drive was recognized through the transmission gear ratio inputs to GEM. Direct drive leads to greater reductions of CO
The agencies are also adopting in Phase 2 an optional transmission efficiency test (40 CFR 1037.565) for generating an input to GEM that overrides the default efficiency of each gear based on the results of the test. Although optional, the transmission efficiency test will allow manufacturers to reduce the CO
Lubrizol commented that high performing lubricants should play a role in Phase 2. Lubrizol also supports the axle test procedures to further recognize axle efficiency improvements. PACCAR recommended eliminating the rear axle efficiency test and provide credits based on calculated values.
The agencies' assessment of axle improvements found that axles built in the Phase 2 timeline could be 2 percent more efficient than a 2017 baseline axle.
Meritor stated in their comments that their internal testing and real world testing supported the 2.5 percent efficiency proposed by the agencies for 6x2 axles. Meritor suggested the need to better define a “disengageable tandem” when the agencies discussed what we called axle disconnect in the NPRM. Meritor recommends that a fuel efficiency benefit of 2.0 percent be assigned to the disengageable tandem for the 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles to account for the more limited use.
ICCT referred to two studies related to tractor-trailer technologies in their comments.
The agencies' assessments of these technologies show that the reductions are in the range of two to three percent. For the final rule, the agencies are simulating 6x2, 4x2, and disengageable axles within GEM based on the manufacturer input of the axle configuration instead of providing a fixed value for the reduction. This approach is more technically sound because it will take into account future changes in axle efficiency. See RIA
Navistar commented that the proposed “electrically powered pumps for engine cooling” be revised to include “electronically controlled variable speed coolant pumps” to align with the Preamble descriptions and technology under development as part of the SuperTruck program. Navistar commented that shifting to fully electronic pump creates reliability concerns and adds additional complexity due to the size of the necessary pumps (2+ horsepower) and that the increased power load will require a larger alternator and upgraded wiring. Navistar suggested that in addition to a fully electric pump, Dual Displacement power steering should also be included as an accessory improvement because this technology reduces parasitic loads by applying power proportional to steering demand. ZF TRW Commercial Steering commented that they are developing a power steering pump that uses a secondary chamber deactivation during highway cruise operations that reduce the pump drive torque by 30 to 40 percent. Navistar also commented that the effectiveness for an electrified air conditioning compressor is understated in the NPRM. Navistar's estimates are closer to 1.5 percent when in use which will be during the use of air conditioning and during defrost; therefore, the effective benefit should be one percent. Daimler commented that the proposed high efficiency air conditioning effectiveness should be refined and that other opportunities to reduce losses, such as blend air systems, should be considered. In response to the comments, the agencies evaluated a set of accessories that can be designed to reduce accessory losses. Due to the complexity in determining what qualifies as an efficient accessory, we are maintaining the proposed language for accessories for tractors which provides defined effectiveness values for only electric air conditioning compressors and electric power steering pumps and coolant pumps. Manufacturers have the option to apply for off-cycle credits for the other types and designs of high efficiency accessories.
Based on literature information, intelligent controls such as predictive cruise control will reduce CO
Reductions in vehicle mass lower fuel consumption and GHG emissions by decreasing the overall vehicle mass that is moved down the road. Weight reductions also increase vehicle payload capability which can allow additional tons to be carried by fewer trucks consuming less fuel and producing
In Phase 1, we reflected mass reductions for specific technology substitutions (
Fuel consumption and GHG emissions increase proportional to the square of vehicle speed. Therefore, lowering vehicle speeds can significantly reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions. A vehicle speed limiter (VSL), which limits the vehicle's maximum speed, is another technology option for compliance that is already utilized today by some fleets (though the typical maximum speed setting is often higher than 65 mph).
CARB recommended not giving any credit for VSLs because the available data do not fully support whether VSLs result in real-world fuel consumption and GHG reductions. CARB referenced Oakridge National Laboratory's Transportation Energy Data Book, Table 5.11 that shows CO
The agencies conducted in-use tractor testing at different speeds and in turn used this data to validate the GEM simulations of VSL, as discussed in more detail in RIA Chapter 4. The agencies are confident that GEM appropriately recognizes the impact of VSL on CO
In Phase 2, hybrid powertrains are generally considered a conventional rather than innovative technology, especially for vocational vehicles. However, hybrid powertrain development in Class 7 and 8 tractors has been limited to a few manufacturer demonstration vehicles to date. One of the key benefit opportunities for fuel consumption reduction with hybrids is less fuel consumption when a vehicle is idling, but the standard is already premised on use of extended idle reduction so use of hybrid technology will duplicate many of the same emission reductions attributable to extended idle reduction. NAS estimated that hybrid systems would cost approximately $25,000 per tractor in the 2015 through the 2020 time frame and provide a potential fuel consumption reduction of ten percent, of which six percent is idle reduction that can be achieved (less expensively) through the use of other idle reduction technologies.
In addition to the high cost and limited utility of hybrids for many tractor drive cycles noted above, the agencies believe that hybrid powertrains systems for tractors may not be sufficiently developed and the necessary manufacturing capacity put in place to base a standard on any significant volume of hybrid tractors. Unlike hybrids for vocational vehicles and light-duty vehicles, the agencies are not aware of any full hybrid systems currently developed for long haul tractor applications. To date, hybrid systems for tractors have been primarily focused on extended idle shutdown technologies and not on the broader energy storage and recovery systems necessary to achieve reductions over typical tractor drive cycles. The Phase 2 sleeper cab tractor standards instead reflect the potential for extended idle shutdown technologies. Further, as highlighted by the 2010 NAS report, the agencies do believe that full hybrid powertrains may have the potential in the longer term to provide significant improvements in long haul tractor fuel efficiency and to greenhouse gas emission reductions. With respect to day cab tractors, the types of tractors that would receive the benefit from hybrid powertrains would be those such as beverage delivery tractors which could be treated as vocational vehicles through the Special Purpose Tractor provisions (40 CFR 1037.630).
Several stakeholders commented on hybrid powertrain development for tractor applications. Allison agreed with the agencies' overall assessment of hybrids in tractors, as discussed in the
After considering the comments, the agencies are continuing the Phase 1 approach of not including hybrid powertrains in our feasibility analysis for Phase 2. Because the technology for tractor applications is still under development we cannot confidently assess the effectiveness of this technology at this point in time. In addition, due to the high cost, limited benefit during highway driving, and lacking any existing systems or manufacturing base, we cannot conclude that such technology will be available for tractors in the 2021-2027 timeframe. However, manufacturers will be able to use powertrain testing to capture the performance of a hybrid system in GEM if systems are developed in the Phase 2 timeframe, so this technology remains a potential compliance option (without requiring an off-cycle demonstration).
The 2010 NAS report noted many operational opportunities to reduce fuel consumption, such as driver training and route optimization. The agencies have included discussion of several of these strategies in RIA Chapter 2, but are not using these approaches or technologies in the Phase 2 standard setting process. The agencies are looking to other resources, such as EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership and regulations that could potentially be promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, to continue to encourage the development and utilization of these approaches. In addition, the agencies have also declined to base standard stringencies on technologies which are largely to chiefly driver-dependent, and evaluate such potential improvements through the off-cycle credit mechanism. See,
The agencies requested comment regarding the treatment of Phase 1 credits, as discussed in Section I.C.1.b. See 80 FR 40251. As examples, the agencies discussed limiting the use of Phase 1 credits in Phase 2 and factoring credit balances into the 2021 standards. Daimler commented that allowing Phase 1 credits in Phase 2 is necessary to smooth the transition into a new program that is very complex and that HD manufacturers cannot change over an entire product portfolio at one time. The agencies evaluated the status of Phase 1 credit balances in 2015 by sector. For tractors, we found that manufacturers are generating significant credits, and that it appears that many of the credits result from their use of an optional provision for calculating aerodynamic drag. However, we also believe that manufacturers will generate fewer credits in MY 2017 and later when the final Phase 1 standards begin. Still, the agencies believe that manufacturers will have significant credit balances available to them for MYs 2021-2023, and that much of these balances would be the result of the test procedure provisions rather than pull ahead of any technology. Based on confidential product plans for MYs 2017 and later, we expect this total windfall amount to be three percent of the MY 2021 standards or more. Therefore, the agencies are factoring in a total credit amount equivalent to this three percent credit (
Table III-10 describes the performance levels for the range of Class 7 and 8 tractor vehicle technologies.
As explained above, tractor manufacturers often introduce major product changes together, as a package. In this manner the manufacturers can optimize their available resources, including engineering, development, manufacturing and marketing activities to create a product with multiple new features. Since Phase 1 began, this approach also has allowed manufacturers to consolidate testing and certification requirements. In addition, manufacturers recognize that a truck design will need to remain competitive over the intended life of the design and meet future regulatory requirements. In some limited cases, manufacturers may implement an individual technology outside of a vehicle's redesign cycle.
With respect to the levels of technology adoption used to develop the HD Phase 2 standards, NHTSA and EPA established technology adoption constraints. The first type of constraint was established based on the application of fuel consumption and CO
A second type of constraint was applied to most other technologies and limited their adoption based on factors reflecting the real world operating conditions that some combination tractors encounter (so that the standards are not based on use of technologies which do not provide in-use benefit). This second type of constraint was applied to the aerodynamic, tire, powertrain, vehicle speed limiter technologies, and other technologies. NHTSA and EPA believe that within each of these individual vehicle categories there are particular applications where the use of the identified technologies will be either ineffective or not technically feasible. For example, the agencies are not predicating these standards on the use of full aerodynamic vehicle treatments on 100 percent of tractors because we know that in some applications (for example, gravel trucks engaged in local delivery) the added weight of the aerodynamic technologies will increase fuel consumption and hence CO
In the development of the standards, we generally focused initially on what technology could be adopted in 2027 MY after ten years of lead time, consistent with the general principles discussed above. Based on our detailed discussions with manufacturers and technology suppliers, we can project that the vast majority of technologies will be fully developed and in widespread use by 2027 MY. (One notable exception to this is Rankine cycle waste heat recovery, which we project to be less widespread in 2027). Having identified what could be achieved in 2027 MY, we projected technology steps for 2021 MY and 2024 MY to reflect the gradual development and deployment of these technologies.
This is also consistent with how manufacturers will likely approach complying with these standards. In general, we would expect a manufacturer to first identify technology packages that would allow them to meet the 2027 MY standards, then to structure a development plan to make steady progress toward the 2027 MY standards. To some extent, it was easier to project the technology for 2027 MY, because it represents a maximum feasible adoption of most technologies. The agencies' projections for MYs 2021 and 2024 are less certain because they reflect choices manufacturers would likely make to reach the 2027 levels. As such, we have more confidence that the levels of our MYs 2021 and 2024 standards are appropriate than we do that each manufacturer will follow our specific technology development path in 2021 MY or 2024 MY.
Table III-13, Table III-14, and Table III-15 specify the adoption rates that EPA and NHTSA used to develop these standards.
The impact of aerodynamics on a tractor-trailer's efficiency increases with vehicle speed. Therefore, the usage pattern of the vehicle will determine the benefit of various aerodynamic technologies. Sleeper cabs are often used in line haul applications and drive the majority of their miles on the highway travelling at speeds greater than 55 mph. The industry has focused aerodynamic technology development, including SmartWay tractors, on these types of trucks. Therefore the agencies proposed standards that reflect the most aggressive aerodynamic technology application rates to this regulatory subcategory, along with the high roof day cabs. 80 FR 40227. All of the major manufacturers today offer at least one SmartWay sleeper cab tractor model, which is represented as Bin III aerodynamic performance. The agencies requested comment on the proposed aerodynamic assessment.
The agencies received significant comment from the manufacturers regarding our assessment of aerodynamics in the most aerodynamic bins for high roof sleeper cabs. EMA commented that the assumptions that Class 7 and Class 8 high-roof vehicles will achieve a 35 percent penetration rate into Bin V, a 20 percent penetration rate into Bin VI, and a 5 percent penetration rate into Bin VII by 2027 are over-stated and unreasonable. Volvo and EMA commented that it is impossible to achieve the targeted aerodynamic drag reductions that ultimately are predicated on 60 percent of tractors achieving aero bins V, VI, and VII. According to their analysis, the manufacturers stated that it is not possible to achieve these low drag levels with any tractor design coupled to the non-aerodynamic test trailer prescribed in this proposal. Caterpillar commented that given the proposed aerodynamic testing procedures, the Phase 2 test trailer, and the lack of any audit margin for these highly variable test processes, it is infeasible to design tractors that can achieve bin V, and so would not be able to achieve bins VI and VII. Caterpillar also stated that none of the vehicles developed within the Department of Energy's SuperTruck program are capable of meeting the proposed aerodynamic targets.
In Phase 1, the agencies determined the stringency of the tractor standards through the use of a mix of aerodynamic bins in the technology packages. For example, we included 10 percent Bin II, 70 percent Bin III, and 20 percent Bin IV in the high roof sleeper cab tractor standard. The weighted average aerodynamic performance of this technology package is equivalent to Bin III. 76 FR 57211. In consideration of the comments, the agencies have adjusted the aerodynamic adoption rate for Class 8 high roof sleeper cabs used to set the final standards in 2021, 2024, and 2027 MYs (
The agencies phased-in the aerodynamic technology adoption rates within the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can gradually introduce these technologies. The changes required for Bin V performance reflect the kinds of improvements projected in the Department of Energy's SuperTruck program. That program has demonstrated tractor-trailers in 2015 with significant aerodynamic technologies. For the final rule, the agencies are projecting that truck manufacturers will be able to begin implementing some of these aerodynamic technologies on high roof tractors as early as 2021 MY on a limited scale. For example, in the 2021 MY technology package, the agencies have assumed that 10 percent of high roof sleeper cabs will have aerodynamics better than today's best tractors. This phase-in structure is consistent with the normal manner in which manufacturers introduce new technology to manage limited research and development budgets as well as to allow them to work with fleets to fully evaluate in-use reliability before a technology is applied fleet-wide. The agencies believe the phase-in schedule will allow manufacturers to complete these normal processes. Overall, while the agencies are now projecting slightly less benefit from aerodynamic improvements than we did in the NPRM, the actual aerodynamic
The agencies also received comment regarding our aerodynamic assessment of the other tractor subcategories. Daimler commented that due to their shorter length, day cabs are more difficult to make aerodynamic than sleeper cabs, and that the bin boundaries and adoption rates should reflect this. EMA commented that the assumed aerodynamic performance improvements to be achieved by day cab and mid and low-roof vehicles are over-estimated by at least one bin. Daimler commented that the agencies should adjust the average bin down in recognition of the fact that mid/low-roof vehicles should have lower penetration rates of aerodynamic vehicles to reflect market needs, reflecting these vehicles' use in rough environments or in hauling non-aerodynamic trailers.
Aerodynamic improvements through new tractor designs and the development of new aerodynamic components is an inherently slow and iterative process. The agencies recognize that there are tractor applications that require on/off-road capability and other truck functions which restrict the type of aerodynamic equipment applicable. We also recognize that these types of trucks spend less time at highway speeds where aerodynamic technologies have the greatest benefit. The 2002 VIUS data ranks trucks by major use.
For the tire manufacturers to further reduce tire rolling resistance, the manufacturers must consider several performance criteria that affect tire selection. The characteristics of a tire also influence durability, traction control, vehicle handling, comfort, and retreadability. A single performance parameter can easily be enhanced, but an optimal balance of all the criteria will require improvements in materials and tread design at a higher cost, as estimated by the agencies. Tire design requires balancing performance, since changes in design may change different performance characteristics in opposing directions. Similar to the discussion regarding lesser aerodynamic technology application in tractor segments other than sleeper cab high roof, the agencies believe that the proposed standards should not be premised on 100 percent application of Level 3 tires in all tractor segments given the potential interference with vehicle utility that could result. 80 FR 40223.
Several stakeholders commented about the level of rolling resistance used in setting the proposed level of tractor stringencies because the agencies used a single level for all tractor subcategories. ATA, First Industries, National Association of Manufacturers, PACCAR, Navistar and Daimler commented that the agencies erred by using the same rolling resistance for all types of day and sleeper cab tractors. They stated that the tire stringency levels should account for fleet and class variations and different duty-cycle needs. Caterpillar stated that tires need to meet demands of all conditions, including
For the final rulemaking, the agencies evaluated the tire rolling resistance levels in the Phase 1 certification data.
In our analysis of the Phase 1 certification data, we found that the drive tires on low and mid roof sleeper cab tractors on average had 10 to 17 percent higher rolling resistance than the high roof sleeper cabs. But we found only a minor difference in rolling resistance of the steer tires between the tractor subcategories. Based on comments received and further consideration of our own analysis of the difference in tire rolling resistance levels that exist today in the certification data, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards using a technology pathway that utilizes higher rolling resistance levels for low and mid roof tractors than the levels used to set the high roof tractor standards. This is also consistent with the approach that we took in setting the Phase 1 tractor standards. 76 FR 57211. In addition, the final rule reflects a reduction in Level 3 adoption rates for low and mid roof tractors from 25 percent in MY 2027 used at proposal (80 FR 40227) to zero percent adoption rate. The technology packages developed for the low and mid roof tractors used to determine the stringency of the MY 2027 standards in the final rule do not include any adoption rate of Level 3 drive tires to recognize the special needs of these applications, consistent with the comments noted above raising concerns about applications that limit the use of low rolling resistance tires.
The agencies phased-in the low rolling resistance tire adoption rates within the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021 and 2024 standards so that manufacturers can gradually introduce these technologies. In addition, the levels of rolling resistance used in all of the technology packages are achievable with either dual or wide based single tires, so the agencies are not forcing one technology over another. The adoption rates for the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021, 2024, and 2027 standards for each tractor subcategory are shown in Table III-13, Table III-14, and Table III-15.
The agencies used a 20 percent adoption rate of ATIS in MY 2021 and a 40 percent adoption rate in setting the proposed Phase 2 MY 2024 and 2027 tractor standards. 80 FR 40227.
ATA commented that as of 2012, roughly one percent of tractors used ATIS. Caterpillar and First Industries stated that the agencies should not force ATIS into the market by assuming any penetration rate. EMA commented that the assumption that 40 percent of all Class 7 and 8 vehicles will utilize automated tire inflation systems lacked support and failed to account for the prevalence of tire inflation monitoring systems. NADA stated that they can support a 40 percent tractor adoption rate for MY 2027 if TPMS are considered. Volvo commented that given the poor reliability of past ATIS systems, they are skeptical of supplier's claims of current or future reliability improvements to these systems. Volvo stated that fleets are even more skeptical than truck OEMs, as an ATIS air leak results in increased fuel consumption due to a compressor cycling more frequently and also in potentially significant downtime of the vehicle. Volvo also commented that to incentivize truck operators to maintain tire pressure on vehicles equipped with a TPMS system, fleets have the ability to monitor fuel consumption remotely, including the ability to identify causes for increased fuel consumption which would be expected to motivate drivers to properly maintain tire pressure on TPMS equipped vehicles.
The agencies find the comments related to a greater acceptance of TPMS in the tractor market to be persuasive. However, available information indicates that it is feasible to utilize either TPMS or ATIS to reduce the prevalence on underinflated tires in-use on all tractors. As a result, we are finalizing tractor standards that are predicated on the performance of a mix of TPMS and ATIS adoption rates in all tractor subcategories. The agencies are
Idle reduction technologies provide significant reductions in fuel consumption and CO
We used an overall 90 percent adoption rate of tamper-proof AESS for Class 8 sleeper cabs in setting the proposed MY 2024 and 2027 standards. Id. The agencies stated in the Phase 2 NPRM that we were unaware of reasons why AESS with extended idle reduction technologies could not be applied to this high fraction of tractors with a sleeper cab, except those deemed a vocational tractor, in the available lead time.
EMA, Volvo, Daimler, and Navistar commented that the agencies should consider that customers are not accepting the tamper-proof AESS in Phase 1, therefore the adoption rates included in the proposal were too high and that resale concerns remain a significant issue for customers. PACCAR and EMA commented that the proposed 90 percent penetration rate of tamper-proof AESS is unachievable. Many comments also focused on the need for adjustable AESS. OOIDA commented that 90 percent APU adoption is unreasonable and that the 400 pound weight exemption for APUs is not provided in California, Washington DC, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. OOIDA also raised concerns about situations where an AESS could have negative consequences—such as team drivers where the co-driver was left asleep in the berth while the truck was shut off, or drivers with certain medical conditions, or pets.
The agencies find the comments regarding the concerns for using 90 percent adoption rates of tamper-proof AESS to be persuasive. For the final rule, the agencies developed a menu of idle reduction technologies that include both tamper-proof and adjustable AESS (as discussed in Section III.D.1.b) that are recognized at different levels of effectiveness in GEM. As discussed in the discussion of tractor baselines (Section III.D.1.a), the latest NACFE confidence report found that 96 percent of HD vehicles are equipped with adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems.
The agencies' proposed standards included a 55, 80, and 90 percent adoption rate of automatic, automated manual, and dual clutch transmissions in MYs 2021, 2024, and 2027 respectively. 80 FR 40225-7. The agencies did not receive any comments regarding these proposed transmission adoption rates, and have not found any other information suggesting a change in approach. Therefore, we are including the same level of adoption rates in setting the final rule standards. The MY 2021 and 2024 standards are likewise premised on the same adoption rates of these transmission technologies as at proposal.
The agencies have added neutral idle as a technology input to GEM for Phase 2 in the final rulemaking. The TC10 that was tested by the agencies for the final rule included this technology. Therefore, we projected that neutral idle would be included in all of the automatic transmissions and therefore the adoption rates of neutral idle match the adoption rates of the automatic transmission in each of the MYs.
Transmissions with direct drive as the top gear and numerically lower axles are
The agencies received comments supporting establishing a transmission efficiency test that measures the efficiency of each transmission gear and could be input into GEM. In the final rule, the agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards that project that 20, 40, and 70 percent of the AMT and DCT transmissions will be tested and achieve a fuel consumption and CO
The adoption rates for the technology packages used to determine the MY 2021, 2024, and 2027 standards for each tractor subcategory are shown in Table III-13, Table III-14, and Table III-15.
The agencies proposed to include lower final drive ratios in setting the Phase 2 standards to account for engine downspeeding. In the NPRM, we used a transmission top gear ratio of 0.73 and baseline drive axle ratio of 3.70 in 2017 going down to a rear axle ratio of 3.55 in 2021 MY, 3.36 in 2024 MY, and 3.20 in 2027 MY. 80 FR 40228-30.
UCS commented that downspeeding was only partially captured as proposed. The agencies also received additional information from vehicle manufacturers and axle manufacturers that we believe supports using lower numerical drive axle ratios in setting the final Phase 2 standards for sleeper cabs that spend more time on the highway than day cabs, directionally consistent with the UCS comment. For the final rules, the agencies have used 3.70 in the baseline and 3.16 for sleeper cabs and 3.21 for day cabs in MY 2027 to account for continued downspeeding opportunities. The final drive ratios used for setting the other model years are shown in Table III-11. These values represent the “average” tractor in each of the MYs, but there will be a range of final drive ratios that contain more aggressive engine downspeeding on some tractors and less aggressive on others.
The agencies' proposed standards included 6x2 axle adoption rates in high roof tractors of 20 percent in 2021 MY and 60 percent in MYs 2024 and 2027. Because 6x2 axle configurations could raise concerns of traction, the agencies proposed standards that reflected lower adoption rates of 6x2 axles in low and mid roof tractors recognizing that these tractors may require some unique capabilities. The agencies proposed standards for low and mid roof tractors that included 6x2 axle adoption rates of 10 percent in MY 2021 and 20 percent in MYs 2024 and 2027. 80 FR 40225-7.
ATA and others commented that limitations to a high penetration rate of 6x2 axles include curb cuts, other uneven terrain features that could expose the truck to traction issues, lower residual values, traction issues, driver dissatisfaction, tire wear, and the legality of their use. The commenters stated that recent surveys indicate current market penetration rates of new line-haul 6x2 tractor sales are only in the range of two percent, according to a NACFE confidence report. The commenters also stated that while recent improvements in traction control systems can automatically shift weight for short periods of time from the non-driving axle to the driving axle during low-traction events, concerns remain over the impacts to highways caused by such shifting of weight between axles. EMA, ATA, OOIDA, Volvo, Daimler, PACCAR, First Industries, National Association of Manufacturers, Caterpillar, and others discussed that 6x2 axles are not legal in all U.S. states and Canadian provinces. Caterpillar and Daimler also stated the agencies should not assume more than 5 percent penetration rates of 6x2 through 2027. EMA forecasts a 6x2 penetration rate of less than 5 percent.
Upon further consideration, the agencies have reduced the adoption rate of 6x2 axles and projected a 30 percent adoption rate in the technology package used to determine the Phase 2 2027 MY standards. The 2021 MY standards include an adoption rate of 15 percent and the 2024 MY standards include an adoption rate of 25 percent 6x2 axles. This adoption rate represents a combination of liftable 6x2 axles (which as noted in ATA's comments are allowed in all states but Utah, and Utah is expected to revise their law) and 4x2 axles. In addition, it is worth recognizing that state regulations related to 6x2 axles could change significantly
In the NPRM, the agencies projected that 20 percent of 2021 MY and 40 percent of the 2024 and 2027 MY axles would use low friction axle lubricants. 80 FR 40225-7. In the final rule, we are requiring that manufacturers conduct an axle efficiency test if they want to include the benefit of low friction lubricant or other axle design improvements when certifying in GEM. The axle efficiency test will be optional, but will allow manufacturers to reduce CO
In the NPRM, the agencies projected adoption rates as show in Table III-12. 80 FR 40227. The agencies are adopting the same level of adoption rates for setting the final Phase 2 standards because we did not receive any comments or new data to support a change in the adoption rates used in the proposal.
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed to allow manufacturers to use tractor weight reduction to comply with the standards. 80 FR 40223. A number of organizations commented generally in favor of the inclusion of light weight components for compliance, including the Aluminum Association, Meritor, American Die Casting Association, and the American Chemistry Council saying light-weight materials are durable and their use in heavy-duty vehicles can reduce weight and fuel consumption.
Unlike in HD Phase 1, the agencies proposed the 2021 through 2027 model year tractor standards without using weight reduction as a technology to demonstrate the feasibility of the standards. The ICCT stated that the agencies should include light weight components in setting the stringency of the standards, citing an ICCT tractor and trailer study showing specific light weight benefits for tractor components. Meritor argued that weight reduction should not be included in setting stringency, given the high cost to benefit ratio for weight reduction.
The agencies view weight reduction as a technology with a high cost that offers a small benefit in the tractor sector. For example, our estimate of a 400 pound weight reduction will cost $2,050 (2012$) in 2021 MY, but offers a 0.3 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO
Consistent with Phase 1, we proposed to continue the approach where vehicle speed limiters may be used as a technology to meet the Phase 2 standard. See 80 FR 40224. In setting the Phase 2 proposed standard, however, we assumed a zero percent adoption rate of vehicle speed limiters. Although we expect there will be some use of VSL, currently it is used when the fleet involved decides it is feasible and practicable and increases the overall efficiency of the freight system for that fleet operator. To date, the compliance data provided by manufacturers indicate that none of the tractor configurations include a tamper-proof VSL setting less than 65 mph.
At this point the agencies are not in a position to determine in how many additional situations use of a VSL will result in similar benefits to overall efficiency or how many customers will be willing to accept a tamper-proof VSL setting. Although we believe vehicle speed limiters are a simple, easy to implement, and inexpensive technology, we want to leave the use of vehicle speed limiters to the truck purchaser. In doing so, we are providing another means of meeting the standard that can lower compliance costs and provide a more optimal vehicle solution for some truck fleets or owners. For example, a local beverage distributor may operate trucks in a distribution network of primarily local roads. Under those conditions, aerodynamic fairings used to reduce aerodynamic drag provide little benefit due to the low vehicle speed while adding additional mass to the vehicle. A vehicle manufacturer could choose to install a VSL set at an optimized speed for its intended application and use this technology to assist in complying with our program all at a lower cost to the ultimate tractor purchaser.
We welcomed comment on whether the use of a VSL would require a fleet to deploy additional tractors, but did not receive responsive comment. ARB stated that if EPA and NHTSA decide to give credit in Phase 2 GEMs for VSLs, VSL benefit should also be reflected in the standard's stringency. Daimler supported the approach of not including VSLs in setting the stringency because of the resistance in the market to accept tamperproof VSLs. OOIDA commented that the agencies must consider the significant negative consequences of VSLs, such as safety impact from
After considering the comments, we still could not make a determination regarding the reasonableness of setting a standard based on a particular VSL adoption rate, for the same reasons articulated at proposal. Therefore, the agencies are not premising these final Phase 2 standards on use of VSL, and instead will continue to rely on the industry to select VSL when circumstances are appropriate for its use (in which case there is an input in GEM reflecting VSL efficiency).
Table III-13 through Table III-16 provide the adoption rates of each technology broken down by weight class, cab configuration, and roof height.
The agencies recognize that certain technologies used to determine the stringency of the Phase 2 tractor standards are less applicable to heavy-haul tractors. Heavy-haul tractors are not typically used in the same manner as long-haul tractors with extended highway driving, and therefore will experience less benefit from aerodynamics. Aerodynamic technologies are very effective at reducing the fuel consumption and GHG emissions of tractors, but only when traveling at highway speeds. At lower speeds, the aerodynamic technologies may have a detrimental impact due to the potential of added weight. The agencies therefore proposed not considering the use of aerodynamic technologies in the development of the Phase 2 heavy-haul tractor standards. Moreover, because aerodynamics will not play a role in the heavy-haul standards, the agencies proposed to combine all of the heavy-haul tractor cab configurations (day and sleeper) and roof heights (low, mid, and high) into a single heavy-haul tractor subcategory. We welcomed comment on this approach. 80 FR 40233.
The agencies received comments regarding the applicability of aerodynamic technologies on heavy-haul vehicles. Daimler commented that heavy-haul vehicles are designed to meet high cooling needs, therefore have large radiators and grilles, and are not designed primarily for hauling standard trailers on the highway. Daimler also stated that these vehicles are designed to operate off-road or on difficult terrain, which also limits the application of aerodynamic fairings, and that requiring aerodynamic improvements on these vehicles, may compromise the vehicles' work. EMA supported the agencies' proposed approach of not requiring the use of aerodynamic technologies as a component of the proposed Phase 2 heavy-haul tractor standards. EMA stated that those vehicles are already quite heavy (by virtue of need), are designed to meet high-cooling needs (thus having, for example, large grilles), and generally are not designed for hauling standard trailers on highways. EMA also stated that those vehicles are often designed to be capable of operation off-road or on difficult terrain. Volvo supported the addition of a heavy-haul subcategory since heavy-haul tractors require large engines and increased cooling capacity that limits aerodynamic improvements. Volvo also stated the most heavy-haul rigs have some requirement for off-road access to pick up machinery, bulk goods, and unusual loads that also inhibit aerodynamic improvements. These comments largely echo the agencies' own concerns voiced at proposal. After considering these comments, the agencies are using a technology package that does not use aerodynamic improvements in setting the Phase 2 heavy-haul tractor standards, as we proposed.
Certain powertrain and drivetrain components are also impacted during the design of a heavy-haul tractor,
We received comments from stakeholders about the application of technologies other than aerodynamics for heavy-haul tractors. Daimler commented that the low rolling resistance levels in the NPRM are overly aggressive because heavy-haul tractors require unusually high traction and stopping power. Daimler agreed with the agencies' assessment in the NPRM that did not include weight reduction because these vehicles require strong frames and axles to carry heavy loads. Volvo commented that heavy-haul tractors would not likely be able to utilize current SmartWay tires; would see no benefit from predictive cruise; sometimes utilize an auxiliary transmission for further reduction or closer ratios; and nearly all heavy-haul tractors have deeper drive axle ratios than the agencies assumed in the NPRM. After considering these comments and the information regarding the tire rolling resistance improvement opportunities, discussed in Section III.D.1.b.iii, the agencies have adjusted the adoption rate of low rolling resistance tires. Consistent with the changes made in the final rule for the adoption of low rolling resistance tires in low and mid roof tractors, the agencies did not project any adoption of Level 3 tires for heavy-haul tractors in the final rule.
Allison commented that AMTs in the NPRM receive a 1.8 percent credit in GEM for heavy-haul tractors, yet there is no similar credit for ATs. Allison commented that since ATs offer similar, if not greater, benefits, they should also receive credit and that neutral-idle recognition should be available. The final version of Phase 2 GEM treats ATs and AMTs the same for heavy-haul tractors as for the other tractors.
The agencies used the following heavy-haul tractor adoption rates for developing the final Phase 2 2021, 2024, and 2027 MY standards, as shown in Table III-16.
The agencies are also adopting in Phase 2 provisions that allow the manufacturers to meet an optional heavy Class 8 tractor standard that reflects both aerodynamic improvements, along with the powertrain requirements that go along with higher GCWR. Table III-17 reflects the adoption rates for each of the technologies for each of the subcategories in MY 2021. The technology packages closely reflect those in the primary Class 8 tractor program. The exceptions include less aggressive targets for low rolling
The agencies used the technology effectiveness inputs and technology adoption rates to develop GEM inputs to derive the HD Phase 2 fuel consumption and CO
The agencies ran GEM with a single set of vehicle inputs, as shown in Table III-22, to derive the optional standards for each subcategory of the Heavy Class 8 tractors (see Section III.C.(4)(a)).
The level of the final Phase 2 2027 model year standards, and the phase-in standards in model years 2021 and 2024 for each subcategory, is shown in Table III-23.
The level of the Phase 2 2027 model year optional Heavy Class 8 standards is shown in Table III-24.
A summary of the technology package costs is included in Table III-15 through Table III-17 for MYs 2021, 2024, and 2027, respectively, with additional details available in the RIA Chapter 2.12.
The agencies received several comments related to the APU, tire, and aerodynamic technology costs used by the agencies at proposal. As noted in Section III.C.3 above, ATA, First Industries, and Daimler commented that APU costs are substantially higher than the figures in the proposal. PACCAR commented that the cost of a diesel or battery-based APU is $8,570 to $11,263. EMA commented that the direct per-chassis cost of a diesel APU is approximately $8,500-$10,100 and approximately $11,300 for battery/electric APUs. Volvo commented that APU prices can vary between $9,500 and $11,000 depending on the type. Schneider commented that an electronic APU will have an initial cost of at least $5,000 and engine powered APUs are 2 to 3 times the electric costs.
EPA considered the comments and more closely evaluated NHTSA's contracted TetraTech cost report found the retail price of a diesel-powered APU with a DPF to be $10,000.
ATA and First Industries commented that the LRR tire costs calculations appear to be based on calculations on 1999 data indexed for inflation. Michelin's comments stated that they estimate the cost of low rolling resistance tires to be about $25 per tire. ATA commented that the industry commonly sees a 40 percent reduction in useful life and a 20 percent reduction in casing life resulting from low rolling resistance tires. ATA and First Industries commented that the LRR tire costs do not account for reduced tire life resulting in fewer retreads. Schneider commented that WBS tire costs must include additional service costs, cost of reduced tire life, and increased replacement tire costs due to recaps not available, and reduced resale value. Volvo also commented that heavy-duty fleets expect to retread tires as many as five times and have concerns that tire casing durability may be compromised with low rolling resistance tires. Volvo stressed that retreading saves cost and about two thirds of the oil required to produce a new tire.
We have estimated the cost of lower rolling resistance tires based on an estimate from TetraTech of $30 (retail, 2013$). We also have applied a “medium” complexity markup value for the more advanced low rolling resistance tires. We expect that, when replaced, the lower rolling resistance tires would be replaced by equivalent performing tires throughout the vehicle lifetime. As such, the incremental increases in costs for lower rolling resistance tires would be incurred throughout the vehicle lifetime at intervals consistent with current tire replacement intervals. A recent study conducted by ATA's Technology and Maintenance Council found through surveys of 51 fleets that low rolling resistance tires and wide base single tires lasted longer than standard tractor tires.
ATA and First Industries commented that the estimated costs of future aerodynamic devices appear low given the historical nature of the proposed changes. ATA and First Industries also commented that the agencies should describe in detail the component packages they expect to satisfy each bin level, cost breakdowns of these individual components, and how this technology will be modified over time to maintain compliance with increasingly stringency levels. The agencies included the technology cost of aerodynamic improvements, such as wheel covers and active grill shutters, in RIA Chapter 2.11.
The agencies also received comments associated with other costs that should be considered related to the technologies, specifically 6x2 axle configurations, tire pressure monitoring and inflation system, and APUs. ATA and First Industries commented that the agencies should include additional tire wear and negative residual values associated with 6x2 axles. Schneider commented that 6x2 axle configurations cost should include loss on resale value, increased tire wear, and cost for electronic technology to improve traction. ATA and First Industries commented that the cost estimates for tire inflation systems and TPMS must include warranty limitations, useful life, maintenance and replacement costs, as well as costs of false warnings and increased operation of the air compressor. Doran cited a FMCSA study that found TPMS and ATIS reduce road calls for damaged tires and reduced number of tire replacements and did not introduce unscheduled maintenance. Schneider commented that an electronic APU will have maintenance of $500 per year and engine powered APUs must also include maintenance costs. Caterpillar requested that the agencies take a total cost of ownership approach when considering the technology feasibility and adoption rates.
With respect to costs, all of the agencies' technology cost analyses include both direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs include items such as warranty. In terms of maintenance, the presence of tire inflation management systems, should serve to improve tire maintenance intervals and perhaps reduce vehicle downtime due to tire issues; they may also carry with them some increased maintenance costs to ensure that the tire inflation systems themselves remain in proper operation. For the analysis, we have considered these two competing factors to cancel each other out. The agencies also considered the maintenance impact of 6x2 axles. As noted in the NACFE Confidence Report on 6x2 axles, the industry expects an overall reduction in maintenance costs and labor for vehicles with a 6x2 configuration as compared to a 6x4 configuration.
The technology costs associated with the heavy-haul tractor standards are shown below in Table III-28.
The HD Phase 2 standards are based on adoption rates for technologies that the agencies regard as the maximum feasible for purposes of EISA Section 32902(k) and appropriate under CAA section 202(a) for the reasons given in Section III.D.1(b) through (d) above; see also RIA Chapter 2.8. The agencies believe these technologies can be adopted at the estimated rates for these standards within the lead time provided, as discussed above and in RIA Chapter 2.8. The 2021 and 2024 MY standards are phase-in standards on the path to the 2027 MY standards and were developed using less aggressive application rates and therefore have lower technology package costs than the 2027 MY standards. Moreover, we project the cost of these technologies will be rapidly recovered by operators due to the associated fuel savings, as shown in the payback analysis included in Section IX below. The cost per tractor to meet the 2027 MY standards is projected to range between $10,200 and $13,700 (which includes the cost of the engine standards). See Table III-25 above. Much or all of this will be recovered in the form of fuel savings during the first two years of ownership. The agencies note that while the projected costs per vehicle are significantly greater than the costs projected for Phase 1, we still consider that cost to be reasonable, especially given the relatively short payback
The agencies developed and considered other alternative levels of stringency for the Phase 2 program. The results of the analysis of these alternatives are discussed below in Section X of the Preamble. For tractors, the agencies developed the following alternatives as shown in Table III-29. The agencies are not adopting standards reflecting Alternative 2, because as already described, technically feasible standards are available that provide for greater emission reductions and reduced fuel consumption than provided under Alternative 2. The agencies are not adopting standards reflecting Alternative 4 or Alternative 5 in their entirety because we do not believe to be feasible considering lead time and other relevant factors. However, we note that the tractor standards are predicated on the adoption of engine technology beyond what was projected in Alternative 4 of the NPRM. In addition, the final rule stringency includes additional technologies for tractors that were not considered in any of the alternatives analyzed in the NPRM—axle efficiency, transmission efficiency, adjustable automatic engine shutdown systems, and tire pressure monitoring systems.
In HD Phase 1, the agencies developed an entirely new program to assess the CO
The overall Phase 2 regulatory structure is discussed in more detail above in Section II. This section discusses tractor-specific compliance provisions.
For the Phase 2 final rule, the agencies are keeping many aspects of the HD Phase 1 tractor compliance program. For example, the agencies will continue to use GEM (as revised for Phase 2), in coordination with additional component testing by manufacturers to determine the inputs, to determine compliance with the fuel efficiency and CO
In Phase 1 and as finalized in Phase 2, the general compliance process in terms of the pre-model year, during the model year, and post model year activities remains unchanged. The manufacturers will be required to apply
As proposed in Phase 2, the agencies did not adopt any provisions in the final Phase 2 rules that significantly change the following Phase 1 provisions:
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted three drive cycles used in GEM to evaluate the fuel consumption and CO
The agencies proposed to maintain the existing Phase 1 drive cycle speed traces and weightings in Phase 2. In the Phase 2 proposal sleeper cab weightings would remain 5 percent of the Transient cycle, 9 percent of the 55 mph cycle, and 86 percent of the 65 mph cycle. The day cabs would be weighted based on 19 percent of the transient cycle, 17 percent of the 55 mph cycle, and 64 percent of the 65 mph cycle (see proposed 40 CFR 1037.510(c) and 80 FR 40242). In response to the Phase 2 NPRM, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) submitted comments based on spot speed records throughout the month of May 2015. This study found that Class 8 trucks operated at speeds of 55 mph or less 57 percent of the time. United Parcel Service (UPS) stated that their Class 8 tractor-trailers average 54 miles per hour in part because they use vehicle speed limiters in their fleet. UPS also shared ATA's comments on the spot speed records. Daimler stated that they did not see a benefit of increasing the amount of low speed operation for tractors, unless the EPA-NREL work supported the need for a change.
The agencies considered these comments along with the information that was used to derive the drive cycle weightings in Phase 1. The agencies did not receive any new drive cycle weighting data for tractors from the EPA-NREL work. The agencies believe that the study cited by ATA includes weightings of speed records, which represent the fraction of
Both in the Phase 1 program and as proposed in the Phase 2 program, the 55 mph and 65 mph drive cycles used in GEM assume a constant target speed with downshifting occurring if road incline causes a predetermined drop in vehicle speed. In real-world vehicle operation, traffic conditions and other factors may cause periodic operation at lower (
In response, ACEEE commented that NREL found that constant speeds on positive and negative grades misrepresent the real world operation of HD trucks because there is a strong correlation between road grade and average speed. Daimler commented that for regulatory purposes using a constant speed cycle with representative road grade is appropriate, noting as well that some manufacturers use a constant speed cycle in their internal development processes and have found it correlates well to real world operation. They also highlight the concern that it would be extremely difficult to develop traffic patterns that represent a national average. However, Daimler also stated in their comments that they do see a benefit of allowing increased variability in the vehicle speeds in the 55 and 65 mph cycles, for evaluating the effectiveness of technologies such as predictive cruise control.
After considering these comments and evaluating the final Phase 2 version of GEM, the agencies are adopting in the Phase 2 final rules constant target speed for the 55 mph and 65 mph cycles, as adopted in Phase 1. One key difference in Phase 2 is the addition of road grade in these cruise cycles, as discussed below in Section III.E.2. The addition of road grade to the cruise cycles brings the GEM simulation of vehicles over the drive cycles closer to the real world operation described by ACEEE and Daimler. Even though the cruise cycles will continue to have constant target speeds (55 mph or 65 mph), the vehicle may slow down from the target speed of the cycle on an uphill stretch of road due to the addition of road grade in the Phase 2 cycles. If the vehicle does slow down, the transmission shift logic built into GEM will downshift the transmission to limit the amount of further vehicle deceleration. Similarly, on the downhill portions of the cycles, the driver control logic built into GEM will allow the vehicle to exceed the
The total weight of the tractor-trailer combination is the sum of the tractor curb weight, the trailer curb weight, and the payload. The total weight of a vehicle is important because it in part determines the impact of technologies, such as rolling resistance, on GHG emissions and fuel consumption. In Phase 2, we proposed to carry over the total weight of the tractor-trailer combination used in GEM for Phase 1. The agencies developed the tractor curb weight inputs for Phase 2 from actual tractor weights measured in two of EPA's Phase 1 test programs. The trailer curb weight inputs were derived from actual trailer weight measurements conducted by EPA and from weight data provided to ICF International by the trailer manufacturers.
Daimler commented that there is a large spread of weights within a subcategory given the variety of different features that a vehicle might incorporate in order to perform its task. The agencies' proposed curb weights for tractors may be higher than Daimler's vehicles but in Daimler's opinion align with some of their competitors' vehicles, and therefore are reasonable. Based on no negative comment or newer data, the agencies are adopting the Phase 1 tractor curb weights, as proposed.
There is a further issue of what payload weight to assign during compliance testing. In use, trucks operate at different weights at different times during their operations. The greatest freight transport efficiency (the amount of fuel required to move a ton of payload)—would be achieved by operating trucks at the maximum load for which they are designed all of the time. However, this may not always be practicable. Delivery logistics may dictate partial loading. Some payloads, such as potato chips, may fill the trailer before it reaches the vehicle's maximum weight limit. Or full loads simply may not be available commercially. M.J. Bradley analyzed the Truck Inventory and Use Survey and found that approximately 9 percent of combination tractor miles travelled empty, 61 percent are “cubed-out” (the trailer volume is full before the weight limit is reached), and 30 percent are “weighed out” (operating weight equals 80,000 lbs which is the gross vehicle weight limit on the Federal Interstate Highway System or greater than 80,000 lbs for vehicles traveling on roads outside of the interstate system).
The amount of payload that a tractor can carry depends on the category (or GVWR and GCWR) of the vehicle. For example, a typical Class 7 tractor can carry less payload than a Class 8 tractor. For Phase 1, the agencies used the Federal Highway Administration Truck Payload Equivalent Factors using Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) and Vehicle Travel Information System data to determine the payloads. FHWA's results indicated that the average payload of a Class 8 vehicle ranged from 36,247 to 40,089 lbs, depending on the average distance travelled per day.
The agencies requested comments and data to support changes to our proposed payloads for Phase 2. 80 FR 40242. Daimler commented that the payload weight is even more difficult to determine because weights change based on economic conditions, such as when carriers continue to try to reduce their dead volume and increase their weight per load. Daimler suggested that the agencies might consider increasing the proposed payloads, but did not provide data. In the absence of newer data or other compelling comments, the agencies continue to believe that it is appropriate to continue using the Phase 1 tractor payloads for all of the Class 7 and 8 tractors, as proposed, except for heavy-haul.
Details of the predefined weights by regulatory subcategory, as shown in Table III-30, are included in RIA Chapter 3.
In Phase 1, manufacturers are required to input their tire rolling resistance coefficient into GEM. Also in Phase 1, the agencies adopted the provisions in ISO 28580 to determine the rolling resistance of tires. As described in 40 CFR 1037.520(c), the agencies require that at least three tires for each tire design are to be tested at least one time. Our assessment of the Phase 1 program to date indicates that these requirements reasonably balance the need for precision, repeatability, and testing burden. Therefore we proposed to carry over the Phase 1 testing provisions for tire rolling resistance into Phase 2. 80 FR 40243. We welcomed comments regarding the tire testing provisions, but did not receive any. Therefore, based on the same reasoning presented at proposal, we are adopting the Phase 1 tire testing provisions in Phase 2.
In Phase 1, the agencies received comments from stakeholders highlighting a need to develop a reference lab and alignment tires for the HD sector. The agencies discussed the lab-to-lab comparison conducted in the Phase 1 EPA tire test program (80 FR 40243, citing to 76 FR 57184). The agencies reviewed the rolling resistance data from the tires that were tested at both the STL and Smithers laboratories to assess inter-laboratory and test machine variability. The agencies conducted statistical analysis of the data to gain better understanding of lab-to-lab correlation and developed an adjustment factor for data measured at each of the test labs. Based on these results, the agencies believe the lab-to-lab variation for the STL and Smithers laboratories will have very small effect on measured rolling resistance values. Based on the test data, the agencies judge for the HD Phase 2 program to continue to use the current levels of variability, and the agencies therefore proposed to allow the use of either Smithers or STL laboratories for determining the tire rolling resistance value. The agencies requested comment on the need to establish a reference machine for the HD sector and whether tire testing facilities are interested in and willing to commit to developing a reference machine. The agencies did not receive any comments on the issue. Therefore, again based on the reasoning presented at proposal, we are adopting the Phase 1 testing approach for Phase 2.
The agencies are adopting certain provisions in Phase 2 that are significantly different from Phase 1. Details regarding some of these key changes such as aerodynamic assessments, road grade in the drive cycles, weight reduction, GEM inputs, emission control labels, and chassis dynamometer testing are provided in this subsection.
In Phase 1, the manufacturers conduct aerodynamic testing to establish the appropriate bin and GEM input for determining compliance with the CO
The aerodynamic drag of a vehicle is determined by the vehicle's coefficient of drag (Cd), frontal area, air density and speed. Quantifying tractor aerodynamics as an input to the GEM presents technical challenges because of the proliferation of tractor configurations and subtle variations in measured aerodynamic values among various test procedures. In Phase 1, Class 7 and 8 tractor aerodynamic results are developed by manufacturers using a range of techniques, including wind tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamics, and constant speed tests.
We continue to believe a broad approach allowing manufacturers to use these multiple test procedures to demonstrate aerodynamic performance of its tractor fleet is appropriate given that no single test procedure is superior in all aspects to other approaches. However, we also recognize the need for consistency and a level playing field in evaluating aerodynamic performance. To address the consistency and level playing field concerns, NHTSA and EPA adopted in Phase 1, while working with industry, an approach that identified a reference aerodynamic test method (coastdown) and a procedure to align results from other aerodynamic test procedures with the reference method by applying a correction factor (F
Based on feedback received during the development of Phase 1, we understood even before the Phase 2 NPRM was issued that there was interest from some manufacturers to change the reference method in Phase 2 from coastdown to constant speed testing. EPA conducted an aerodynamic test program at Southwest Research Institute to evaluate both methods in terms of cost of testing, testing time, testing facility requirements, and repeatability of results. Details of the analysis and results are included in RIA Chapter 3.2. The results showed that the enhanced coastdown test procedures and analysis produced results with acceptable repeatability and at a lower cost than the constant speed testing. Based on the results of this testing, the agencies proposed to continue to use the enhanced coastdown procedure for the reference method in Phase 2.
Several stakeholders provided comments both in favor and against the use of coastdown as the reference aero method for Phase 2 for tractors. CARB does not support the constant speed test as the reference method until it can be demonstrated to be superior to the coastdown methods. Their concerns included the cost associated with vehicle modifications required in test preparation (such as the torque meters
Exa supported the use of constant speed testing as a reference method because it is a real-world measurement with the ability to evaluate wind-averaged drag. Exa also cited some concerns that coastdown is limited to near zero wind yaw angle and does not accurately represent the aerodynamics experienced on the road. MEMA supported including the constant speed test based on research that has demonstrated that it is reliable relative to coastdown tests and is required in European aerodynamic test protocols. SABIC commented that constant speed testing may help isolate the aerodynamic drag from vibration, mechanical, and friction encountered at low speeds. SABIC also cited research that suggested constant speed testing may provide better repeatability than coastdown tests, and suggested that the U.S. may be able to promote harmonization with the required European constant speed testing.
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are continuing to use the Phase 1 approach of setting coastdown testing as the reference method for tractor aerodynamic assessment in Phase 2. After developing revised coastdown test procedures and data analysis methods for the final rule, we have concluded that coastdown testing continues to produce acceptable repeatability and can be conducted at a lower cost than constant speed testing. However, we are finalizing some revisions to the Phase 2 coastdown test procedures in response to comments and discussed below. The agencies are also continuing to allow alternative test methods to be used to determine the aerodynamic performance of tractors in Phase 2, as long as the results are correlated back to the reference method using a correlation factor (Falt-aero). Additional details are included in the Falt-aero discussion below.
The agencies worked closely with the tractor manufacturers between the Phase 2 NPRM and final rulemaking to develop robust coastdown test procedures that are technically sound.
The coastdown test procedure changes include the tested speed range, the calibration of the equipment, and specification of yaw and air speed measurements. The agencies proposed two test speed ranges for coastdown testing—70 to 60 mph and 25 to 15 mph. EPA's evaluation of the C
The coastdown data analysis changes include the analysis of low speed pairs and filtering methods, adjustments for rear axle losses and rolling resistance, and determination of the final C
The agencies have also developed a process of identifying and removing coastdown test result outliers for the final rules. First, the median yaw angle of the data is determined. All results outside of a range of plus or minus 1 yaw degree are removed. Then the mean C
As already noted, the agencies adopted in Phase 1 a coastdown procedure as the reference method (see 40 CFR 1066.310) and defined a process for manufacturers to align drag results from each of their own alternative test methods to the reference method results using F
The agencies received comments with regard to the need of F
The agencies determined the F
The agencies also received comments from HD manufacturers stressing that coastdown testing does not produce C
The agencies considered refinements to the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling method to determine the aerodynamic performance of tractors in the NPRM. Specifically, we are considering whether the conditions for performing the analysis require greater specificity (
Daimler and EMA recommended that the agencies should raise the test speed for CFD from the proposed 55 mph to 65 mph to be consistent with GEM and the sleeper cab tractor weighting of 86 percent. Daimler supported the agencies' other proposed revisions to CFD test procedures.
The agencies agree with the suggested comment to include consistency between the test methods and are adopting CFD provisions that include a test speed of 65 mph, along with the other proposed revisions. The agencies finalized these changes through incorporation of the SAE J2966 CFD guidelines with exceptions and clarifications to keep other aspects of
In Phase 1, EPA and NHTSA recognized that wind conditions, most notably wind direction, have a greater impact on real world CO
As the tractor manufacturers continue to refine the aerodynamics of tractors, we believe that continuing the zero yaw approach into Phase 2 would potentially impact the overall technology effectiveness or change the kinds of technology decisions made by the tractor manufacturers in developing equipment to meet our HD Phase 2 standards. Therefore, we proposed and are adopting aerodynamic test procedures that take into account the wind averaged drag performance of tractors. The agencies proposed to account for this change in aerodynamic test procedure by appropriately adjusting the aerodynamic bins to reflect a wind averaged drag result instead of a zero yaw result.
The agencies proposed and are adopting provisions that require manufacturers to adjust their C
All stakeholders that commented on wind averaged drag supported its use over zero yaw. ACEEE supports the shift to the use of wind averaged drag in Phase 2. Exa supported the use of wind averaged drag because it is a better predictor of real world fuel economy. Michelin supported wind average drag assessments for a realistic and complete assessment of aerodynamic performance and would prevent the unintended consequence of incentivizing improvements that are better at zero wind conditions but sacrifice cross-wind performance. SABIC Innovative Plastics commented that it is imperative that wind effects be part of the standard due to the real-world impact of wind. Plastics Industry Trade Association supported wind average drag to better simulate real life conditions.
PACCAR and Daimler recommended the use of a surrogate angle of 4.5° in lieu of the nine angles required for a full wind averaged draft evaluation for CFD evaluated at 65 mph. PACCAR and Daimler provided data to support the use of a single angle. PACCAR also stated that there is significant CFD burden associated with the use of a nine angle yaw sweep. According to PACCAR in a given year, this would add approximately 4,000 additional simulations to their certification burden. EMA and other tractor manufacturers supported the single surrogate angle of 4.5° as being equivalent to the full yaw sweep result generated with SAE J1252.
As discussed in further detail in RIA Chapter 3.2.1.1.3, our data support that 4.5° results are a good surrogate for full wind averaged drag results for wind tunnel and CFD assessments. Therefore, we are adopting the 4.5° surrogate angle in Phase 2.
The agencies require that manufacturers use the following equation to make the necessary adjustments to a coastdown result to obtain the C
If the manufacturer has a C
Because the agencies are adopting a 4.5° surrogate angle, the agencies are not adopting the proposed provisions that manufacturers have the option of determining the offset between zero yaw and wind averaged yaw either through testing or by using the EPA-defined default offset.
Similar to the approach the agencies adopted in Phase 1, NHTSA and EPA are adopting provisions such that the tractor performance in GEM is judged assuming the tractor is pulling a standardized trailer.
However, the agencies proposed a change to the definition of the standard dry van reference trailer used by tractor manufacturers to determine the aerodynamic performance of high roof tractors in Phase 2. We believe this is necessary to reflect the aerodynamic improvements experienced by the trailer fleet over the last several years due to influences from the California Air Resources Board mandate
We proposed a definition of the standard dry van trailer in Phase 2—the trailer assumed during the certification process to be paired with a high roof tractor—that includes a trailer skirt starting in 2021 model year. 80 FR 40245. Even though the agencies proposed that new dry van trailer standards begin in 2018 MY, we did not propose to update the standard trailer in the tractor certification process until 2021 MY, to align with the new tractor standards. If we were to revise the standardized trailer definition for Phase 1, then we would have needed to revise the Phase 1 tractor standards. The details of the trailer skirt definition are included in 40 CFR 1037.501(g)(1). We requested comment on our HD Phase 2 standard trailer configuration. We also welcomed comments on suggestions for alternative ways to define the standard trailer, such as developing a certified computer aided drawing (CAD) model.
The agencies received support in comments for adopting a reference trailer with skirts. Daimler supported the addition of side skirts to the Phase 2 reference trailer and stated that it aligns with their internal development process. Daimler also suggested that if the agencies believe there will be significant adoption of trailers with boat tails, then the agencies could update the C
The agencies re-evaluated the proposal to include trailer skirts on the Phase 2 reference trailer with consideration of the comments. Based on testing conducted to support the trailer portion of Phase 2, we found that on average a boat tail added to a dry van trailer with skirts reduces wind averaged C
With respect to ACEEE's recommendation for the agencies to facilitate the transition to more integrated tractor-trailers, such as those demonstrated with SuperTruck, the agencies believe this would require a significant change in tractor-trailer logistics to encourage more matching of specific tractors to specific trailers in operation. We believe that this would be most appropriately handled through the Off-Cycle Credit program.
The agencies proposed to continue the approach where the manufacturer would determine a tractor's aerodynamic drag force through testing, determine the appropriate predefined aerodynamic bin, and then input the predefined C
HD Phase 1 included five aerodynamic bins to cover the spectrum of aerodynamic performance of high roof tractors. Since the development of the Phase 1 rules, the manufacturers have continued to invest in aerodynamic improvements for tractors. This continued evolution of aerodynamic performance, both in
In both HD Phase 1 and Phase 2, aerodynamic Bin I through Bin V represent tractors sharing similar levels of technology. The first high roof aerodynamic category, Bin I, is designed to represent tractor bodies which prioritize appearance or special duty capabilities over aerodynamics. These Bin I tractors incorporate few, if any, aerodynamic features and may have several features that detract from aerodynamics, such as bug deflectors, custom sunshades, B-pillar exhaust stacks, and others. The second high roof aerodynamics category is Bin II, which roughly represents the aerodynamic performance of the average new tractor sold in 2010. The agencies developed this bin to incorporate conventional tractors that capitalize on a generally aerodynamic shape and avoid classic features that increase drag. High roof tractors within Bin III build on the basic aerodynamics of Bin II tractors with added components to reduce drag in the most significant areas on the tractor, such as integral roof fairings, side extending gap reducers, fuel tank fairings, and streamlined grill/hood/mirrors/bumpers, similar to 2013 model year SmartWay tractors. The Bin IV aerodynamic category for high roof tractors builds upon the Bin III tractor body with additional aerodynamic treatments such as underbody airflow treatment, down exhaust, and lowered ride height, among other technologies. HD Phase 1 Bin V tractors incorporate advanced technologies which are currently in the prototype stage of development, such as advanced gap reduction, rearview cameras to replace mirrors, wheel system streamlining, and advanced body designs. For HD Phase 2, the agencies proposed to segment the aerodynamic performance of these advanced technologies into Bins V through VII.
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted only two aerodynamic bins for low and mid roof tractors. The agencies limited the number of bins to reflect the actual range of aerodynamic technologies effective in low and mid roof tractor applications. High roof tractors are consistently paired with box trailer designs, and therefore manufacturers can design the tractor aerodynamics as a tractor-trailer unit and target specific areas like the gap between the tractor and trailer. In addition, the high roof tractors tend to spend more time at high speed operation which increases the impact of aerodynamics on fuel consumption and GHG emissions. On the other hand, low and mid roof tractors are designed to pull variable trailer loads and shapes. They may pull trailers such as flat bed, low boy, tankers, or bulk carriers. The loads on flat bed trailers can range from rectangular cartons with tarps, to a single roll of steel, to a front loader. Due to these variables, manufacturers do not design unique low and mid roof tractor aerodynamics but instead use derivatives from their high roof tractor designs. The aerodynamic improvements to the bumper, hood, windshield, mirrors, and doors are developed for the high roof tractor application and then carried over into the low and mid roof applications. As mentioned above, the types of designs that will move high roof tractors from a Bin III to Bins IV through V include features such as gap reducers and integral roof fairings which will not be appropriate on low and mid roof tractors.
As Phase 2 looks to further improve the aerodynamics for high roof sleeper cabs, we believe it is also appropriate to expand the number of bins for low and mid roof tractors too. For Phase 2, the agencies proposed to differentiate the aerodynamic performance for low and mid roof applications with four bins, instead of two, in response to feedback received from manufacturers of low and mid roof tractors related to the limited opportunity to incorporate certain aerodynamic technologies in their compliance plan. However, upon further discussions with EMA, it became evident to the agencies that the most straightforward approach would be to include the same number of low and mid roof aero bins as we have for high roof tractors.
The agencies developed new high roof tractor aerodynamic bins for Phase 2 that reflect the change from zero yaw to wind averaged drag, the more aerodynamic reference trailer, and the addition of two bins. Details regarding the derivation of the high roof bins are included in RIA Chapter 3.2.1.2. The high roof bin values being adopted in the HD Phase 2 final rulemaking differ from those proposed due to the coastdown and other aerodynamic test procedures changes discussed above in Section III.E.2.a. However, as explained above in Section III.D.1, in both the NPRM and this final rulemaking, we developed the Phase 2 bins such that there is an alignment between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 aerodynamic bins after taking into consideration the changes in aerodynamic test procedures and reference trailers required in Phase 2. The Phase 2 bins were developed so that a tractor that performed as a Bin III in Phase 1 would also perform as a Bin III tractor in Phase 2. The high roof tractor bins are defined in Table III-32. The final revisions to the low and mid roof tractor bins reflect the addition of five new aerodynamic bins and are listed in Table III-33.
EPA has long required manufacturers to perform SEAs to verify that actual production engines and vehicles conform to their certificates. Before this rulemaking, the regulations in 40 CFR 1037.301 provided generally for SEAs for Phase 1 vehicles, but did not provide specific descriptions of how such testing would be conducted for coastdowns. In Phase 1, we adopted interim provisions in 40 CFR 1037.150(k) that accounted for coastdown measurement variability by allowing a compliance demonstration based on in-use test results if the drag area was at or below the maximum drag area allowed for the bin above the bin to which the vehicle was certified. Since adoption of Phase 1, EPA has conducted in-use aerodynamic testing and found that uncertainty associated with coastdown testing is less than anticipated.
The agencies received comments from manufacturers arguing for the agencies to establish compliance margins that would allow actual production vehicles to exceed the standards by some fixed amount. These comments included specific requests for an aerodynamic compliance margin. We also received comments from UCS supporting the elimination of the aerodynamic compliance margin. As explained in Section I.C.1, although EPA sometimes provides interim compliance margins to facilitate the initial implementation of new programs, we generally do not consider such an approach to be an appropriate long-term policy. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that compliance testing relying on coastdowns to evaluate aerodynamic parameters differs fundamentally from traditional compliance testing, in which test-to-test variability is normally expected to be small relative to production variability. With coastdown testing, however, test-to-test variability is expected to be larger relative to production variability. In response to comments addressing this difference, EPA developed a different structure for conducting SEAs to evaluate tractor C
• Test-to-test variability for individual coastdown runs can be high, so compliance determinations should be based on average values from multiple runs.
• Coastdown testing of a single vehicle is expensive and time consuming, so testing should focus more on repeat tests for the same vehicle than on tests for multiple vehicles. However, manufacturers should not be required to conduct more than 100 valid coastdown runs on any single vehicle.
• Compliance determinations should be based on whether or not the true value for the C
• Given the limited ability to eliminate uncertainty, compliance determinations should consider the statistical confidence that a true value lies outside a bin.
Commenters were generally very supportive of these principles and the proposed structure.
We believe the structure being finalized appropriately balances EPA's need to provide strong incentives for manufacturers to act in good faith with manufacturers' need to avoid compliance actions based on inaccurate testing. Our current assessment is that, where a manufacturer acts in good faith when certifying and uses good engineering judgment throughout the process, false failures for individual vehicles would be rare and false failures for a family would not occur.
Under this approach, EPA would select a production vehicle for coastdown testing, and the manufacturer would be required to perform up to 100 valid coastdown runs to demonstrate whether or not the vehicle was certified to the correct bin. The coastdown results must be adjusted to a yaw angle of 4.5° using an alternate aerodynamic method. EPA will address uncertainty in the measurement using a confidence interval around the mean C
For example, the result of the testing could be a C
The regulations require that manufacturers continue testing until the results are clearly either above or below the applicable bin boundary (
It is important to note that, although SEAs are directed by EPA, the actual testing is conducted by the manufacturer at their chosen facilities. This minimizes many potential causes of test variability, such as differences in test trailers, test tracks, or instrumentation. Thus confidence intervals need only reflect true test-to-test variability. Also, manufacturers generally rent facilities for coastdown testing as needed, which means EPA will need to provide some advance notice to allow the manufacturer to reserve the appropriate facility.
In selecting the original configuration and subsequent selections, EPA would likely consider vehicles with measured C
With respect to confirmatory testing, which is testing EPA conducts during certification rather than during production, EPA has generally
Road grade can have a significant impact on the overall fuel economy of a heavy-duty vehicle. Table III-34 shows the results from a real world evaluation of heavy-duty tractor-trailers conducted by Oak Ridge National Lab.
In Phase 1, the agencies did not include road grade. However, we believe it is important to include road grade in Phase 2 to properly assess the value of technologies, such as downspeeding and the integration of the engine and transmission, which were not technologies included in the technology basis for Phase 1 and are not directly assessed by GEM in its Phase 1 iteration. The addition of road grade to the drive cycles is consistent with the NAS recommendation in the 2014 Phase 2 First Report.
The U.S. Department of Energy and EPA partnered to support a project to develop the appropriate road grade profiles for the 55 mph and 65 mph highway cruise duty cycles that will be used in the certification of heavy-duty vehicles to the Phase 2 final GHG emission and fuel efficiency standards. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) was contracted to do this work and has developed a database of activity-weighted percent road grades representative of U.S. limited-access highways. To this end, NREL used high-accuracy road grade data and county-specific vehicle miles traveled data. A report documenting this NREL work is in the public docket for these final rules.
In the Phase 2 proposal, the agencies developed an interim road grade profile and provided information in the docket on two NREL-derived road grade profiles. The agencies proposed the inclusion of an interim road grade profile, in both the 55 mph and 65 mph cycles. The grade profile was developed by Southwest Research Institute on a 12.5 mile stretch of restricted-access highway during on-road tests conducted for EPA's validation of the Phase 2 version of GEM.
Cummins supported the development of road grade and stated that the proposed road grade with ±2 percent did not reflect their assessment of the distribution of North American roads with a distribution of road grades of ±6 percent. ACEEE supported inclusion of road grade. Daimler, Navistar, EMA, Volvo, and Eaton commented that the road grade profile presented in the NODA were too steep and did not represent real world driving. Their primary concern was related to the fraction of time the engine spent at full load for various vehicle configurations. According to the manufacturers, the road grade cycle presented in GEM in the NODA spent too high of a fraction of time at full load.
After considering the road grade profile comments and using the NREL database, the agencies have independently developed a road grade profile for the final rules for use in the 55 mph and 65 mph highway cruise duty cycles for the Phase 2 final rulemaking. While based on the same road grade database generated by NREL for U.S. restricted-access highways, its design is predicated on a different approach. The development of this profile is documented in the RIA Chapter 3.4.2.1. The road grade in the final rules includes a stretch with zero percent grade and lower peak grades than the profile presented in the NODA. The minimum grade in the final cycle is -5 percent and the maximum grade is 5 percent. The cycle spends 46 percent of the distance in grades of ± 0.5 percent. Overall, the cycle spends approximately 66 percent of the time in relatively flat terrain with road gradients of ± 1 percent. A detailed discussion of the road grade profile is included in RIA Chapter 3.4.2.1.
The agencies proposed that heavy-haul tractors demonstrate compliance with the standards using the day cab drive cycle weightings of 19 percent transient cycle, 17 percent 55 mph cycle, and 64 percent 65 mph cycle. We also proposed that GEM simulates the heavy-haul tractors with a payload of 43
Volvo does not agree with the proposal that the engine installed in a heavy-haul tractor must meet the tractor engine standard defined in 40 CFR 1036.108. As discussed below in Section III.E.2.i, we have modified 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(1) in this final rulemaking to remove the prohibition of using vocational engines in tractors.
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted regulations that provided manufacturers with the ability to use GEM to measure emission reduction and reductions in fuel consumption resulting from use of high strength steel and aluminum components for weight reduction, and to do so without the burden of entering the curb weight of every tractor produced. We treated such weight reduction in two ways in Phase 1 to account for the fact that combination tractor-trailers weigh-out approximately one-third of the time and cube-out approximately two-thirds of the time. Therefore, one-third of the weight reduction is added payload in the denominator while two-thirds of the weight reduction is subtracted from the overall weight of the vehicle in GEM. See 76 FR 57153. The agencies also allowed manufacturers to petition for off-cycle credits for components not measured in GEM.
NHTSA and EPA proposed to carry the Phase 1 treatment of weight reduction into Phase 2. That is, these types of weight reduction, although not part of the agencies' technology packages for the final standards, can still be recognized in GEM up to a point. In addition, the agencies proposed to add additional thermoplastic components to the weight reduction table. The thermoplastic component weight reduction values were developed in coordination with SABIC, a thermoplastic component supplier. Also, in Phase 2, we proposed to recognize the potential weight reduction opportunities in the powertrain and drivetrain systems as part of the vehicle inputs into GEM. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to also recognize the weight reduction associated with both smaller engines and 6x2 axles.
Several organizations suggested changes to specific weights proposed in the NPRM. The Aluminum Association cited several additional advancements in the aluminum industry and stated that the proposed table is appropriate when these components are considered for substitution on an individual basis. Aluminum Association also asked the agencies to add a 500 pound weight reduction for switching from steel to aluminum tractor cabs, among other components. Meritor supported the inclusion and expansion of the weight reduction technologies in the NPRM. Meritor suggested the aluminum carriers illustrate consistent weight reductions of 60 pounds for the rear-front-drive axle, 35 pounds for the rear-rear-drive axle and therefore 95 pounds for the tandem. Based on their data, Meritor recommends that a 42 pound weight savings be credited per tractor for using High-Strength steel drums on the steer (non-drive) axle and 74 pound per vehicle for 6x4 drive axle applications. Meritor anticipates the availability of an aluminum version of a brake bracket in the timeframe of the regulation which will provide a calculated per vehicle weight savings of 36 pounds for a 6x4 configuration. Meritor believes that weight savings should be credited for the use of single-piece drivelines in excess of 86″ because today, most drivelines in excess of 86″ are two piece. American Iron and Steel Institute commented that light weight values for high strength steel should be adjusted upward in the FRM, citing light duty vehicle weight reduction approaches using high strength steel and saying these improvements should apply to the heavy-duty sector as well. Daimler commented that increased credit should be given to hoods and fairings for the difference between steel and thermoplastic, but no specific values were provided. PACCAR recommends that the agencies broaden the definition of “composite” to include materials other than thermoplastics, including thermoplastics, thermosets, and fiber reinforced plastics.
Some organizations commented against including some or all light-weight components for compliance with the tractor standards. American Iron and Steel Institute commented against the inclusion of any light-weight components as a compliance mechanism for tractors unless improved technical data to support the weight saving values are used. Daimler commented that the weight reduction values for engines less than 15 liters are arbitrary. Allison commented that the agencies should establish weight penalties for components that increase weight, and they used the example of MT/AMT with countershaft architectures.
We have expanded the list of weight reduction technologies for some steel and aluminum components for the final rule based on information provided in the comments. We did not adopt weight reduction values for some components, such as an axle carrier, because we are not confident that this is not double counting the weight reduction of the axles already provided in the regulations. We also did not adopt weight reduction values for technologies still in development, such as aluminum brake brackets. The agencies are not finalizing a weight penalty for any components since this would require detailed information on conventional and light-weight tractor components to establish a baseline and the weight reduction potential for each component. In addition, we are not broadening the definition of composite at this time to include materials other than thermoplastics because the specific weight reduction values in the table are specific to thermoplastics. We are adopting the values listed in Table III-35 and Table III-36 and making them available upon promulgation of the final Phase 2 rules (
The agencies proposed to continue to require the Phase 1 GEM inputs for tractors in Phase 2. These inputs include the following:
• Steer tire rolling resistance,
• Drive tire rolling resistance,
• Coefficient of Drag Area,
• Idle reduction,
• Weight reduction, and
• Vehicle Speed Limiter.
As discussed above in Section II.C and III.D, there are several additional inputs that we are adopting for Phase 2. The majority of these new inputs are the same as proposed, with the addition of two new optional inputs to account for transmission and axle efficiency improvements in response to comments. The new GEM inputs for Phase 2 include the following:
• Engine information including manufacturer, model, combustion type, fuel type, family name, and calibration identification,
• Engine steady state and cycle average fuel maps,
• Engine full-load torque curve,
• Engine motoring curve,
• Transmission information including manufacturer and model,
• Transmission type,
• Transmission gear ratios,
• Transmission loss map (optional),
• Drive axle(s) ratio,
• Axle power loss map (optional),
• Tire size (revolutions per mile) for drive tires, and
• Other technology inputs.
The agencies received comments during the development of Phase 1 that the Clean Air Act provisions to prevent tampering (CAA section 203(a)(3)(A)) of vehicle speed limiters and extended idle reduction technologies would prohibit
The agencies received comments regarding VSLs. ATA commented that the agencies should recognize in GEM VSLs set at speeds less than the speed limit mandated if a rule is adopted by NHTSA and FMCSA. ATA also suggested that the agencies should explore ways of incorporating the in-use benefits being derived from VSLs, such as allowing manufacturers to accept a purchaser's commitment to establish a maximum limited speed, as opposed to the tamper-proof option, when acknowledged and affirmed on a vehicle's purchase agreement. ATA also suggested that the agencies allow manufacturers to adjust VSLs at the end of a vehicle's lease or trade-in and allow the creation of deficits or credits if such adjustments affect the initial VSL effectiveness that was generated and allow trucking companies to adjust maximum speeds if company policies change during the ownership cycle with corresponding adjustment to manufacturer credits. CARB stated it is not clear what fleet owners would do with Phase 2 credits and allowing fleet owners to garner such credits would unnecessarily complicate implementation and enforcement of the Phase 2 program. As a result, CARB staff recommends not including owners in emission credit transactions for VSL installation. Daimler suggested that they report in their 270 day end of year report the number of VSLs that remain active. Daimler recommends that the agencies provide in GEM reduced effectiveness for non-regulatory VSLs in proportion to the fraction of non-regulatory ones that remained unaltered, based upon their study of their database. Volvo commented that approximately 15 percent of tractors built over 2013-2015 were shipped with their programmable road speed limiters set at less than 65 mph from the factory and 47 percent were reported in use with the same setting, even during a period of very low fuel prices. Volvo Group requests that the agencies consider providing an effectiveness value in GEM for reprogrammable speed limiters set at the factory at, or below 65 mph. UPS commented that instead of tamperproof VSLs, they would support a regulatory approach in which the fleet owner can adjust speed settings, but only if certified personnel make these changes and their activities within the ECIVIs are trackable and fully accountable to proper authorities.
The agencies considered the comments and the compliance burden associated with the suggestions. The agencies also considered DOT's upcoming actions with respect to mandatory vehicle speed limiters for heavy-duty trucks. The existing Phase 1 VSL flexibilities provide opportunities for manufacturers to use VSL as a technology in GEM while still allowing the settings to change after an “expiration” time determined by the manufacturer. At this time, we believe that the Phase 1 flexibilities sufficiently balance the desire to encourage technologies that reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption while minimizing the compliance burden of trying to accommodate changes throughout the useful life of the vehicle. Therefore, the agencies are not adopting any new VSL provisions for Phase 2 and the Phase 1 provisions will continue (see 40 CFR 1037.640).
The agencies consider it crucial that authorized compliance inspectors are able to identify whether a vehicle is certified, and if so whether it is in its certified condition. To facilitate this identification in Phase 1, EPA adopted labeling provisions for tractors that included several items. The Phase 1 tractor label must include the manufacturer, vehicle identifier such as the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), vehicle family, regulatory subcategory, date of manufacture, compliance statements, and emission control system identifiers (see 40 CFR 1037.135). In Phase 1, the emission control system identifiers are limited to vehicle speed limiters, idle reduction technology, tire rolling resistance, some aerodynamic components, and other innovative and advanced technologies.
The number of emission control systems for greenhouse gas emissions in Phase 2 has increased significantly. For example, all aspects of the engine transmission and drive axle; accessories; tire radius and rolling resistance; wind averaged drag; predictive cruise control; idle reduction technologies; and automatic tire inflation systems are controls that can be evaluated on-cycle in Phase 2 (
Under the agencies' existing authorities, manufacturers must provide detailed build information for a specific vehicle upon our request. Our expectation is that this information should be available to us via email or other similar electronic communication on a same-day basis, or within 24 hours of a request at most. The agencies have started to explore ideas that would provide inspectors with an electronic method to identify vehicles and access on-line databases that would list all of the engine-specific and vehicle-specific emissions control system information. We believe that electronic and Internet technology exists today for using scan tools to read a bar code or radio frequency identification tag affixed to a vehicle that could then lead to secure on-line access to a database of manufacturers' detailed vehicle and engine build information. Our exploratory work on these ideas has raised questions about the level of effort that would be required to develop, implement and maintain an information technology system to provide inspectors real-time access to this information. We have also considered questions about privacy and data security. We requested comment on the concept of electronic labels and database access, including any available information on similar systems that exist today and on burden estimates and approaches that could address concerns about privacy and data security. Based on new information that we receive, we stated in the NPRM that we may consider initiating a separate rulemaking effort to propose and request comment on implementing such an approach.
In the Phase 1 program, manufacturers participating in the ABT program provided 90 day and 270 day reports to EPA and NHTSA after the end of the model year. The agencies adopted two reports for the initial program to help manufacturers become familiar with the reporting process. For the HD Phase 2 program, the agencies proposed to simplify reporting such that manufacturers would only be required to submit the final report 90 days after the end of the model year with the potential to obtain approval for a delay up to 30 days. We requested comments on this approach. EMA, PACCAR, Navistar, Daimler, and Cummins recommended keeping the 270 day report to allow sufficient time after the production period is completed. We are accordingly keeping both the 90 day and 270 day reports, with the ability of the agencies to waive the 90 day report.
In Phase 2, the agencies are adopting provisions to evaluate the performance of the engine, transmission, and drivetrain in determining compliance with the Phase 2 tractor standards. With the inclusion of the engine's performance in the vehicle compliance, EPA proposed to modify the prohibition to introducing into U.S. commerce a tractor containing an engine not certified for use in tractor (see proposed 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(1)). During development of the Phase 2 NPRM, we no longer saw the need to prohibit the use of vocational engines in tractors because the performance of the engine would be appropriately reflected in GEM. We welcomed comments on removing this prohibition.
The agencies received comments supporting the proposed approach. PACCAR supports removing the prohibition on the installation of vocational engines into tractors where these engines are appropriate for the customer's application. Daimler agreed with the proposal that with the engine properly represented in GEM, there is less need for the prohibition on vocational-only certified engines in tractors and that the true in-vehicle emissions are represented by the full-vehicle standard. Accordingly, we are modifying 40 CFR 1037.601(a)(1) in this final rulemaking to remove the prohibition of using vocational engines in tractors.
The agencies also proposed to change the compliance process for manufacturers seeking to use the off-road exclusion. During the Phase 1 program, manufacturers realized that contacting the agencies in advance of the model year was necessary to determine whether vehicles would qualify for exemption and need approved certificates of conformity. The agencies found that the petition process allowed at the end of the model year was not necessary and that an informal approval during the precertification period was more effective. Therefore, NHTSA proposed to remove its off-road petitioning process in 49 CFR 535.8 and EPA proposed to add requirements for informal approvals in 40 CFR 1037.610. The agencies did not receive any comments regarding the petition process. We are adopting the Phase 2 provisions as proposed.
In Phase 1 and as proposed in Phase 2, the agencies allow manufacturers to certify vehicles into a higher service class. No credits can be generated from vehicles certified to the higher service class, but any deficit produced must be offset by credits generated from other vehicles within the higher service class. Though the agencies did not propose any changes, we received comments on the treatment of 4x2 tractors. EMA and the manufacturers suggest that tractors with a 4x2 axle configuration and a heavy heavy-duty engine should be classified as a Class 8 tractor regardless of GVWR and be included in the Class 8 averaging set. Navistar and EMA stated that these vehicles are typically purchased to pull multiple trailers, even though the GVWR is less than 33,000 pounds. In the agencies' assessment, we agree with the manufacturers that these vehicles resemble Class 8 work and due to the higher useful life requirements, we are adopting provisions into the Phase 2 regulations that gives all manufacturers the option to classify Class 7 tractors with 4x2 axle configurations as Class 8 tractors.
The agencies foresee the need to continue to track the progress of the Phase 2 program throughout its implementation. As discussed in Section II, the agencies expect to evaluate the overall performance of tractors with the GEM results provided by manufacturers through the end of year reports. However, we also need to continue to have confidence in our simulation tool, GEM, as the vehicle technologies continue to evolve. Therefore, EPA proposed that the manufacturers conduct annual chassis dynamometer testing of three sleeper cab tractors and two day cab tractors and provide the data and the GEM result from each of these tractor configurations to EPA (see 40 CFR 1037.665). 80 FR 40251. We requested comment on the costs and efficacy of this data submission requirement.
In response, the agencies received mixed comments supporting and raising concerns about the proposed chassis test requirements. ACEEE and ICCT supported the proposal to conduct annual chassis testing to verify the relative reductions simulated in GEM and suggested that the results be provided to the public. UCS supported the proposal, similar to ACEEE and ICCT, with the additional suggestion to conduct an over the road testing of
After consideration of the comments, the agencies are requiring tractor manufacturers to annually chassis test five production vehicles over the GEM cycles to verify that relative reductions simulated in GEM are being achieved in actual production. See 40 CFR 1037.665. We do not expect absolute correlation between GEM results and chassis testing. GEM makes many simplifying assumptions that do not compromise its usefulness for certification, but do cause it to produce emission rates different from what would be measured during a chassis dynamometer test. Given the limits of correlation possible between GEM and chassis testing, we would not expect such testing to accurately reflect whether a vehicle was compliant with the GEM standards. Therefore, we are not applying compliance liability to such testing. Rather, this testing will be for informational purposes only. However, we do expect there to be correlation in a relative sense. Vehicle to vehicle differences showing a 10 percent improvement in GEM should show a similar percent improvement with chassis dynamometer testing. Nevertheless, manufacturers will not be subject to recall or other compliance actions if chassis testing did not agree with the GEM results on a relative basis. Rather, the agencies will continue to evaluate in-use compliance by verifying GEM inputs and testing in-use engines. (Note that NTE standards for criteria pollutants may apply for some portion of the test cycles.)
EPA believes this chassis test program is necessary because of our experience implementing regulations for heavy-duty engines. In the past, manufacturers have designed engines that have much lower emissions on the duty cycles than occur during actual use. The recent experience with Volkswagen is an unfortunate instance. By using this simple test program, we hope to be able to identify such issues earlier and to dissuade any attempts to design solely to the certification test. We also expect the results of this testing to help inform the need for any further changes to GEM.
As already noted in Section II.B.(1), it can be expensive to build chassis test cells for certification. However, EPA has structured this pilot-scale program to minimize the costs. First, this chassis testing will not need to comply with the same requirements as will apply for official certification testing. This will allow testing to be performed in developmental test cells with simple portable analyzers. Second, since the program will require only five tests per year, manufacturers without their own chassis testing facility will be able to contract with a third party to perform the testing. Finally, EPA is applying this testing to only those manufacturers with annual production in excess of 20,000 vehicles.
EPA and NHTSA are adopting two flexibility provisions specifically for heavy-duty tractor manufacturers in Phase 2. These are an averaging, banking and trading program for CO
The agencies are also modifying several Phase 1 interim provisions, as described below.
Averaging, banking, and trading of emission credits have been an important part of many EPA mobile source programs under CAA Title II, and the NHTSA light-duty CAFE program. The agencies also included this flexibility in the HD Phase 1 program. ABT provisions are useful because they can help to address many potential issues of technological feasibility and lead-time, as well as considerations of cost. They provide manufacturers flexibilities that assist in the efficient development and implementation of new technologies and therefore enable new technologies to be implemented at a more aggressive pace than without ABT. A well-designed ABT program can also provide important environmental and energy security benefits by increasing the speed at which new technologies can be implemented. Between MYs 2013 and 2014 all four tractor manufacturers are taking advantage of the ABT provisions in the Phase 1 program. NHTSA and EPA proposed to carry-over the Phase 1 ABT provisions for tractors into Phase 2, and are adopting these provisions.
The agencies proposed and are adopting for Phase 2 the five year credit life and three year deficit carry-over provisions from Phase 1 (40 CFR 1037.740(c) and 1037.745). Please see additional discussion in Section I.C.1.b.i. Although we did not propose any additional restrictions on the use of Phase 1 credits, we requested comment on this issue. In the NPRM, we stated that early indications suggest that positive market reception to the Phase 1 technologies could lead to manufacturers accumulating credits surpluses that could be quite large at the beginning of the Phase 2 program. 80 FR 40251. For the final rule, the agencies assessed the level of credits that the tractor manufacturers are accruing. As discussed above in Section III.D, the agencies adjusted the 2021 MY standards to reflect the accumulation of credits.
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted an emissions and fuel consumption credit generating opportunity that applied to innovative technologies that reduce fuel consumption and CO
Under 40 CFR part 1037, it is generally prohibited for any person to remove or render inoperative any emission control device installed to comply with the requirements of part 1037. However, in 40 CFR 1037.655 EPA clarifies that certain vehicle modifications are allowed after a vehicle reaches the end of its regulatory useful life. This section applies for all vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 1037 and will thus apply for trailers regulated in Phase 2. EPA proposed to continue this provision and requested comment on it. 80 FR 40252.
This section states (as examples) that it is generally allowable to remove tractor roof fairings after the end of the vehicle's useful life if the vehicle will no longer be used primarily to pull box trailers, or to remove other fairings if the vehicle will no longer be used significantly on highways with vehicle speed of 55 miles per hour or higher. More generally, this section clarifies that owners may modify a vehicle for the purpose of reducing emissions, provided they have a reasonable technical basis for knowing that such modification will not increase emissions of any other pollutant. This essentially requires the owner to have information that will lead an engineer or other person familiar with engine and vehicle design and function to reasonably believe that the modifications will not increase emissions of any regulated pollutant. Thus, this provision does not provide a blanket allowance for modifications after the useful life.
This section also makes clear that no person may ever disable a vehicle speed limiter prior to its expiration point, or remove aerodynamic fairings from tractors that are used primarily to pull box trailers on highways. It is also clear that this allowance does not apply with respect to engine modifications or recalibrations.
This section does not apply with respect to modifications that occur within the useful life period, other than to note that many such modifications to the vehicle during the useful life and to the engine at any time are presumed to violate section 202(a)(3)(A) of the Act. EPA notes, however, that this is merely a presumption, and it does not prohibit modifications during the useful life where the owner clearly has a reasonable technical basis for knowing that the modifications would not cause the vehicle to exceed any applicable standard.
The agencies did not receive comments opposing the proposed regulation, and is adopting it as proposed.
In HD Phase 1, EPA adopted provisions to delay the full onboard diagnostics (OBD) requirements for heavy-duty hybrid powertrains until the 2016 and 2017 model years (see 40 CFR 86.010-18(q)). In discussions with manufacturers during the development of Phase 2, the agencies have learned that meeting the on-board diagnostic requirements for criteria pollutant engine certification continues to be a potential impediment to adoption of hybrid systems. See Section XIII.A.1 for a discussion of regulatory changes to reduce the non-GHG certification burden for engines paired with hybrid powertrain systems.
The Phase 1 advanced technology credits were adopted to promote the implementation of advanced technologies, such as hybrid powertrains, Rankine cycle engines, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles (see 40 CFR 1037.150(p)). As the agencies stated in the Phase 1 final rule, the Phase 1 standards were not premised on the use of advanced technologies but we expected these advanced technologies to be an important part of the Phase 2 rulemaking (76 FR 57133, September 15, 2011). The HD Phase 2 heavy-duty engine and tractor standards are premised on the use of Rankine-cycle engines; therefore, the agencies believe it is no longer appropriate to provide extra credit for this technology. While the agencies have not premised the HD Phase 2 tractor standards on hybrid powertrains, fuel cells, or electric vehicles, we also foresee some limited use of these technologies in 2021 and beyond. We proposed in Phase 2 to not provide advanced technology credits in Phase 2 for any technology, but received many comments supporting the need for such incentive. As described in Section I.C.1.b, the agencies are finalizing credit multipliers for plug-in battery electric hybrids, all-electric, and fuel cell vehicles.
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted an early credit mechanism to create incentives for manufacturers to introduce more efficient engines and vehicles earlier than they otherwise would have planned to do (see 40 CFR 1037.150(a)). The agencies did not propose to extend this flexibility to Phase 2 because the ABT program from Phase 1 will be available to manufacturers in 2020 model year and this will displace the need for early credits. However, the agencies are adopting provisions in the final Phase 2 rule that provide early credit opportunities for a limited set of technologies (see 40 CFR 1037.150(y)(2); see also 40 CFR 1037.150(y)(1) and (3) providing early credit flexibilities to certain vocational vehicles).
As mentioned in Section III, trailers pulled by Class 7 and 8 tractors (together considered “tractor-trailers”) account for approximately 60 percent of the heavy-duty sector's total CO
The agencies are finalizing standards for trailers specifically designed to be drawn by Class 7 and 8 tractors when coupled to the tractor's fifth wheel. Although many other vehicles are known commercially as trailers, this trailer program does not apply to those that are pulled by vehicles other than tractors, and those that are coupled to vehicles exclusively by pintle hooks or hitches instead of a fifth wheel. These
This rulemaking establishes the first EPA regulations covering trailer manufacturers for CO
The trailer industry encompasses a wide variety of trailer applications and designs. Among these are box vans (dry and refrigerated vans of various sizes) and “non-box” trailers, including platform (
The trailer manufacturing industry is very competitive, and manufacturers are highly responsive to their customers' diverse demands. The wide range of trailer designs and features reflects the broad variety of customer needs, chief among them typically being the ability to maximize the amount of freight the trailer can transport. Other design goals reflect the numerous, more specialized customer needs.
Box vans (
Non-box trailers are often uniquely designed to transport a specific type of freight. Platform trailers carry cargo that may not be easily contained within or loaded into/unloaded from a box van, such as large, non-uniform equipment or machine components. Tank trailers are often sealed or pressurized enclosures designed to carry liquids, gases or bulk, dry solids and semi-solids. There are also a number of other specialized trailers such as grain, dump, livestock trailers, or logging.
Chapter 1 of the RIA includes a more thorough characterization of the trailer industry. The agencies have considered the variety of trailer designs and applications in developing the CO
In the Phase 1 program, the agencies did not regulate trailers, but discussed how we might do so in the future (see 76 FR 57362). In proposing the Phase 1 program, the agencies solicited general comments on controlling CO
For several years, EPA's voluntary SmartWay Transport Partnership program has been encouraging businesses to take actions that reduce fuel consumption and CO
Annually, SmartWay trucking fleet partners report type and amount of fuel consumption, tons of goods moved, type and model year of equipment used, miles driven, speed profiles and other data. Using EPA MOVES model emission factors and other EPA resources, SmartWay's assessment and tracking tools convert this information to an objective ranking of a company's environmental efficiency, enabling each participating company to benchmark performance relative to its competitors. Logistics companies, multimodal firms and shippers use this information to calculate their corporate emissions from goods movement, which can be included in annual carbon reporting protocols and sustainability reports.
EPA's SmartWay program has accelerated the availability and market penetration of advanced, fuel efficient technologies and operational practices. In conjunction with the SmartWay Partnership Program, EPA established a testing, verification, and designation program, the SmartWay Technology Program, to help freight companies identify the equipment, technologies, and strategies that save fuel and lower emissions. SmartWay verifies the performance of aerodynamic equipment, low rolling resistance tires and other technologies and maintains lists of verified technologies on its Web site. Trailer aerodynamic technologies are grouped in performance bins that represent one percent, four percent, five percent or nine percent fuel savings relative to a typical long-haul tractor-trailer at 65-mph cruise conditions. As a shorthand description and to encourage saving fuel with multiple available technologies, EPA established criteria to describe tractors and trailers as SmartWay designated if they are equipped with specific technologies. Historically, a 53-foot dry van trailer equipped with verified aerodynamic devices totaling at least five percent fuel savings, and SmartWay verified tires, qualifies as a “SmartWay Designated Trailer.” In 2014, EPA expanded the program to include the aerodynamic bin for nine percent or more fuel savings and these trailers when also equipped with verified tires qualify as “SmartWay Designated Elite Trailer.” The 2014 updates also expanded the use of aerodynamic technologies and SmartWay-designated trailer eligibility to include 53-foot refrigerated van
The SmartWay Technology Program continues to improve the industry understanding of technologies, test methods and quality of data fleet stakeholders need to achieve fuel savings and environmental goals. EPA bases its SmartWay verification protocols on common industry test methods with additional criteria to achieve performance objectives and cost effective industry acceptance. Historically, SmartWay's aerodynamic equipment verification protocol was based on the TMC type II and SAE J1321 test procedures, which measures fuel consumption as test vehicles drive laps around a test track. Under SmartWay's 2014 updates, EPA expanded the aerodynamic technology verification program to allow additional testing options. The updates included a new, more stringent 2014 track test protocol based on industry updates to the TMC RP 1102 (2014) and SAE's 2012 update to its SAE J1321 test method
The SmartWay Technology Program verifies tires based on test data submitted by tire manufacturers demonstrating the coefficient of rolling resistance (C
Over the last decade, the trucking industry has achieved measureable fuel consumption benefits by adding aerodynamic features and low rolling resistance tires to their trailers. To date, SmartWay has verified over 70 aerodynamic technologies, including ten packages from five manufacturers that have received the Elite performance level. The SmartWay Transport Partnership program has worked with over 3,000 partners, the majority of which are trucking fleets, and broadly throughout the supply-chain industry, since 2004. These relationships, combined with the Technology Program's extensive involvement testing and technology development has provided EPA with significant experience in freight fuel efficiency. Furthermore, the more than 10-year duration of the voluntary SmartWay Transport Partnership has resulted in significant fleet and manufacturer experience with innovating and deploying technologies that reduce CO
The state of California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, or AB32), enacting the state's 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. Pursuant to this Act, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) was required to begin developing early actions to reduce GHG emissions. As a part of a larger effort to comply with AB32, the California Air Resource Board issued a regulation entitled “Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Regulation” in December 2008.
This regulation reduces GHG emissions by requiring improvement in the efficiency of heavy-duty tractors and 53 feet or longer dry and refrigerated box trailers that operate in California.
NHTSA regulates new trailer safety through regulations. Table IV-1 lists the current regulations in place related to trailers. Trailer manufacturers continue to be required to meet current safety regulations for the trailers they produce. FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224
NHTSA recognizes that regulatory and market factors that result in changes in trailer weight can potentially have safety ramifications, both positive and negative. NHTSA believes that the appropriate perspective is to evaluate the regulation and market factors in their entirety. One such factor is that incentives in the Phase 2 regulation could result in an average decrease in trailer weight. Since removing weight from trailers allows more cargo to be carried, fewer trips are needed to move the same amount of cargo, and fewer crashes—including fatal crashes—could occur. Fleets and other customers have a natural incentive to request lighter-weight trailers. From the trailer owners' perspective, reducing trailer weight not only allows them to increase cargo when they are near capacity, but also reduces fuel consumption whether the trailer is fully loaded or not. In pre-proposal meetings with trailer manufacturers, companies said that customers are requesting lighter-weight components when possible and manufacturers are installing them.
To further incentivize a shift to lighter weight materials, the Phase 2 program provides two compliance mechanisms, both of which are discussed later in this Preamble (Section IV.D.(1)(d) and Section IV.E.(5)(d), respectively). The first is a list of weight reductions from which manufacturers can select. The list identifies specific lighter-weight components, such as side posts, roof bows, and flooring. Manufacturers using these lighter-weight components achieve fuel consumption and GHG reductions that count toward their compliance calculations. The NPRM identified twelve components, ranging from lighter-weight landing gear (which receives credit for 50 pounds of weight reduction) to aluminum upper coupler assemblies (which receive credit for 430 pounds). See proposed section 1037.515 at 80 FR 40627. In addition, for a lighter-weight component or technology that is not on the list of specific components, the program provides for manufacturers to use the “off-cycle” process to recognize the weight reduction (Section IV.E.(5)(d)). Through these mechanisms, the program provides significant flexibility and incentives for trailer light-weighting.
NHTSA also recognizes that the aerodynamic devices that we expect may be adopted to meet the Phase 2 trailer standards inherently add weight to trailers. In comments on the NPRM, TTMA stated that they believe that this weight increase will result in added trips and increased numbers of fatal crashes. By its analysis, this additional weight—which TTMA estimates to be 250 pounds per trailer, will cause some trucks to exceed the trailer weight limits, necessitating additional truck trips to transport freight that could not be moved by the “weighed-out” trucks. By TTMA's analysis, these added trips would cause an additional 184 million truck miles per year and would result in 246 crashes and 7 extra fatal crashes, using an assumed crash rate of 134 collisions per 100 million VMT and a 3 percent fatality rate per crash. The agencies evaluated TTMA's estimate of additional fatalities and disagree with some of the assumptions made in the analysis. For example, the fatality rate used was developed in a study conducted for Idaho and is higher than the national average. According to FMCSA's 2014 annual report for “Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts” indicates there are less than 1.67 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by combination trucks in the U.S. for 2014. When multiplied by an estimated 184 million additional truck miles due to weighed-out trucks, the result is an increase of about 3 fatalities, or 2.7 fatal crashes.
Overall, the potential positive safety implications of weight reduction efforts could partially or fully offset safety concerns from added weight of aerodynamic devices. In fact, for this reason, we believe that the Phase 2 trailer program could produce a net safety benefit in the long run due to the potentially greater amount of cargo that could be carried on each truck as a result of trailer weight reduction.
In addition to NHTSA's regulations, DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates the weight and dimensions of motor vehicles on the National Network.
Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. (Utility) commented that reducing existing restrictions on trailer size and weight could help encourage the transition to new technologies and trailer designs. However, these size and weight restrictions are under the jurisdiction of FHWA, and are largely controlled by the weight limits established by Congress in 1956 and 1974, the size limits established in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, and the size and weight limits established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Changes to these restrictions would require a broader process involving Congress and federal and state agencies, and is beyond the scope of the Phase 2 trailer program.
Wabash National Corporation (Wabash) stated that the agencies should seek to ensure that today's action harmonizes with safety regulations applicable to trailers. Specifically, Wabash highlighted NHTSA's work on rear impact guard standards and ongoing examination of side impact guards. Wabash stated new or revised requirements for impact guards could increase trailer weight. The agencies have analyzed the issues in the present rulemaking while fully considering NHTSA's safety regulations and rulemakings pertaining to trailers. The subject of a possible side guard requirement is in a research stage. As discussed in a July 2015 document, NHTSA is in the process of evaluating issues relating to side guards and will issue a decision on them at a later date.
The HD Phase 2 program represents the first time CO
EPA and NHTSA proposed a trailer program, using appropriate aspects of the Phase 1 tractor program as a guide, including optional averaging provisions (
In order to balance the advantage of an averaging program in allowing for introduction of the most reasonably stringent standards for trailers with the concerns articulated by manufacturers, the final program accordingly limits the option for trailer manufacturers to apply averaging exclusively to MYs 2027 and later for full-aero box vans only. We believe this delay provides box van manufacturers sufficient time to develop, evaluate and market new technologies and to become familiar with the compliance process and possible benefits of averaging. This will also allow customers to become more familiar with the technologies and to recognize their benefits. See Section IV.E.(5)(b) for more details on the trailer averaging program. In the earlier years of the program, when the program does not provide for averaging, the program does provide each manufacturer with a limited “allowance” of trailers that do not need to meet the standards. See Section IV.E.(5)(a) below.
The agencies proposed standards for dry and refrigerated box vans that were performance-based, and that were predicated on a high adoption of aerodynamic technologies, lower rolling resistance (LRR) tires and automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS). We designed the compliance approach for these performance-based standards so that manufacturers would have a degree of choice among aerodynamic, tire, tire pressure, and weight-reduction technologies and could combine them as they wished to achieve the standards. See 80 FR 40257. This final program maintains this flexible approach, adding provisions that include options for using tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) and innovative weight-reduction technologies as part of manufacturer compliance strategies. Section IV.E.(2) below discusses the trailer compliance provisions.
We proposed “partial-aero” criteria for box vans with work-performing equipment that impeded use of aerodynamic technologies and we proposed that those “partial-aero” box vans would not have to adopt the most stringent standards in MY 2027; instead, they would maintain the MY 2024 standards. We also proposed design-based tire standards for non-box trailers that required adoption of LRR tires and ATIS. Finally, in recognition that some specialized box van designs are not very compatible with the aerodynamic technologies, the agencies established “non-aero” criteria for box vans. Box vans meeting the “non-aero” criteria will be subject to the same requirements as the non-box trailers. 80 FR 40259.
The proposed program was designed to include nearly all trailer types, with a limited number of exemptions or exclusions that we believed indicated off-road, heavy-haul or non-freight transporting operation. TTMA and the American Trucking Associations (ATA) provided comments suggesting that additional trailer types should be excluded from the program based on these trailers' typical operational characteristics. The agencies considered the suggestions of these commenters and of several individual trailer manufacturers, and we recognize that many trailers in the proposed non-box subcategory have unique physical characteristics for specialized operations that may make use of lower rolling resistance (LRR) tires and/or tire pressure systems difficult or infeasible. Instead of focusing on trailer characteristics that indicated off-highway or specialty use, the agencies have identified three specific types of non-box trailers that represent the majority of non-box trailers that are designed for and mostly used in on-road applications: Tank trailers, flatbed trailers, and container chassis. Because of their predominant on-road usage, the tire technologies adopted in this trailer program will be consistently effective for these non-box trailer types. Consequently, the final program as it applies to non-box trailers is limited to tanks, flatbeds, and container chassis. All other non-box trailers, about half of the non-box trailers produced, are excluded from the Phase 2 trailer program, with no regulatory requirements. See Section IV.C.(1) for the regulatory definitions of the trailers included in this program.
Wabash commented that partial-aero vans should be exempt in MY 2021 rather than MY 2027 as proposed, citing the need for multiple devices to meet the later standards. The agencies reconsidered the proposed partial-aero standards in light of this comment and recognize that it would likely be difficult for most manufacturers to meet the proposed MY 2024 standards without the use of multiple devices, and yet partial-aero trailers, by definition, are restricted from using multiple devices. For these reasons, the agencies redesigned the partial-aero standards such that trailers with qualifying work-performing equipment can meet standards that would be achievable with the use of a single aerodynamic device throughout the program, similar to the MY 2018 standards. The partial-aero standards do, however, increase in stringency slightly in MY 2021 to reflect
The agencies also considered comments from manufacturers that were concerned about the cost and, availability of ATIS for the trailer industry. Wabash, Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), American Trucking Associations (ATA), and Bendix asked that TPMS be allowed for trailer tire compliance in addition to ATIS. OOIDA said that operators prefer less expensive and easier to operate TPMS to ATIS. Wabash expressed concern that ATIS suppliers would not be able to meet demand should ATIS be required as a compliance mechanism for all trailers, especially in the early years of the program. Great Dane stated that their customers are not seeing consistent benefit of ATIS. ATA commented that trailer manufacturers should be allowed to use TPMS for compliance because they are increasingly effective, and some trailers used in heavy-haul applications would need an additional ATIS air compressor, which adds cost and weight that can be avoided by the use of TPMS. The California Air Resources Board supported the agencies' proposal to allow only ATIS for compliance since TPMS require action on the part of the driver to re-inflate affected tires and thus the benefit of the systems is dependent on driver behavior.
The agencies agree that TPMS generally promote proper tire inflation and that including these lower-cost systems as a compliance option will increase acceptance of the technologies. The final trailer program provides for manufacturers to install either TPMS or ATIS as a part of compliance. For full- and partial-aero trailers, the standards are performance standards, and the GEM-based compliance equation (described below) provides ATIS a slightly greater credit than it does for TPMS, to account for the greater uncertainty about TPM system effectiveness due to the inherent user-interaction required with systems that simply monitor tire pressure. These performance standards are based on the use of ATIS and the numerical values of these standards reflect the 0.2 percent increase in stringency. See Section IV.D.(1)(c) for additional information.
For non-aero box vans and non-box trailers, the standards are design standards, met directly by installation of specified technologies, not by using the compliance equation. As long as a manufacturer of these trailers installs either a TPMS or an ATIS (as well as lower rolling resistance tires meeting the specified threshold), the trailer will comply, and either technology applies equally. We project that most design-based tire standards will be met with the less expensive TPMS, but trailers with ATIS will also comply. The effectiveness values adopted for ATI and TPMS in the trailer program are consistent with those in the tractor and vocational vehicle programs.
The agencies generated the proposed standards with use of EPA's Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) vehicle simulation tool, but for compliance we created a GEM-based equation that trailer manufacturers would use for compliance. See Section IV.E.(2)(a). We made several improvements to GEM based on public comment, and these improvements impacted the results of the model. We have re-created a compliance equation for trailers based on the updated model and are adopting the new equation as the means for trailer manufacturers to certify their trailers in Phase 2.
The agencies also proposed an aerodynamic device testing compliance path that would allow device manufacturers to submit performance test data directly to EPA for pre-approval. 80 FR 40280. We designed this alternative to reduce the test burden of trailer manufacturers by allowing them to install devices with pre-approved data and to eliminate the need to perform their own testing of the devices. Based on public comment, the agencies are adopting the aerodynamic device testing alternative in the final trailer program and are updating several of the provisions related to submission and verification of test data on those devices. See Section IV.E.(3)(b)(v).
The agencies considered five alternative programs in the proposal and extensively evaluated what were termed Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 in our feasibility analysis. 80 FR 40273. The final stringency of both alternatives was identical and each included three-year stages of increasing stringency. However, Alternative 4 represented an accelerated timeline that reached its final stringency in MY 2024. Alternative 3 included an additional three years to meet its final stringency in MY 2027. Alternative 5 was proposed in four stages, but would have a required much greater application rate of the most advanced aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic technologies on non-box trailers. The agencies believed this alternative was infeasible for this newly-regulated industry and did not extensively evaluate it.
Public comment from the trailer industry unanimously opposed the accelerated timeline of the proposed Alternative 4. TTMA recommended that the agencies adopt no mandatory requirements, and instead rely on a voluntary program for trailers. OOIDA supported standards less stringent than either Alternatives 3 or 4. Great Dane said that adoption of standards more stringent than Alternative 3 would considerably increase the probability of negative effects on stakeholders. Wabash questioned whether, under the accelerated timeline of Alternative 4, current technologies could be produced for all applications for which they would be needed, and with sufficient reliability. The International Food Service Delivery Association, the Truck Trade Association, and Schneider also opposed Alternative 4 for similar reasons. STEMCO, California Air Resources Board (CARB), ICCT, and American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) supported Alternative 4. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) supported Alterative 5, but with an accelerated schedule, saying technologies will be available to meet the Alternative 5 standards by 2024.
The final standards adopted for the Phase 2 trailer program have the same four-stage implementation schedule as the proposed Alternative 3, with standards phasing in for MYs 2018, 2021, 2024, and 2027 (NHTSA standards apply beginning in MY 2021). We received comments regarding adjustments to technology adoption rates in our baseline reference cases which the agencies found to be persuasive, and the resulting adjustments are described in Section IV.D.(2)(c). Additionally, the technology effectiveness values and projected adoption rates for each of the four stages of the program were updated in response to comments, to reflect new test data, and to account for a program without averaging.
These final rules establish, for the first time, a set of CO
The agencies believe that the trailer standards finalized here will implement our respective statutory obligations. That is, we believe that this set of standards represents the maximum feasible alternative within the meaning of section 32902(k) of EISA, and are
These standards have the same implementation schedule as the proposed Alternative 3, with standards phasing in for MYs 2018, 2021, 2024, and 2027. In our consideration of the full range of comments, the agencies have adjusted elements of the proposed Alternative 3 in ways that address some of these comments, as discussed in Section 0 below. As discussed in Section IV.E.(5)(b), the option to apply averaging to meet these standards will be available starting with MY 2027, but will not be available in earlier model years.
The agencies did not propose and are not establishing standards for CO
As described previously, the trailer industry produces many different trailer designs for many different applications. The agencies are introducing standards for a majority of these trailers that phase in from MY 2018 through MY 2027; the NHTSA fuel consumption standards are voluntary until MY 2021. The regulatory definitions of the trailers covered by this program are summarized below and are found in 40 CFR 1037.801 and 49 CFR 571.3.
Box vans are trailers with enclosed cargo space that is permanently attached to the chassis, with fixed sides, nose and roof. Trailers with sides or roofs consisting of curtains or other removable panels are not considered box vans in this program. Box vans with self-contained HVAC systems are considered “refrigerated vans.” This definition includes systems that provide cooling, heating or both. Box vans without HVAC systems are considered “dry vans.”
This rulemaking establishes separate standards for box vans based on length. Box vans of length greater than 50 feet are considered “long box vans.”
The agencies agree that 48-foot vans are aerodynamically similar to longer vans and that 28-foot trailers are often used in tandem, reducing the opportunity for rear aerodynamic features. However, the agencies believe that the
The trailer program identifies certain types of work-performing equipment manufacturers may install on box vans that may inhibit the use of aerodynamic technologies and thus impede the trailers' ability to meet standards predicated on adoption of aerodynamic technologies. For this program, we consider such trailer equipment to consist of a rear lift gate or rear hinged ramp and any of the following side features: A side lift gate, a side-mounted pull-out platform, steps for side-door access, a drop-deck design, or a belly box or boxes that occupy at least half the length of both sides of the trailer between the centerline of the landing gear and the leading edge of the front wheels. See 40 CFR 1037.107(a)(1) and 49 CFR 571.3.
The agencies have also considered how “roll-up” or “overhead” rear trailer doors might inhibit the use of rear aerodynamic devices. TTMA, ATA, Great Dane, and Utility stated that roll-up doors are work-performing devices that can inhibit rear aerodynamic technologies. However, the agencies are aware of several existing aerodynamic devices designed to be installed near the rear of a trailer that can function regardless of the type of rear door. Also, in their comments, STEMCO indicated that additional rear aerodynamic technologies would be less likely to enter the market if the trailer program were to include roll-up doors on the list of work-performing devices above and the industry didn't demand an aerodynamic product to work with roll-up doors. The agencies recognize there may currently be limited availability of rear aerodynamic technologies for roll-up door trailers, yet we also understand that innovations and improvements continue for all trailer aerodynamic technologies. For this reason, the final trailer program includes an interim provision—through MY 2023—for box vans with roll-up doors to qualify for non-aero and partial-aero standards (as defined immediately below), by treating such doors as work-performing devices equivalent to rear lift gates. For MY 2024 and later, roll-up doors will not qualify as a work-performing device in this way; however, we expect that manufacturers of trailers with roll-up doors will comply using combinations of new rear aerodynamic technologies, in conjunction with improved trailer side and gap-reducing technologies as appropriate. See 40 CFR 1037.150.
As presented in Section IV.C.(2) below, the agencies are adopting separate standards for each of the same nine box van subcategories introduced in the proposal (80 FR 40256) and for the non-box category discussed below. Full-aero long box dry vans and full-aero long box refrigerated vans are those that are over 50 feet in length and that do not have any of the work-performing equipment discussed immediately above. Similarly, full-aero short box dry vans and full-aero short box refrigerated vans are 50 feet and shorter without any work-performing equipment. We expect these trailers to be capable of meeting the most stringent standards in the trailer program.
Long box dry vans and long box refrigerated vans that have work-performing equipment either on the underside or on the rear of the trailer that would limit a manufacturer's ability
For short vans, the standards are never predicated on the use of rear devices, since many 28-foot trailers are often pulled in tandem. However, we are not aware of any current legislative or regulatory initiatives that would allow tandem trailers longer than 33 feet in length, and therefore we believe that short vans of length 35 feet and longer are unlikely to be pulled in tandem in the timeframe of these rules. We are adopting separate criteria for partial- and non-aero designation for short vans based on a length threshold of 35 feet. If vans 35 feet or longer have work-performing equipment on the underside of the trailer, we expect manufacturers can install rear devices to meet the full-aero standards, but they have the option to designate these trailers as partial-aero dry or refrigerated short vans with reduced standards that can be met with tire technologies and a single aerodynamic device. If vans 35 feet and longer have work performing equipment on the underside and rear, manufacturers may designate them as non-aero box vans.
Short vans that are less than 35 feet in length are more likely to be pulled in tandem, making most rear aerodynamic devices infeasible. Since gap reducers alone are not sufficiently effective to replace a skirt and the shortest trailers are not expected to install rear devices, both dry and refrigerated vans that are shorter than 35 feet with work-performing equipment on the underside of the trailer may be designated non-aero box vans that can comply with tire technologies only. In addition, refrigerated vans that are shorter than 35 feet cannot install gap reducers because of the TRU. Consequently, all refrigerated vans shorter than 35 feet, irrespective of work-performing equipment, can be designated partial-aero short refrigerated vans whose standards can be met with skirts and tire technologies. See 40 CFR 1037.107(a)(1) and 49 CFR 571.3. Because the types of work-performing equipment identified here generally add significant cost and weight to a trailer, we believe that the reduced standards available for trailers using this equipment are unlikely to provide an incentive for manufacturers to install them simply as a way to avoid the full aero standards.
All trailers that do not meet the definition of box vans are considered non-box trailers in the trailer program. Several commenters requested a clearer distinction of the trailers that are included in the program. In response, the agencies are limiting the non-box trailer standards to three trailer types that have distinct physical characteristics and are most often driven on-highway: Tank trailers, flatbed trailers, and container chassis. Non-box trailers that do not meet the definitions below are excluded from the trailer program, as discussed in the following section.
Tank trailers are defined for the trailer program as enclosed trailers designed to transport liquids or gases. For example, DOT 406, DOT 407, and DOT 412 tanks would fit this definition. These non-box trailers can be pressurized or designed for atmospheric pressure. Tanks that are infrequently used in transport and primarily function as storage vessels for liquids or gases (
Flatbed trailers for purposes of the trailer program are platform trailers with a single, continuous load-bearing surface that runs from the rear of the trailer to at least the trailer's kingpin. Flatbed trailers are designed to accommodate side-loading cargo, and this definition includes trailers that use bulkheads, one or more walls, curtains, straps or other devices to restrain or protect cargo while underway. Note that drop deck and lowboy platform trailers are not considered
Finally, in the trailer program, container chassis are trailers designed to transport temporary containers. The standards apply to all lengths of container chassis, including expandable versions. The regulations do not apply to the containers being transported, unless they are permanently mounted on the chassis.
As in the proposal (80 FR 40259), the final trailer program completely excludes certain trailer types. However, in response to comments and an improved understanding of the industry, the agencies have changed our approach to excluding some trailer types.
In the proposal, we focused on excluding trailers based on characteristics that tended to indicate predominant operation in off-highway applications. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) provided comments suggesting that additional trailer types should be excluded from the program based on the trailers' typical operational characteristics, generally because of these trailers' limited on-highway operation. Also, Wabash requested that the program specify clearer criteria for excluding or exempting trailers.
The agencies considered all of the suggestions of the commenters, and we now believe that a different approach to excluding some trailer types is more appropriate. We recognize that many trailer types in the proposed non-box subcategory have many unique physical characteristics and are designed for specialized operations and it would be difficult to create a comprehensive list of traits that indicated off-road use. This wide array of trailer types would have made the proposed approach difficult to implement for both trailer manufacturers and for the agencies, since the usage patterns of many specialty trailer types can vary greatly. Some of these uses, especially off-highway applications, may make use of the proposed tire technologies for compliance difficult or infeasible and may limit their effectiveness. Additionally, the agencies are aware that many manufacturers that build these specialty non-box trailers are small businesses (fewer than 1000 employees), and they would incur a disproportionately large financial burden compared to larger manufacturers if they were subject to the standards.
For these reasons, instead of focusing our approach to excluding trailer types on trailer characteristics that indicated predominant off-highway use, the final program excludes all non-box trailer types except for three specific types that we believe are designed for and mostly used in on-road applications. These types are tanks, flatbeds, and container chassis, as defined in the previous sub-section. We now consider this approach to be much clearer and more straightforward to implement than the proposed approach. Manufacturers of these types of trailers can easily obtain and install LRR tires and tire pressure systems, and achieve the most consistent benefit from use of these technologies. The trailer program excludes all trailers that do not meet the criteria outlined in Section IV.C.(1)(b) above, and specified in 40 CFR 1037.5 and in 49 CFR 535.3(e).
The final rule also excludes certain types of trailers based on design
Manufacturers of excluded trailers have no reporting or other regulatory requirements under the trailer program. See 40 CFR 1037.5 and 49 CFR 535.3 for complete definitions of the trailer types that the program excludes. However, where the criteria for exclusion identified above may be unclear for specific trailer models, manufacturers are encouraged to ask the agencies to make a determination before production begins.
As described previously in Section I, it is the combination of the tractor and the trailer that form the useful vehicle, and trailer designs substantially affect the CO
Unlike the other sectors covered by this Phase 2 rulemaking, trailer manufacturers do not have experience certifying under the Phase 1 program (or under EPA's criteria pollutant program). Moreover, a large fraction of the trailer industry is composed of small businesses and even the largest trailer manufacturers do not have the same resources available to them as do manufacturers in some of the other heavy-duty sectors. The standards and compliance regime for trailers have been developed with this in mind, and we are confident these standards can be achieved and demonstrated by manufacturers who lack prior experience implementing such standards.
The agencies designed this trailer program to ensure a gradual progression of both stringency and compliance requirements in order to limit the impact on this newly-regulated industry. The agencies are adopting progressively more stringent standards in three-year stages leading up to the MY 2027,
Standards for the next stages, which begin in MY 2021, gradually increase in stringency for each subcategory, including the introduction of standards for short box vans that we expect will be met by applying both aerodynamic and tire technologies. The standards for partial-aero box vans are less stringent than those for full-aero box vans, reflecting that the standards for partial-aero vans are based on adoption of a single aerodynamic device throughout the program. This is in contrast to the proposed standards for partial-aero vans that were identical to the standards for full-aero vans through MY 2026.
Table IV-2 and Table IV-3 below present the CO
The agencies are not adopting CO
Table IV-4 summarizes the two stages of these design standards.
The agencies project that the standards for the entire class of regulated trailers, when fully implemented in MY 2027, will achieve fuel consumption and CO
In addition to the impact of trailer design on the CO
In their comments, CARB said they believed that EPA underestimated the potential for TRU refrigerant leakage, and requested that EPA (1) initiate a TRU refrigerant “usage monitoring program” to support future evaluations of leakage; (2) create incentives for low- and zero-emission (
We also note that EPA has separately proposed a regulation under Title VI of the CAA, specifically section 608. See 80 FR 69457 (November 9, 2015). This proposal would extend existing regulations on ozone depleting refrigerants to many alternative refrigerants, such as HFCs, which are the most common refrigerants used in TRUs.
As mentioned earlier, although the agencies did not include standards for trailers in Phase 1, box van manufacturers have been gaining experience with CO
EPA is adopting CO
NHTSA's direction under EISA is to allow four model years of lead-time for new fuel consumption standards, regardless of the stringency level or availability of flexibilities. Therefore, NHTSA's fuel consumption requirements are not mandatory until MY 2021. Prior to MY 2021, trailer manufacturers could voluntarily participate in NHTSA's program, noting that once they made such a choice, they will need to stay in the program for all succeeding model years.
We believe there are technology pathways available today that manufacturers could use to comply with the standards when they are fully implemented in MY 2027. The agencies designed each three-year stage of the program as a gradual progression of stringency that provides sufficient lead-time for all affected trailer manufacturers to evaluate and adopt CO
The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) expressed concern that the proposed program would not provide sufficient lead time for the development and production of LRR tire designs for some off-road applications. As discussed above, the final program now excludes all trailer types that would generally be used in off-road applications, including all non-box trailers except tanks, flatbeds, and container chassis. Therefore, trailer types designed for off-road use do not have LRR tire requirements, and the final program should significantly reduce RMA's concerns about available lead time for special tire development. Additionally, we have adjusted the tire performance requirements for the LRR tires of the non-box trailer design standards.
As discussed below, the agencies' determination is that the standards presented in Section IV.C.(2), are the maximum feasible and appropriate under the agencies' respective authorities, considering lead time, cost, and other factors. We summarize our analyses in this section, and describe them in more detail in RIA Chapter 2.10.
Our analysis of the feasibility of the CO
As an initial step in our analysis, we identified the extent to which fuel consumption- and CO
Trailer manufacturers can design a trailer to reduce fuel consumption and CO
To minimize complexity, a single van is used to represent each box van trailer subcategory in compliance and in our feasibility analysis. Within the short box dry and refrigerated van subcategories (50-foot and shorter), the largest fraction of those trailers are 28 feet in length. Similarly, 53-foot vans make up the majority of the long box dry and refrigerated vans. Consequently, a 28-foot dry van is used to represent all lengths of short dry vans and a 53-foot dry van represents all lengths of long dry vans in this analysis and for compliance. Similar lengths represent the short and long refrigerated van subcategories. This means that manufacturers do not need to analyze the performance of devices for each trailer length in each subcategory. This approach provides a conservative estimate of CO
For box vans under these rules, aerodynamic performance of tractor-trailers is evaluated using a vehicle's aerodynamic drag area, C
The agencies proposed to use a delta C
The agencies are aware that some side skirts have been adapted for the non-box trailers considered in this rule (
The agencies proposed to adopt design-based tire standards (
EPA collected aerodynamic test data for several tractor-trailer configurations equipped with technologies similar to common SmartWay-verified technologies. As mentioned previously, SmartWay-verified technologies are evaluated on 53-foot dry vans. However, the CO
In order to evaluate performance and cost of the aerodynamic technologies, the agencies identified “packages” of individual or combined technologies that are being sold today on box trailers. The agencies also identified distinct performance levels (
The agencies are adopting a regulatory structure for box trailers with seven bins to evaluate aerodynamic performance. Note that these bins are slightly different than those proposed. We adjusted the aerodynamic bins to reflect additional data and the use of wind-averaged results. The most notable difference is that we expanded the width of the lower bins. The NPRM Bins III, IV and V were reduced to two bins. Bins V, VI, and VII are identical to the highest bins from the NPRM (NPRM bins VI, VII, and VIII). See Chapter 2.10.2.1.3 of the RIA for a complete description of the development of these bins.
In the final trailer program, Bin I represents a base trailer with no aerodynamic technologies added and a delta C
Table IV-5 illustrates the bin structure that the agencies are adopting as the basis for box vans to demonstrate compliance. The agencies believe these bins apply to all box vans (dry and refrigerated vans of various lengths). Although the underlying test data from EPA's aerodynamic testing program reflect some variation due to differences in test methods, as well as differences in trailer and aerodynamic device models, the agencies believe that each of these bins covers a wide enough range of delta C
When manufacturers obtain test results, they would check the range shown in Table IV-5 for the measured C
To develop the standards for box trailers, the agencies assessed the CO
Current “boat tail” devices, applied to the rear of a trailer with rear swing doors, are typically designed to collapse flat as the trailer rear doors are opened. If the tail structure can remain in the collapsed configuration when the doors are closed, the benefit of the device is lost. We requested comment on whether we should require that trailer manufacturers using such devices for compliance with these standards only use designs that automatically deploy when the vehicle is in motion. STEMCO commented that automatic deployment should not be required, since those systems are more expensive, and in their view, not necessary for the Phase 2 program. STEMCO believes that, since there is a strong economic incentive for operators to ensure that the devices are correctly deployed in order to achieve the greatest fuel cost payback, a regulatory requirement related to deployment is not needed. We generally agree, and have not included such a requirement in the final trailer program. For this analysis, we consider all boat tails to be properly deployed.
The agencies are aware that physical characteristics of some box trailers influence the technologies that can be applied. For instance, the TRUs on refrigerated vans are located at the front of the trailer, which prevents the use of current gap-reducers, either by occupying the space that a front-end fairing would use, or by blocking air flow that the TRU needs for cooling purposes. Similarly, drop deck dry vans have lowered floors between the landing gear and the trailer axles that limit the ability to use side skirts. We discuss another example, roll-up rear doors, in Section IV.C.(1)(a) above. The agencies considered the availability and limitations of aerodynamic technologies for each trailer type evaluated in our feasibility analysis of the standards.
Similar to the Phase 2 tractor and vocational vehicle programs, the agencies are adopting standards based on adoption of lower rolling resistance tires. While some box vans continue to be sold with tires of higher rolling resistances, the agencies believe most box van tires currently achieve a tire C
The agencies evaluated two levels of tire performance for box vans beyond the baseline trailer tire rolling resistance level (TRRL) of 6.0 kg/ton. The first performance level was set at the criteria for SmartWay-verification for trailer tires, 5.1 kg/ton, which is a 15 percent reduction in C
The vast majority of box van miles occur on-road, and current LRR tire designs are appropriate and effective for those applications. We note that current designs of LRR tires may not be appropriate for some non-box trailer types, including those that operate significantly in off-road conditions. We expect that the tire manufacturing industry will continue to expand their offerings of tire designs to additional applications. Regardless, by limiting the non-box trailer types covered by the final trailer program to those generally used in on-highway applications (tanks, flatbeds, and container chassis), the program avoids most of these potential situations.
We received comment from Michelin supporting the use of 6.0 kg/ton as the box trailer tire rolling resistance baseline, but they expressed concern that the SmartWay threshold of 5.1 kg/ton does not apply for non-box trailers, and could compromise their operation. Similarly, the Rubber Manufacturers Association indicated that a baseline of 6.0 kg/ton does not apply to non-box trailers. The agencies agree that the baseline tires for non-box trailers should have a higher rolling resistance, but we did not receive any comments that included C
The agencies evaluated four tire rolling resistance levels, summarized in Table IV-7, in the feasibility analysis of the following sections. It should be noted that these levels are targets for setting the stringency of the box van performance standards and rolling resistance thresholds for the non-box design standards. For compliance, box van manufacturers have the option to use tires with any rolling resistance and are not be limited to these TRRLs.
Tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) and automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS) are designed to address under-inflated tires. Both systems alert
The agencies proposed that ATIS be the only tire pressure system allowed to be used to meet the standards, since TPMS require action on the part of the operator. Our position at the time of the proposal was that TPMS could not sufficiently guarantee proper inflation. 80 FR 40262. However, some commenters stated that TPMS are effective in encouraging proper tire pressure maintenance, and should also be eligible as a compliance option. Commenters did not provide specific data about the overall effectiveness of TPMS. However, we are aware of the emergence of TPMS that use telematics to automatically report tire pressure data to a central contact. It is also our understanding that there is a growing recognition among fleet and individual operators of the potential value that these systems can provide to operators, so long as the operator and/or a central fleet contact take action to address cases of low tire pressures indicated by the systems. These factors have led the agencies to reconsider our approach to TPMS. As described in Section IV.B. above, we now believe that TPMS provides overall fuel consumption and CO
NHTSA and EPA recognize the role of proper tire inflation in maintaining optimum tire rolling resistance during normal trailer operation. Rather than require performance testing of tire pressure systems, the agencies recognize the benefits of these systems, and the program applies default reduction values for manufacturers that incorporate ATIS or TPMS into their trailer designs. Based on information available today, we believe that most tire pressure technologies and systems in typical use perform similarly.
We proposed to assign a 1.5 percent reduction in CO
We selected the standards for most box vans with the expectation that a high rate of adoption of ATIS will occur during all years of the phase-in of the program, and that manufacturers of non-aero vans, and non-box trailers will install either TPMS or ATIS, as well as LRR tires, to comply with the design-based tire standards.
In the performance-based compliance approach to full- and partial-aero box vans, the program incorporates a small discount in the value of TPMS in the compliance equation as compared to ATIS, to reflect the inherent user interaction required for TPMS to be effective. In the design-based compliance approach for non-aero vans and non-box trailers, manufacturers may comply by using either TPMS or ATIS, which in that case are valued equally. See Section IV.D.(2)(d) below for discussion of our estimates of the degree of adoption of tire pressure systems prior to and at various points in the phase-in of the proposed program.
As proposed, the trailer program provides manufacturers the option of complying through the substitution of specified lighter-weight components that can be clearly isolated from the trailer as a whole. In the proposal, the agencies identified several conventional components with lighter-weight substitutes that are currently available (
There is no clear “baseline” for current trailer weight against which lower-weight designs could be compared for regulatory purposes. For this reason, the agencies do not believe it is appropriate or fair across the industry to apply overall weight reductions toward compliance using a universal baseline trailer. However, the agencies do believe it is appropriate to give a manufacturer credit for overall weight reduction achieved in their own product line. In the final program, we are clarifying that manufacturers of box trailers with significant weight reductions have the option of using our off-cycle credit process to compare overall weight reduction of future trailers using an appropriate baseline from their own production. This process allows manufacturers to do a comparison of their new trailer to a previous model to quantify the weight reduction improvements. Manufacturers wishing to go this route should contact
The agencies recognize that when weight reduction is applied to a trailer, some operators will replace that saved weight with additional payload. To account for this in the average vehicle represented by EPA's GEM vehicle simulation tool, it is assumed that one-third of any weight reduction will be applied to the payload. Wabash suggested that the agencies reconsider the distribution of weight between payload and trailer weight when modeling weight reduction, expressing concern that the reduction was not receiving appropriate credit in the program. Although the simulated vehicle in GEM only receives
For 53-foot vans simulated in GEM (and thus, for the GEM-based equation), it takes a weight reduction of nearly 1,000 pounds before a one percent fuel savings is achieved. The impact of the same 1000 pounds is slightly greater for shorter vans, due to their lower overall weight, but the effectiveness of weight reduction is still relatively low compared to the effectiveness of many aerodynamic technologies. In addition, large material substitutions can be costly. The agencies thus believe that few trailer manufacturers will apply weight reduction solely as a means of achieving reduced fuel consumption and CO
The agencies evaluated the technologies above as they apply to each of the trailer subcategories. The next sections describe the effectiveness, adoption rates and costs associated with these technologies. The effectiveness and adoption rate projections were used to derive these standards.
The regulatory purpose of EPA's heavy-duty vehicle compliance tool, GEM, is to combine the effects of trailer technologies through simulation so that they can be expressed as g/ton-mile and gal/1000 ton-mile and thus avoid the need for direct testing of each trailer being certified. All of the standards for box vans (with the exception of non-aero box vans, which have design standards) use an equation derived from GEM to demonstrate compliance. The trailer program has separate performance standards for each box van subcategory (again, with the exception of non-aero box vans) and each of these subcategories is modeled as a tractor-trailer combination that we believe reflects the average physical characteristics and use pattern of vans in that subcategory. Long vans are pulled by sleeper cab tractors and use the long-haul drive cycle weightings. Short vans are pulled by day cabs and have the short-haul drive cycle weightings. Short vans also have a lighter payload and overall vehicle weight compared to their longer counterparts.
Table IV-8 highlights the relevant vehicle characteristics for the no-control default of each subcategory (
As already noted, the agencies recognize trailer improvements via four performance parameters: Aerodynamic drag reduction, tire rolling resistance reduction, the adoption of tire pressure systems, and weight-reducing strategies. Table IV-9 summarizes the performance levels the agencies evaluated for each of these parameters based on the technology characteristics outlined in Section IV.D.(1).
These performance parameters have different effects on each trailer subcategory due to differences in the simulated trailer characteristics. Table IV-10 shows the agencies' estimates of the effectiveness of each parameter for the four box van types. Each technology was evaluated using the baseline parameter values for the other technology categories. For example, each aerodynamic bin was evaluated using the baseline tire (6.0 kg/ton) and the baseline weight reduction option (zero pounds). The table shows that aerodynamic improvements offer the largest potential for CO
In order to evaluate the benefits and costs of the final standards for each of the ten subcategories, it is necessary to establish a reference point for comparison. As mentioned previously, the technologies described in Section IV.D.(1) exist in the market today, and their adoption is driven by available fuel savings as well as by the voluntary SmartWay Partnership and California's tractor-trailer requirements. For these rules, the agencies identified baseline tractor-trailers for each trailer subcategory based on the technology adoption rates we project would exist in MY 2018 if this trailer program was not implemented.
CARB's comments noted the informal survey of TTMA members provided in letter from TTMA to EPA in 2014 regarding current adoption rates of several technologies. CARB suggested that our proposed baseline adoption rates did not reflect the data in that letter.
TTMA's survey indicated that 35 percent of long vans and less than 2 percent of vans under 53-foot in length include aerodynamic devices, and over 80 percent have adopted lower rolling resistance tires. The agencies believe the trailers for which manufacturers have adopted these technologies are likely to be trailers that would qualify as “full-aero” vans, and we adjusted our baselines to reflect these values. Our baseline assumes that aerodynamics would increase to 40 percent adoption for full-aero long vans (dry and refrigerated) and 5 percent for full-aero short vans by 2018 without the Phase 2 standards. We also assume adoption of lower rolling resistance tires (Level 1) will increase to 90 percent and ATIS to 45 percent in the baseline. We held these adoption rates constant throughout the timeframe of the rules. Table IV-11 summarizes the updated baseline trailers for each trailer subcategory.
Also shown in Table IV-11 are average aerodynamic performance (delta C
Because the agencies cannot be certain about future trends, we also considered a second baseline. This dynamic baseline reflects the possibility that, absent a Phase 2 regulation, there would be continuing adoption of aerodynamic technologies in the long box trailer market after 2018 that reduce fuel consumption and CO
The agencies applied the vehicle attributes from Table IV-8 and the average performance values from Table IV-11 in the Phase 2 GEM vehicle simulation to calculate the CO
The agencies developed their performance and design standards based on projected adoption rates of certain technologies. This section describes how these adoption rates were applied for each of the trailer subcategories.
As described in Section 0, the agencies evaluated several alternatives for the trailer program. Based on our analysis and comments received, the agencies are adopting standards consistent with the agencies' respective statutory authorities. The agencies proposed alternatives that were based on the use of averaging and the technology adoption rates for those alternatives at proposal reflected the use of averaging. As noted in Section IV.B., we received nearly unanimous, persuasive comments from the trailer industry opposing averaging and the agencies reconsidered the use of averaging in the early years of the program. The agencies designed the trailer program to have no averaging in MY 2018 through MY 2026. In those years, all box vans sold must meet the standards using any combination of available technologies. In MY 2027, when the trailer manufacturers are more comfortable with compliance and the industry is more familiar with the technologies, trailer manufacturers will have the option to use averaging to meet the standards. See Section IV.E.(5)(b) below for additional information about averaging.
Table IV-14 and Table IV-15 present sets of assumed adoption rates for aerodynamic, tire, and tire pressure technologies that a manufacturer could apply to meet the box van standards. Since averaging would not be allowed for MY 2018-MY 2026, the adoption rates consist of the combination of a single aerodynamic bin (not reflecting any averaging of aerodynamic controls), tire rolling resistance level, and tire pressure system. As mentioned previously, manufacturers can choose other combinations to meet the standards. Chapter 2.10 of the RIA shows several examples of alternative compliance pathways.
The adoption rates in Table IV-14 begin with all full-aero long box vans achieving current SmartWay-level aerodynamics (Bin III) in MY 2018 with a stepwise progression to achieving Bin V in 2024. The adoption rates for full-aero short box vans in Table IV-15 assume no adoption of aerodynamic devices in MY 2018, adoption of single aero devices in MY 2021, and combinations of devices by MY 2024. Although the shorter lengths of these trailers can restrict the design of aerodynamic technologies that fully match the SmartWay-like performance levels of long boxes, we nevertheless expect that trailer and device manufacturers will continue to innovate skirt, under-body, rear, and gap-reducing devices and combinations to achieve improved aerodynamic performance on these shorter trailers.
The adoption rates in MY 2018-MY 2026 are projected to be 100 percent for each technology, instead of an industry average seen in other vehicle sectors in the Phase 2 program. Since we are not considering averaging during those years, each set of adoption rates is one example of how an individual trailer in each subcategory could comply. Through MY 2026, the standards are based on technologies that exist today. We evaluated one technology in our aerodynamic test programs that met Bin VI levels of performance for long vans, suggesting that this bin can be met with combinations of existing aerodynamic technologies, but none of our tested technologies that met Bin IV levels of performance for short vans. We could not justify standards based on 100 percent adoption of those levels of performance as a final step in our progression of stringency. However, the industry has made great progress toward improving trailer aerodynamics in recent years and are continuing to optimize these technologies. Although we are not projecting fundamentally new technologies for trailers, we do believe aerodynamic performance will evolve in the trailer industry as a result of this rulemaking. Based on the recent rate of improvement, the agencies believe that there is ample lead time to optimize additional existing Bin V and Bin III combinations such that they can also meet Bins VI and IV by MY 2027 and it is reasonable to project that more than half of these full-aero capable trailers will have aerodynamic improvements greater than what is possible with today's technologies. Our projected aerodynamic improvements in MYs 2027 and later reflect this performance potential.
The MY 2027 full-aero box van standards are based on an averaging program.
We expect manufacturers of all box vans will adopt tires such as SmartWay-verified trailer tires (Level 3) to meet the standards in MY 2018 and will adopt tires with even lower rolling resistance tires (represented as Level 4) as they become available by MY 2021 and later years and as fleet experience with these tires develops.
In establishing standard stringency, the agencies are also assuming that all box vans will adopt ATIS throughout the program, though manufacturers have the option to install TPMS if they would prefer to make up the difference in effectiveness using other technologies. As mentioned previously, the agencies did not include weight reduction in their technology adoption projections, but certain types of weight reduction could be used as part of a compliance pathway, as discussed in Section IV.D.(1)(d) IV.D.(1)(d) above.
The agencies proposed that the partial-aero box vans would track with the full-aero van standards until MY 2024. 80 FR 40257. Wabash commented that partial-aero box vans should be exempt starting in MY 2021 since partial-aero vans cannot use multiple devices. The agencies reconsidered the proposed partial-aero standards and recognize that it would likely be difficult to meet the proposed MY 2024 standards without the use of multiple devices and yet partial-aero trailers, by definition, are restricted from using multiple devices. For these reasons, the agencies redesigned the partial-aero standards, such that trailers with qualifying work-performing equipment can meet standards that would be achievable with the use of a single aerodynamic device throughout the program, similar to the MY 2018 standards. The partial-aero standards do, however, increase in stringency slightly in MY 2021, to reflect the broader use of improved lower rolling resistance tires.
The adoption rates shown in these tables are one set of many possible combinations that box trailer manufacturers could apply to achieve the same average stringency. If a manufacturer chose these adoption rates, a variety of technology options exist within the aerodynamic bins, and several models of LRR tires exist for the levels shown. Alternatively, technologies from other aero bins and tire levels could be used to comply. It should be noted that since the standards for box vans are all performance-based, box van manufacturers are not limited to specific aerodynamic and tire technologies in their compliance choices. Certain types of weight reduction, for example, may be used as part of a compliance pathway. See RIA Chapter 2.10.2.4.1 for other example compliance pathways that include weight reduction.
Similar to our analyses of the baseline cases, the agencies derived a single set of performance parameters for each subcategory by weighting the performance levels included in Table IV-9 by the corresponding adoption rates. These performance parameters represent a compliant vehicle for each trailer subcategory and are presented as average values in the Table IV-14 through Table IV-16.
Neither non-aero vans (
We received comment that manufacturers were concerned about the cost and availability of ATIS for the trailer industry. Still, based on comments about TPMS and further evaluations by the agencies, we are including TPMS as an additional option for tire pressure systems in the trailer program, as discussed in Section IV.D.(1)(c) above. Non-aero vans and
The agencies applied the average performance parameters from Table IV-14 and Table IV-15 as input values to the GEM vehicle simulation to derive the HD Phase 2 fuel consumption and CO
Over the four stages of the trailer program, the full-aero box vans longer than 50 feet are projected to reduce their CO
The agencies evaluated the incremental technology costs for 53-foot dry and refrigerated vans and 28-foot dry vans. (As explained above, we believe these length trailers are representative of the majority of trailers in the long and short box van subcategories, respectively.) We identified costs for each technology package and projected the costs for each year of the program. A summary of the technology costs is included in Table IV-20 through Table IV-23 for MYs 2018 through 2027, with additional details available in the RIA Chapter 2.12. Costs shown in the following tables are for the specific model year indicated and are incremental to the average baseline costs, which includes some level of adoption of these technologies as shown in Table IV-13. Therefore, the technology costs in the following tables reflect the average cost expected for each of the indicated trailer classes across the fleet. Note that these costs do not represent actual costs for the individual components because they are relative to the costs of the MY 2018 baselines which are expected due to market-driven adoption of the technologies. For more on the estimated technology costs exclusive of adoption rates, refer to Chapter 2.12 of the RIA. These costs include indirect costs via markups and reflect lower costs over time due to learning impacts. For a description of the markups and learning impacts considered in this analysis and how technology costs for other years are thereby affected, refer to Chapter 7 of the RIA.
The agencies have determined that the standards presented in the Section IV.C.(2), are the maximum feasible and appropriate under the agencies' respective authorities, considering lead time, cost, and other factors. The agencies' decisions on the stringency and timing of the trailer standards focused on available technology and the consequent emission reductions and fuel efficiency improvements associated with use of the technology, while taking into account the circumstances of the trailer manufacturing sector. Trailer manufacturers are subject to first-time emission control and fuel consumption regulation under the trailer standards. These manufacturers are in many cases small businesses, with limited resources to master the mechanics of regulatory compliance. Thus, the agencies are providing ample and reasonable time for trailer manufacturers to become familiar with the requirements and the new compliance regime.
The stringency of the standard is predicated on more widespread deployment of tire technologies that are already in commercial use and existing aerodynamic devices combinations that we believe will be further optimized in the near-term. The availability, feasibility, and level of effectiveness of these technologies are well-documented. In developing the standards, we also took into account not just the capabilities of the technologies, but also how the use of these technologies is likely to expand under the trailer program, considering factors like degree of market penetration over time and the effect of different operational patterns for different trailer types (Section IV.D.(2) above). For example, some commenters point out that trailers operating at lower speeds will achieve smaller CO
The agencies do not believe that there is any issue of technological feasibility of the levels of the standards and the time line for implementing them in the final trailer program. The agencies considered cost and the sufficiency of lead-time, including lead-time not only to deploy technological improvements, but, as just noted, also for this industry sector to assimilate for the first time the compliance mechanisms of the trailer program.
The highest cost shown in Table IV-23 is associated with the standard for long dry vans. We project that the average cost per trailer to meet the MY 2027 standards for these trailers will be about $1,400, which is less than 10 percent of the cost of a new dry van trailer (estimated to be about $20,000). Other trailer types have lower projected technology costs, and many have higher purchase prices. As a result, we project that the per-trailer costs for all trailers covered in this regulation will be less than 10 percent of the cost of a new trailer.
The agencies regard these costs as reasonable. We project that most customers will rapidly recover the initial cost of these technologies due to the associated fuel savings, usually in two years. As discussed in Section IX.M and RIA Chapter 7.2.4, this payback is for tractors and trailers together, and includes both long and short-haul. This payback period is generally considered reasonable in the trailer industry for investments that reduce fuel consumption.
The agencies believe these technologies can be adopted at the projected rates within the lead time provided in the trailer program, as discussed above in Section IV.C.(4) above.
As discussed in Section X of the NPRM, the agencies evaluated five regulatory alternatives representing different levels of stringency for the Phase 2 program. See 80 FR 40273. A wide range of stakeholders commented on the proposed (Alternative 3) standards and the other alternatives that we discussed, and our final standards reflect our consideration of all of those comments.
Comments on our proposed standards (Alternative 3) and the alternatives we presented generally fell into three categories: (1) Commenters supporting Alternative 1;
Commenters including the TTMA, Utility, and Stoughton stated their belief that no mandatory standards are necessary; however, they did not provide information to show that market forces at work today will achieve the clear potential for the industry to reduce CO
As discussed previously, the agencies believe that our final trailer standards are appropriate under the Clean Air Act and are the maximum feasible standards under the EISA. In developing the proposal and the final rule, we considered standards that would be more stringent or would become effective in an earlier model year than the proposed Alternative 3 standards and timeline. Several commenters stated that a still more stringent program should be finalized, including information about current and potential future trailer aerodynamic technologies. Commenters including CARB, NACAA, NRDC, ICCT, UCS, and STEMCO supported the standards we presented for Alternative 4 in the proposal (essentially the pull ahead of the MY 2027 standards) in the proposal. In addition, some of the commenters made the additional suggestion that the agencies should anticipate that manufacturers will incorporate a modest degree of Bin VIII technologies—
Where commenters provided relevant data and information, the agencies made adjustments to the final program accordingly. For example, as noted in Section IV.C.(1) and Section IV.D.(2) previously, information from the industry was helpful in the decision to limit the non-box trailer program to tanks, flatbeds, and container chassis. Also, partially in response to information we received in comments, we slightly reduced the proposed stringency for partial-aero vans to better reflect their aerodynamic limitations. Also, while not a direct change to the stringency of the standards, the program limits averaging to the final stage of the program to allow van manufacturers more time to become familiar with the compliance processes and the industry to gain confidence in the technologies. Overall, the final standards are slightly more stringent than proposed, based on
Based on this analysis and as informed by the comments, we believe that the final standards in the program, slightly revised from the proposed Alternative 3 standards, are appropriate and represent the maximum feasible standards. In contrast, we believe that the accelerated timeline of Alternative 4 may cause technologies to prematurely enter the market, leading to unnecessary costs and compliance burdens that would not be appropriate for this newly regulated industry. Standards similar to or more stringent than those we evaluated for Alternative 5 would require CO
As with other EPA motor vehicle programs, trailer manufacturers must annually obtain a certificate of conformity from EPA before introducing into commerce new trailers subject to the new trailer CO
The certification process for trailer manufacturers is very similar in its basic structure to the process for the other Phase 2 vehicle programs, although it has been simplified for trailers. This structure involves pre-certification activities, the certification application and its approval, and end-of-year reporting.
In this section, the agencies first describe the general certification process and how we developed compliance equations based on the GEM vehicle simulation tool, followed by a discussion of the specified test procedures for measuring the performance of tires and aerodynamic technologies and how manufacturers will apply test results toward compliance and certification. The section closes with discussions of several other certification and compliance provisions as well as provisions to provide manufacturers with compliance flexibility.
Under the process for certification, manufacturers of all covered trailers are required to apply to EPA for certification.
Trailer manufacturers submit their applications through the EPA “Verify” electronic database, and EPA issues certificates based on the information provided. At the end of the model year, trailer manufacturers submit an end-of-year report to the agencies to complete their annual obligations.
As mentioned previously, consistent with Clean Air Act specifications, EPA's vehicle certification is an annual process. EPA CO
Before submitting an application for a certificate, a manufacturer chooses the technologies they plan to offer their customers, and identifies any trailers in their production line that qualify for exclusion from the program.
During this time, the manufacturers also decide the strategy they intend to use for compliance by identifying “families” for the trailers they produce. A family is a grouping of similar products that are all subject to the same standard and covered by a single certificate. All products in each trailer subcategory are generally certified as the same family. That is, long box dry vans, short box dry vans, long refrigerated vans, short refrigerated vans, non-box trailers, partial-aero vans (long and short box, dry and refrigerated vans), and non-aero box vans, are each certified as separate trailer families. Manufacturers may combine dissimilar trailers into a single vehicle family to reduce the compliance burden as described in 40 CFR 1037.230(d)(3) and 49 CFR 535.5(e). In general, manufacturers can combine trailers that have less stringent standards with more stringent standards as long as the combined set of trailers
When no averaging is available (
In MY 2027 and later, full-aero box van manufacturers will still generally have one family per subcategory. However, if a full-aero box van manufacturer subject to performance standards wishes to utilize the averaging provisions, it would need to divide the trailer models in each of the van subcategories/families into subfamilies.
Once the preliminary steps are completed, the manufacturer can prepare and submit applications to EPA for certificate of conformity for each of its trailer families. The contents of the application are specified in 40 CFR 1037.205, though not all items listed in the regulation are applicable to each trailer manufacturer.
For the early years of the program (
The manufacturer also provides a summary of the plans to comply with the standard. This information includes a description of the trailer family and subfamilies (if applicable) covered by the certificate, the technologies that are used for compliance, and projected sales of its products. For trailers subject to performance-based standards (and not those subject to the design-based standards), in the earlier stages of the program when averaging is not available (or for manufacturers of full-aero vans that do not participate in averaging after MY 2026), additional provisions apply. These manufacturers will include information on the configuration with the worst performance level in terms of CO
After the end of each year, all manufacturers, including those with design-based standards, need to submit a report to the agencies presenting production-related data for that year (see 40 CFR 1037.250 and 49 CFR 535.8). In addition, the year's final compliance data (as calculated using the compliance equation) for box van manufacturers subject to performance-based standards will include both CO
In MY 2027 and later, full-aero box van manufacturers that opt to participate in the averaging program will submit a second report that describes their subfamily FELs and a final calculation of their production-weighted average CO
The agencies believe that this final compliance program for trailer manufacturers is straightforward, technically robust, transparent, and minimizes administrative burdens on the industry. As described earlier in this section and in Chapter 4 of the RIA, GEM is a customized vehicle simulation model that EPA developed for the Phase 1 program to relate measured aerodynamic and tire performance values, as well as other parameters, to CO
For compliance with the performance-based standards in the trailer program (
Chapter 2.10.5 of the RIA provides a full a description of the development and evaluation of the equation for trailer compliance where the standards are performance-based. Equation IV-1 is a single linear regression curve that can be used for all box vans in these rules to calculate CO
These long and short van constants are based on GEM-simulated tractors pulling 53-foot and solo 28-foot trailers, respectively. As a result, aerodynamic testing to obtain a trailer's performance parameters for Equation IV-1 must be performed using consistent trailer sizes (
The constants for long vans apply for all dry or refrigerated vans longer than 50-feet and the constants for short vans apply for all dry or refrigerated vans 50-feet and shorter. The vans with work-performing devices that may be designated as partial-aero vans would use the same equation constants as their full-aero counterparts for compliance. The partial-aero designation simply allows a van to input different values (
Box van manufacturers subject to the performance-based standards meet the standards using the GEM-based compliance equation to combine the effects of technologies and quantify the overall performance of the vehicle to demonstrate compliance. Trailer manufacturers obtain delta C
Qualifying components for weight reduction can be found in 40 CFR 1037.515(d). Manufacturers that substitute one or more of these components on their box vans sum the weight reductions assigned to each component and enter that total into the equation. As noted in Section IV.D.(1)(d), the equation accounts for weight reduction by assigning one-third of that reduced weight to increase the payload and the remaining weight reduction to reduce the overall weight of the assumed vehicle.
Manufacturers of box vans subject to the performance standards apply the compliance equation separately to each configuration to ensure that all of the trailer configurations they offer need to meet the standard for the given model year. The certification application submitted to EPA includes equation results from the worst performing trailer configuration for each subcategory and the manufacturer attests that no regulated trailer will be sold in a lower performing configuration. If the manufacturer offers a new technology package during the model year, the performance can be evaluated using the equation. If the performance of the new package is lower than the value submitted in the application, the manufacturer would submit a “running change” to EPA to reflect the change. Box van manufacturers will submit a single end-of-year report that will include their production volumes and
Any full-aero box van manufacturers that wish to take advantage of the agencies' averaging provision in MY 2027 and later will make greater use of the compliance equation. Before submitting a certificate application, these manufacturers would decide which technologies to make available for their customers and use the equation to determine the range of performance of the packages they planned to offer. The manufacturers would supply these results from the equation in their certificate application and those manufacturers that wish to perform averaging would continue to calculate emissions (and fuel consumption) with the equation throughout the model year and keep records of the results for each trailer package produced. As described in Section IV.E.(1)(d) above, at the end of the year, these manufacturers would submit two reports. One report would include their production volumes for each configuration. The second report would summarize the families and subfamilies, and CO
For non-box trailers and non-aero box vans, compliance is design-based, not performance-based, and the compliance equation is not needed. As described earlier, the standards for these trailers require the use of tires with rolling resistance levels at or below a threshold, and tire pressure systems (either TPMS or ATIS). Instead of aerodynamic testing data in their certification applications, manufacturers of these trailers submit their tire rolling resistance levels and a description of their tire pressure system(s) to EPA.
The Clean Air Act specifies that compliance with emission standards for motor vehicles be demonstrated by the manufacturer using emission test data (see CAA section 206(a) and (b)). As discussed earlier, for the design-based standards (non-box trailers and non-aero vans), the trailer program considers the use of specified LRR tires and tire pressure systems an appropriate surrogate for emission testing, and there are no testing requirements associated with these standards beyond the testing required to show the tires qualify as LRR tires. We expect that tire testing will be performed by the tire manufacturers.
All full- and partial-aero vans covered by the program are subject to performance standards, and compliance is based on measured emission performance. For these trailers, the program uses the GEM-based compliance equation discussed in Section IV.E.(2)(a) above as the official “test procedure” for quantifying CO
The following subsections describe the approved performance tests for tire rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag in this trailer program. See 40 CFR part 1037, subpart F, for a full description of the performance tests, in particular section 40 CFR 1037.515.
Under Phase 1, tractor and vocational chassis manufacturers are required to input the tire rolling resistance level (TRRL) into GEM, and the agencies adopted the provisions in ISO 28580:2009(E)
The Phase 1 tire testing provisions for rolling resistance apply to all of the regulated trailers in the Phase 2 program. In the Phase 2 program, full- and partial-aero box van manufacturers, subject to the trailer performance-based standards, apply their declared TRRL in the compliance equation. Non-box trailer and non-aero box vans, subject to the design-based standards, simply report the TRRL as part of their certification application. Based on the current practice for Phase 1, we expect the trailer manufacturers to obtain these data from tire manufacturers, but trailer manufacturers have the option to perform tire testing themselves.
The agencies requested comment on adopting a program for tire manufacturers similar to the provision described in Section IV.E.(3)(b)(v) for aerodynamic device manufacturers, through which tire manufacturers would seek preliminary approval of the performance of their trailer tires. 80 FR 40278. CARB supported this option and further requested that EPA create a public database of the tire rolling resistance data submitted to the agency in such preliminary approvals. RMA's comments opposed making tire data available to the public without first developing a rating system for medium and heavy truck tires. The agencies have chosen not to pursue provisions for pre-approved trailer tire rolling resistance data or a public database of this information in this rulemaking, recognizing the overall unresolved issues relating to standard HD truck and trailer testing within the tire industry (as discussed in the Tractor section of this Preamble, Section III.E(1)(e)). Instead, trailer tire manufacturers provide tire rolling resistance values directly to the trailer manufacturers and that information is shared with EPA and NHTSA for certification.
As discussed earlier, manufacturers of trailers subject to performance standards (
To minimize the testing burden, the program specifies that all aerodynamic devices for long box vans (
The program provides for manufacturers to have flexibility in the devices (or packages of devices) they install on box vans with lengths that differ from 53-feet or 28-feet. In such situations, a manufacturer could use devices that they believe would be more appropriate for the length of the trailer they are producing, consistent with good engineering judgement. For example, they could test skirts on a 28-foot trailer and use longer skirts on 40-foot trailers that they make. No additional testing would be required in order to validate the appropriateness of using the alternate devices on these trailers.
The agencies have structured the final regulations to make wind tunnel testing the primary method for measuring trailer aerodynamic performance. While coastdown testing measures performance of full-scale vehicles, which is generally the agencies' preference for performance testing, wind tunnel testing achieves similar results in terms of delta C
The agencies considered making coastdown testing the primary test method for trailers, as it is for the tractor program. However, the delta C
Coastdown testing has two significant advantages over wind tunnel testing. First, as a full-scale method, it can be directly applied to actual products. Second, full-scale methods may be the only way to reliably test small-scale devices that cannot be appropriately scaled or recreated in wind tunnel or CFD. Although these advantages justify allowing coastdown testing as an alternate method, they do not justify the additional costs that would occur if it were specified as the primary test method for trailers.
In making this determination, the agencies were cognizant of the limited financial ability of trailer manufacturers (and device manufacturers) to absorb testing costs. Unlike the tractor industry, most of the manufacturers in the trailer industry are small- to medium-sized companies. Even the largest trailer manufacturers are much smaller than the companies that manufacture tractors. Had we established coastdown as the primary method, trailer manufacturers would have needed to not only perform extensive coastdown testing to show equivalency with their preferred methods, but would have also needed to maintain the ability to perform coastdowns on a regular basis like tractor manufacturers are required to under Phase 1 and Phase 2, including owning or maintaining access to an appropriate test tractor or tractors. While this is a manageable burden for the large tractor manufacturers, it would have been a substantial burden for trailer manufacturers, especially the smaller ones. TTMA commented that any of the larger manufacturers in its membership that may do testing would prefer wind tunnel or CFD testing to “contain costs.” In conjunction with the NODA, EPA laid out principles related to aerodynamic testing that we intended to follow when applying our compliance oversight to trailers.
Details of the test procedures can be found in 40 CFR 1037.526 and a discussion of EPA's aerodynamic testing program as it relates to the trailer program is provided in the RIA Chapter 3.2. The following subsections outline the testing requirements for the long term trailer program, as well as simpler testing provisions that apply in the nearer term.
The agencies expect a majority of the aerodynamic improvements for trailers will be accomplished by adding bolt-on technologies. As just explained above, a key difference between the tractor program and the trailer program is that while the tractor test procedures provide a direct measurement of an absolute C
In essence, an A to B test is a pair of tests: one test of a baseline tractor-trailer in a “no-control” configuration with zero trailer aerodynamic improvements (A), and one test that includes the aerodynamic improvements to be tested (B). However, because an A test relates to a B test only with respect to the test method and the basic tractor-trailer vehicle, one A test could be used for many different B test configurations. This type of testing results in a delta C
The agencies note that it was relatively straightforward in Phase 1 to establish a standard trailer with enough specificity to ensure consistent testing of tractors, since there are relatively small differences in aerodynamic performance of base-model dry box vans. However, as discussed in Chapter 2.10 of the RIA, small differences in tractor design can have a significant impact on overall tractor-trailer aerodynamic performance. An advantage of an A to B test approach for trailers is that many of the effects due to differences in tractor design are minimized, which allows different models of tractors to be used as standard tractors in testing without compromising the evaluation of the trailer aerodynamic technology. Thus, the relative approach does not require the agencies to precisely specify a standard tractor, nor does it require trailer manufacturers to purchase, modify or retain a specific tractor model in order to evaluate their trailers.
In the event that a trailer manufacturer makes major changes to the aerodynamic design of its trailer in lieu of installing add-on devices, it could use the same baseline trailer for the A configuration as could be used for bolt-on features. In both cases, the baseline trailer would be a manufacturer's standard box van. Thus, the manufacturer of a redesigned trailer would get full credit for any aerodynamic improvements it made.
As discussed in Chapter 2.10 of the RIA, measured drag coefficients and drag areas can vary slightly depending on the test method used. In general, absolute wind-averaged C
As noted already, the agencies have established the wind tunnel method as the primary method. Like the tractor program, the allowance to use alternate aerodynamic test procedures provides for adjustments to make the measurements equivalent to the primary method. This is done to ensure that the manufacturer is neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by using the alternate method, relative to results they would have obtained using the primary method. However, because determining equivalency between methods can be burdensome, the agencies are adopting in 40 CFR 1037.150(x) an interim allowance to use certain specific approximations based on data currently available to us. Manufacturers would not be required to justify using these approximations or to seek prior approval for them. Nevertheless, in the unlikely event that we determine that these approximations overstate actual aerodynamic performance for a particular trailer or device, we would not allow the manufacturer to use the approximated values for certification and they would be required to use other more reasonable adjustments.
Our test results shown in Chapter 2.10 of the RIA, show that wind tunnel and CFD produce wind-averaged delta C
The agencies are adopting a set of characteristics that qualify a tractor to be use in trailer aerodynamic compliance testing. EPA's trailer testing program investigated the impact of
The compliance equation used to determine compliance with the trailer standards is based on GEM, so our discussion of the feasibility of our standards (Section IV.D.(2)) includes a description of the tractor-trailer vehicle used in GEM. The agencies proposed to require use of a 6x4 Class 8 sleeper cab for long box van aerodynamic testing, and a 6x4 Class 8 day cab for short box van testing. 80 FR 40279. We believe Class 8 tractors are more widely available, which will make it easier for the trailer industry to obtain a qualified tractor if they choose to perform trailer testing. In order to align with the test procedures, we also proposed to consistently model a Class 8 tractor across all trailer subcategories in GEM. CARB supported the use of Class 8 tractors in their comments. However, EPA encountered difficulty in meeting the test procedure-specified tractor-trailer gap width when using a dual drive axle day cab in one of our short box van wind tunnel tests due to the location of the landing gear relative to the kingpin. As a result, we are changing the standard tractor specifications for aerodynamic testing to require the use of a 4x2 tractor for short trailers. While we expect most manufacturers will use tractor-trailer models in wind tunnel or CFD testing, we recognize that there are fewer 4x2 tractors available for full-scale testing, and we are adopting provisions that testers can use either a Class 8 or Class 7 day cab tractor to address availability concerns. We believe the external aerodynamic characteristics of Class 7 and Class 8 day cabs are very similar and the engine performance differences between the two tractor classes would not impact the aerodynamic performance in terms of delta C
Daimler requested that we choose a
The agencies proposed to determine the delta C
The agencies received comment on this issue, in the context of the proposed tractor standards, suggesting that the C
The agencies received comment from TTMA that “repetitive” coastdown testing would rarely be used by its trailer manufacturer members. Instead, manufacturers that do choose to perform their own testing will likely rely on CFD and wind tunnel tests. Because we are establishing the wind tunnel method as the primary method, and because we expect it to also be the most commonly used method, we no longer have test burden concerns about requiring wind-averaging. Therefore, the agencies believe we can adopt aerodynamic test procedures for trailers that require wind-averaged delta C
As mentioned in Section IV.D., the trailer program uses aerodynamic bins to account for testing variability and to provide consistency in the performance values used for compliance. We developed these bins in terms of delta C
A manufacturer that wishes to perform testing first identifies a standard tractor according to 40 CFR 1037.501(h) and a representative baseline trailer with no aerodynamic features (or models of these vehicles), then performs the A to B tests with and without aerodynamic improvements to obtain a delta C
The agencies recognize that much of the trailer manufacturing industry may have little experience with aerodynamic performance testing. For this reason, the program includes a compliance option that we believe minimizes the testing burden for trailer manufacturers, and at the same time meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act and of EISA by providing reasonable assurance that the anticipated CO
The trailer program provides for trailer aerodynamic device manufacturers to seek preliminary approval of the performance of their devices (or combinations of devices) based on the same performance tests described previously. Trailer manufacturers could then choose to use these devices and apply the approved performance levels in the certification application for their trailer families. A device manufacturer would need to perform the required A to B testing using a tractor-trailer that meets the requirements specified in 40 CFR 1037.211 and 1037.526 and submit the performance results, in terms of delta C
Once a device manufacturer has obtained this preliminary approval, it could supply the same information to any trailer manufacturers that wish to install its devices. When the trailer manufacturer certifies, the agencies would merely verify that the values in the trailer manufacturer's certification application are those already approved for the device manufacturer. To ease the transition for MYs 2018 through 2020, we proposed and are adopting a flexibility to allow pre-approval of certain data accepted by the EPA SmartWay aerodynamic verification program. Section IV.E.(5)(c) below describes how a device manufacturer can use certain test data generated for SmartWay verification as a part of its pre-approval in the early years of the program.
The program also allows trailer manufacturers to use multiple devices with individually pre-approved test data on a single trailer configuration, provided each device does not impair the effectiveness of the other(s), consistent with good engineering judgment.
The agencies believe that discounting the delta C
Note that the aerodynamic bins of Table IV-25 do not apply to aerodynamic data that device manufacturers submit to EPA for pre-approval. The pre-approved data will have greater precision than the bin-averaged values shown in Table IV-25. Therefore, trailer manufacturers calculating a delta C
The agencies note that many of the largest van manufacturers are already performing aerodynamic test procedures to some extent, and the agencies expect other van manufacturers will increasingly be capable of and interested in performing these tests as the program progresses. The device testing approach is intended to allow trailer manufacturers to focus on and become familiar with the certification process in the early years of the program and, if they wish, begin to perform testing in the later years, when it may be more appropriate for their individual companies. This approach does not preclude trailer manufacturers from performing their own testing at any time, even if the technologies they wish to install are already pre-approved. For
STEMCO, an aerodynamic device manufacturer, commented in support of the proposed pre-approval option, but also supported the agencies publishing information about the testing performed by device manufacturers for their devices to be pre-approved. The agencies are not committing to publish the pre-approved aerodynamic data at this time. We do note that once data are submitted to EPA and the device is introduced into commerce, the data are available to the public at their request and the information gathered may be published by outside stakeholders.
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that EPA is to propose emission standards that are applicable for the “useful life” of the vehicle. NHTSA is adopting EPA's proposed useful life requirements for trailers, to ensure that manufacturers consider in their design process the need for fuel efficiency standards to apply for the same duration as the EPA standards. Based on our own research and discussions with trailer manufacturers, EPA and NHTSA are adopting a regulatory useful life value for trailers of 10 years, as proposed. This useful life value represents the average duration of the initial use of trailers, before they are moved into less rigorous duty (
With this useful life provision, trailer manufacturers are responsible for designing and building their trailers so that they will be able to meet the CO
Regarding a useful life value for trailer tires, we recognize that the original lower rolling resistance tires will wear over time and will be replaced several times during the useful life of a trailer, either with new or retreaded tires. As with the Phase 1 tractor program, to help ensure that trailer owners have sufficient knowledge of which replacement tires to purchase in order to retain the as-certified emission and fuel consumption performance of their trailer for its useful life, the trailer program requires that trailer manufacturers supply adequate information in the owners manual to allow the trailer owner to purchase replacement tires meeting or exceeding the rolling resistance performance of the original equipment tires. (Note that the “owners manual” need not be a physical document, but could be made available on line). We believe that the favorable fuel consumption benefit of continued use of LRR tires generally results in proper replacements throughout the 10-year useful life. Finally, the program requires that tire pressure systems remain effective for at least the 10-year useful life, although some servicing may be necessary by the customer. See also the related discussions below in Section IV.E.(4)(c) (Emission-Related Warranty) and Section IV.E.(4)(d) (Maintenance).
Historically, EPA-certified vehicles are required to have a permanent emission control label affixed to the vehicle. The label facilitates identification of the vehicle as a certified vehicle. For the trailer program, EPA requires that the labels include the same basic information as we require for tractor labels in Phase 1. For trailers, this information includes the manufacturer, a trailer identifier such as the Vehicle Identification Number, the trailer family and regulatory subcategory, the date of manufacture, and compliance statements. Although the Phase 2 label for tractors does not include emission control system identifiers (as previously required for tractors in the Phase 1 program in 40 CFR 1037.135(c)(6)), the trailer program requires that these identifiers be included in the trailer labels. See 40 CFR 1037.135 for a list of general requirements for emissions labels, which includes a reference to Appendix III for appropriate abbreviations for trailer technologies.
Section 207 (a) of the CAA requires manufacturers to warrant their products to be free from defects that could otherwise cause non-compliance with emission standards. For purposes of the trailer program, EPA requires trailer manufacturers to warrant all components that form the basis of the certification to the CO
The trailer manufacturer needs to warrant that these emission-related components and systems are designed to remain functional for the warranty period. We note that this emission-related warranty, and the trailer manufacturer's financial responsibility for repairs, does not apply to components that are damaged in collisions or through abuse; nor does it cover components that experience wear with normal use. This warranty is meant to apply to defects in the product or improper installation by the manufacturer. Based on the historical practice of requiring emissions warranties to apply for half of the useful life, we are adopting a warranty period for trailers of five years for everything except tires. For trailer tires, we apply a warranty period of one year.
Utility and Great Dane noted in their comments that the warranty of current ATIS that they are aware of is limited to three years. However, we view this as a business decision by the ATIS manufacturers, rather than as a reflection of the actual durability of the systems. With proper maintenance, we are aware of no reason that these systems would be unable to meet the durability requirements of the trailer program or to be designed to last the full useful life of the trailer if properly maintained. See the Maintenance
At the time of certification, manufacturers need to supply a copy of the warranty statement that they supply to the end customer. This document outlines what is covered under the GHG emissions related warranty as well as the duration of coverage. Customers also need to have clear access to the terms of the warranty, the repair network, and the process for obtaining warranty service.
In general, EPA requires that vehicle manufacturers specify schedules for any maintenance needed to keep their product in compliance with emission standards throughout the useful life of the vehicle (CAA section 207(a)). For trailers, such maintenance could include adjustments to fairings or service to tire pressure systems. EPA believes that any such maintenance is likely to be performed by operators to maintain the fuel savings of the components. If manufacturers believe that the durability of their trailer's performance is contingent on proper maintenance of these systems, they must include a corresponding maintenance schedule in their certification applications.
Since lower rolling resistance tires are key emission control components under this program, and they will likely require replacement at multiple points within the life of a vehicle, it is important to clarify how tires fit into the emission-related maintenance requirements. Although the agencies encourage the exclusive use of LRR tires throughout the life of trailers vehicles, we do not hold trailer manufacturers responsible for the actions of end users. We do not see this as problematic because, as noted above, we believe that trailer end users have a genuine financial motivation for ensuring their vehicles are as fuel efficient as possible, which includes purchasing LRR replacement tires and that they will continue to use them once they are accustomed to their use. Therefore, as mentioned in Section IV.E.(4) above, to help ensure that trailer owners have sufficient knowledge of which replacement tires to purchase in order to retain the as-certified emission and fuel consumption performance of their trailer, the program requires that trailer manufacturers supply adequate information in the owners manual to allow the trailer owner to purchase tires meeting or exceeding the rolling resistance performance of the original equipment tires. (As discussed above, note that the “owners manual” need not be a physical document, but could be made available on line). Manufacturers submit these instructions to EPA as part of the application for certification.
The Clean Air Act generally prohibits any person from removing or rendering inoperative any emission control device installed for compliance, such as those needed to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 1037. However, in 40 CFR 1037.655 EPA clarifies that certain vehicle modifications are allowed after a vehicle reaches the end of its regulatory useful life. This section applies to trailers, since it applies to all vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 1037.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.655 clarify that owners may modify a vehicle for the purpose of reducing emissions, provided they have a reasonable technical basis for knowing that such modification will not increase emissions of any other pollutant, but emphasizes that EPA presumes such modifications to be more appropriate for second owners. In the case of trailers, an owner would need to have information that would lead an engineer or other person familiar with trailer design and function to reasonably believe that the modifications will not increase emissions of any regulated pollutant. In the absence of such information, modifications during or after the trailer's useful life would constitute tampering with an emission control system. Thus, this provision does not provide a blanket allowance for modifications after the useful life.
This section does not specifically apply with respect to modifications that occur within the useful life period, other than to note that many such modifications to the vehicle during the useful life are presumed to violate CAA section 203(a)(3)(A). EPA notes, however, that this is merely a presumption, and would not prohibit modifications during the useful life where the owner clearly has a reasonable technical basis for knowing the modifications will not cause the vehicle to exceed any applicable standard.
In Phase 2, vehicle performance for box vans (except non-aero box vans) is measured using a GEM-based equation, which accepts input parameters related to aerodynamics, tire rolling resistance, and trailer weight. Trailer manufacturers are responsible for obtaining performance measures for these parameters through valid testing according to the specified test procedures. The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to perform its own testing to confirm the manufacturer's data. This testing, which is called confirmatory testing, is conducted prior to issuing a certificate. The Act also authorizes EPA to require manufacturers to conduct Selective Enforcement Audits (SEA), which would involve testing performed on production vehicles before they enter into commerce.
The agencies are finalizing a list of lightweight trailer components that can be installed by trailer manufacturers and used in certification. Additionally, we are assigning a set percent reduction value to qualifying tire pressure systems (
Of all of the performance measures for trailers, we believe aerodynamic testing has the greatest potential for variability and these results are likely to receive the most scrutiny. In the NPRM, we proposed to generally apply the same SEA and confirmatory testing structures to tractors and trailer with respect to aerodynamics. However, we also proposed to retain the authority to require
We are revising the SEA and confirmatory testing structures for trailers based on further consideration and comments received from the trailer manufacturing industry (TTMA). In general, the final regulations reflect the following principles:
• Due to the smaller number of possible trailer configurations (compared to tractor configurations), it would be more possible for EPA to rely on confirmatory testing for trailer aerodynamics.
• Since test-to-test variability for individual coastdown runs can be high, confirmatory test determinations should be based on average values from multiple runs.
• Trailer manufacturers and trailer component manufacturers have less financial ability to perform SEAs than do tractor manufacturers. Nevertheless, EPA should retain the authority to require trailer and trailer component manufacturers to perform SEAs, especially where EPA has reason to believe the trailers are non-compliant.
• Given the limited ability to eliminate uncertainty, compliance determinations should consider the statistical confidence that a true value lies outside a bin.
EPA will generally try to duplicate a manufacturer's test setup in any confirmatory testing (which would include the standard tractor) unless we have reason to believe an inappropriate setup was used. While our test results presented in Chapter 2.10 of the RIA show that the trailer program's delta C
We believe that, although the final compliance structure for trailers is simpler than for tractors, it will still provide a strong incentive for manufacturers to act in good faith. In particular, the regulations emphasize the final value of EPA's auditing records and inspecting production components, rather than requiring manufacturers to perform expensive testing. Thus, EPA expects to require manufacturers to perform SEA testing only when we have reasonable evidence leading us to believe a manufacturer have not provided accurate test data. See Section III.E.(2)(a)(ix) for a discussion of how EPA would conduct an aerodynamic SEA.
Manufacturers have raised concerns about enforcement of emission standards for new trailers that are imported into the United States. This poses unique challenges at the point of entry, because new trailers may be carrying cargo and are therefore nearly indistinguishable from trailers that have already been imported or otherwise placed into service. We are not adopting any new or different compliance provisions in this rulemaking to address this; however, we intend to work cooperatively with Customs and Border Protection and other agencies to ensure that first-time state registration of new trailers includes verification that the trailer manufacturers have certified them to meet U.S. emission and fuel consumption standards. We expect this to be similar to the current system for ensuring that new, imported trailers meet NHTSA safety standards.
A related concern applies for foreign-based trailers traveling in the United States for importing or exporting cargo. Such trailers are not subject to emission and fuel consumption standards unless they are considered imported into the United States. U.S. cabotage law prohibits foreign truck drivers from carrying product from one point to another within the United States. Effective enforcement of this cabotage law will help prevent manufacturers of noncompliant foreign-produced trailers from gaining a competitive advantage over manufacturers of compliant domestic trailers.
The trailer program that the agencies are adopting incorporates a number of provisions that have the effect of providing flexibility and easing the compliance burden on trailer manufacturers while maintaining the expected CO
In addition to these provisions inherent to the trailer program, this section describes additional options the agencies are adopting that we believe will be valuable to many trailer manufacturers.
As described in Section IV.B. above the agencies are not finalizing the proposed provisions that would have allowed manufacturers to comply with the trailer standards using averaging before MY 2027. As a result, in the absence of mitigating provisions, manufacturers would need to comply with the applicable standards for all of their trailers. The agencies received comment, primarily from trailer manufacturers, that, without the flexibility of averaging, trailer manufacturers should be allowed to “carve-out” a set percentage of their sales that would not be required to meet the standards. Stoughton Trailers suggested a 20 percent carve-out.
The agencies considered this concept and this final program provides each manufacturer with a limited “allowance” of trailers that do not need to meet the standards. In determining an appropriate value for this allowance, the agencies sought to balance the need for some degree of flexibility in the absence of averaging while minimizing changes in the competitive relationships among larger and smaller trailer manufacturers. An allowance of 20 percent, as suggested by Stoughton, is problematic, since the annual production for individual trailer manufacturers varies so widely. An allowance of 20 percent for a very large manufacturer could very well represent the same volume of trailers as an entire year's sales for a small manufacturer. This in turn could result in a situation where a large number of non-complying trailers would be on the market, potentially attracting customers away from smaller manufacturers that needed to market complying trailers.
Because of this, the agencies estimated a representative volume of trailers based on the 2015 Trailer Production Figures published by Trailer-BodyBuilders.com.
While averaging does not apply for partial- and non-aero box trailers at any point in the program, the agencies believe manufacturers can also benefit from the ability to exempt some trailers from these subcategories in the early years as they transition into the full program. For MY 2018 through 2026, manufacturers can include partial- and non-aero box trailers in their 350 box van allowance. In MY 2027, we believe all partial- and non-aero box vans can meet the reduced standards for their given subcategories.
Non-box trailers have design-based tire standards and averaging thus does not apply for this subcategory. Similar to the partial- and non-aero box vans, we also believe non-box manufacturers can benefit from a transitional exemption allowance. The agencies are adopting a separate allowance for non-box trailers, because their production volumes differ and many non-box trailer manufacturers do not build box vans. Using the same trailer production figures, we found that the smallest non-box trailer manufacturer in the list produced 1325 trailers in 2015 and twenty percent of that production is 265 trailers. From MY 2018 through 2026, non-box trailer manufacturers can exempt 20 percent or 250 trailers from the applicable tire standards. By MY 2027, we believe all non-box trailers can incorporate the tire technologies required by the design standards.
The agencies estimate that the box van and non-box trailer allowances translate on average to less than two percent of production across the trailer industry, and the agencies believe that this minor degree of loss of emission and fuel consumption reduction benefits is more than offset by the flexibility which, as pointed out earlier, may be needed by this newly regulated industry segment. These allowances are specified in 40 CFR 1037.150 and 49 CFR 535.3.
The agencies proposed to allow trailer manufacturers to use averaging throughout the phase-in of the program as one option for complying with the trailer standards. As noted, we received nearly unanimous comments, in response to the pre-proposal SBREFA panel and to the NPRM, from trailer manufacturers opposing averaging. Specifically, the commenters cited their concern that the unique aspects of the trailer market tend to mean that the value of averaging as a tool is less than it has been for manufacturers in other industries, and the potential for negative consequences to some manufacturers is substantial. The trailer manufacturing industry is very competitive, and manufacturers must be highly responsive to their customers' diverse demands. Compared to other industry sectors, they can have little control over what kinds of trailer models their customers demand and thus limited ability to manage the mix and volume of different products. Additionally, one of the larger, more diverse manufacturers could potentially supply a customer with trailers that had few if any aerodynamic features, while offsetting this part of their business with over-complying trailers that they were able to sell to another customer; many smaller companies with limited product offerings might not be able to compete for those customers.
As a result of the many comments opposing averaging from trailer manufacturers—the very stakeholders meant to benefit from an averaging program—the agencies have reconsidered how averaging is incorporated into the program. The final program does not allow averaging as a compliance option in the early years of the program, in MY 2018 through MY 2026. In those years, all box vans sold (beyond a manufacturer's allowance of non-complying trailers) must meet the standards using any combination of available technologies.
However, the agencies have concluded that by late in the program, the value of an averaging option to many trailer manufacturers may well outweigh the concerns they have expressed. In addition, the final stage of the phase-in of the standards for MY 2027 represents the most stringent standards in the program, and additional flexibility may be welcome by trailer manufacturers. Therefore, the final program will provide a limited optional averaging program for MY 2027 and later full-aero box vans. By that time, we believe that the trailer manufacturers will be experienced and comfortable with the program, and the industry will be more familiar with the technologies.
The MY 2027 and later averaging provisions are identical in most respects to those we proposed for the other Phase 2 vehicle programs. One notable difference involves use of credits. As in the proposed trailer program, the averaging provisions for trailers focus on each individual model year's production. A manufacturer choosing to use the averaging provisions could not “bank” compliance credits for a future model year or “trade” (sell) credits to another manufacturer, since these provisions would disproportionately benefit the few large trailer manufacturers. Under these averaging provisions, a full-aero box van manufacturer that produces some MY 2027 or later box vans that perform better than required by the applicable standard could produce a number of vans in the same family that do not meet the standards, provided that the average compliance levels of the trailers it produces in any given model year is at or below the applicable standards for that family.
As in the proposed program, averaging is only available for full-aero box vans. The program is already designed to offer reduced standards for box vans designated as partial-aero, and the additional flexibility of averaging is not available. Also, averaging is inherently incompatible with design standards for non-aero box vans and non-box trailers, since those manufacturers cannot choose among compliance paths.
The agencies are adopting averaging sets for full-aero box vans based on trailer length. Trailers in a family are certified to a single standard, but individual trailers within the family may be grouped to certify to a family emissions limit (FEL) that is higher or lower than the standard, provided the production-weighted average of all FELs in a family can be averaged to the standard or better. By allowing averaging sets to include both refrigerated and dry vans similar length categories, a manufacturer that over-complies, on average, in one family, can use the credits generated toward compliance in the other family. For example, if a manufacturer has two subfamilies in each of its long dry and long refrigerated van families, and the over-compliance of one dry van subfamily exceeds the under-compliance of the other dry van subfamily, the additional over-compliance beyond the dry van family's standard become credits that can be used to offset any under-compliance in the refrigerated van family.
In order to avoid backsliding with the use of averaging, the agencies are adopting a provision to require a minimum level of technology adoption in MY 2027 and later. No FEL can exceed the MY 2018 standard for the given trailer subcategory. For example, a manufacturer could not over-comply on some trailers and expect to produce a fraction of their trailers with zero
As mentioned previously, manufacturers with a trailer family that performed better than the standard at the end of the year would not be allowed to bank credits for a future model year. However, the agencies understand that it is possible for a manufacturer to misjudge production and come up short at the end of the model year. In such a case, the program provides for a manufacturer to generate a credit deficit, if necessary, as a temporary recourse for unexpected challenges in a given model year.
The agencies believe that limiting the availability of averaging provisions to the final stage of the program will ease a number of the competitive concerns that trailer manufacturers have raised, since the trailer program will be familiar and the value of averaging may be greater as the most stringent standards phase in. Small business manufacturers raised concerns in our pre-proposal small business outreach that averaging would disproportionately benefit larger manufacturers with larger production volumes and greater product diversity. We are limiting our averaging program to single model year averaging (
The agencies expect some trailer manufacturers and aerodynamic device manufacturers to continue to submit test data to the SmartWay program for verification. Since many manufacturers have some experience with EPA's SmartWay program, the agencies have designed the trailer program and aerodynamic testing to recognize the significant synergy with the SmartWay Technology Program. Section IV.E.(3)(b)(v) describes the compliance path available to trailer manufacturers to use pre-approved performance data for aerodynamic devices. As an additional interim option, any device manufacturer that attains SmartWay verification for a device prior to January 1, 2018 is eligible to submit its previous SmartWay-verified data to EPA's Compliance Division for pre-approval, provided their test results come from one of SmartWay's 2014 test protocols that measure a delta C
Beginning on January 1, 2018, EPA will require that device and trailer manufacturers that seek approval of new aerodynamic technologies for trailer certification use one of the approved test methods for Phase 2 (
The Phase 1 and Phase 2 programs include provisions for manufacturers to request the use of off-cycle technologies that are not recognized in GEM and were not in common use before MY 2010. During the development of the trailer proposal, the agencies were not aware of any technologies that could improve CO
In light of these comments and further consideration of the issue, the agencies believe that the off-cycle technology process is an appropriate way for certain box van manufacturers—that is, those using the compliance equation and not subject to the design standards—to receive credit for future lightweighting or other technologies that are not recognized in the compliance equation. For this reason, we have incorporated box vans into the existing off-cycle provisions. In the case of lightweighting, a measured difference in trailer weight could substitute for the weight component of the compliance equation. For other such technologies (should any exist), the general off-cycle provisions apply. See 40 CFR 1037.515(e).
As a part of our small business obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA and NHTSA have considered additional flexibility provisions aimed at this segment of the trailer manufacturing industry. EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), and much of the information gained and recommendations provided by this process form the basis of the proposed flexibilities.
The agencies identified 178 trailer and tank manufacturers for our analysis and we believe 147 qualify as small business (
As noted above, the small trailer manufacturers raised concerns that their businesses could be harmed by provisions allowing averaging, banking, and trading of emissions and fuel consumption performance, since they will not be able to generate the same volume of credits as large manufacturers. The agencies are not adopting banking and trading provisions in any part of the program, and are limiting the option to average to manufacturers of full-aero dry and refrigerated box trailers and delaying the averaging until MY 2027. Similarly, we are adopting a maximum FEL based on the MY 2018 standard to ensure that larger manufacturers will not be able to produce large volumes of trailers with little or no technologies at the expense of manufacturers that cannot accumulate sufficient over-compliance within their annual production. We expect that the familiarity of the industry, including small business manufacturers, with the trailer program by this stage of the program, and the requirement that all trailers meet at least the MY 2018 level of control, will reduce the concerns of small manufacturer compared to an earlier or broader averaging program.
For all small business trailer manufacturers, the agencies are adopting a one-year delay in the beginning of implementation of the program, until MY 2019. We believe that this allows small businesses additional needed lead time to make the necessary staffing adjustments and process changes, and possibly add new infrastructure to meet the requirements of the program. TTMA commented that all trailer manufacturers are “small businesses” relative to other heavy-duty industries and that the one-year delay would divert sales to small businesses for that model year. Wabash argued that providing a flexibility is not required by the RFA and not authorized by the Clean Air Act. The agencies believe that small businesses do not have the same resources available to become familiar with the regulations, make process and staffing changings, or evaluate and market new technologies as their larger counterparts. We believe a one-year delay provides additional time for small businesses to address these issues, without a large CO
Chapter 12 of the RIA presents the agencies' Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In this chapter, we discuss the recommendations of the Panel, what we proposed, and what we finalized for the small businesses regulated in Phase 2. We also estimate the economic effect of the rulemaking on these businesses based on their annual revenue. Considering the flexibilities adopted in this rulemaking, our estimate of compliance burden indicates that only 15 of the 147 small trailer manufacturers (about 10 percent) will have an economic impact greater than one percent of their annual revenue. Therefore, we believe the trailer provisions in this rulemaking do not have a significant impact on small businesses.
Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles include a wide variety of vehicle types, and serve a wide range of functions. Some examples include service for urban delivery, refuse hauling, utility service, dump, concrete mixing, transit service, shuttle service, school bus, emergency, motor homes, and tow trucks. In the HD Phase 1 Program, the agencies defined Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles as all heavy-duty vehicles that are not included in the Heavy-duty Pickup Truck and Van or the Class 7 and 8 Tractor categories. In effect, the rules classify heavy-duty vehicles that are not a combination tractor or a pickup truck or van as vocational vehicles. Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles and their engines emit approximately 17 percent of the GHG emissions and burn approximately 17 percent of the fuel consumed by today's heavy-duty truck sector.
Most vocational vehicles are produced in a two-stage build process, though some are built from the “ground up” by a single entity. In the two-stage process, the first stage sometimes is completed by a chassis manufacturer that also builds its own proprietary components such as engines or transmissions. This is known as a vertically integrated manufacturer. The first stage can also be completed by a chassis manufacturer who procures all
The second stage is typically completed by a final stage manufacturer or body builder, which installs the primary load carrying device or other work-related equipment, such as a dump bed, delivery box, or utility boom. There are over 200 final stage manufacturers in the U.S., most of which are small businesses. Even the large final stage manufacturers are specialized, producing a narrow range of vehicle body types. These businesses also tend to be small volume producers. In 2011, the top four producers of truck bodies sold a total of 64,000 units, which is about 31 percent of sales in that year.
The businesses that act both as the chassis manufacturer and the final stage manufacturer are those that build the vehicles from the “ground up.” These entities generally produce custom products that are sold in lower volumes than those produced in large commercial processes. Examples of vehicles produced with this build process include fire apparatus and transit buses.
The diversity in the vocational vehicle segment can be primarily attributed to the variety of customer needs for specialized vehicle bodies and added equipment, rather than to the chassis. For example, a body builder can build either a Class 6 bucket truck or a Class 6 delivery truck from the same Class 6 chassis. The aerodynamic difference between these two vehicles due to their bodies leads to different in-use fuel consumption and GHG emissions. However, the baseline fuel consumption and emissions due to the components included in the common chassis (such as the engine, drivetrain, frame, and tires) may be the same between these two types of vehicles.
Owners of vocational vehicles that are upfitted with high-priced bodies that are purpose-built for particular applications tend to keep them longer, on average, than owners of vehicles such as pickups, vans, and tractors, which are traded in broad markets that include many potential secondary markets. The fact that vocational vehicles also generally accumulate far fewer annual miles than tractors further contributes to lengthy trade cycles among owners of these vehicles. To the extent vocational vehicle owners may be similar to owners of tractors in terms of business profiles, they are more likely to resemble private fleets or owner-operators than for-hire fleets. A 2013 survey conducted by NACFE found that the trade cycle of private tractor fleets ranged from seven to 12 years.
The Phase 1 standards for this vocational vehicle category generally apply at the chassis manufacturer level. For the same reasons given in Phase 1, the agencies are applying the Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards at the chassis manufacturer level.
The Phase 1 regulations prohibit the introduction into commerce of any heavy-duty vehicle without a valid certificate or exemption. 40 CFR 1037.622, originally codified as 40 CFR 1037.620, allows for a temporary exemption for the chassis manufacturer if it produces the chassis for a secondary manufacturer that holds a certificate. The agencies received several comments on the requirements for secondary manufacturers. A discussion of temporary exemptions and obligations of secondary manufacturers can be found in Section V.D.(2).
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted two equivalent sets of standards for Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles. For vehicle-level (chassis) emissions, EPA adopted CO
In Phase 1, the agencies defined a special regulatory category called vocational tractor, which generally operate more like vocational vehicles than line haul tractors.
Manufacturers are required to use GEM to determine compliance with the Phase 1 vocational vehicle standards, where the primary vocational vehicle manufacturer-generated input is the measure of tire rolling resistance. The GEM assumes the use of a typical representative, compliant engine in the simulation, resulting in one overall value for CO
In Phase 1, EPA and NHTSA also adopted provisions designed to give manufacturers a degree of flexibility in complying with the standards. Most significantly, we adopted an ABT program to allow manufacturers to comply on average within a given averaging set. See 40 CFR part 1037, subpart H. These provisions enabled the agencies to adopt overall standards that are more stringent than we could have considered with a less flexible program.
Since proposal, in addition to considering substantive written public comments, the agencies have held dozens of meetings with manufacturers, suppliers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders to better understand the opportunities and challenges involved with regulating vocational vehicles. These meetings have helped us to better
The Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards are based on the performance of a wider array of control technologies than the Phase 1 rules. In particular, as proposed, the Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards recognize detailed characteristics of powertrains and drivelines. As described below, driveline improvements present a significant opportunity for reducing fuel consumption and CO
The agencies are relying on work conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), as well as duty cycle information provided in public comments, in establishing the weighting factors for the test cycles to be used in the certification of heavy-duty vocational vehicles to the final Phase 2 standards. NREL's methodology and findings are described in a report in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the final weeks before promulgation, the agencies received significant new comments from a number of vehicle manufacturers, along with new data characterizing in detail the distribution of powertrain configurations of their vehicles.
NREL also synthesized a new transient test cycle using statistical targets and the DRIVE tool. Eaton commented that the new transient cycle developed by NREL is similar to cycles they use to calibrate shift controls, and is more representative of how trucks are driven than the current ARB Transient certification test cycle. Although there is some reason to believe this new cycle may actually be more representative of nationwide operation than the ARB transient cycle, the agencies recognize that sufficient uncertainty remains that we are not prepared to adopt this new NREL transient cycle for Phase 2 certification at this time. The agencies also note that, although GEM has been extensively validated for the ARB transient cycle, we have not conducted a similar validation for the NREL cycle. Nevertheless, we will continue to evaluate this cycle and may reconsider it as part of a future rulemaking. The most significant shortfall identified by NREL in their comparison of real world vocational vehicle operation and the ARB transient cycle is a gap in measurement points between speeds of 48 and 55 mph. We have remedied this shortfall by adjusting the composite weighting factor of the 55 mph cruise cycle. Because vehicles tested in GEM over our final road grade profile have been observed to decrease speed well below 55 mph during this cycle, those measurement points that are absent from the ARB transient cycle are captured in the nominally 55 mph test cycle.
Other commenters questioned whether the vehicles from which NREL collected data for the cycle were sufficiently representative, or whether sufficient data existed to justify the NREL weightings, while other commenters supported use of the data. Daimler supported making changes to reflect the NREL-recommended weightings to align with real-world data. ACEEE supported using the more realistic NREL cycle weightings to revisit stringency where certain technologies may be more effective over the new cycles. Both Volvo and Navistar expressed concerns that the NREL study fleet doesn't appear to be representative. Navistar believes that the NREL data has too few refuse trucks, and Volvo believes that the NREL data has too few class 8 vehicles. In fact, 35 percent of the vehicles in the NREL database that were evaluated for the drive cycle analysis are class 8, which we believe is (if anything)
After considering all the comments, the agencies are establishing nine subcategories of vocational vehicles in Phase 2, based on the three weight class groups of vocational vehicles described above that are continuing from the Phase 1 program, plus Regional, Multipurpose and Urban duty cycle groups, as shown in Table V-1 below. For reasons described below in Section V.C.(2)(a) we are not establishing distinct subcategories for SI-powered vocational vehicles in the HHD weight class. Thus, with nine diesel subcategories and six gasoline subcategories, we are essentially setting 15 separate numerical performance standards. As described in Section V.B.2, we are also adopting optional standards for seven subcategories of custom vocational chassis.
This structure enables the technologies that perform best at highway speeds and those that perform best in urban driving to each be properly recognized over appropriate drive cycles, while avoiding unintended results of forcing vocational vehicles that are designed to serve in different applications to be measured against a single drive cycle. The agencies intend for these three drive cycles to balance the competing pressures to recognize the varying performance of technologies, serve the wide range of customer needs, and maintain reasonable regulatory simplicity. In light of the very recent comments noted above, if the agencies were to determine in the future that revisions to the vocational vehicle program structure are warranted, we would intend to propose any revisions in a way that would be consistent with the technology feasibility and cost-benefit analyses of this final rulemaking. In other words, the agencies do not anticipate any changes to the technology basis for, or the effective stringency of, the final standards. Rather, potential changes in program structure would only be to better assure that the projected reductions are achieved in use, consistent with the projected technology packages on whose performance the stringency of the final standards are based, and consistent with the costs we projected for that compliance pathway.
In the NREL Fleet DNA clustering analysis, the medioid of each cluster was characterized using eight drive cycle metrics, and distance histograms were created for each statistically representative vehicle. By summing the miles accumulated at different driving speeds (including zero speed idle), NREL was able to recommend composite cycle weightings. Commenters suggested that the proposed weightings of both highway cruise and idle were too low for some vehicles. When the agencies released additional data for comment in February 2016, an early draft of NREL's duty cycle report was included. Most commenters supported the draft NREL duty cycles. Volvo commented that NREL's cycle weightings didn't match their extensive telematics database for their class 8 vocational vehicles, and recommended specific changes to increase the weighting of 65 mph for Urban and Multipurpose HHD vehicles. A description of the drive cycle data submitted to the agencies by Volvo in support of the final test cycles is found in the RIA Chapter 3.4.3.1. In response, we have adjusted our composite test weightings for Urban and Multipurpose HHD vehicles in consideration of Volvo's data. Although Volvo also suggested specific cycle weightings for coach buses, we have established optional coach bus standards (one example of the custom chassis standards the agencies are adopting) with the same weightings as for other Regional vehicles for reasons described below in V.B.2.b. The final cycle weightings shown in Table V-2 reflect NREL's recommendations along with consideration of public comments. Although both NREL and Volvo data showed vehicles whose behavior would logically be classified as Urban accumulating some miles (from one to seven percent) in the 65 mph range, the agencies are applying a zero weighting factor to the 65 mph cycle for all Urban vehicles for certification purposes. Instead, those miles are assigned to the 55 mph cycle. We believe it is important to have a test cycle available in the primary program for vehicles that may regularly drive on urban or local highways, but are not expected (or designed) to drive on rural highways. Further, the final rules include the refinement of a split idle cycle (parked idle and drive idle), since NREL's final report includes analysis of data characterizing the percent of time in a work day that vocational vehicles idle when parked as distinct from idling time when stopped in traffic. More details on the characterization of parked and drive idle are found in the RIA Chapter 2.9.3.4. More details of the NREL clustering analysis are found in the RIA Chapter 2.9.2, and more details on the data behind the final composite cycle weightings are found in the RIA Chapter 3.4.3.
We recognize that by adopting a few meaningful duty cycles that “bound” how vocational vehicles are generally used, we cannot perfectly match how every vocational vehicle is actually used. There are a few vehicle applications we have identified, for which these general cycles are likely to be poorly representative. We received several comments that our proposed duty cycles are particularly unrepresentative of real world behavior of transit buses and refuse trucks, for example. These vehicles also generally have chassis characteristics unlike those in the reference GEM vehicles used to establish the subcategory baselines. The agencies have determined that it is impractical, from a regulatory perspective, to establish separate, unique test cycles for transit buses or refuse trucks. In considering the challenges of such an undertaking, as well as the market structure of manufacturers who produce such vehicles, the agencies are instead adopting separate standards for transit buses and refuse trucks as part of the final Phase 2 program for custom vocational chassis, as described in Section V.B.(2)(b).
Vocational vehicles neither qualifying under the optional custom chassis program nor meeting eligibility for exemption as low speed/off road vehicles will need to be certified in one of the primary subcategories established in this rulemaking. Below in Section V.C, the agencies explain the technology basis supporting the standards for each vehicle weight class.
The agencies received extensive comment on how to define attributes of vehicles in each subcategory to provide regulatory certainty to manufacturers. The proposed approach was to set criteria by which a vehicle manufacturer would know in which vocational subcategory—Regional, Urban, or Multipurpose—the vehicle should be certified, by use of cut-points defined using calculations relating engine speed to vehicle speed. Two commenters suggested we reinstate the Phase 1 approach with a one-size-fits-all drive cycle. Six commenters agreed with the proposed approach on subcategorization, though some recommended slight adjustments. The final rules allow manufacturers to generally choose the subcategory of each vocational chassis, with a revised set of constraints essentially reflecting types of equipment on the vehicle (especially transmission type). In Section V.C.(2)(a) and the RIA Chapter 2.9, we describe changes since proposal with respect to the baseline vehicle configurations. In Section V.C.(2)(d), we describe the changes since proposal reflecting use of fleet average sales mixes in the standard-setting process. In Section V.D.(1)(e), we describe the constraints we are adopting regarding selection of subcategories by manufacturers. Taken together, these analyses demonstrate why we are confident that even if (generally against its own interests) a manufacturer chooses to certify a vehicle over a less appropriate test cycle, that choice would not result in a loss of environmental benefit. Continuing the averaging scheme from Phase 1, each manufacturer will
As discussed in Section V.A., the Phase 1 program includes a special regulatory category called vocational tractors, which covers vehicles that are technically tractors but generally operate more like vocational vehicles than line haul tractors. Heavy-haul, off-road, and certain intra-city delivery tractors are eligible for this category in the Phase 1 program, but manufacturers may also choose to certify them as conventional tractors. The agencies proposed to keep this program in Phase 2, but to exclude heavy-haul tractors. With the removal of heavy-haul tractors from the vocational tractor definition (see 40 CFR 1037.630 and 49 CFR 523.2), the agencies have re-assessed the vehicles remaining in this group, and the most appropriate way for them to be certified. One typically thinks of beverage tractors in this group, though it may also include drayage tractors, vehicle carriers, construction vehicles, and many vehicles with unusual axle configurations. NREL observed drayage tractors with operational patterns consistent with the Regional duty cycle.
There is a separate question of whether vocational tractors may have their performance fairly measured against the agencies' defined baseline vocational configurations. The agencies requested comment on whether vocational tractors would be deficit-generating vehicles if certified in the proposed vocational vehicle subcategories. When a vehicle is designed with a higher power engine or higher number of axles to carry a heavier payload than presumed in the GEM baseline for that subcategory, GEM may return a value that poorly represents the real world performance of that vehicle. We received comments from the chassis manufacturers who certify vocational tractors, plus two other comments. These comments consistently asked the agencies to allow some tractors with GVWR over 120,000 lbs but not qualifying as heavy-haul tractors to remain as vocational vehicles rather than be forced to certify to the primary tractor standards. Volvo submitted written comments stating that a separate regulatory subcategory with unique performance standard is warranted for vocational tractors. However, during a subsequent telephone conversation, Volvo stated that their vocational tractors would be adequately represented by the other defined subcategories, and a unique subcategory was not necessary.
Based on comments and our technical analysis, the agencies have concluded that the technologies determined to be feasible for regular vocational vehicles are also feasible for vocational tractors, with similar adoption rates and package costs. Further, we are not aware of any non-diversified chassis manufacturers producing vocational tractors. One implication is that we believe that all manufacturers certifying vocational tractors will be able to take advantage of our ABT program flexibilities. According to MY 2014 certification data, less than 14,000 vocational tractors were certified between the three manufacturers, including an unidentifiable number that would likely qualify as heavy-haul tractors, if that definition existed in Phase 1. Thus, possible deficits (if any) generated by the small sales volume of vocational tractors in Phase 2 could likely be accommodated within each company's overall compliance plan.
EPA is adopting CO
This section describes the standards and implementation dates that the agencies are adopting for the 15 regulatory subcategories of vocational vehicles, plus the optional standards for the seven custom vocational chassis categories. The agencies have performed a technology analysis to determine the level of standards that we believe will be available at reasonable cost, cost-effective, technologically feasible, and appropriate in the lead time provided. More details of this analysis are described in the RIA Chapter 2.9. This analysis considered the following for each of the regulatory subcategories:
• The level of technology that is incorporated in current new vehicles,
• forecasts of manufacturers' product redesign schedules,
• the available data on CO
• technologies that will reduce CO
• the effectiveness and cost of these technologies,
• a projection of the technologically feasible application rates of these technologies, in this time frame, and
• projections of future U.S. sales for different types of vehicles and engines.
The final Phase 2 program described here and throughout the rulemaking documents is derived from the preferred alternative, referred to as Alternative 3 in the NPRM.
The agencies' final standards will phase in over a period of seven years, beginning in the 2021 model year, consistent with the requirement in EISA that NHTSA's standards provide four full model years of regulatory lead time and three full model years of regulatory stability, and provide sufficient time “to permit the development and application of the requisite technology” for purposes of CAA section 202(a)(2). The Phase 2 program will progress in three-year stages with an intermediate set of standards in MY 2024 and will continue to reduce fuel consumption and CO
Combining engine and vehicle technologies, vocational vehicles powered by CI engines are projected to achieve improvements as much as 24
The agencies' analyses, as discussed in this Preamble and in the RIA Chapter 2, show that these standards are appropriate under each agency's respective statutory authority.
Based on our analysis and research, and our consideration of the public comments, the agencies conclude that the improvements in vocational vehicle fuel consumption and CO
The agencies' evaluation indicates that some of the above vehicle technologies are commercially available today, though often in limited volumes. Other technologies will need additional time for development. Those that we believe are available today and may be adopted to a limited extent in some vehicles include improved tire rolling resistance, weight reduction, some types of conventional transmission improvements, neutral idle, and air conditioning leakage improvements. However, the first model year for the final Phase 2 standards will not be until MY 2021.
Vehicle technologies that we expect will be available in the near term include neutral idle, low rolling resistance tires, improved axle efficiency, and part-time 6x2 axles. Vehicle technologies that we have determined will benefit from even more development time to integrate engine and vehicle systems include stop-start idle reduction and hybrid powertrains. The agencies have analyzed the technological feasibility of achieving the fuel consumption and CO
Table V-4 and Table V-5 present EPA's CO
For each model year of the standards described below, the standards for vehicles powered by CI engines reflect improvements that correspond with performance of technologies projected to meet the separate CI engine standard in that year, as modeled over the GEM vehicle cycles. In other words, the CI vehicle standard directly reflects, and keeps pace with, the increasing stringency of the CI engine standard. As described above in Section II.D, the SI engine standard is remaining unchanged from Phase 1. However, the standards in each model year for vocational vehicles powered by SI engines are based in part on the performance of some additional engine technologies beyond what is required to meet the SI engine standards. In other words, certain SI engine improvements are reflected in the stringency of the SI vehicle standard.
EPA's vocational vehicle CO
These standards are based on highway cruise cycles that include a final road grade profile that has been refined as a result of comment. This enables the standard and the GEM certification results to better reflect real world driving and to help recognize engine and driveline technologies while seeking to assure that technologies result in real world benefit. See the RIA Chapter 3.4.2.1.
As described in Section I, the agencies are continuing the Phase 1 approach to averaging, banking and trading (ABT), allowing ABT within vehicle weight classes. For Phase 2, continuing this approach means allowing averaging between CI-powered vehicles and SI-powered vehicles of any subcategory belonging to the same weight class group, which have the same regulatory useful life. However these averaging sets exclude vehicles certified to the separate custom chassis standards. Although we are further subdividing each vocational weight class group into Urban, Multi-Purpose, and Regional subcategories, we are not restricting credit exchanges between them. This is similar to the allowance to trade between vocational vehicles and tractors within a weight class. It is also consistent with the Phase 1 program, where the different types of vehicles within a weight class were included in a single averaging set.
As with the other regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles, NHTSA and EPA are adopting standards that apply to Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles at the time of production, and EPA is adopting standards for a specified period of time in use (
The agencies proposed a simplified compliance procedure and less stringent standards for emergency vehicles, while requesting comment on extending these flexibilities to other custom chassis such as recreational vehicles and buses. 80 FR 40292-40293. As described below, the agencies are finalizing a broader allowance that will also apply for vehicles other than emergency vehicles.
In response to the proposed provisions for emergency vehicles, we received comments in support of adopting separate, less stringent standards for emergency vehicles through a simplified GEM process. Based on the reasoning set forth at proposal, and supported in the public comments, these final rules include optional emergency vehicle standards based on the same technologies as described in the proposal, and using a simplified version of GEM available through the custom chassis program. The use of a default engine in GEM avoids penalizing emergency vehicle manufacturers from installing engines that are likely to be credit-using engines against the separate engine standard, and avoids forcing emergency vehicles to be measured against an un-representative baseline over an un-representative drive cycle.
In the proposal, we requested comment on other manufacturers who could benefit from a similar regulatory approach, such as those offering such a narrow range of products that averaging is not of practical value as a compliance flexibility, and for whom there are not large sales volumes over which to distribute technology development costs, as well as having drive cycles and functions that may make the primary standards either unrepresentative or unsuitable. Although this issue has some implications for our consideration of small business concerns, the custom chassis provisions discussed in the proposal were not intended to be limited to small businesses, and the final custom chassis standards are generally applicable (albeit optional). It is important to consider that for some vocational applications the custom-chassis manufacturers can have substantial market share. For example, Blue Bird is a manufacturer of school buses and school bus chassis with a substantial market share of its narrow product line.
We received comments in support of separate standards based on a different technology mix than the primary program for seven vocational vehicle applications. Gillig, New Flyer and Allison commented in support of separate standards for transit buses. RVIA, Newell Coach, Allison and Tiffin
The agencies received favorable comment on using a simplified compliance procedure for custom chassis from most commenters, but some expressed concerns. Autocar claimed that the simplified GEM interface would not sufficiently reduce the administrative compliance burden of small businesses, and recommended an engine-only certification method.
Custom chassis manufacturers that are not small businesses must comply with the Phase 1 standards and are generally doing so, by installing a mix of tires that, on average, meet the target coefficient of rolling resistance. Large manufacturers were not enthusiastic about offering a different approach for some vehicles, and urged that custom chassis standards, if adopted, be generally available as a compliance option. Based on public comment and extensive stakeholder outreach, the agencies have identified over a dozen chassis manufacturers serving the U.S. vocational market who produce a narrow spectrum of vehicles for which many technologies underlying the primary standards will either be less effective than projected, or are infeasible. Innovus commented that regulatory flexibility should only be offered to small volume producers who are also small entities. However, we do not believe it is warranted to force any of these specialized manufacturers to certify their narrow product line of vehicles to the primary standards, where stringency is premised on performance of some technologies unsuited for their specialized type of vehicle. Thus, the agencies have developed optional standards tailored for these vehicle types, and are not limiting eligibility to small entities.
Any manufacturer may certify their vehicles that we have identified as custom chassis vehicles under the primary standards. We expect that diversified chassis manufacturers selling a small number of their products into these defined custom applications could likely meet the primary Phase 2 standards on average, using internal credits. However, because the baseline configurations and duty cycles for these custom applications would be less representative and some technologies would either be less effective or infeasible for them, these custom applications would likely be credit-using vehicles in the averaging set. Even so, we believe the primary Phase 2 standards are both feasible and appropriate for diversified manufacturers, as their broad mix of products allows them to average across their fleets, and some vehicles are likely to over-comply because their in-use applications are more compatible with the full range of available technologies. This is a feature of setting performance-based average standards with less than 100 percent adoption rates of technologies. Because we agree with commenters, including OshKosh who noted this is an expected market practice, we believe it is essential to not only set feasible targets for chassis manufacturers offering a narrow range of products and for whom fleet averaging will provide a smaller degree of compliance flexibility, but to also make this option available to diversified manufacturers. To address stakeholder concerns about large, diversified manufacturers having greater ability to produce credit-using vehicles than smaller, less diversified manufacturers, we are adopting additional flexibilities for manufacturers certifying to the custom chassis standards, including some flexibilities that will be available only for small businesses.
We do not view these standards as achieving less improvement than the primary program for these vehicles, and thus, we are not adopting any sales limits. Nevertheless, we requested comments on an appropriate sales volume that might be considered as a criterion to qualify for the numerically less stringent standards, where vehicle quantities above such sales threshold would need to be certified to the primary standards. We received comments from Allison, Autocar, Innovus, the School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council, and RVIA suggesting appropriate low-volume thresholds ranging from 200 to 26,000 vehicles per year. We received adverse comment from Daimler stating it would be unfair to make less stringent standards available solely on the basis of sales volume, because if a technology exists for one manufacturer, it is available to all manufacturers. We received adverse comment from OshKosh that less stringent regulations on a limited production volume stifles a custom chassis manufacturers' opportunity to grow their business. For each of the applications listed below in Table V-10, the agencies have identified at least one manufacturer who produces chassis regulated under the Phase 2 program that are generally finished as a single vehicle type, as well as at least one competitor who is more diversified. After considering these comments, we continue to believe that no sales limits are needed.
After considering the comments on possible separate standards for custom chassis, the agencies have evaluated the feasibility of technologies for these vehicles on an application-specific basis. We shared draft custom chassis technology packages with affected stakeholders and received feedback.
Navistar commented with concerns that separate standards for custom chassis could create an unleveled playing field for manufacturers. ACEEE commented that the agencies should strengthen the primary vocational vehicle standard by one percent to offset the weaker standards for the custom chassis. ACEEE also commented that if chassis manufacturers can identify the vehicle application with enough specificity to take advantage of the custom chassis program, then they should also be able to take advantage of the most appropriate fuel-saving technologies, resulting in target stringencies that are not weaker than the main program. Although we agree that the custom chassis program should not result in a weakening of the overall vocational program, we disagree with ACEEE's recommendation to arbitrarily add back stringency. The agencies did not remove custom chassis in the final stage of a feasibility analysis of the primary program; rather, we separately considered the custom chassis vehicles as an integral part of developing the feasibility analysis in support of the final standards. The optional final standards are technology-advancing, appropriate, and maximum feasible for these applications. No arbitrary offset is needed or justified.
We disagree with claims made by commenters expressing concerns with respect to a shortfall or gap in emissions reductions between the primary vocational vehicle program and the custom chassis program. Some commenters have attempted to quantify
This comparison is not straightforward for motor coaches and other custom chassis types, however, because the baselines are different and the vehicle attributes are not similar. For example, our baseline configuration for coach buses includes a 350 hp 11-liter engine with a 6-speed automatic transmission. However, the primary program includes a baseline for heavy heavy-duty Regional vehicles that is a weighted average of 95 percent with 455 hp 15-liter engine with 10-speed manual transmission and 5 percent with a 350 hp 11-liter engine with a 6-speed automatic transmission. Due to the difference in performance of these configurations in GEM, a non-diversified coach bus manufacturer may find its fleet significantly “in the hole” in the first year of this program due solely to baseline differences. As an example of a technology difference, we have determined that regular HHD Regional chassis may reasonably apply AES on average at a rate of 90 percent by MY 2027, whereas we find that AES is not feasible at all for a conventional coach bus. A diversified manufacturer choosing to certify a coach bus in the HHD-R subcategory to the primary standards is likely to need to apply other technologies or use credits from other types of vehicles to meet the standard on average. A non-diversified coach bus manufacturer would be unlikely to achieve the HHD-R primary program standard unless some very advanced technology is applied (at costs necessarily very different from those analyzed to be reasonable here). Therefore, we do not believe it is accurate to draw a comparison, as certain commenters maintained, between the HHD-R primary program stringency of 14 percent and the coach bus MY 2027 stringency of 11 percent.
Nonetheless, because these optional custom chassis standards are numerically less stringent than the primary Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards, the agencies are adopting a more restrictive approach to averaging, banking and trading (ABT), allowing averaging only within each subcategory for vehicles certified to these optional standards. Trading and banking will not be permitted except that small businesses certifying vehicles to these optional standards may use traded credits to comply. We are adopting these provisions to prevent generation of windfall credits against the less numerically stringent custom chassis standard. If a manufacturer wishes to generate tradeable credits from production of these vehicles, one or more families may be certified to the primary vocational vehicle standards.
As
As proposed and discussed in the RIA Chapter 12, the agencies are adopting a provision for chassis manufacturers qualifying as small businesses to have
Vehicles certifying to the optional custom chassis standards will be simulated in GEM using a default EPA engine map as well as many other EPA default parameters that are required inputs for vehicles in the primary program. While this is very similar to the Phase 1 GEM, more inputs are available in the Phase 2 custom chassis program than in Phase 1. Section V.D.(1) below describes the regulatory subcategory identifiers that must be input to GEM to call default vehicle specifications as part of obtaining valid simulation results for custom chassis in GEM.
The optional custom chassis standards will phase in over the same period as the primary vocational vehicle standards, beginning in the 2021 model year. However, there are no intermediate standards in MY 2024, so the optional MY 2021 custom chassis standards will continue until the full implementation year of MY 2027. The agencies have identified a technology path for each of these levels of improvement, as described below.
Combining engine and vehicle technologies, custom chassis are projected to achieve improvements from 6 to 18 percent in MY 2027 over the MY 2017 baseline, as summarized in Table V-11. The incremental standard in MY 2021 will achieve improvements of up to 10 percent over the MY 2017 baseline vehicles when including improvements from MY 2021 diesel engines, as shown in Table V-11.
The agencies' analyses, summarized immediately below and discussed in detail in the RIA Chapter 2.9, show that these optional standards are justified under each agency's respective statutory authority. We note that for each model year of the Phase 2 custom chassis standards, the numerical value of the vehicle-level standard represents the performance of a diesel engine meeting that year's separate CI engine standard. Put another way, although the agencies are adopting distinct standards for custom chassis vocational vehicles, those vehicles must still use engines certified to the applicable Phase 2 engine standard. As in Phase 1, the chassis manufacturer is free to install any certified engine, and because GEM will run using a default map, the choice of engine will not affect the GEM result.
It is worth noting that because the custom chassis version of GEM will not recognize certain technology improvements that some of these manufacturers will include based on market forces (after they have been introduced into the market as a result of the primary program), we expect actual in-use improvements for some of these vehicles to be slightly greater than is required by the standards. For example, we project that transmission manufacturers will improve the overall efficiency of their transmissions to enable vehicle manufacturers to comply with the primary standards. Once these transmissions have been developed and made available, we would not expect custom chassis manufacturers (or customers) to resist using them simply because they would not impact compliance with the standards.
Table V-12 and Table V-13 present EPA's CO
These custom vehicle-level standards are predicated on a simpler set of vehicle technologies than the primary Phase 2 standard for vocational vehicles. (As already noted, these custom chassis vehicles will be required to use engines meeting the Phase 2 engine standards, and thus, should generally incorporate the same
EPA's custom chassis CO
As with the other regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles, NHTSA and EPA are adopting standards that apply to custom chassis vocational vehicles at the time of production, and EPA is adopting standards for a specified period of time in use (
The optional standards shown below were derived using baseline vehicle models with many attributes similar to those developed for the primary program, with adjustments that are described below in Section V.C.(2)(a). Details of these configurations are provided in the RIA Chapter 2.9.2. For better transparency with respect to the incremental difference between the MY 2021 and MY 2027 vehicle standards, we have modeled a certified MY 2027 engine for both vehicle model years of optional custom chassis standards. Thus, chassis manufacturers who do not make their own engines may compare the two model years of standards presented in Table V-12 and Table V-13 and know that any differences are due solely to vehicle-level technologies.
The agencies are adopting definitional provisions for each of the custom chassis subcategories to ensure that only eligible chassis will be able to certify to these numerically less stringent standards. The category with the most diversity and the greatest need for regulatory clarification is refuse. We received comments from OshKosh that there are seven distinct types of refuse trucks, including roll-on-roll-off vehicles, type T container haulers (hauling trailers containing waste), as well as residential front loaders, side loaders, and rear loaders. After considering these comments and other available information, we have determined that refuse trucks that do not compact waste are ineligible to certify to the custom chassis standards. For example, roll-off trucks do not engage in neighborhood waste collection and typically transfer full containers to and from regional landfills and construction sites. Furthermore, their driving patterns are more likely to resemble our Regional cycle than the Urban cycle. These trucks do engage in some PTO operation while parked when loading or unloading waste containers using hydraulically operated beds and possibly a winch or other onboard lift system; however, they do not use the PTO while driving. The relevant definitions and certification provisions for refuse and other vehicle types are discussed below in Section V.D.
As discussed above, we are not restricting the optional custom chassis program to small businesses, nor is there a production cap. Because we are allowing diversified manufacturers to certify some vehicles to the optional custom chassis standards, but some large manufacturers may not have a system for tracking what the final build of a vehicle is, we are adopting compliance procedures to assure that the final intended build will be one of the defined vehicle types. This approach is intended to level the playing field by allowing large manufacturers to choose this option where their tracking (and/or controls imposed on the vehicle) is sufficient to know at the time of certification what the final build will be. This avoids restricting this path to a small subset of manufacturers.
The agencies are adopting an additional set of optional standards where manufacturers of motor home, cement mixer, and emergency vehicle chassis may elect to certify one or more families of vehicles to an equivalent standard. Certification would not require use of GEM if a manufacturer selects this option. Instead, certification using this option requires installation of specific technologies on every vehicle. This option does not allow any averaging, banking, or trading. These standards are equivalent in stringency to the GEM-based option for these three types of chassis. As mentioned above, the agencies received compelling public comment from Autocar suggesting that use of even the simplified GEM was unreasonably burdensome, and that further simplification was warranted in some cases. For small businesses especially, the certification burden of collecting data and running even a simplified version of GEM can present a disproportionally high burden, especially where there are very limited GEM inputs. Thus, the agencies sought to offer an option that minimizes the certification burden, recognizing the lesser complexity of the technology package associated with the standards for these chassis.
These equivalent technology-based standards are not available for manufacturers of coach bus, school bus, transit bus, and refuse truck chassis, as the technology packages for these chassis are more complex and cannot be projected to be installed at 100 percent adoption rates.
Table V-14 lists the technologies required to be applied to every vehicle sold by a manufacturer as part of a family certified to the optional non-GEM vocational vehicle standards. In addition, the vehicle must have a certified Phase 2 engine and comply with the separate standard to prevent leakage of HFC from the mobile air conditioning system. The combined tire CRR values shown in the table are obtained using Equation V-1.
Although manufacturers choosing this option will not have access to the
The Phase 1 GHG standards do not include standards to control direct HFC emissions from air conditioning systems on vocational vehicles. EPA deferred such standards due to “the complexity in the build process and the potential for different entities besides the chassis manufacturer to be involved in the air conditioning system production and installation,” See 76 FR 57194. During our stakeholder outreach conducted for Phase 2, we learned that the majority of vocational vehicles are sold as cab-completes with the dashboard-mounted air conditioning systems installed by the chassis manufacturer. For those vehicles that have A/C systems installed by a second stage manufacturer, EPA is adopting revisions to our regulations that resolve the issues identified in Phase 1, in what we believe is a practical and feasible manner, as described below in Section V.D.2.
EPA received comments generally supportive of adoption of A/C refrigerant leakage standards for Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles, beginning with the 2021 model year. Chassis sold as cab-completes typically have air conditioning systems installed by the chassis manufacturer. For these configurations, the process for certifying that low leakage components are used will follow the system in place currently for comparable systems in tractors. In the case where a chassis manufacturer will rely on a second stage manufacturer to install a compliant air conditioning system, the chassis manufacturer must follow the certifying manufacturer's installation instructions to ensure that the final vehicle assembly is in a certified configuration.
This section describes exemptions and exclusions related to vocational vehicles, including some that are available only in Phase 1 and some on which we asked for comment but did not adopt in the final program.
Although the Phase 1 program deferred the requirements for small businesses, the Phase 2 program will require small businesses to certify their affected vehicles. The RIA Chapter 12 presents a complete discussion of the outreach process that EPA conducted to solicit input from small businesses on the Phase 2 program. The RIA Chapter 12 explains why the agencies are adopting one year of additional lead time for all small businesses in Phase 2. Thus, the first compliance year for small entities is MY 2022 rather than MY 2021. The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel included representatives who produce vocational vehicle chassis, including emergency vehicles and concrete mixers. Discussions specific to vocational vehicle chassis during that process included exploration of a low volume production threshold below which some manufacturers may avoid some obligations of this regulation. Consistent with the recommendations of the Panel, the agencies requested comments on how to design a small business vocational vehicle program, including comments on a possible small volume threshold below which some small business exemption may be available.
Autocar requested further consideration of the small business concerns of manufacturers of specialty vehicle applications, specifically recommending a low volume threshold if the agencies are not inclined to use a manufacturer's business size as grounds for an exemption. Examples of specialty vehicles listed by Autocar include street sweepers, asphalt blasters, aircraft deicers, sewer cleaners, and concrete pumpers. Innovus also requested additional flexibility for meeting OBD requirements. Capacity Trucks commented that the terminal tractor industry is primarily comprised of small businesses who produce a total of less than 6,000 terminal tractors per year, 70 percent of which are fully off-road vehicles. See Section V.B.(3)(c) for a discussion of how we are addressing Innovus' comment. See the discussion in Section V.B.(3)(b) for a discussion of how we are addressing the comments on vehicles that are off-road and low-speed.
In considering the above comments regarding additional vehicles that have significant operation at low speeds or off-road, the agencies are revising the exemptions adopted in Phase 1 for off-road and low-speed vocational vehicles at 40 CFR 1037.631 and 49 CFR 523.2. See generally 76 FR 57175.
These provisions already apply in Phase 1 for vehicles that are defined as “motor vehicles” per 40 CFR 85.1703, but may conduct most of their operations off-road, such as drill rigs, mobile cranes and yard hostlers.
In considering the long list of specialty vehicle types raised by Capacity, Autocar and others, the agencies note that many of these may be primarily off-road vehicles in many respects, although some may not qualify as either off-road or low-speed under our regulations. In considering the drive cycle of those whose primary purpose is to transport an affixed device to an off-road work site for extended PTO operation, the agencies have concluded that the technologies we have determined to be feasible for concrete mixers are also feasible for this type of vehicle, and thus we are adopting a flexibility where vocational chassis that meet one of the two sets of criteria at 40 CFR 1037.631(a) (but not both) may be optionally certified under the custom chassis program to the standards established for concrete mixers. These technologies include certified engines, low-leakage air conditioning components, and by MY 2027, steer tires with level 3V rolling resistance and drive tires with level 2v rolling resistance. We have similarly determined these technologies are feasible and reasonable to apply for vehicles whose primary purpose is to conduct work at slow speeds, but do not have affixed devices designed to be used at off-road work sites. This may include street sweepers and some terminal tractors.
We interpret the comments from Capacity to mean that many terminal tractors are produced in very small volumes by a large number of non-diversified small businesses. This is corroborated by comments from Autocar. Based on data from EPA's Smartway program, the drive cycles of some port drayage tractors can include a significant amount of highway time as well as idle time. According to available records, the average fraction of highway operation of 1,740 participating port dray tractors was 59 percent, and the average annual idle time was 762 hours.
As described in Section XIII of this Preamble, the agencies are adopting alternate engine standards for specialty vehicles as part of the final Phase 2 program. Because some vocational vehicles may have engines certified under these specialty vehicle provisions found at 40 CFR 1037.605, we are clarifying here how these provisions interact. According to the regulations at 40 CFR 1037.605, a manufacturer may produce no more than 1,000 hybrid vehicles in a single model year under this option, and no more than 200 amphibious vehicles, speed-limited vehicles, or all-terrain vehicles. Under this provision, speed-limited vehicles are those that cannot exceed 45 mi/hr by tamper-proof calibration. Only vehicles with hybrid drivetrains that certify engines under this provision must also have a vehicle-level Phase 2 certificate, as required under 40 CFR 1037.105. The three other types would be exempt from the vehicle standards. Depending on the manufacturer and vehicle type, this may mean that such hybrid vehicles may need to meet the primary vocational
This section describes the agencies' technological feasibility and cost analysis. Further detail on all of these technologies can be found in the RIA Chapter 2.4 and Chapter 2.9. The variation in the design and use of vocational vehicles has led the agencies to project different technology solutions for each regulatory subcategory. Manufacturers may also find additional means to reduce emissions and lower fuel consumption than the technologies identified by the agencies, and of course may adopt any compliance path they deem most advantageous. This section includes discussion of the feasibility of the final standards for non-custom vocational vehicles using the full Phase 2 certification path, as well as the final optional standards for custom chassis standards.
NHTSA and EPA collected information on the cost and effectiveness of fuel consumption and CO
In assessing the feasibility of the final Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards, the agencies evaluated a suite of technologies, including workday idle reduction, improved tire rolling resistance, tire pressure monitoring or inflation systems, improved transmissions including hybrids, improved axles, improved accessories, and weight reduction, as well as their impact on reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions. The agencies also evaluated aerodynamic technologies and full electric vehicles.
As discussed above, vocational vehicles may be powered by either SI or CI engines. The technologies and feasibility of the engine standards are discussed in Section II. At the vehicle level, the agencies have considered the same suite of technologies and have applied the same reasoning for including or rejecting these vehicle-level technologies as part of the basis for the final standards, regardless of whether the vehicle is powered by a CI or SI engine, since the vehicle level technologies are not a function of engine type. Generally, the analysis below does not distinguish between vehicles with different types of engines. The resulting vehicle standards do reflect the differences arising from the performance of CI (primarily diesel) or SI (primarily gasoline) engines over the GEM cycles. Note that vehicles powered by engines using fuels other than diesel or gasoline are subject to either the SI or CI vehicle standards, as specified in 40 CFR 1037.101.
The agencies note that the effectiveness values estimated for the technologies have been obtained using a variety of methods, including average literature values, engineering calculation, and GEM simulation. They do not reflect the potentially-limitless combination of possible values that could result from adding the technology to different vehicles. For example, while the agencies have estimated an effectiveness of one percent for e-accessories, each vehicle could experience a unique effectiveness depending on the actual accessory load for that vehicle. On-balance the agencies believe this is the most practicable approach for determining effectiveness for the technologies in the Phase 2 vocational vehicle program. This section is organized to first present the agencies' analyses of technology feasibility and effectiveness in Section V.C.(1), and below in Section V.C.(2) we present our projected technology adoption rates and estimated costs. Where other details are not given, the feasibility sections set forth our rationale for the projected adoption rates. Average vehicle technology package costs by regulatory subcategory are presented below in Section V.C.(2)(e). Individual technology costs are summarized in the RIA Chapter 2.9.3, and full details behind all these costs are presented in RIA Chapter 2.11, including the markups and learning effects applied for each of the technologies.
Transmission improvements present a significant opportunity for reducing fuel consumption and CO
The technology we described at proposal as driveline integration, 80 FR 40296, is now defined as use of an advanced shift strategy. At proposal the agencies included shift strategy, aggressive torque converter lockup, and a high efficiency gearbox among the technologies defined as driveline integration that would only be recognized by use of powertrain testing. We also proposed a 70 percent adoption rate in MY 2027 on the basis that this approach to improving fuel efficiency is highly cost-effective and technically feasible in a wide range of applications, and that the additional lead time would enable manufacturers to overcome barriers related to the non-integrated nature of businesses serving this sector. We received persuasive comments from manufacturers emphasizing the diversity of their product lines and the extent of testing that would be needed to apply this technology to 70 percent of their sales, and as a result we have reduced our projected adoption rates for this technology. The agencies continue to believe that an effective way to derive
The agencies have revised the GEM simulation tool to recognize additional transmission technologies beyond what was possible at the time of proposal. We are adopting a transmission efficiency test to recognize improved mechanical gear efficiency and reduced transmission friction, where the test results can be submitted as GEM inputs to override the default efficiency values. Because this test can be conducted with a bare transmission without needing to be paired with an engine, each test will be valid for a much broader range of vehicle configurations than for a powertrain test. The agencies project vehicle fuel efficiency can be improved by up to one percent from improved transmission gear efficiency, which we are projecting to be the same during each of the driving cycles and zero while idling. RIA 2.9.3.1.1. Actual test results are likely to show that some gears have more room for improvement than others, especially where a direct drive gear is already highly efficient. Commenters requested that the minimum torque converter lockup gear be enabled as a GEM input without requiring powertrain testing. In response, final GEM also requires an input field for torque converter lockup gear. The baseline configurations with automatic transmissions were run in GEM using lockup in third gear. The agencies project vehicle fuel efficiency can be improved up to three percent on a cycle average for torque converter lockup in first gear. RIA 2.9.3.1.1. Using the library of agency transmission files, GEM gives a different effectiveness value in every subcategory, because this is influenced by the gear ratios, drive cycle, and torque converter specifications. Manufacturers will obtain slightly different results with their own driveline specifications. The RIA at Chapter 2.9.3.1 includes a table that summarizes the various effectiveness values for different types of transmission improvements.
Although not factored into our stringency calculations, other non-hybrid transmission technologies that can also be recognized by powertrain testing include use of architectures not recognized by GEM such as dual clutch systems, and designs with reduced parasitic losses.
Most vocational vehicles currently use torque converter automatic transmissions (AT), especially in Classes 2b-6. Automatic transmissions offer acceleration benefits over drive cycles with frequent stops, which can enhance productivity. With the diversity of vocational vehicles and drive cycles, other kinds of transmission architectures can meet customer needs, including automated manual transmissions (AMT), dual clutch transmissions (DCT), as well as manual transmissions (MT).
The benefit of adding more gears varies depending on whether the gears are added in the range where most operation occurs. The TIAX 2009 report projected that 8-speed transmissions could incrementally reduce fuel consumption by 2 to 3 percent over a 6-speed automatic transmission, for Class 3-6 box and bucket trucks, refuse haulers, and transit buses.
The final Phase 2 GEM has been calibrated to reflect a fixed two percent difference between manual transmissions and automated transmissions during the driving cycles (zero at idle). As in the HHD Regional subcategory baseline, manual transmissions simulated in GEM perform two percent worse than similarly-geared AMT. This fixed
Hybrid powertrain systems are included under transmission technologies because, depending on the design and degree of hybridization, they may either replace a conventional transmission or be deeply integrated with a conventional transmission. Further, these systems are often manufactured by companies that also manufacture conventional transmissions.
The agencies are including hybrid powertrains as a technology on which some of the vocational vehicle standards are predicated. We proposed ten percent overall adoption of strong hybrids by MY 2027, which meant approximately 18 percent adoption in the Multipurpose and Urban subcategories in that model year. 80 FR 40297. We received extensive comments on the ability of the vocational vehicle market to adopt hybrid drivetrains. EDF and Parker both highlighted the successful demonstrations of Parker hydraulic hybrids for refuse applications with effectiveness near 40 percent over refuse duty cycles. Autocar commented that a significant portion of their refuse truck sales have hydrostatic hybrid drives. Fleets such as Pepsico and the City of Bloomington highlighted that they are actively purchasing hybrids. ATA and UPS commented that hybrid technology applications continue to be of interest to the trucking industry, but expressed concern over the high costs that can deter uptake in the market. Eaton commented that a combination of factors is needed to re-ignite the hybrid business: lower battery costs and increased efficiency of the hybrid systems for Class 6-8, lower cost mild hybrid powertrains in Class 3-5, and continued regulatory pull. Eaton says the hybrid market is still very fragile and they do not see market conditions improving for hybrid commercial vehicles except for a few mild hybrids. Securing America's Future Energy and ACEEE also commented in favor of including mild hybrids as part of the vocational vehicle compliance package.
After considering all these comments, we agree with commenters that mild hybrids are more likely than strong hybrids to succeed initially in the vocational sector, especially outside of the bus market. We are projecting adoption of two types of mild hybrids, defined using system parameters based on actual systems commercially available in the market today.
Allison believes that hybrid vehicles should be certified on a duty cycle on the same basis as non-hybrid vehicles because the vehicles must perform the same work regardless of the powertrain technology. We agree and the Phase 2 test cycles are the same for conventional and hybrid drivelines. The Sierra Club asked the agencies to consider real world duty cycle data to account for the effectiveness of hybrids for vocational vehicles. Allison says investments for heavy-duty hybrids will be made by component suppliers, not by the vehicle manufacturers. The battery, inverter, and motor suppliers must make investments in addition to the system supplier. In this regard—for a small market like the heavy-duty hybrids—a significant investment, under current conditions, are seen as risky and unlikely to occur according to Allison. Allison commented that even though the transit bus industry has had commercially available hybrids for over a decade, the adoption rate of hybrids in the U.S. transit bus market is only 13.2 percent and that to achieve an overall 5 percent adoption rate of hybrid technology, the economics of the hybrid ownership would have to substantially change over the period of time covered by this rulemaking. In light of these concerns, we have adjusted our projected adoption rates of hybrid technology as described below in Section V.C.(2)(b)(i).
We also have reconsidered our effectiveness estimation method as a result of comments. Instead of relying on previously published road tests over varying drive cycles, we are applying engineering calculations to account for defined hybrid system capacities and inefficiencies over our certification test cycle. We are using a spreadsheet model that calculates the recovered energy of a hybrid system using road loads of the default baseline GEM vehicles over the ARB Transient test cycle. See RIA Chapter 2.9.3.1.3 to read more about the assumed motor and battery capacity, swing in the state of charge, and system inefficiencies. The effectiveness is assumed (conservatively) to be zero for the highway cruise cycles to obtain the projected cycle-weighted effectiveness. For the non-integrated models, the same system was assessed for all weight classes (not scaled up for heavier vehicles); however, for the integrated models with stop-start we have scaled up the system specifications to account for the larger road loads, to ensure the projected effectiveness is not decreased for systems on heavier vehicles relative to that projected for lighter vehicles.
For the non-integrated mild hybrids, we are estimating an eight to 13 percent fuel efficiency improvement as measured over the powertrain test, depending on the duty cycle (
Based on the public comments from hybrid suppliers and other innovators providing evidence of hybrid systems in the market today ranging from prototypes to commercialized, the agencies believe the Phase 2 rulemaking timeframes will offer sufficient lead time to develop, demonstrate, and conduct reliability testing for hybrid technologies to enable market adoptions in the range that we are projecting for the final rules.
The agencies are working to reduce barriers related to hybrid vehicle certification. In Phase 1, there is a significant burden associated with the optional test for demonstrating the GHG and fuel efficiency performance of vehicles with hybrid powertrain systems. If manufacturers wish to earn Phase 1 credit for a hybrid, they must obtain a conventional vehicle that is identical to the hybrid vehicle in every way except the transmission, test both, and compare the results.
Hybrid manufacturers commented that meeting the on-board diagnostic requirements for criteria pollutant engine certification continues to be a potential impediment to adoption of hybrid systems. See Section XIII.A.1 for a discussion of regulatory changes to reduce the non-GHG certification burden for engines paired with hybrid powertrain systems. The agencies have also received comments on a letter from the California Air Resources Board requesting consideration of supplemental NO
Based on comments received and stakeholder outreach, we have reason to believe that some custom chassis manufacturers are better positioned than others to adopt transmission technology to improve fuel efficiency. Most have little or no in-house research capacity, and purchase off-the-shelf transmissions. Some, such as Gillig and Autocar, have partnered with suppliers to successfully implement hybrids on their vehicles. Some bus chassis manufacturers are exploring the benefits of applying transmissions with additional gears. In real world driving, vehicles with a lot of transient operation, including custom chassis, can see real fuel savings from adoption of improved transmissions, including those with more efficient gears and advanced shift strategies. We expect that suppliers will continue to develop improved transmissions for vocational vehicles including some custom chassis, and that manufacturers will continue to select transmissions that deliver reliable products to fuel-conscious customers. Specifically, we believe that bus manufacturers will continue to have choices of competing products that offer performance characteristics that improve over time. Below in V.C.(2)(b) we discuss the reasons why we believe that a final Phase 2 program that is largely blind to these transmission-based improvements for custom chassis will avoid adverse unintended consequences.
The agencies are predicating part of the stringency of the final vocational vehicle standards on performance of two types of axle technologies. The first is advanced low friction axle lubricants and efficiency as demonstrated using the separate axle test procedure described in the RIA Chapter 3.8 and 40 CFR 1037.560. The agencies received adverse comment on the proposal to assign a fixed 0.5 percent improvement for this technology. In consideration of comments, the agencies are instead assigning default axle efficiencies to all vocational vehicles. Manufacturers may submit test data to over-ride axle efficiency values in GEM. Our cost analysis for the final rulemaking includes maintenance costs of replacing axle lubricants on a periodic basis. See the RIA Chapter 7.1.3. Based on supplier information, some advanced lubricants have a longer drain interval than traditional lubricants. We are estimating the axle lubricating costs for HHD to be the same as for tractors since those vehicles likewise typically have three axles. However, for LHD and MHD vocational vehicles, we scaled down the cost of this technology to reflect the presence of a single rear axle. We expect that improved axle efficiency is technically feasible on all vocational vehicles including custom chassis. However, it's likely that axle suppliers may be more likely to invest in design and lubrication improvements for high sales volume products, such as axles that can serve both tractor and vocational markets. Further, to the extent that extreme duty cycles require lubricants with special performance features, it's likely that the most advanced low-friction lubricants may not be feasible for some custom chassis such as refuse trucks.
The second axle technology applies only for HHD vocational vehicles, which typically are built with two rear axles. Part time 6x2 configuration or axle disconnect is a design that enables one of the rear axles to temporarily disconnect or otherwise behave as if it's a non-driven axle. The agencies proposed to base the HHD vocational vehicle standard on some use of both part time and full time 6x2 axles. The agencies received adverse comment on the application of the permanent 6x2 configuration for vocational vehicles. The disconnect configuration is one that keeps both drive axles engaged only during some types of vehicle operation, such as when operating at construction sites or in transient driving where traction especially for acceleration is vital. Instead of calculating a fixed improvement as at proposal, the agencies have refined GEM to recognize this configuration as an input, and the benefit will be actively simulated over the applicable drive cycle. Effectiveness based on simulations with EPA axle files is projected to be as much as one percent for HHD Regional vehicles. Further information about this technology is provided in RIA Chapter 2.4.5. The feasibility of this technology depends on whether the baseline axle configuration is a 6x4 and whether the vehicle is likely to spend significant amounts of time on the highway. For vocational vehicles, this is largely limited to Regional and Multipurpose HHD vehicles. To the extent that any motor homes and coach buses with GVWR over 33,000 lbs are built with two rear axles, this technology could be technically feasible. However, because these vehicles generally operate on paved roads and may not need the traction of a 6x4, a popular axle configuration for these vehicles is a permanent 6x2.
Tires are the second largest contributor to energy losses of vocational vehicles, as found in the energy audit conducted by Argonne National Lab.
In simulation, the benefit of LRR tires is reflected in GEM differently for vehicles of different weight classes and duty cycles. Based on simulations using the projected tire CRR, the agencies project fuel efficiency improvements by MY 2027 for LRR tires on Regional vocational vehicles between two and three percent, for Multipurpose vehicles between one and three percent, and for Urban vehicles up to one percent. This technology is also feasible on all custom chassis, with similarly larger improvements feasible for coach buses and motor homes with typically regional drive cycles, and similarly smaller improvements feasible for school and transit buses, refuse trucks, and concrete mixers with typically urban drive cycles.
As proposed, the agencies will continue the light truck (LT) tire CRR adjustment factor that was adopted in Phase 1. 80 FR 40299; see generally 76 FR 57172-57174. In Phase 1, the agencies developed this adjustment factor by dividing the overall vocational test average CRR of 7.7 by the LT vocational average CRR of 8.9. This yielded an adjustment factor of 0.87. Because the MY 2014 certification data for LHD vocational vehicles may have included some CRR levels to which this adjustment factor may have already been applied, and because we did not receive adverse comment on our proposal to continue this, the agencies have concluded that we do not have a basis to discontinue allowing the measured CRR values for LT tires to be multiplied by a 0.87 adjustment factor before entering the values in the GEM for compliance.
In Table V-15, the descriptors 1v through 5v refer to levels of rolling resistance that have been identified among the population of tires installed on vocational vehicles certified for MY 2014. Each of these levels is in production today and represents tires that have been fitted on a certified vehicle. The agencies have defined these levels for purposes of estimating the manufacturing costs associated with applying improved tire rolling resistance to vocational vehicles. These levels are not applicable for estimating degrees of improvement or costs of LRR tires on tractors, trailers, or HD pickups and vans as part of this rulemaking. Furthermore, these levels do not represent the full range of tire CRR available for vocational vehicles. There are both steer and drive tires on certified vocational vehicles today with CRR ranging from 5 kg/ton to 15 kg/ton. We expect this full range of tires will continue to be available in the market well into the future.
The Phase 2 idle reduction technologies considered for vocational vehicles are those that reduce workday idling, unlike the overnight or driver rest period idling of sleeper cab tractors. Idle reduction technology is one type of technology that is particularly duty-cycle dependent. In light of new information, the agencies have learned that our proposal had mischaracterized the idling operation of vocational vehicles, significantly underestimating the extent of this mode of operation, and incorrectly calculating it using a drive idle cycle when significant idling also occurs while parked. As described above in Section V.B.(1), in these final rules we have revised our test cycles to better reflect real world idle operation, including both parked idle and drive idle test conditions. At proposal, we identified two types of idle reduction technologies to reduce workday idle emissions and fuel consumption for vocational vehicles: neutral idle and stop-start. After considering the new duty cycle information and the many comments received, we are basing our final vocational vehicle standards in part on the performance of three types of workday idle reduction technologies: neutral idle, stop-start, and automatic engine shutdown; which we believe are effective, feasible, and cost-effective, as discussed further in this section.
Neutral idle is essentially a transmission technology, but it also requires a compatible engine calibration. Torque converter automatic transmissions traditionally place a load on engines when a vehicle applies the brake while in drive, which we call curb idle transmission torque (CITT). When an engine is paired with a manual or automated manual transmission, the CITT is naturally lower than when paired with an automatic, as a clutch disengagement must occur for the vehicle to stop without stalling the engine. We did not receive adverse comment on our proposal to include this technology in our standard-setting for vocational vehicles. The engineering
Neutral idle may be programmed on any automatic transmission, and can reasonably be applied for vocational vehicles where this feature would not frequently encounter an over-ride condition. Vehicles with high PTO operation can apply this technology, although they would see reduced effectiveness in use.
Automatic engine shutdown (AES) is an engine technology that is widely available in the market today, but has seen more adoption in the tractor market than for vocational vehicles. Although we did not propose to include this technology, we received many comments suggesting this would be appropriate. Some commenters may have conflated the concept of stop-start with AES, such as a comment we received asking us to consider the on-board need to power accessories while the vehicle is in stationary mode. We believe that automatic engine shutdown is effective and feasible for many different types of vehicles, depending on how significant a portion of the work day is spent while parked. Most truck operators are aware of the cost of fuel consumed while idling, and importantly, the wear on the engine due to idling. Engine manufacturers caution owners to monitor the extent of idling that occurs for each work truck and to reduce the oil change interval if the idle time exceeds ten percent of the work day.
NTEA provided the agencies with a report with survey results on which work truck fleets are adopting AES with backup power, and their reasons for doing so.
The agencies proposed to predicate the vocational vehicle standards in part on 70 percent adoption of stop-start in MY 2027. We received numerous comments from manufacturers and suppliers with concerns about all aspects of this technology, including its feasibility, its effectiveness, and the lead time to make it commercially available. As discussed above, our assessment of workday idle reduction technologies has been refined since proposal, and part of this refinement includes less reliance on adoption of stop-start than at proposal.
Stop-start is a technology that requires an integration between engine and vehicle systems, and is seeing increasing acceptance in today's passenger vehicle market. The agencies are aware that for a vocational vehicle's engine to turn off during workday driving conditions, there must be a minimal reserve source of energy to maintain engine-protection and safety functions such as power steering, transmission pressure, engine lubrication and cooling, among others. As such, stop-start systems can be viewed as having a place on the low-cost end of the hybridization continuum. Effenco commented that a minimum of additional hardware is required to deliver enough power to frequently and seamlessly restart a large engine as well as to keep accessories and equipment operational with the engine turned off. Navistar commented persuasively that coking can occur if the cooling and lubricating oil is removed. The agencies therefore would consider electrified water and oil pumps to be part of the stop-start technology package. However, we must be clear to distinguish this technology from the AES described above. Stop-start technologies will be recognized only over the drive idle cycle and the transient cycle in GEM, not the parked idle cycle (whereas AES is recognized only over the parked idle cycle). Accordingly, the purpose of the additional hardware is to protect the engine for short duration stops such as at traffic lights, not to power accessories while the vehicle is parked.
Volvo commented that stop-start is not feasible for HHD engines (generally 11L and larger), and claims engine
We are not aware of stop-start systems that are commercially available for conventional vocational vehicles today, but this feature is available as part of some current hybrid systems. We are aware of one supplier who is demonstrating today a capacitor-based stop-start system with on-board electronics sufficient to protect a HHD engine and even power a PTO.
In response to comments, we are adopting some permissible over-ride conditions under which a stop-start system may either restart sooner than otherwise or not shut down an engine. Navistar, Waste Management and others commented that vehicles with a significant power take-off (PTO) load will not be able to accommodate start/stop technology. As with neutral idle, we agree that engagement of the PTO while driving should be an allowable over-ride condition, as there are some vehicles that must conduct PTO work while underway. For example, cement mixers must continually rotate the drum and refuse trucks routinely compact their load throughout their neighborhood collection activity. Additional over-rides are discussed in the RIA Chapter 2.9.3.4. If a manufacturer designs a system that does not need as many over-rides due to additional electrification or other on-board systems, then an application for off-cycle credit may be submitted, to recognize a greater effectiveness. The regulations at 40 CFR 1037.660 specify the allowable over-rides.
The effectiveness of stop-start as recognized in GEM will be engine-dependent. Engines with high emissions/fuel consumption at idle will see greater reductions. Also, vehicles that idle frequently will see greater reductions. Based on GEM simulations using the final vocational vehicle test cycles, the agencies project stop-start to provide fuel efficiency improvements up to 14 percent for diesel vehicles, and up to 11 percent for gasoline vehicles, depending on the regulatory subcategory. See RIA 2.9.3.4. The data points for calculating the fueling over the transient and drive idle cycles are obtained from the engine map, and vehicle certifiers may input Yes or No when running GEM, to indicate whether the engine shuts off within five seconds of zero vehicle speed with the service brake applied. Allison commented that GEM should calculate fueling only for a couple seconds before assuming the engine shuts down in a stop-start system. Navistar suggested that we recognize that some fleets—
As with the other idle reduction technologies described above, stop-start can reasonably be applied for vocational vehicles where this feature would not frequently encounter an over-ride condition. Vehicles with very little driving in transient conditions or with high PTO operation can apply this technology, although they would see reduced effectiveness in use. Chassis manufacturers certifying refuse trucks to the optional custom chassis standards may enter Yes in the input field in GEM for stop-start and the effectiveness will be computed based on the default 350 hp engine with 5-speed HHD automatic transmission.. Manufacturers opting to certify refuse trucks to the primary standards will have an option to be recognized for enhanced stop-start systems through the powertrain test See RIA 2.9.3.4 and 2.9.5.1.4.
The agencies received comments from Allison Transmission where they observed a seven percent NO
The agencies are predicating the final vocational vehicle standards in part on use of material substitution for weight reduction. The method of recognizing this technology is similar to the method used for tractors. The agencies have created a menu of vocational chassis components with fixed reductions in pounds that may be entered in GEM when substituting a component made of a more lightweight material than the base component made of mild steel. According to the 2009 TIAX report, there are freight-efficiency benefits to reducing weight on vocational vehicles that carry heavy cargo, and tax savings potentially available to vocational vehicles that remain below excise tax weight thresholds. This report also estimates that the cost effectiveness of weight reduction over urban drive cycles is potentially greater than the cost effectiveness of weight reduction
Based on the default payloads in GEM, and depending on the vocational vehicle subcategory, the agencies estimate a reduction of 250 lbs would offer a fuel efficiency improvement of up to one percent for HHD vehicles, and a reduction of 150 pounds would offer a fuel efficiency improvement up to 0.8 percent for MHD vehicles, and up to 1.5 percent for LHD vehicles. See RIA 2.9.3.5.
The agencies received comment that the HD Phase 2 program should recognize the enhanced benefit of weight reduction of rotating components, but the agencies lack sufficient data to incorporate the necessary programming in GEM to enable this feature. Manufacturers wishing to obtain credit for lightweight components beyond those on the menu in the regulations or for use of lightweighting technologies that are more effective than we have projected, may apply for off-cycle credits.
Although we did not propose to allow pre-defined credit for electrified accessories as was proposed for tractors, we received comment requesting that this be allowed for vocational vehicles. As discussed above, the agencies are projecting that some electrified accessories will be necessary as part of the development of stop-start idle reduction systems for vocational vehicles. The technology package for vocational stop-start includes costs for high-efficiency alternator, electric water pump, electric cooling fan, and electric oil pump. However, because the GEM algorithm for determining the fuel benefit of stop-start does not account for any e-accessories, vehicles certified with stop-start are also eligible to be certified using an improvement value in the e-accessories column.
Daimler, ICCT, Bendix, Gentherm, Navistar, Odyne, and CARB asked the agencies to consider electric cooling fans, variable speed water pumps, clutched air compressors, electric air compressors, electric power steering, electric alternators, and electric A/C compressors. ICCT cautioned that certain accessories would be recognized over an engine test and credit should not be duplicated at the vehicle level. Bosch suggested that high-efficiency alternators be considered, and suggested use of a standard component-level test for alternators to determine their efficiency, and establishment of a minimum efficiency level that must be attained. Although there are industry-accepted test procedures for measuring the performance of alternators, we do not have sufficient information about the baseline level performance of alternators to define an improved level that would qualify for a benefit at certification. We are not able to set a fixed improvement for electric cooling fans or clutched accessories due to similar challenges related to baselines and defining the qualifying technology. In consideration of ICCT's comment, we are not including water pumps and oil pumps among the components eligible for a fixed improvement because we believe that our engine test procedure will recognize improvements that would be seen in the real world from electrifying these. Thus, we believe it is appropriate to offer a fixed technology improvement for use of electric power steering and an electric A/C compressor as an input to GEM.
The agencies have conducted modeling in GEM to compare configurations with different default accessory loads, and have demonstrated there is a measurable effect of reducing 1 kW of accessory load for each vocational subcategory (see RIA 2.9.3.6). The agencies have incorporated information from this GEM modeling with information from comments provided by ICCT, the TIAX 2009 technology report, CARB's Driveline Optimization report, and the 2010 NAS report to assign fixed improvement values for the defined technologies as
Optimization and improved pressure regulation may significantly reduce the parasitic load of the water, air and fuel pumps. Electrification may result in a reduction in power demand, because electrically-powered accessories (such as the air compressor or power steering) operate only when needed if they are electrically powered, but they impose a parasitic demand all the time if they are engine-driven. In other cases, such as cooling fans or an engine's water pump, electric power allows the accessory to run at speeds independent of engine speed, which can reduce power consumption. Electrification of accessories can individually improve fuel consumption, regardless of whether the drivetrain is a strong hybrid. Some vocational vehicle applications have much higher accessory loads than is assumed in the default GEM configurations. In the real world, there may be some vehicles for which there is a much larger potential improvement available than those listed above, as well as some for which electrification is not cost-effective. To date, accessory electrification has been associated only with hybrids, although CalStart commented they are optimistic that accessory electrification will become more widespread among conventional vehicles in the time frame of Phase 2.
Electric power steering (EPS) or Electrohydraulic power steering (EHPS) provides a potential reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption over hydraulic power steering because of reduced overall accessory loads. This eliminates the parasitic losses associated with belt-driven power steering pumps which consistently draw load from the engine to pump hydraulic fluid through the steering actuation systems even when the wheels are not being turned. EPS is an enabler for all vehicle hybridization technologies since it provides power steering when the engine is off. EPS is feasible for most vehicles with a standard 12V system. Some heavier vehicles may require a higher voltage system which may add cost and complexity.
Manufacturers wishing to obtain credit for technologies that are more effective than we have projected, or technologies beyond the scope of this defined technology improvement, may apply for off-cycle credits.
The agencies did not propose to base the vocational vehicle standards on the performance of tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS). However, we received comment that we should consider this technology. See discussion in Section III.D.1.b. In addition to comments related to tractors and trailers, RMA commented that TPMS can also apply to the class 2b-6 vehicles, and if the agencies add TPMS to the list of recognized technologies, that this choice should also be made available to class 2b-6 vehicles. Bendix commented that TPMS is a proven product, readily available from a number of truck, bus, and motor coach OEMs. Autocar commented that TPMS is useful for refuse truck applications. Tirestamp said that TPMS is ideal for trucks and buses that are unable to apply ATIS due to difficulties plumbing air lines externally of the axles. The agencies find these comments to be persuasive. As a result, we are finalizing vocational vehicle standards that are predicated on the performance of TPMS in all subcategories, including all custom chassis except emergency vehicles and concrete mixers. Available information indicates that it is feasible to utilize TPMS on all vocational vehicles, though systems for heavy vehicles in duty cycles where the air in the tires becomes very hot must be ruggedized so that the sensors are protected from this heat. Such devices are commercially available, though they cost more. To account for this in our analysis, we have projected a lower adoption rate for TPMS in Urban vehicles than for Regional or Multipurpose vehicles, rather than by increasing the cost and applying an equal adoption rate. We are assigning a fixed improvement in GEM for use of this technology in vocational vehicles of one percent for Regional vehicles including motor coaches and RV's (the same as for tractors and trailers) and 0.9 percent for Multipurpose, Urban, and other custom chassis vocational vehicles, recognizing that the higher amount of idle is likely to reduce the effectiveness for these vehicles. These values will be specified as GEM inputs in the column designated for tire pressure systems.
The agencies did not propose to base the vocational vehicle standards on the performance of automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS), otherwise known as central tire inflation (CTI). However, we did receive comment indicating that it is feasible on some vocational vehicles. Air CTI commented that central tire inflation is not only feasible but enhances safety on vehicles such as dump trucks and heavy haul vehicles that need higher tire pressures under certain driving conditions, such as when loaded, but need lower tire pressures when running empty or operating off-road. Tirestamp commented that ATIS can be plumbed externally for trucks and buses, but such systems have a propensity for damage and Autocar has provided information about how much extra weight this plumbing adds to the chassis. ATA commented that some onboard air pressure systems may not be able to pressurize tires sufficiently for very heavy vehicles. The primary vocational vehicle standards are not predicated on any adoption of this because the agencies do not have sufficient information about which chassis will have an onboard air supply for purposes
Manufacturers can reduce direct A/C leakage emissions by utilizing leak-tight components. EPA's HFC direct emission leakage standard is independent of the CO
In Phase 1, EPA adopted a HFC leakage standard to assure that high-quality, low-leakage components are used in each air conditioning system installed in HD pickup trucks, vans, and combination tractors (see 40 CFR 1037.115). We did not adopt a HFC leakage standard in Phase 1 for systems installed in vocational vehicles. In the final Phase 2 program, as proposed, EPA is extending the HFC leakage standard to all vocational vehicles. Beginning in the 2021 model year, vocational vehicle air conditioning systems with a refrigerant capacity of greater than 733 grams must meet a leakage rate of 1.50 percent leakage per year and systems with a refrigerant capacity of 733 grams or lower meet a leakage standard of 11.0 grams per year. EPA has determined that an approach of having a leak rate standard for lower capacity systems and a percent leakage per year standard for higher capacity systems will result in reduced refrigerant emissions from all air conditioning systems, while still allowing manufacturers the ability to produce low-leak, lower capacity systems in vehicles which require them.
Research has demonstrated that reducing A/C system leakage is both highly cost-effective and technologically feasible. The availability of low leakage components is being driven by the air conditioning program in the light-duty GHG rule which began in the 2012 model year and the HD Phase 1 rule that began in the 2014 model year. The cooperative industry and government Improved Mobile Air Conditioning program has demonstrated that new-vehicle leakage emissions can be reduced by 50 percent by reducing the number and improving the quality of the components, fittings, seals, and hoses of the A/C system.
We received comments from CARB and Daimler in support of applying these leakage standards to vocational vehicles. Daimler specifically expressed support for excluding A/C systems used to cool the cargo area of trucks, as well as for allowing helium testing as a compliance option. Thus, we are adopting these provisions as proposed. EMA commented with concerns about the burden of certifying A/C systems that are installed by secondary manufacturers. Section V.D.2 discusses how we have addressed the concerns related to secondary manufacturers. We also received comments from RVIA asking for clarification whether the cargo area exclusion also applied to A/C units that cool the living space of recreational vehicles. In response, we are adding clarifying language to the regulations at 40 CFR 1037.115 excluding A/C systems that are not powered by the vehicle's propulsion engine.
The A/C system leakage control costs presented in the RIA Chapter 2.9 and 2.11 are applied to all heavy-duty vocational vehicles. EPA views these costs as minimal and the reductions of potent GHGs to be easily feasible and reasonable in the lead times provided by the final rules.
Section II explains the technical basis for the agencies' proposed separate engine standards. The agencies are not predicating the vocational vehicle standards on different diesel engine technology packages than those presumed for compliance with the separate diesel engine standards. However, for each model year of the Phase 2 standards, the agencies are predicating the SI-powered vocational vehicle standards on a gasoline engine technology package that includes additional technologies beyond those presumed for compliance with the MY 2016 gasoline engine standard. Put another way, the stringency of certain of the vocational vehicle standards, and those for vehicles using SI engines in particular, reflect in part improvements in engine efficiency which are not measured in the engine standard or in engine certification.
The primary vocational vehicle standards vary depending on whether the engines powering those vehicles are compression-ignition or spark-ignition.
As explained in Section II.A.2, engines will continue to be certified over the FTP test cycle via direct testing, not GEM simulation. The FTP test cycle that is applicable for bare vocational engines is very different than the test cycles for vocational vehicles in GEM. The FTP is a very demanding transient cycle that exercises the engine over its full range of capabilities. In contrast, the cycles evaluated by GEM measure emissions over more frequently used engine operating ranges. The ARB Transient vehicle cycle represents city driving, and the highway cruise cycles measure engine operation that is closer to steady state. Each of these cycles is described in the RIA Chapter 3.4.2. A consequence of recognizing engine performance at the vehicle level is that further engine improvements (
We did not propose to predicate any diesel vocational vehicle standard on additional engine technology, including engine waste heat recovery (WHR). We do not believe this technology would show significant benefit in vocational vehicle applications due to their driving cycles, which have fewer highway miles than tractors. Thus, the final vocational vehicle standards assume that diesel engines perform at the level of the certified engine configuration.
The agencies received extensive comment on our assessment of SI engine technologies, and how these could be included in the vocational vehicle technology packages. We predicated the proposed MY 2027 SI-powered vocational vehicle standards on additional friction reduction, for a 0.6 percent fuel efficiency improvement. UCS, EDF, NRDC, and ICCT ask the agencies to rely on the 2015 SwRI study suggesting 8 percent improvement is possible. UCS highlights packages #16 and #22 of the SwRI report for the agencies' further consideration. These packages were assembled by SwRI to simulate the combined performance of engine technologies over some well-known vehicle drive cycles. Because none of the technical data referenced by these commenters provides information on how these technologies perform over the HD gasoline engine FTP test procedure, the agencies are considering these to be comments on the GEM-based vocational vehicle standards, not comments on the separate FTP-based SI engine standard. Please see Section II.D.2(b) of this Preamble for the agencies' response to comments on the stringency of the separate SI engine standard.
SwRI package #16 applies variable valve actuation and exhaust gas recirculation to a 3.5 liter V6 engine. SwRI package #22 applies stoichiometric direct gas injection, exhaust gas recirculation, dual cam phasers, and advanced friction reduction to a 6.2 liter V8 engine. All of the SwRI packages compare the future vehicle performance to a pre-Phase 1 baseline, thus counting all the improvements already presumed in the MY 2016 engine standard, so the delta between what the commenter seeks and what the agencies proposed is considerably less than initially appears (and than the commenter appeared to believe). The agencies' default SI engine map for setting the SI-powered vocational vehicle standards is a MY 2016 6.8 liter V8 engine. The RIA Chapter 2.9.1 presents the EPA default map that meets the MY 2016 engine standard. We are adhering to the proposed approach of recognizing SI engine improvements only in the vocational vehicle standard. In response to comments, the agencies are adopting final vehicle-level standards for SI-powered vocational vehicles that are predicated in part on adoption of cylinder deactivation in addition to the advanced friction reduction reflected in the proposal, both of which have incremental costs beyond those needed to meet the separate FTP-based engine standard, and both of which will be recognized over the GEM vehicle cycles. Indeed, cylinder deactivation would not be expected to be recognized at all over the engine FTP cycle (another reason the improvement is reflected in the final vehicle standard). As proposed, the effectiveness and adoption rate of Level 2 engine friction reduction yields a fuel efficiency improvement of 0.6 percent. By adding 30 percent adoption of cylinder deactivation with a vehicle-cycle average effectiveness of 1 percent, and accounting for a dis-synergy factor of 0.9, this yields an overall package effectiveness of 0.8 percent. Upon consideration of comments and the data in the SwRI reports, we are not including EGR as a technology for stringency purposes. EGR is potentially feasible, is not already presumed to be adopted in the 2016 engine standard, and may possibly be recognized over the GEM vehicle cycles to some extent. However, we did not have sufficient data to confidently project an effectiveness or adoption rate for this technology on vocational SI engines. Further, the Phase 2 HD pickup truck and van standards are not predicated on any adoption of EGR technologies for SI vehicles. The RIA Chapter 2.9.1 describes how each of the SI engine technologies are expected to perform over the GEM vehicle cycles, as well as the method for projecting that the fuel efficiency improvement will be 0.8 percent compared to the baseline SI vehicle performance.
With respect to standards for engines used in custom chassis, we understand that engines designed for heavy-duty emergency vehicles are generally higher-emitting than other engines. However, because we are maintaining a separate engine standard and regulatory flexibility such as ABT, fire apparatus manufacturers will be able to obtain engines that, on average, meet the Phase 2 engine standards. The agencies further recognize that the engine map inputs to GEM in the primary program could pose a difficulty for emergency vehicle manufacturers. If we required engine-specific inputs then these manufacturers will have to apply extra vehicle technologies to compensate for the necessary but higher-emitting engine. The agencies are therefore not recognizing vehicle-specific engine performance as part of the vehicle standard for emergency vehicles (although the standards for emergency vehicles and custom chassis do presume use of a certified Phase 2 engine). Manufacturers of these vehicles must install an engine that is certified to the applicable separate Phase 2 engine standard. However, under the custom chassis program emergency vehicle manufacturers need not follow the otherwise applicable Phase 2 approach of entering an engine map in GEM. Instead, use of a custom chassis subcategory identifier will instruct GEM to simulate the vehicle using an EPA default engine.
The agencies did not propose to include aerodynamic improvements as a basis for the Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards. However, we did request comment on an option to allow credits for use of aerodynamic devices such as fairings on a very limited basis. We received public comments from AAPC in support of offering this as an optional credit, with a suggestion to allow this option for a wide range of vehicle sizes, and suggesting that the grams per ton-mile benefit could be scaled down for larger vehicles. CARB commented in support of a Phase 2 program that would include use of aerodynamic improvements as a basis for the stringency, suggesting that a large fraction of the vocational vehicle fleet could see real world benefits from use of aerodynamic devices. Because we do not have sufficient fleet information to establish a projected application rate for this technology, we are not basing any of the final standards for vocational vehicles on use of aerodynamic improvements. See 80 FR 40303. In consideration of comments, however, we are adopting provisions for vocational vehicles to optionally receive an improved GEM result by certifying use of a pre-approved aerodynamic device, and are expanding eligibility criteria from the relatively narrow criteria proposed.
Based on testing supported by CARB, the agencies have developed a list of specific aerodynamic devices with pre-defined improvement values (in delta C
The final Regional composite duty cycle in GEM for vocational vehicles has a weighted average speed of 38 mph, increased from the average speed at proposal due to a heftier 56 percent composite weighting of the 65 mph drive cycle. The agencies have learned from the NREL duty cycle analysis that vocational vehicles with operational behavior of a regional nature accumulate more miles at highway speeds than previously assumed.
Using GEM simulation results, the agencies estimate the fuel efficiency benefit of improving the C
As described in the NPRM, we are requiring chassis manufacturers employing this option to provide assurances to the agencies that these devices will be installed as part of the certified configuration, even if the installation is completed by another entity. We received many comments on the requirements for secondary manufacturers as they apply for vocational aerodynamics as well as other technologies that may be specified by a chassis manufacturer but installed later. See Section I.F.2 and Section V.D.2 for further discussion of delegated assembly issues.
Given the high up-front costs and the developing nature of this technology, the agencies do not project fully electric vocational vehicles to be widely commercially available in the time frame of the final rules. For this reason, the agencies have not based the Phase 2 standards on adoption of full-electric vocational vehicles. We received many comments on electric trucks and buses. Specifically, EEI provided information on the total cost of ownership for electric trucks, and some applications may see attractive long term cost scenarios for electric trucks or buses, when considering maintenance savings. While we are not predicating the final vocational vehicle standards on adoption of full electric trucks or buses, we have reinstated an advanced technology credit multiplier, in response to comment. See Section I.C.1.(b) for a discussion of credit multipliers.
To the extent this technology is able to be brought to market in the time frame of the Phase 2 program, there is currently a certification path for these chassis from Phase 1, as described in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 1037.150 and NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 535.8.
Although the primary program does not simulate vocational vehicles over a test cycle that includes PTO operation, the agencies are adopting a revised hybrid-PTO test procedure. See 76 FR 57247 and 40 CFR 1037.540. Recall that we regulate vocational vehicles at the incomplete stage when a chassis manufacturer may not know at the time of certification whether a PTO will be installed or how the vehicle will be used. Chassis manufacturers may rarely know whether the PTO-enabled vehicle will use this capability to maneuver a lift gate on a delivery vehicle, to operate a utility boom, or merely to keep it as a reserve item to add value in the secondary market. For these reasons, it would not be fair to require every vocational vehicle to certify to a standard test procedure with a PTO cycle in it. Thus, we are not basing the final standards on use of technology that reduces emissions in PTO mode.
There are products available today that can provide auxiliary power, usually electric, to a vehicle that needs to work in PTO mode for an extended time, to avoid idling the main engine. There are different designs of electrified PTO systems on the market today. Some designs have auxiliary power sources, typically batteries, with sufficient energy storage to power an onboard tool or device for a short period of time, and are intended to be recharged during the workday by operating the main engine, either while driving between work sites, or by idling the engine until a sufficient state of charge is reached that the engine may shut off. Other designs have
The agencies will continue the hybrid-PTO test option that was available in Phase 1, with a few revisions. See the regulations at 40 CFR 1037.540. The calculations recognize fuel savings over a portion of the test that is determined to be charge-sustaining as well as a portion that is determined to be charge-depleting for systems that are designed to power a work truck during the day and return to the garage where recharging from an external source occurs during off-hours. The agencies requested comment on this idea, and received comment from Odyne relating to the population and energy storage capacity of plug-in e-PTO systems, for which a charge-depleting test cycle may be more appropriate. We also partnered with DOE-NREL to characterize the PTO operation of over 80 trucks with over 1,500 total operating days, and our final regulations include a utility factor table based on these data for use in determining the effectiveness of a hybrid PTO system.
The baseline vocational vehicle configurations for each of the nine regulatory subcategories for CI-powered and six SI-powered vehicles are described in RIA Chapter 2.9.1, as well as the seven baseline custom chassis configurations. The agencies set the baseline rolling resistance coefficient for the 2017 vocational vehicle fleet at 7.7 kg/metric ton, which assumes that 100 percent of tires meet the Phase 1 standard.
In the agencies' Phase 2 baseline configurations, we need to specify transmission type, gear number, and gear ratios, as well as axle ratios and tire sizes because these were all defaults in Phase 1. Phase 1 GEM modeled all vehicles with a manual transmission, but as explained elsewhere, the majority of vocational vehicles in today's U.S. fleet have automatic transmissions. By specifying a mix of manual and automatic transmissions with different sets of gears in the baseline, we are not applying technology beyond what is needed to comply with Phase 1, we are merely defining an appropriate set of baselines. We do not consider these specifications to represent technology that improves fuel efficiency beyond Phase 1, it is merely a better representation of today's fleet than the Phase 1 GEM that had 100 percent default manual transmissions. In the Regional HHD diesel subcategory, the baseline is a weighted average of two vehicle specs: 95 percent being a 455 hp engine paired with a manual transmission with ten forward gears, and five percent being a 350 hp engine paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission. The HHD Multipurpose subcategory is a weighted average of three vehicle specs: 80 percent being a 350 hp engine paired with a 6-speed automatic transmission, 10 percent being a 455 hp engine paired with a 10-speed manual transmission, and 10 percent being a 350 hp engine paired with a 10-speed manual. The automatic transmissions specified in the LHD, MHD, and HHD Regional and Multipurpose subcategories have six forward gears in the baseline, while automatic transmissions in the Urban subcategories have five forward gears in the baseline. This is based on market research, stakeholder outreach, and comments received on the NODA. No vehicle-level efficiency-improving technology is included in the baseline vehicles, nor in the agencies' analyses for the no-action reference case. Specifically, we have assumed zero adoption rates for other types of transmissions, other numbers of gears, idle reduction, and technologies other than Phase 1 compliant LRR tires in both the nominally flat baseline and the dynamic baseline reference cases. Technology adoption rates for Alternative 1a (nominally flat baseline) can be found in the RIA Chapter 2.11. Chapter 2.11.8 presents the adoption rates for tires on vocational vehicles with different levels of rolling resistance, including the 100 percent adoption rate of tires with Level 1 CRR in the reference case and in model years preceding Phase 2. In this manner, we have defined a reference vocational vehicle fleet that meets the Phase 1 standards and includes reasonable representations of vocational vehicle technology and configurations.
The agencies note that the baseline performance derived for the final rules varies between regulatory subcategories—as noted above, this is one of the reasons the agencies are adopting multiple subcategories with discrete standards. The range of performance at baseline is due to the range of attributes and modeling parameters, such as transmission characteristics, final drive ratio, and vehicle weight, which were selected to represent a range of performance across this diverse segment. The agencies received persuasive comment regarding the appropriateness of the baseline configurations, and have made revisions accordingly. For example, we have reduced the LHD default aerodynamic drag area from 5.4 to 3.4 square meters. We are confident these adequately represent a reasonable range of vocational chassis configurations currently manufactured in the US. Details of the vehicle configurations, including reasons why they are reasonably included as baseline technologies, are discussed in the RIA Chapter 2.9.2.
At proposal the agencies adjusted the vocational vehicle GEM numerical baselines using assumptions about the sales mix in the vocational fleet before applying the reductions from technologies. 80 FR 40308. In this process, we developed proposed baseline values that we believed would minimize inappropriate incentives for manufacturers to certify chassis in an inappropriate subcategory. The proposed approach included testing each baseline vehicle over all three duty cycles and applying weighted average adjustments to each GEM output to create normalized baselines, 80 FR 40308. We received adverse comment on this approach from many commenters—indeed, no commenter supported this “normalization” approach. The proposed normalization approach was an attempt to adjust for instances where the agencies' information on baseline configurations was not fully complete. Most commenters either opposed or were confused by the proposed normalization process. As explained in this Section V., the agencies are adopting final standards for vocational vehicles using the same methodology as for all the other standards in this rulemaking, and
Diesel engines used in vocational vehicles can be either Light, Medium, or Heavy Heavy-duty Diesel engines. The Light Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically range between 4.7 and 6.7 liters displacement. The Medium Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically have some overlap in displacement with the Light Heavy-duty Diesel engines and range between 6.7 and 9.3 liters. The Heavy Heavy-duty Diesel engines typically are represented by engines between 10.8 and 16 liters. Because of these differences, the GEM simulation of baseline vocational CI engines includes four engines—one for LHD, one for MHD, and two for HHD. Detailed descriptions can be seen in Chapter 4 of the RIA. These four engine models have been employed in setting the vocational vehicle baselines, as described in the RIA Chapter 2.9.1.
The four baseline diesel engines represent fuel consumption improvements beyond currently available engines to achieve the performance level of a 2017 model year diesel engine, as described in the RIA Chapter 2.9.1. Using the values for compression-ignition engines, the baseline performance of vocational vehicles is shown in Table V-17.
The agencies have developed a model in GEM of a MY 2016-compliant gasoline engine. The agencies received comments on the process for mapping gasoline engines for simulation purposes, as well as information about the power rating and displacement that should be considered as a baseline SI engine for vocational vehicle standard-setting purposes. Upon consideration of comments, and based on information obtained through testing at Southwest Research (see Chapter 5.5 of the SwRI report), we are adopting revised test procedures as described in the RIA Chapter 3.1 that apply for mapping of both SI and CI engines.
The baseline performance levels for vocational vehicles powered by SI engines were derived using the EPA default fuel map described in the RIA Chapter 2.9.1, for a 6.8 liter, V-8, 300 hp engine. We have used the same engine rating and map for all weight classes of SI vocational vehicles. This is because SI engines are not certified with a regulatory structure that calls for declaring an intended service class that is associated with a vehicle weight class. The agencies requested comments on the merits of setting distinct numerical standards for HHD vocational vehicles powered by SI engines, as well as comments on an alternative approach that would have required any class 8 SI vocational vehicles to certify to the standards for CI powered HHD vocational vehicles, or to the MHD standards for SI vocational vehicles. In response to comments expressing concern about orphaned vehicles as well as concerns about mismatched engine and vehicle useful life, the agencies are not finalizing distinct HHD SI vocational vehicle standards. We are finalizing six subcategories for SI vocational vehicles: Three LHD and three MHD. Where a manufacturer wishes to certify a gasoline SI vocational vehicle with a GVWR over 33,000 lbs, the final regulations allow that vehicle to be certified in one of the MHD vehicle subcategories. Where a manufacturer wishes to certify an alternative-fueled vocational vehicle with a GVWR over 33,000 lbs, the regulations at 40 CFR 1036.108 specify whether that vehicle should be treated as SI or CI for purposes of certification to the final Phase 2 standards. See Section II.D.5 of this Preamble for a discussion of these provisions.
Table V-18 presents the baseline performance level for each weight class computed by GEM by calculating the work done by the default engine to move the GEM reference vehicles over the test cycles.
Prior to developing the numerical values for the final standards, the agencies projected the mix of new technologies and technology improvements that will be feasible within the available lead time. We note that for some technologies, the adoption rates and effectiveness may be very similar across subcategories. However, for other technologies, either the adoption rate, effectiveness, or both differ across subcategories. Where a technology performs differently over different test cycles, these differences are reflected in the derivation of the stringency of the standard. As discussed in Section I.C.1, we assume manufacturers will incorporate appropriate compliance margins for all measured GEM inputs. In other words, they will declare values slightly higher than their measured values. As discussed in Section II.D.5, compliance margins associated with fuel maps are likely to be approximately one percent. For tire rolling resistance, our feasibility rests on the Phase 1 standards, consistent with our expectation that manufacturers will continue to incorporate the compliance margins they considered necessary for Phase 1. With respect to optional axle and/or transmission power loss maps, we believe manufacturers will need very small compliance margins. These power loss procedures require high precision so measurement uncertainty will likely be on the order of 0.1 percent of the transmitted power. All of these margins are reflected in our projections of the emission levels that will be technologically feasible, as well as the associated costs.
In the package descriptions that follow, individual technology costs are not presented, rather these can be found in the RIA Chapter 2.9 and 2.11. Section V.C.(2)(d) includes the costs estimated for packages of technologies the agencies project can be applied to vocational vehicles to meet the final Phase 2 standards.
The agencies project an adoption rate of 50 percent in MY 2021, 60 percent in MY 2024, and nearly 70 percent in MY 2027 of transmissions with improved gear efficiencies, with inputs over-riding the GEM defaults obtained over the separate transmission efficiency test. We are projecting an adoption rate of 10 percent in MY 2021, 20 percent in MY 2024, and nearly 30 percent in MY 2027 of advanced shift strategies, with demonstration of improvements recognized over the separate powertrain test.
We are predicating the Phase 2 standards on zero adoption of added gears in the HHD Regional subcategory, because it is modeled with a 10-speed transmission, and vehicles already using that number of gears are not expected to see any real world improvement by increasing the number of available gears. For the Multipurpose and Urban HHD subcategories, the MY 2021 projected adoption of adding gears is 5 percent, increasing to 10 percent for MY 2024 and MY 2027. We are projecting 10 percent of adding two gears in each of the other six subcategories for MY 2021, increasing to 20 percent for MY 2024 and MY 2027. Commenters supported the inclusion of this technology as part of the basis for the standards. Allison commented that they have configured an 8-speed vocational transmission. Eaton's new MHD dual clutch transmission has seven forward gears. There is also a likelihood that suppliers of 8-speed transmissions for HD pickups and vans may sell some into the LHD vocational vehicle market.
We are also predicating the optional custom chassis standards for school and coach buses in part on adoption of transmissions with additional gears. In MY 2021, this adoption rate is five percent, increasing to 10 percent in MY 2024 and 15 percent in MY 2027. Manufacturers who certify these vehicles to the primary standards will use GEM to model the actual gears and gear ratios; however, manufacturers using custom chassis regulatory subcategory identifiers will not have this flexibility. The agencies have estimated the cycle-average benefit of adding an extra gear for school buses (modeled as MHD Urban vehicles) at 0.9 percent and coach buses (with 6 gears in the baseline) at 1.7 percent; therefore, manufacturers using custom chassis regulatory subcategory identifiers for these vehicles will be permitted to enter these pre-defined improvement values at the time of certification.
Based on comment regarding our regulatory baselines, both the HHD Regional and HHD Multipurpose subcategories now have manual transmissions in the baseline configuration. For these vehicles, the agencies project upgrades to automated transmissions such as either AMT, DCT, or automatic, at an adoption rate of 30 percent in MY 2021, 50 percent in MY 2024, and 80 percent in MY 2027 for Regional vehicles. For Multipurpose, beginning with 20 percent manuals in the baseline, the adoption rate of automated transmissions is five percent in MY 2021 and 20 percent in MY 2024. Consistent with our projections of technology adoption, the regulations require that any vocational vehicles with manual transmissions must be certified as Regional in MY 2024 and beyond. This progression of
In the seven subcategories (
In setting the standard stringency, we have projected that non-integrated (bolt-on) mild hybrids will not have the function to turn off the engine at stop, while the integrated mild hybrids will have this function. The agencies have estimated the effectiveness for vehicles certified in the Urban subcategories will achieve as much as 13 percent improvement, and integrated systems that turn off at stop will see up to 21 percent improvement depending on the subcategory. We have also projected zero hybrid adoption rate (mild or otherwise) by vehicles in the Regional subcategories, expecting that the benefit of hybrids for those vehicles will be too low to merit use of that type of technology. However, there is no fixed hybrid value assigned in GEM and, for any vehicles utilizing hybrid technology, the actual improvement over the applicable test cycle will be determined by powertrain testing, which would likely reflect some benefit of hybrids on Regional vehicles. By the full implementation year of MY 2027, the agencies are projecting an overall vocational vehicle adoption rate of 12 percent mild hybrids, which we estimate will be 14 percent of vehicles certified in the Multi-Purpose and Urban subcategories (six percent integrated and eight percent non-integrated). We are projecting a low adoption rate in the early years of the Phase 2 program, zero integrated hybrid systems and two percent of the bolt-on systems in these subcategories in MY 2021, and three percent integrated mild hybrids in MY 2024 for vehicles certified in the Multi-Purpose and Urban subcategories, plus 5 percent non-integrated mild hybrids in MY 2024. Based on our assumptions about the populations of vehicles in different subcategories, these hybrid adoption rates are about two percent overall in MY 2021 and six percent overall in MY 2024.
Navistar commented with concerns that the agencies may be double counting some of the improvements of deep integration. For example, the addition of a gear to a transmission may reduce the added benefit of deep integration, as the transmission may already achieve a more optimal operation state more often due to the greater number of gears. The agencies have been careful to project adoption rates and effectiveness of transmission technologies in a way that that avoids over-estimating the achievable reductions. For example, as we developed the packages, we reduced the adoption rate of advanced shift strategy by the adoption rate of integrated hybrids, and we reduced the adoption rate of transmission gear efficiency by the amount of non-integrated hybrids. This is because we do not project that any driveline will undergo testing over both the powertrain test and the separate transmission efficiency test. Because we have projected adoption of combinations of transmission technologies in some subcategories, the sum of adoption rates of individual transmission technologies may exceed 100 percent in some cases. However, the effectiveness values have not been summed because we agree with the commenter that we should not double count benefits. Instead of summing the combined efficiencies, we combine multiplicatively as described in Equation V-1, below. Thus, we have fairly accounted for dis-synergies of effectiveness where multiple technologies are applied to a similar vehicle system.
Custom chassis manufacturers have provided compelling comment that the absence of recognition in the certification process of improved transmission technology will not deter them from its adoption. Therefore, although some types of improved transmissions are feasible for some custom chassis, these vehicles are typically assembled from off-the-shelf parts in low production volumes. For most components, this is not a significant obstacle. However, this dynamic can limit their access to the most advanced transmission technologies. Transmission manufacturers would generally be willing to supply advanced transmissions they developed for a larger customer, but would be less likely to invest in developing a special low volume transmission for the custom chassis. Similar circumstances would apply for hybrids. Further, for the reasons described above about non-representative drivelines in the baseline configurations, we believe that allowing these to be certified with a default driveline is a reasonable program structure. For school buses and others, if a manufacturer wishes to be recognized beyond the levels described for adopting improved transmissions, it has the option of certifying to the primary standards. Nevertheless, technology improvements that some of these manufacturers will include based on market forces (after they have been introduced into the market as a result of the primary program) will likely result in actual in-use improvements for many these vehicles beyond what is projected by the standards.
The agencies project that 10 percent of vocational vehicles in all subcategories will adopt high efficiency axles in MY 2021, 20 percent in MY 2024, and 30 percent in MY 2027. Fuel efficient lubricant formulations are widespread across the heavy-duty market, though advanced synthetic formulations are currently less popular.
The agencies estimate that 10 percent of HHD Regional vocational vehicles and five percent of HHD Multipurpose vehicles will adopt part time 6x2 axle technology in MY 2021. This technology is most likely to be applied to Class 8 vocational vehicles (with 2 rear axles) that are designed for frequent highway trips. The agencies project a 20 percent adoption rate for HHD Regional and 15 percent adoption rate for HHD Multipurpose for part time 6x2 axle technologies in MY 2024. In MY 2027, we project 30 percent adoption of part time 6x2 for HHD Regional and 25 percent for HHD Multipurpose. We are establishing a custom chassis baseline configuration for coach buses with a 6x2 axle, in consideration of comments from UCS and manufacturers stating this is the standard axle configuration for these vehicles. If a HHD coach bus is sold with a 6x4 or part time 6x2 axle, the manufacturer must enter the as-built axle configuration as a GEM input. This is true whether the vehicle is in the primary program or if it is certified to the custom chassis standard. Because the optional custom chassis standard assumes a 6x2 axle in the coach bus baseline, manufacturers may only qualify to obtain a reduced GEM result from use of the 300 pound weight reduction value (specified in 40 CFR 1037.520 associated with use of a permanent 6x2 axle) when certifying coach buses to the primary standards.
The agencies estimate that the per-vehicle average level of rolling resistance from vocational vehicle tires could be reduced by up to 13 percent for many vehicles by full implementation of the Phase 2 program in MY 2027, based on broader adoption of vocational vehicle tires currently available. We estimate this will yield reductions in fuel use and CO
The agencies believe that these tire packages recognize the variety of tire purposes and performance levels in the vocational vehicle market, and maintain choices for manufacturers to use the most efficient tires (
Table V-20 presents the projected adoption rates of LRR tires for custom chassis. As noted above in Section V.C.(1)(a)(iii), the adoption rates generally represent improvements in the range of the 25th to 40th percentile using data from actual vehicles in each application that were certified in MY 2014. A summary of these data is provided in a memorandum to the docket.
In these rules, the adoption rate of AES for HHD Regional vehicles is 40 percent in MY 2021, 80 percent in MY 2024, and 90 percent in MY 2027. This is because these vehicles have driving patterns with a significant amount of parked idle, and the vast majority have relatively modest accessory demands such that only a few would have such large demands for backup power that turning the engine off while parked would not be feasible. For all weight classes of Regional vehicles except coach buses, the neutral idle and stop start adoption rates remain zero in all model years because these vehicles have driving patterns with such a small amount of transient driving that this drive-idle technology would not likely provide real world benefits. For coach buses we are predicating the optional custom chassis standard in part on adoption of neutral idle for several reasons. First, according to Volvo, we are underestimating the amount of transient time for these vehicles by applying only a 20 percent weighting of the transient cycle instead of 25 percent as noted in their comment. Second, we estimate that neutral idle is a low cost technology that would easily pay for itself with the miles accumulated by coach buses. Finally, in the custom chassis program manufacturers are able to qualify for a reduced emission rate in GEM through selection of neutral idle even if the transmission architecture inherently functions with neutral idle such as with an AMT or DCT. The Regional vehicles carry a 40 percent, 80 percent, and 90 percent adoption rate of AES in MYs 2021, 2024, and 2027 respectively because these vehicles are not projected to apply any other idle reduction technology and as long as large accessory loads are not required this technology is widely feasible. As reflected in the Multipurpose and Urban duty cycles with an overall composite test weighting of zero speed operation of 50 percent with 25 percent composite weighting of the parked idle cycle, idle reduction is a significant technology for these vehicles. We are projecting 30 percent adoption of AES in all weight classes of Multipurpose and Urban vocational vehicles in MY 2021, increasing to 60 percent in MY 2024 and 70% in MY 2027. This is less than for Regional because we expect a larger fraction of vehicles in these subcategories will need to run PTO or other accessories while parked, such that fewer will be able to reasonably apply the low-cost AES that we have identified in this rulemaking. Because we are considering stop-start and neutral idle to be mutually exclusive on a per-vehicle basis, the sum of these two technologies does not exceed 90 percent in MY 2027, and gradually ramps up to this level from the 50 to 60 percent range in MY 2021. Neutral idle adoption rates are greater in the early years because we expect this will not need much lead time, if any. An exception to the 90 percent maximum adoption rate is transit buses, where we believe all vehicles of this type can reasonably apply some form of drive idle reduction technology. The adoption rates of idle reduction technologies for vocational vehicles in MY 2027 is presented in Table V-21.
Although it is possible that a vehicle could have both neutral idle and stop-start, our stringency calculations only consider emissions reductions where a vehicle either has one or the other of these technologies. The final GEM input file allows users to apply multiple idle reduction technologies within a single vehicle configuration.
Because we have included costs to maintain engine protection during periods of shut-off, as well as over-rides to recognize instances where it may not be safe to shut off an engine, we believe stop-start can safely be applied at the rates described above in the time frames described. Also, because we have defined two idle cycles where the automatic engine shutoff technology addresses the condition of being parked with the brake off, we believe this alleviates many of the concerns expressed by commenters about stop-start. We believe many commenters were (erroneously) imagining that stop-start systems would be required to function during periods of extended parking.
We agree with commenters that stop-start is not feasible for emergency vehicles and concrete mixers. We further believe that stop-start would not provide any real world benefit for coach buses or motor homes. However, for school buses, transit buses, and refuse trucks, we believe stop-start is feasible and likely to result in real world benefits. The only custom chassis standards that we are basing on adoption of AES is school buses, because for the others, we believe the simple shutdown timer would be likely to encounter an over-ride condition frequently enough to yield a very small benefit from this technology. To make AES practical for a coach or transit bus for example, a much larger auxiliary power source would be needed than the one projected as part of this rulemaking. Although many school buses have voluntarily adopted idle reduction strategies for other reasons, we do not believe many have tamper-proof automatic shutdown systems.
As described above, the agencies are excluding refuse trucks that do not compact waste from the optional custom chassis vocational vehicle standards. We believe trucks that do not compact waste have sufficiently low PTO operation (usually only while parked) to make application of drive idle reduction technologies (and other technologies projected for regular vocational chassis) quite feasible. Front-loading refuse collection vehicles tend to have a relatively low number of stops per day as they tend to collect waste from central locations such as commercial buildings and apartment complexes. Because these have a relatively low amount of PTO operation, we expect stop-start will be reasonably effective for these vehicles. Rear-loading and side-loading neighborhood waste and recycling collection trucks are the refuse trucks where the largest number of stop-start and neutral idle over-ride conditions are likely to be encountered. Because chassis manufacturers, even those with small production volumes and close customer relationships, do not always know whether a refuse truck chassis will be fitted with a body designed for front loading, rear loading, or side loading, we are applying an adoption rate of 20 percent stop-start in 2027 to refuse trucks certified as custom chassis. In the case where a chassis manufacturer certifies a refuse truck to the primary standards under the HHD Urban subcategory, the MY 2027 adoption rate of stop-start is also 20 percent as shown in Table V-21. The stringency in both cases assumes a sufficiently capable stop-start system to not require an excessive use of over-rides. Manufacturers opting to certify refuse trucks to the primary standards will have an option to be recognized for enhanced stop-start systems through the powertrain test.
It may take some minor development effort to apply neutral idle to high-torque automatic transmissions designed for the largest vocational vehicles. Based on stakeholder input, the designs needed to avoid an uncomfortable re-engagement bump when returning to drive from neutral may require some engineering refinement as well as some work to enable two-way communication between engines and transmissions. Nonetheless, this technology should be available in the near term for many vehicles and is low cost compared to many other technologies we considered. Commenters asked for over-rides such as when on a steep hill and we agree and are adopting this provision.
For the reasons described above, we see the above idle reduction technologies being technically feasible on the majority of vocational vehicles. The RIA Chapter 2.9.3.4 and RIA Chapter 2.9.5.1.4 provide additional discussion on workday idle reduction technologies for vocational vehicles.
As described in the RIA Chapter 2.11.10.3, weight reduction is a relatively costly technology, at approximately $3 to $10 per pound for a 200-lb package. Even so, for vehicles in service classes where dense, heavy loads are frequently carried, weight reduction can translate directly to additional payload. The agencies project that modest weight reduction is feasible for all vocational vehicles. The agencies are predicating the final standards on adoption of weight reduction comparable to what can be achieved through use of aluminum wheels (an easy material switch that does not alter load distribution on the chassis). This package is estimated at 150 pounds for LHD and MHD vehicles, and 250 pounds for HHD vehicles, based on six and 10 wheels, respectively. This value is revised upward since proposal based on compelling comments from the Aluminum Association recommending that we set the same level of weight reduction for lightweight aluminum alloys as for regular aluminum, at 25 pounds per wheel. More details on these comments may be found in the Response to Comments Chapter 5. In MY 2021, we project an adoption rate of 10 percent, 30 percent in MY 2024, and 50 percent in MY 2027 for all subcategories in the primary program.
The agencies project manufacturers will have sufficient options of other components eligible for material substitution so that this level of weight reduction will be feasible even where aluminum wheels are not selected by customers. Based on comments, we have removed aluminum transmission cases and aluminum clutch housings from the vocational lookup table.
We are not predicating the custom chassis standards on any use of weight reduction. We have learned that manufacturers of concrete mixers, refuse trucks, and some high end buses have already made extensive use of lightweighting technologies in the baseline fleet. We also received persuasive comment cautioning us not to base the school bus standards on weight reduction due to potential conflicts with safety standards. In considering this information, we are allowing all vehicles certified using custom chassis regulatory subcategory identifiers to make use of weight reduction as a compliance flexibility. We received compelling comment from UCS that weight reduction should be considered feasible for transit buses. Upon consideration of this comment as well as information regarding the preponderance of city buses with overloaded axles, we are predicating standard stringency for transit buses on use of aluminum wheels at the same adoption rate as for the primary program. See the RIA at Chapter 2.9.5.1.5 for more information about transit bus axles.
The agencies are predicating the final vocational vehicle standards in part on an adoption rate of five percent in MY 2021 of an electrified accessory package that achieves one percent fuel efficiency improvement. The discussion in Section V.C.(1)(a)(vi) describes some pre-defined e-accessory improvements that are available in GEM for all vocational vehicles. In MY 2024 we increase this adoption rate to ten percent, and in MY
The agencies are predicating the vocational vehicle standards in part on widespread adoption of tire pressure monitoring systems. These are readily accepted by fleets as a cost-effective safety and fuel-saving measure. Because there may be some minor challenges in applying this technology to some vehicles where the payload and duty cycle lead to very high tire temperatures and pressures (as described above), we are applying a lower adoption rate to Urban and Multi-purpose vehicles than to Regional vehicles, as shown in Table V-23. We are applying similarly lower adoption rates for refuse trucks and transit buses. We are not predicating the emergency vehicle or cement mixer standards on adoption of TPMS.
We are predicating the optional school bus, coach bus, transit bus, and refuse truck standards in part on limited adoption of automatic tire inflation systems (ATIS), as shown in Table V-23. These are more costly than TPMS, and require an onboard air supply and sometimes extensive plumbing of air lines.
To account for engine-level improvements consistent with those projected to meet Phase 2 vocational engine standards, and which will be reflected over the GEM vehicle test cycles, the agencies developed a suite of fuel consumption maps for use with the GEM: One set of maps that represent engines meeting the MY 2021 vocational diesel engine standards, a second set of maps representing engines meeting the MY 2024 vocational diesel engine standards, and a third set of maps representing engines meeting the MY 2027 vocational diesel engine standards.
The derivation of the vocational vehicle standards incorporates several methods because some GEM inputs lend themselves to fleet-average values, some are vehicle specific (either on or off) and some improvements are not directly modeled in GEM. For each model year of standards, the agencies derived a scenario vehicle for each subcategory using the future model year engine map with fleet average input values for tire rolling resistance and weight reduction. For example, the MY 2021 HHD weight reduction input value was derived as follows: 250 pounds times 10 percent adoption yields 25 pounds. Those scenario vehicle performance results were combined in a post-process method with subcategory-specific improvements from idle reduction, axle disconnect, torque converter lockup, and transmission automation, using directly modeled GEM improvements comparing results with these technologies on or off the scenario vehicle. Subsequently, these performance values were combined with estimated improvement values of technologies not modeled in GEM, including TPMS, hybrids, and transmission gear efficiency.
The set of fleet-average inputs for tire CRR and weight reduction for MY 2021, as modeled in GEM is shown in Table V-24, along with the respective adoption rates for idle reduction, axle disconnect, and torque converter lockup. The agencies derived the level of the MY 2024 standards by using the GEM inputs and adoption rates shown in Table V-25, below. The agencies derived the level of the MY 2027 standards by using the GEM inputs and adoption rates shown in Table V-26, below. Post-processing improvements for technologies not directly modeled, including TPMS, e-accessories, hybrids, and axle and transmission improvements are presented as a combined driveline improvement factor in Table V-27, below. The values in this table for SI-powered vocational vehicles include improvements due to adoption of SI engine technology. The methodology for estimating these improvements is described in the RIA Chapter 2.9.1. The final standards are presented in Table V-4 through Table V-9.
In part to avoid potentially creating incentives to misclassify vehicles, the agencies proposed to “equalize” the standards for each of the subcategories. 80 FR 40308. Thus, at proposal, the standards for the Regional, Multipurpose, and Urban subcategories reflected the arithmetic mean of the Regional, Multipurpose and Urban stringency levels (
Elsewhere in this rulemaking we present overall costs and benefits, which are based our projected distribution of vocational vehicles in each subcategory. This projection includes our most updated population distributions by weight class, which we have adjusted in part in response to comments on the draft NREL report in the NODA and based on an analysis of telematics data from Ryder's leased vehicles. We intend to monitor whether our projection of distribution of vehicles among subcategories is consistent with outcomes. Under the three drive cycle subcategory structure, manufacturers must use good engineering judgment (subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.5) to choose a subcategory for each vehicle configuration that represents the type of operation the vehicle is configured to experience in use, and the agencies expect the manufacturer and customer to specify a technology mix that is most effective for that vehicle's likely operation. In other words, as long as manufacturers work with their customers, the general rule describing this greater flexibility in choice of subcategory could be that the “customer knows best.” In fact, our standards are predicated on the premise that willful misclassification not reflecting good engineering judgment will be rare, and thus environmentally inconsequential.
In considering our approach for setting the final standards, we compared the relative stringencies in each subcategory with each respective baseline, and we observed that Regional vehicles are generally able to achieve the smallest percent improvement from the lowest (most efficient) baseline. By contrast, the Urban vehicles are generally able to achieve the greatest percent improvement from the highest (least efficient) baseline. We are not particularly concerned that adopting final standards with these unequal percent improvements poses a danger of losing environmental benefits from this
In light of this analysis, and consistent with recent comments from chassis manufacturers mentioned above in Section V.B.(1)(a), the agencies are adopting some constraints to the otherwise generally manufacturer-selected assignment of vocational chassis to regulatory subcategories. These constraints are described in Section V.D.(1)(e). A subset of the constraints prevents inappropriate classification based on transmission type. These constraints restrict classification options where a vocational vehicle is certifying with a manual transmission or in some cases an automated manual transmission. We are adopting these constraints as interim provisions in response to manufacturers' concerns that the manual transmission constraints could present competitive disadvantages, where different manufacturers produce very different sales mixes of vehicles equipped with different transmission types.
It is important to clarify that we would consider all relevant factors together before deciding whether to propose any revisions. If we find that a significant discrepancy arises between our projections and outcomes, such that our estimated GHG and fuel consumption benefits are not being achieved because of the program structure, we may revisit relevant aspects of the program structure, including the drive cycles, subcategories and classification constraints. If we propose to revise the structure in the future, it might also be necessary to propose revising the numerical values of the standards to maintain equivalence with the final stringency being established in this rulemaking. We would of course find it acceptable if manufacturers implemented more cost-effective technologies than we projected, while still achieving the projected reductions in use. Similarly, if the structure results in manufacturers generally adopting the projected cost-effective technologies on the appropriate vehicles, but somehow this fails to fully achieve the projected reductions in use, we do not believe revisions necessarily would be warranted.
The agencies have estimated the costs of the technologies that could be used to comply with the final Phase 2 vocational vehicle standards. The estimated costs are shown in Table V-28 for MY 2021, in Table V-29 for MY 2024, and Table V-30 for MY 2027. Fleet average costs are shown for light, medium and heavy HD vocational vehicles in each duty-cycle-based subcategory—Urban, Multi-Purpose, and Regional. As shown in Table V-28, in MY 2021 these range from approximately $900 for MHD and LHD Regional vehicles, up to $2,600 for HHD Regional vehicles. Those two lower-cost packages reflect zero hybrids, and the higher-cost package reflects significant adoption of automated transmissions. Many changes have been made to the cost estimates since proposal. In the RIA Chapter 2.12.2, the agencies present vocational vehicle technology package costs differentiated by MOVES vehicle type. These costs do not indicate the per-vehicle cost that may be incurred for any individual technology. For more specific information about the agencies' estimates of per-vehicle costs, please see the RIA Chapter 2.11. The engine costs listed represent the cost of an average package of diesel engine technologies as set out in Section II. Individual technology adoption rates for engine packages are described in Section II.D. For gasoline vocational vehicles, the agencies are projecting adoption of Level 2 engine friction reduction plus cylinder deactivation (
The details behind all these costs are presented in RIA Chapter 2.11, including the markups and learning effects applied and how the costs shown here are weighted to generate an overall cost for the vocational segment. These estimates have changed significantly from those presented in the proposal, due to changes in projected technology adoption rates as well as changes in direct costs that reflect comments received.
The estimated fleet average vocational vehicle package costs are shown in Table V-29 for MY 2024. As shown, these range from approximately $1,300 for MHD and LHD Regional vehicles, up to $4,000 for HHD Regional vehicles. The increased costs above the MY 2021 values reflect increased adoption rates of individual technologies, while the individual technology costs are generally expected to remain the same or decrease, as explained in the RIA Chapter 2.11. The engine costs listed represent the average costs associated with the MY 2024 vocational diesel engine standard described in Section II.D.
The estimated fleet average vocational vehicle package costs are shown in Table V-30 for MY 2027. As shown, these range from approximately $1,500 for MHD and LHD Regional vehicles, up to $5,700 for HHD Regional vehicles. These per-vehicle technology package costs were averaged using our projections of vehicle populations in the
Purchase prices of non-custom vocational vehicles can range from $60,000 for a light heavy-duty stake-bed landscape truck to over $300,000 for a heavy heavy-duty boom truck. The costs of the vocational vehicle standards can be put into perspective by comparing estimated package costs with typical prices for those vehicles. For example, a package cost of $3,000 on a $60,000 landscaping truck represents an incremental increase of about five percent of the vehicle purchase price. Similarly, a package cost of $4,000 on a $300,000 boom truck represents an incremental increase of less than two percent of the vehicle purchase price. The vocational vehicle industry characterization report in the docket includes additional examples of vehicle prices for a variety of vocational applications.
The agencies have performed the above-described cost analysis using the assumption that all custom chassis vocational vehicles are certified to the primary standards, with full technology packages and use of the regular Phase 2 GEM. In terms of costs, we expect that a manufacturer will choose to certify a vehicle family to the optional custom chassis standards only if it is less costly to do so. The cost-benefit analysis found in the RIA Chapter 7 presents some estimates of what the technology package costs of the primary standards are in terms of MOVES vehicle types. For the MOVES types where a custom chassis option is available, these are conservatively high cost estimates. Table 6 and Table 7 of the RIA Executive Summary present estimates of average custom chassis technology packages associated with the final optional standards in MY 2021 and MY 2027, respectively.
The agencies are not aware of any custom chassis manufacturer that produces engines. Thus, the engine costs will be borne by engine manufacturers. While some of the added engine costs may be passed on to vehicle manufacturers, and some vehicle costs may be passed on to owners/operators, the overall technology costs of the custom chassis standards are significantly less than the Phase 2 vocational vehicle technology costs, which, as shown directly below, are highly cost-effective.
NHTSA and EPA project these standards to be achievable within known design cycles, and we believe these standards, although technology-advancing, will allow many different paths to compliance in addition to the technology paths on which standard stringency is predicated. These standards are predicated on manufacturers implementing technologies that we expect will be available in the time frame of these final rules. We are projecting that most vehicles can adopt certain of the technologies. For example, we project a 70 to 90 percent application rate for TPMS. However, for other technologies, such as electrified accessories, we are projecting an adoption rate of 15 percent. These standards offer manufacturers the flexibility to apply the technologies that make sense for their business and for customer needs.
As discussed above, average per-vehicle costs associated with the 2027 MY standards are projected to be generally less than five percent of the overall price of a new vehicle. The annual cost-effectiveness of these vocational vehicle standards in dollars
The agencies note that while the projected costs are significantly greater than the costs projected for Phase 1, we still consider these costs to be reasonable, especially given that the first vehicle owner may see the technologies pay for themselves in many cases. As discussed above, the usual period of ownership for a vocational vehicle reflects a lengthy trade cycle that may often exceed seven years. For most vehicle types evaluated, the cost of these technologies, if passed on fully to customers, will likely be recovered within four years or less due to the associated fuel savings, as shown in the payback analysis included in Section IX.M and in the RIA Chapter 7.1. Specifically, in RIA Chapter 7.2.4, a summary is presented with estimated payback periods for each of the MOVES vocational vehicle types, using the annual vehicle miles traveled from the MOVES model for each vehicle type. As noted above, the cost analysis presented for this rulemaking assumes that all vocational vehicles are certified to the primary standard. Using this assumption, the vocational vehicle type with the shortest payback is intercity buses (less than one year), while most other vehicles (with the exception of school buses and motor homes) are projected to see paybacks in the fourth year or sooner. We expect that manufacturers will certify to the optional custom chassis standards where it is more cost-effective to do so; therefore, our analysis may be overly conservative where it indicates very long paybacks for some vocational vehicles.
The agencies note further that although the rules are technology-advancing (especially with respect to driveline improvements) and the estimated costs for each subcategory vary considerably (by a factor of five in some cases), these costs represent only one of many possible pathways to compliance for manufacturers. Manufacturers retain leeway to develop alternative compliance paths, increasing the likelihood of the standards' successful implementation. Based on available information, the agencies believe the final vocational vehicle standards are technically feasible within the lead time provided, are cost effective while accounting for the fuel savings (see RIA Chapter 7.1.4), and have no apparent adverse collateral potential impacts (
The final standards thus appear to represent a reasonable choice under section 202(a) of the CAA and are maximum feasible under NHTSA's EISA authority at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). The agencies believe that the final standards are consistent with their respective authorities.
The agencies developed and considered other alternative levels of stringency for the Phase 2 program. The results of the analysis of these alternatives, and comments received on alternatives, are discussed below in Section X of the Preamble and the RIA Chapter 11. For vocational vehicles, the agencies developed alternatives as shown in Table V-31. The agencies are not adopting standards reflecting Alternative 2, because as already described, technically feasible standards are available that provide for greater emission reductions and reduced fuel consumption than provided under Alternative 2. The agencies are not adopting standards reflecting Alternative 4 or Alternative 5 because we do not believe these standards to be feasible considering lead time and other relevant factors. Nevertheless, we have reevaluated each of the technology projections proposed for Alternative 4 and have determined that some engine and tire reductions will be feasible on the Alternative 4 timeline.
We are adopting many changes in the compliance provisions for vocational vehicles compared with what we proposed, as described in this section.
The agencies are adopting changes in the final Phase 2 version of GEM, as described in Section II of this Preamble. Below we provide cross-references to test procedures either that are either required or optional, for generation of Phase 2 GEM input values. See Section II.D.1 for details of engine testing and GEM inputs for engines.
As described above in Section I, the agencies will continue the Phase 1 compliance process in terms of the manufacturer requirements prior to the effective model year, during the model year, and after the model year. The information that will be required to be submitted by manufacturers is set forth
In Phase 1, there were two inputs to GEM for vocational vehicles:
As discussed above in Section II and III.D, there are several additional inputs that we are adopting for Phase 2. In addition to the steer and drive tire CRR, the inputs include the following:
• Engine input file with fuel map, full-load torque curve, and motoring curve,
• Transmission input file including architecture type, gear number and ratios, and minimum lockup gear for transmissions with torque converters,
• Drive axle ratio,
• Axle configuration,
• Tire size in revs/mi for drive and steer tires,
• Idle Reduction,
• Weight Reduction,
• Vehicle Speed Limiter,
• Aerodynamic Drag Area, and
• Pre-defined technology inputs for Accessory Load and Tire Pressure Systems
As with tractors, for each engine family, engine fuel maps, full load torque curve, and motoring curve will be generated by engine manufacturers and supplied to chassis manufacturers in a format compatible with GEM. The test procedures for the torque and motoring curves are found in 40 CFR part 1065. Section II.D.1.b describes these procedures as well as the procedures for generating the engine fuel maps. We require the steady state map approach for the 55 and 65 mph cruise speed cycles, while the cycle average approach is required for the ARB transient cycle. As an option, the cycle average map may also be used for 55 and 65 mph cruise speed cycles. Also similar to tractors, transmission specifications will be input to GEM. Any number of gears may be entered with a numerical ratio for each, and transmission type must be entered as either a Manual, Automated Manual, or Automatic transmission.
As part of the driveline information needed to run GEM, drive axle ratio will be a user input. If a configuration has a two-speed axle, the agencies are adopting regulations to instruct a manufacturer to enter the ratio that is expected to be engaged for the greatest driving distance. We requested comment on whether the agencies should allow this choice, and what the GEM input instructions should be. Both Dana and Meritor commented that there should be an option to recognize two-speed axles, but neither axle supplier offered a preference for how the agencies should implement this. Two-speed axles are typically specified for heavy-haul vehicles, where the higher numerical ratio axle is engaged during transient driving conditions and to deliver performance needed on work sites, while the lower numerical ratio axle may be engaged during light-load highway driving.
Tire size is a Phase 2 input to GEM that is necessary for the model to simulate the performance of the vehicle. As a result of comment and further technical analysis, we are adopting the tire size input as measured in revs/mile, rather than the measure of loaded radius in meters, as was proposed. The RIA Chapter 3 includes a description of how to measure tire size. For each model and nominal size of a tire, there are numerous possible sizes that could be measured, depending on whether the tire is new or “grown,” meaning whether it has been broken in for at least 200 miles. Size can also vary based on load and inflation levels, air temperature, and tread depth. The agencies requested comment on aspects of measuring and reporting tire size. The revised test procedure is described in the RIA Chapter 3.3.4.
For manufacturers electing to certify a vocational vehicle to the optional custom chassis standards, none of the above driveline inputs are applicable. In this case manufacturers must input one of the custom chassis regulatory subcategory identifiers shown in Table V-32. After the remaining input fields are either completed with values orN/A, GEM will simulate the vehicle by calling the default engine and transmission files, tire size, and axle radius from the GEM library. The following subsections describe the required and optional inputs for custom chassis.
The agencies requested comments on the merits of using an equation-based compliance approach for emergency vehicle manufacturers, similar to the approach for trailer manufacturers described in Section IV.F. CARB commented in support of an equation-based compliance approach, but in the same comment they also expressed support for using a Phase 1-style GEM interface with a default engine simulated in GEM as appropriate for the emergency vehicle category. We received adverse comment on the equation-based approach from Daimler, because they believed it would make the compliance process more complex if some vehicles needed to be tracked differently. Our intent in soliciting comment on an equation-based approach was to assess whether running GEM was a burden for non-diversified manufacturers of low-technology vehicles. Because we received sufficient support from non-diversified manufacturers that a simplified GEM would meet their needs, we did not pursue an equation-based approach.
The final certification approach is consistent with the approach recommended by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, which believed it will be feasible for small emergency
The agencies proposed two different idle reduction inputs for vocational vehicles: Neutral idle and stop-start. Based on comment, we are adding a third type of idle reduction input: Automatic engine shutdown. Based on user inputs derived from engine testing described in Section II and RIA Chapter 3.1, GEM will calculate CO
For vocational custom chassis certified to the optional standards, all three idle reduction inputs will be available, however, the computation will be based on the EPA default engine. As described in the GEM User Guide, users will enter Y or N, and GEM will return a predefined improvement.
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted tractor regulations that provided manufacturers with the ability to utilize high strength steel and aluminum components for weight reduction without the burden of entering the curb weight of every tractor produced. In Phase 2, the agencies are adopting a lookup table of lightweight components for use in certifying vocational vehicles, similar to the process for tractors. As noted above, the agencies will recognize weight reduction by allocating one half of the weight reduction to payload in the denominator, while one half of the weight reduction will be subtracted from the overall weight of the vehicle in GEM.
The agencies are adopting lookup values for components on vocational vehicles in all HD weight classes. Components available for vocational vehicle manufacturers to select for weight reduction are shown below in Table V-33, below. All of these weight reduction inputs will be available for manufacturers of custom chassis certifying to the optional standards. We received comments from Allison Transmission noting that aluminum transmission cases and clutch housings are standard for automatic transmissions so we agree it is inappropriate to include these components in the lookup table. We have revised the values in response to adverse comments from AISI, and after reevaluating information available at proposal. Although we are not projecting any adoption of permanent 6x2 axles for non-custom vocational vehicles, if a manufacturer chooses to apply this technology for class 8 vocational vehicles, users may enter an appropriate weight reduction compared to the traditional 6x4 axle configuration.
Certifying manufacturers may enter values in GEM as applicable for vehicle speed limiters, fairings to reduce aerodynamic drag area, electrified accessories, and tire pressure systems where such features meet the criteria in the regulations at 40 CFR 1037.520.
Powertrain families are defined in Section II.C.3.b, and powertrain test procedures are discussed in the RIA Chapter 3.6. The results from testing a powertrain configuration using the matrix of tests described in RIA Chapter 3.6 can be applied broadly across all vocational vehicles in which that powertrain will be installed. Powertrain test results become a GEM input file that replaces both the engine input file and transmission input file.
As in Phase 1, the rolling resistance of each tire will be measured using the ISO 28850 test method for drive tires and steer tires planned for fitment to the vehicle being certified. Once the test CRR values are obtained, a manufacturer will declare TRRLs (which may be equal to or higher than the measured values) for the drive and steer tires separately to be input into the GEM. For Phase 2 vocational vehicles, GEM will distribute the vehicle load with 30 percent of the load over the steer tires and 70 percent of the load over the drive tires. With these data entered, the amount of GHG reduction attributed to tire rolling resistance will be incorporated into the overall vehicle compliance value.
The final Phase 2 GEM will accept as inputs results from a transmission efficiency test. A procedure for this was discussed in the NPRM, and received favorable comment. The transmission efficiency test will be optional, but will allow manufacturers to reduce the CO
In lieu of a fixed value for low friction axle lubricants as was proposed, the agencies are adopting an axle efficiency test procedure, as was discussed in the NPRM. See 80 FR 40323. The axle efficiency test will be optional, but will allow manufacturers to reduce CO
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that emission standards are to be applicable for the useful life of the vehicle. The standards that EPA and NHTSA are adopting will apply to individual vehicles and engines at production and in use. NHTSA is not adopting in-use standards for vehicles or engines.
Manufacturers may be required to submit, as part of the application for certification, an engineering analysis showing that emission control performance will not deteriorate during the useful life, with proper maintenance. If maintenance will be required to prevent or minimize deterioration, a demonstration may be required that this maintenance will be performed in use. See 40 CFR 1037.241.
EPA will continue the Phase 1 approach to adjustment factors and deterioration factors for vehicles. The technologies on which the Phase 1 vocational vehicle standards were predicated were not expected to have any deterioration of GHG effectiveness in use. However, the regulations provided a process for manufacturers to develop deterioration factors (DF) if they needed. We anticipate that some hybrid powertrain systems may experience some deterioration of effectiveness with age of the energy storage device. We believe the regulations in place currently provide adequate instructions to manufacturers for developing DF where needed. We received comments from Daimler on deterioration factors for engines and the process for extrapolating where DF's are nonlinear. See Section 3.7 of the RTC. Allison Transmission commented that the amount of credits generated for a hybrid system should be dependent, in part, on design limits of batteries. We do not believe any changes are needed because the regulations do account for this by basing the FELs on the highest emissions during the useful life, including any effects from deterioration.
As with engine certification, a chassis manufacturer must design their vehicles to be durable enough to maintain compliance through the regulatory useful life of the vehicle. Factors influencing vehicle-level GHG performance over the life of the vehicle fall into two basic categories: Vehicle attributes and maintenance items. Each category merits different treatment from the perspective of assessing useful life compliance, as each has varying degrees of manufacturer versus owner/operator responsibility. The agencies require manufacturers to explain how they meet these requirements as part of certification.
For vocational vehicles, attributes generally refers to components that are installed by the manufacturer to meet the standard, whose reduction properties are assessed at the time of certification, and which are expected to last the full life of the vehicle with effectiveness maintained as new for the life of the vehicle with no special maintenance requirements. To assess useful life compliance, we will follow a design-based approach that will ensure that the manufacturer has robustly designed these features so they can reasonably be expected to last the useful life of the vehicle.
For vocational vehicles, maintenance items generally refers to items that are replaced, renewed, cleaned, inspected, or otherwise addressed in the preventative maintenance schedule specified by the vehicle manufacturer. Replacement items that have a direct influence on GHG emissions are primarily tires and lubricants, but may also include hybrid system batteries. Synthetic engine oil may be used by vehicle manufacturers to reduce the GHG emissions of their vehicles. Manufacturers may specify that these fluids be changed throughout the useful life of the vehicle. If this is the case, the manufacturer should have a reasonable basis that the owner/operator will use fluids having the same properties. This may be accomplished by requiring (in service documentation, labeling, etc.) that only these fluids can be used as replacements. We received comments from EMA asking us to consider maintenance costs for hybrids. In these final rules, we have quantified
Aside from those technologies identified above, if the vehicle remains in its original certified condition throughout its useful life, it is not believed that GHG emissions will increase as a result of service accumulation. As in Phase 1, the agencies will therefore allow the use of an assigned deterioration factor of zero where appropriate in Phase 2; however this does not negate the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure compliance with the emission standards throughout the useful life.
In Phase 1, EPA set the useful life for engines and vehicles with respect to GHG emissions equal to the respective useful life periods for criteria pollutants. In April 2014, as part of the Tier 3 light-duty vehicle final rule, EPA extended the regulatory useful life period for criteria pollutants to 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever comes first, for Class 2b and 3 pickup trucks and vans and some light-duty trucks (79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014). Class 2 through Class 5 heavy-duty vehicles subject to the GHG standards described in this section for vocational applications generally use the same kinds of engines, transmissions, and emission controls as the Class 2b and 3 vehicles that are chassis-certified to the criteria standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. In Phase 2, EPA and NHTSA are adopting a useful life of 150,000 miles or 15 years for vocational vehicles at or below 19,500 lbs GVWR. In many cases, this will result in aligned useful-life values for criteria and GHG standards. Where this longer useful life is not aligned with the useful life that applies for criteria standards (generally in the case of engine-based certification under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A), EPA may revisit the useful-life values for both criteria and GHG standards in a future rulemaking. For medium heavy-duty vehicles (19,500 to 33,000 lbs GVWR) and heavy heavy-duty vehicles (above 33,000 lbs GVWR) EPA will keep the useful-life values from Phase 1, which are 185,000 miles (or 10 years) and 435,000 miles (or 10 years), respectively. EPA received comments in support of this approach, including support for the numerical values and the overall process envisioned for achieving the long-term goal of adopting harmonized useful-life specifications for criteria pollutant and GHG standards that properly represent the manufacturers' obligation to meet emission standards over the expected service life of the vehicles.
We received comment on what policies we should adopt to address the situation where the engine and the vehicle are subject to emission standards over different useful-life periods. For example, a medium heavy-duty engine may power vehicles in weight classes ranging from 2b to 8, with correspondingly different regulatory useful lives for those vehicles. Please see Section I.F.2.f for a discussion of revisions made to the final regulations to address this situation. The Response to Comments also addresses this issue at Chapter 1.4.
Eligible emergency vehicles for Phase 2 purposes are ambulances and fire trucks. The agencies requested comment on aligning the definition of emergency vehicle for purposes of the Phase 2 program with the definition of emergency vehicle for purposes of the light-duty GHG provisions under 40 CFR 86.1818, which includes additional vehicles such as those used by law enforcement.
RVIA commented in favor of adopting a motor home definition consistent with NHTSA's definition at 49 CFR 571.3:
Since 2003, NHTSA has implemented a broad definition of school bus that includes multifunction school activity buses that don't have stop arms or flashing lights, need not be painted yellow, and do not have an upper weight limit. These are a category of school bus that must meet the school bus structural standards or the equivalent set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571, and
The most definitive attribute we have identified to distinguish over-the-road coach buses from transit buses is whether passengers are permitted to stand while the vehicle is driving. Therefore the only buses permitted to certify to the final custom chassis coach bus standards are those subject to NHTSA's Occupant Crash Protection Rule.
Allied Specialty Vehicles (aka Rev Group) commented on the need for a clear distinction between transit buses and school buses.
Therefore, we are requiring refuse trucks that do not compact waste to be certified to the primary vocational vehicle standards. Front-loading refuse collection vehicles tend to have a relatively low number of stops per day as they tend to collect waste from central locations such as commercial buildings and apartment complexes. Because these have a relatively low amount of PTO operation, we expect stop-start will be reasonably effective for these vehicles. Rear-loading and side-loading neighborhood waste and recycling collection trucks are the refuse trucks where the largest number of stop-start and neutral idle over-ride conditions are likely to be encountered. Because chassis manufacturers, even those with small production volumes and close customer relationships, do not always know whether a refuse truck will be a front-loader, rear-loader, or side loader, we are grouping these together in a subcategory.
We received comment on the need to clarify whether vehicles designed to pump and convey concrete at a job site, but which do not carry the wet mix concrete to the job site, would be included in the definition of cement mixers. Although we are not defining other vehicles as cement mixers, we are allowing miscellaneous vocational vehicles meeting some but not all of the eligibility criteria at 40 CFR 1037.631 to be certified under the custom chassis program, using technology equivalent to the cement mixer package, as described above in Section V.B.
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed criteria by which a vehicle manufacturer would know in which vocational subcategory—Regional, Urban, or Multipurpose—the vehicle should be certified. These cut-points were defined using calculations relating engine speed to vehicle speed. 80 FR 40287-40288. Specifically, we proposed a cutpoint for the Urban duty cycle where a vehicle at 55 mph would have an engine working above 90 percent of maximum engine test speed for vocational vehicles powered by diesel engines and above 50 percent for vocational vehicles powered by gasoline engines. Similarly, we proposed a cutpoint for the Regional duty cycle where a vehicle at 65 mph would have an engine working below 75 percent of maximum engine test speed for vocational vehicles powered by diesel engines and below 45 percent for vocational vehicles powered by gasoline engines. We received several comments that identified weaknesses in that approach. Specifically, Allison explained that vehicles with two shift schedules would need clarification which top gear to use when calculating the applicable cut-point. Also, Daimler noted that, to the extent that downspeeding occurs in this sector over the next decade or more, cutpoints based on today's fleet may not be valid for a future fleet. Allison noted that the presence of additional top gears could strongly influence the subcategory placement of vocational vehicles. These comments highlight the possibility of misclassification, and the potential pitfalls in a mandated classification scheme.
Two commenters pointed out important weaknesses in this approach, namely that future trends in engine speeds, torque curves, and transmission gear ratio spreads may cause the vocational fleet of 2027 to have drivelines that are sufficiently different than those of the baseline fleet, so that segment cut-points based on the 2016 fleet may not be valid a decade or more into the future. For example, if data on today's fleet indicated an appropriate cut-point for Regional HHD diesel vehicles of 1,400 rpm engine speed with a vehicle speed of 65 mph, while a future fleet might show that Regional vehicles operated at 1,200 rpm at 65 mph, then having a cut-point set by rule at 1,400 rpm could result in an excess of future vehicles certifying as Regional. However, we have further assessed the impact of manufacturers shifting certification of chassis from Multipurpose to Regional subcategories, and we have concluded this is not an unacceptable outcome. As explained above in Section V.C.(2)(d), we are not particularly concerned that adopting final standards with unequal percent improvements poses a danger of losing environmental benefits from this program, as long as vehicle configurations are properly classified at the time of certification.
In a regulatory structure where baselines are equal but future standards for vehicles in different subcategories have different stringencies, the agencies would typically assign subcategorization based on regulatory criteria rather than allowing the manufacturers unconstrained choice because manufacturers would have a strong incentive to simply choose the least stringent standards. However, because the baseline performance levels of the different vocational vehicle regulatory subcategories widely differ, the agencies have determined that it is acceptable to adopt standards with unequal percent stringencies. Further discussion of our reasons for this determination is presented above in Section V.C.(2)(d). Another weakness in the proposed approach was that even though we have obtained a great deal of data thanks to manufacturer cooperation and NREL duty cycle analysis, the only one of the proposed regulatory cut-points in which we have a high degree of confidence is the cut-point between Regional and Multipurpose class 8 diesels. Any cut-points we could establish based on available data for lower weight class diesels or for gasoline powered vocational vehicles would be less robust. These weaknesses have led the agencies to take a different approach to assigning vehicles to subcategories. The agencies are adopting final regulations that generally allow manufacturers to choose a subcategory, with a revised set of constraints as well as a provision requiring use of good engineering judgment. The constraints discussed here are being adopted as interim provisions in response to manufacturers' concerns that some of them could present competitive disadvantages, where different manufacturers produce very different sales mixes of vehicles equipped with different transmission types, as discussed above in Section V.C.(2)(d).
Because the baseline configurations against which vehicles in the Urban subcategories will measure their future performance do not include any manual transmissions, we have determined that vocational vehicles with manual transmissions may not be certified as Urban. In the real world, we do not expect any vehicles intended to be used in urban driving patterns will be specified with manual transmissions. Driver fatigue and other performance problems make this an illogical choice of transmission, and thus it is appropriate for us to adopt this constraint. As described in Chapter 2.9.2 of the RIA, both the HHD Regional and HHD Multipurpose baselines have a blend of manual transmissions, although the majority of manuals are in the HHD Regional baseline. Further, by MY 2024, our adoption rate of transmission technology reflects zero manuals in HHD Multipurpose. Thus, beginning in MY 2024, any vocational vehicle certified with a manual transmission must be classified in a Regional subcategory, except a vehicle with a hybridized manual transmission may be certified in a Multipurpose subcategory beyond MY 2024.
We are not adopting constraints on vehicles with automated manual transmissions certifying in either Regional or Multipurpose subcategories, because we believe this is a technology that can provide real world benefits for vehicles with those driving patterns. However, we are adopting an interim constraint to prevent vehicles with AMT from being certified as Urban for a reason similar to one described above for manuals, namely that in the real world, we do not expect any vehicles intended to be used in urban driving patterns will be specified with transmissions that do not have powershifts. Lack of smooth shifting characteristics during low speed accelerations and decelerations make AMT an illogical choice of transmission for urban vehicles, and thus it is appropriate for us to adopt this constraint.
Dual clutch transmissions have very recently become available for medium heavy-duty vocational vehicles and very little data are available on their design or performance. We anticipate that in the future, some designs may have features that make them perform similarly to AMT's while others may have features that make them more similar to automatics with torque converters. Because we are not confident that we know in which duty cycle(s) they are best suited, we are adopting a partial constraint on these, namely that dual clutch transmissions without powershifting must also be constrained out of Urban. We are finalizing as proposed that any vehicle whose engine is exclusively certified over the SET must be certified in the Regional subcategory. Further, to the extent manufacturers of intercity coach buses and recreational vehicles certify these to the primary standards, these also must be certified as Regional vehicles.
In the final regulatory structure, although the standards for vehicles in different subcategories have different percent stringencies from each baseline, the agencies can allow the manufacturers to choose without risking a loss of environmental benefits because a standard that may appear less stringent in terms of relative improvement from each respective baseline may also be numerically lower (and farther away from current model performance) due to a comparatively better-performing regulatory baseline. As explained above, the final standards described above in Section V.C.(2)(c) are derived directly from the technology packages without applying any assumptions about fleet averages. Thus, unlike at proposal, the final regulations will generally allow manufacturers to certify in the particular duty-cycle subcategory they believe to be most appropriate. Manufacturers may make this choice as part of the certification process and will not be allowed to change it after the vehicle has been introduced into commerce. Under this structure, the agencies expect manufacturers to choose a subcategory for each vehicle configuration that best represents the type of operation that vehicle will actually experience in use (presuming the manufacturer and customer would specify the technologies to reflect such operation).
As proposed, EPA is removing the requirement to include the emission control system identifiers required in 40 CFR 1037.135(c)(6) and in Appendix III to 40 CFR part 1037 from the emission control labels for vehicles certified to the Phase 2 standards. For vehicles certified to the optional custom chassis standards, the label should meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1037.105(h). Please see Section I.C.(1)(g) of this Preamble for additional discussion of labeling.
In the Phase 1 program, manufacturers participating in the ABT program provided 90 day and 270 day reports to EPA and NHTSA after the end of the model year. The agencies adopted two reports for the initial program to help manufacturers become familiar with the reporting process. For the HD Phase 2 program, the agencies proposed to simplify reporting such that manufacturers would only be required to submit the final report 90 days after the end of the model year with the potential to obtain approval for a delay up to 30 days. We requested comments on this approach. EMA, PACCAR, Navistar, Daimler, and Cummins recommended keeping the 270 day report to allow sufficient time after the production period is completed. We are accordingly keeping both the 90 day and 270 day reports, with the ability of the agencies' to waive the 90 day report.
The final standards for vocational vehicles are based on the application of a wide range of technologies. Certifying vehicle manufacturers manage their compliance demonstration to reflect this range of technologies by describing their certified configurations in the application for certification. In most cases, these technologies are designed and assembled (or installed) directly by the certifying vehicle manufacturer, which is typically the chassis manufacturer. In these cases, it is straightforward to assign the responsibility to the certifying vehicle manufacturer for ensuring that vehicles are in their proper certified configuration before they are introduced into commerce. In Phase 1, the only vehicle technology available for certified vocational vehicles is LRR tires. Because these are generally installed by the chassis manufacturer, there is no need to rely on a second stage manufacturer for purposes of certification in Phase 1, unless innovative credits are sought. Thus, the Phase 1 regulations did not specify precise procedures for this.
In Phase 2, the agencies are projecting adoption of certain technologies where the certifying vehicle manufacturer may want or need to rely on a downstream manufacturing company (a secondary vehicle manufacturer) to take steps to assemble or install certain components or technologies to bring the vehicle into a certified configuration. A similar relationship between manufacturers applies with aftertreatment devices for certified engines. EPA previously adopted “delegated assembly” provisions for engines at 40 CFR 1068.261 to describe how manufacturers can share compliance responsibilities through these cooperative assembly procedures, and proposed to also apply it for vehicle-based GHG standards in 40 CFR part 1037, including the vocational vehicle standards.
The delegated assembly provisions being finalized for Phase 2 vehicle standards are only invoked if a certifying manufacturer includes in its certified configuration a technology that it does not install itself. Examples may include fairings to reduce aerodynamic drag, air conditioning systems, automatic tire inflation systems, or hybrid systems. We are clarifying this regulatory process to enable manufacturers to include technologies in their compliance plans that might otherwise not be considered on the basis of what they can install themselves. To the extent certifying manufacturers rely on secondary vehicle manufacturers to bring the vehicle into a certified configuration, the following provisions will apply:
• The certifying manufacturer will describe its approach to delegated assembly in the application for certification.
• The certifying manufacturer will create installation instructions to describe how the secondary vehicle manufacturer will bring the vehicle into a certified configuration.
• The certifying manufacturer must take additional steps for certified configurations that include hybrid powertrain components, auxiliary power units, aerodynamic devices, or natural gas fuel tanks. In these cases, the certifying manufacturer must have a contractual agreement with each affected secondary vehicle manufacturer obligating the secondary vehicle manufacturer to build each vehicle into a certified configuration and to provide affidavits confirming proper assembly procedures, and to provide information regarding deployment of each type of technology (if there are technology options that relate to different GEM input values).
See Section I.F of this Preamble and Section 1.4.4 of the RTC for further discussion of the comments received on delegated assembly provisions.
The agencies have developed the delegated-assembly and other provisions in 40 CFR 1037.620—1037.622 to clarify how manufacturers have shared and separate responsibilities for complying with the regulations. Vocational vehicles are the most likely vehicle types to involve both primary and secondary manufacturers; however, other types of vehicles may also involve multiple manufacturers, so these regulatory provisions apply to all vehicles.
Secondary manufacturers (such as body builders) that build complete vehicles from certified chassis are obligated to comply with the emission-related installation instructions provided by the certifying manufacturer. Secondary manufacturers that build complete vehicles from exempted chassis are similarly obligated to comply with all of the regulatory provisions related to the exemption.
EPA's requirements for vocational chassis manufacturers to demonstrate reductions in direct emissions of HFC in their A/C systems and components through a design-based method. The method for calculating A/C leakage is the same as was adopted in Phase 1 for tractors and HD pickups and vans. It is based closely on an industry-consensus leakage scoring method, described below. This leakage scoring method is correlated to experimentally-measured leakage rates from a number of vehicles using the different available A/C components. As is done currently for other HD vehicles, vocational chassis manufacturers will choose from a menu of A/C equipment and components used in their vehicles in order to establish leakage scores, to characterize their A/C system leakage performance. The percent leakage per year will then be calculated as this score divided by the system refrigerant capacity. We received comments from transit bus manufacturers with concerns that the air conditioning systems on their vehicles are much larger and more complex than systems on typical heavy-duty trucks. As such, they questioned whether our HFC leakage compliance process was valid for their vehicles. Based on information provided by suppliers of air conditioning systems for large buses, we believe some unusually large systems may include components not adequately represented by those listed in the standard compliance procedure, namely the hoses, fittings or seals may not be listed with realistic leakage rates. Therefore EPA is adopting in this final rule provisions allowing use of an alternate compliance procedure where an air conditioning system with refrigerant charge capacity greater than 3,000 grams is installed in a Phase 2 vocational vehicle.
Consistent with the light-duty rule and the Phase 1 program for other HD vehicles, vocational chassis manufacturers will compare the components of a vehicle's A/C system with a set of leakage-reduction technologies and actions that is based closely on that developed through the Improved Mobile Air Conditioning program and SAE International (as SAE Surface Vehicle Standard J2727, “HFC-134a, Mobile Air Conditioning System Refrigerant Emission Chart,” August 2008 version).
EPA concludes that the design-based approach results in estimates of likely leakage emissions reductions that are comparable to those that would result from performance-based testing. Where a manufacturer installs an air conditioning system in a vocational vehicle that has a working fluid consisting of an alternate refrigerant with a lower global warming potential than HFC-134a, compliance with the leakage standard is addressed in the regulations at 40 CFR 1037.115. Please see Section I.F.(2)(b) for a discussion related to alternative refrigerants.
Consistent with the HD Phase 1 program and the light-duty rule, where we require that manufacturers attest to the durability of components and systems used to meet the CO
EPA and NHTSA requested comment on gliders and received extensive comment. The main issues involve standards for rebuilt engines installed in new glider vehicles. These issues are fully addressed in Preamble Section XIII.B and RTC Section 14.2. Of relevance for the vocational vehicle sector, the final standards contain a number of provisions allowing donor engines that are still within their regulatory useful life to be used in new glider vehicles provided the engine meets all standards applicable to the year in which the engine was originally manufactured and also meets one of the following criteria:
• The engine is still within its original useful life in terms of both miles and years.
• The engine has less than 100,000 miles of engine operation.
• The engine is less than three years old.
Thus, if a donor engine meeting one of the above criteria was manufactured before the Phase 1 GHG standards, it would not be subject to those standards when installed in a glider vehicle. Similarly, if such an engine was manufactured before 2010, it would be subject to the pre-2010 criteria pollutant standards corresponding to its year of manufacture. EPA is adopting this provision consistent with the original purpose of glider vehicles as providing a means of salvaging of relatively new powertrains from vehicle chassis that have been damaged or have otherwise failed prematurely. See Section XIII.B of the Preamble.
EPA and NHTSA are adopting several flexibility provisions in the Phase 2 program. Program-wide compliance flexibilities include an averaging, banking and trading program for CO
Averaging, banking, and trading of emission credits have been an important part of many EPA mobile source programs under CAA Title II. ABT provisions provide manufacturers flexibilities that assist in the efficient development and implementation of new technologies and therefore enable new technologies to be implemented at a more aggressive pace than without ABT. NHTSA and EPA are carrying-over the Phase 1 ABT provisions for vocational vehicles into Phase 2, as it is an important way to achieve each agency's programmatic goals. ABT is also discussed in Section I and Section III.F.1.
Consistent with the Phase 1 averaging sets, the agencies are allowing chassis manufacturers to average SI-powered vocational vehicle chassis with CI-powered vocational vehicle chassis, within the same vehicle weight class group. In Phase 1, all vocational and tractor chassis within a vehicle weight class group were able to average with each other, regardless of whether they were powered by a CI or SI engine. The Phase 2 approach continues this. The only difference is that in Phase 2, there are different numerical standards set for the SI-powered and CI-powered vehicles, but that does not alter the basis for averaging. This is consistent with the Phase 1 approach where, for example, Class 8 day cab tractors, Class 8 sleeper cab tractors and Class 8 vocational vehicles each have different numerical standards, while they all belong to the same averaging set.
As discussed in V.D.(1)(c), EPA and NHTSA are adopting a revised useful life for LHD vocational vehicles for GHG emissions from the current 10 years/110,000 miles to 15 years/150,000 miles, to be consistent with the useful life of criteria pollutants recently updated in EPA's Tier 3 rule. For the same reasons, EPA and NHTSA are also adopting a useful life adjustment for HD pickups and vans, as described in Section VI.E.(1). According to the credits calculation formula at 40 CFR 1037.705 and 49 CFR 535.7, useful life in miles is a multiplicative factor included in the calculation of CO
In Phase 1, the agencies adopted an emissions and fuel consumption credit generating opportunity that applied to innovative technologies that reduce fuel consumption and CO
The agencies recognize that there are emerging technologies today that are being developed, but will not be accounted for in the GEM tool, and therefore will be considered off-cycle. For vocational vehicles, this could include technologies whose scope and effectiveness surpass those defined and pre-approved in the HD Phase 2 program, such as aerodynamics and electrified accessories. Any credits for these technologies will need to be based on real-world fuel consumption and GHG reductions that can be measured with verifiable test methods using representative driving conditions typical of the engine or vehicle application. More information about off-cycle technology credits can be found at Section I.C.1.c.
As in Phase 1, the agencies will continue to provide two paths for approval of the test procedure to measure the CO
There are some technologies that are entering the market today, and although our model does not have the capability to simulate the effectiveness over the test cycles, there are reliable estimates of effectiveness available to the agencies. These will be recognized in our HD Phase 2 certification procedures as pre-defined technologies, and will not be considered off-cycle. Examples of such technologies for vocational vehicles include narrowly-defined types of electrified accessories or aerodynamic improvements. The agencies are specifying default effectiveness values to be used as valid inputs to GEM for each of these. The projected effectiveness of each vocational vehicle technology is discussed in the RIA Chapter 2.9.3.
The agencies' approval for Phase 1 innovative technology credits (approved prior to 2021 MY) will be carried into the Phase 2 program on a limited basis for those technologies where the benefit is not accounted for in the Phase 2 test procedure. Therefore, the manufacturers will not be required to request new approval for any innovative credits carried into the off-cycle program, but will have to demonstrate, as part of the MY 2021 certification, the extent to which the new cycle does not account for these improvements. The agencies believe this is appropriate because technologies, such as those related to the transmission or driveline, may no longer be “off-cycle” because of the addition of these technologies into the Phase 2 version of GEM.
As described above in Section I, the agencies proposed to discontinue advanced technology credits in Phase 2, which had been intended to promote the early implementation of advanced technologies that were not expected to be widely adopted in the market in the 2014 to 2018 time frame. These technologies were defined in Phase 1 as hybrid powertrains, Rankine cycle engines, all-electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles (see 40 CFR 1037.150(p)), at a 1.5 credit value. We requested and received comments on the need for such incentives, and as a result we are not only continuing these credits, we are adopting even greater multipliers than before. See Section I of this Preamble for further discussion of the comments received and the agencies' response regarding advanced technology credits.
In Phase 2, the agencies are continuing the Phase 1 option to chassis certify vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR, but only if there is a family with vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that can properly accommodate the bigger vehicles as part of the same family. As adopted in this final rule, chassis-certified vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR may not rely on a work factor that is greater than the largest work factor that applies for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR from the same family. Applying this work factor constraint avoids the need to set a specific upper GVWR limit on vehicles eligible to use this flexibility. See Section XIII.A.2 of this Preamble, and Section 14.3.2 of the RTC, for further discussion of this issue.
The agencies proposed not to continue the Phase 1 interim flexibility known as the “loose engine” provision, receiving favorable comment from Cummins and adverse comment on this from Isuzu and AAPC. 80 FR 40331. Under this provision, SI engines produced by manufacturers of HD pickup trucks and vans and sold to chassis manufacturers and intended for use in vocational vehicles need not meet the separate SI engine standard, and instead may be averaged with the manufacturer's HD pickup and van fleet (see 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(8)). The agencies are adopting a Phase 2 SI engine standard that is no more stringent than the MY 2016 SI engine standard adopted in Phase 1, while the Phase 2 standards for the HD pickup and van fleet is progressively more stringent through MY 2027. The primary certification path designed in the Phase 1 program for both CI and SI engines sold separately and intended for use in vocational vehicles is that they are engine certified while the vehicle is GEM certified under the GHG rules.
This provision was adopted primarily to address small volume sales of engines used in complete vehicles that are also sold to other manufacturers. The Phase 1 final rules explain that we set the effective date of the Phase 1 SI engine standard as MY 2016 because we projected by this time all manufacturers would have redesigned their gasoline engine offerings to adopt the technologies needed to reduce FTP-cycle emissions by five percent; technologies that cannot simply be bolted on to an existing engine but can only be effectively applied through an integrated design and development process (76 FR 57180, 57235). The Phase 1 final rules also explain that the compliance flexibility provided by the loose engine provision is technically appropriate because it provides manufacturers with an option to focus their energy on improving the GHG and fuel consumption performance of their complete vehicle products (including engine improvements), rather than on concurrently calibrating for both vehicle and engine test compliance (76 FR 57260). At proposal we noted that although gasoline engine manufacturers have accomplished extensive improvements to comply with HD pickup and vans standards as well as the light-duty vehicle standards, the agencies had not seen evidence of the engine redesigns that we had projected to occur by 2016, and we concluded that discontinuation of this flexibility by MY 2021 was appropriate to provide regulatory certainty on the date beyond which engine certification would be mandatory for HD SI engines.
However, in response to persuasive comments from a chassis manufacturer that purchases these engines, we are adopting a narrow extension of this interim flexibility, where for MYs 2021-2023, each SI engine manufacturer may sell an annual maximum of 10,000 SI engines certified under this provision.
In HD Phase 1, EPA adopted provisions to delay the onboard diagnostics (OBD) requirements for heavy-duty hybrid powertrains (see 40 CFR 86.010-18(q)). This provision delayed full OBD requirements for hybrids until MY 2016 and MY 2017. The agencies have received comments from hybrid manufacturers regarding their progress toward meeting the on-board diagnostic requirements for criteria pollutant engine certification related to hybrid systems. See Section XIII.A.1 for a discussion of comments received and EPA's response related to certification of engines paired with hybrid powertrain systems.
In the NPRM, the agencies conducted coordinated and complementary analyses using two analytical methods for the heavy-duty pickup and van segment, both of which used the same version of NHTSA's CAFE model to analyze technology. The agencies have also used two analytical methods for the joint final rule. However, unlike the NPRM, for the joint final rule, the agencies are using different versions of NHTSA's CAFE model to analyze technology. The Method B approach continues to use the same version of the model and inputs that was used for the NPRM. Method A uses an updated version of the CAFE model and some updated inputs.
In the Phase 1 rule, EPA and NHTSA established GHG and fuel consumption standards and a program structure for complete Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles (referred to in these rules as “HD pickups and vans”), as described below. The Phase 1 standards began to be phased-in in MY 2014 and the agencies believe the program is working well. The agencies are retaining most elements from the structure of the program established in the Phase 1 rule for the Phase 2 program while establishing more stringent Phase 2 standards for MY 2027, phased in over MYs 2021-2027, that will require additional GHG reductions and fuel consumption improvements. As discussed below, the agencies are adopting the Phase 2 standards as proposed. The MY 2027 standards will remain in place unless and until amended by the agencies.
Heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR between 8,501 and 10,000 lbs. are classified in the industry as Class 2b motor vehicles. Class 2b includes vehicles classified as medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) such as very large SUVs. Because MDPVs are frequently used like light-duty passenger vehicles, they are regulated by the agencies under the light-duty vehicle rules. Thus, the agencies did not adopt additional requirements for MDPVs in the Phase 1 rule and are not adopting additional requirements for MDPVs in this rulemaking. Heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs are classified as Class 3 motor vehicles. Class 2b and Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles together emit about 23 percent of today's GHG emissions from the heavy-duty vehicle sector.
About 90 percent of HD pickups and vans are
In the Phase 1 rule, EPA adopted GHG standards for HD pickups and vans based on the whole vehicle (including the engine), expressed as grams of CO
For the light-duty GHG and fuel economy
For Phase 1, the agencies adopted provisions such that each manufacturer's fleet average standard is based on production volume-weighting of target standards for all vehicles that in turn are based on each vehicle's work factor. These target standards are taken from a set of curves (mathematical functions). The Phase 1 curves are shown in the figures below for reference and are described in detail in the Phase 1 final rule.
EPA phased in its CO
NHTSA's Phase 1 program allows manufacturers to select one of two fuel consumption standard alternatives for model years 2016 and later. The first alternative defines individual gasoline vehicle and diesel vehicle fuel consumption target curves that will not change for model years 2016-2018, and are equivalent to EPA's 67-67-67-100 percent target curves in model years 2016-2017-2018-2019, respectively. This option is consistent with EISA requirements that NHTSA provide 4 years lead-time and 3 years of stability for standards. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3). The second alternative uses target curves that are equivalent to EPA's 40-60-100 percent target curves in model years 2016-2017-2018, respectively. This option is also consistent with EISA lead-time and stability requirements. Stringency for the alternatives in Phase 1 was selected by the agencies to allow a manufacturer, through the use of the credit carry-forward and carry-back provisions that the agencies also finalized, to meet both NHTSA fuel efficiency and EPA GHG emission standards using a single compliance strategy. If a manufacturer cannot meet an applicable standard in a given model year, it may make up its shortfall by over-complying in a subsequent year. NHTSA also allows manufacturers to voluntarily opt into the NHTSA HD pickup and van program in model years 2014 or 2015. For these model years, NHTSA's fuel consumption target curves are equivalent to EPA's target curves. The Phase 1 phase-in options are summarized in Table VI-1.
The form and stringency of the Phase 1 standards curves are based on the performance of a set of vehicle, engine, and transmission technologies expected (although not required) to be used to meet the GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for model year 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles, with full consideration of how these technologies are likely to perform in heavy-duty vehicle testing and use. All of these technologies are already in use or have been announced for upcoming model years in some light-duty vehicle models, and some are in use in a portion of HD pickups and vans as well. The technologies include:
As described in this section, NHTSA and EPA are adopting as proposed Phase 2 standards that will be phased in over model years 2021-2027 and continue thereafter unless and until amended. These standards are identical to those proposed as Alternative 3 (the preferred alternative at proposal). The agencies are adopting standards based on a year-over-year increase in stringency of 2.5 percent over MYs 2021-2027 for a total increase in stringency for the Phase 2 program of about 16 percent compared to the MY 2018 Phase 1 standard. Note that an individual manufacturer's fleet-wide target may differ from this stringency increase due to changes in vehicle sales mix and changes in work factor. We believe the standards the agencies are adopting are feasible in the time frame of this rule.
As discussed in detail below in Sections C through F, the agencies performed separate analyses, which we refer to as “Method A” and “Method B.” NHTSA considered Method A as the central analysis in its determination of the stringency of the Phase 2 standards. EPA considered the results of Method B as the central analysis for its determination of the stringency of the Phase 2 standards. These analyses are complementary, and independently support the same conclusion.
In the proposal, the agencies also sought comment on a number of alternatives, including an alternative (`Alternative 4') which would have resulted in approximately the same stringency increase, but would have done so two years earlier (in MY 2025 rather than MY 2027), so that the effective year-over-year stringency would have been 3.5%. The agencies are not adopting this alternative. The agencies' analyses show that the additional lead-time provided by the Phase 2 standards that the agencies are adopting will allow manufacturers to more fully utilize lower cost technologies over vehicle life-cycles. In addition, under the method B analysis, this would reduce the projected adoption rate of more advanced higher cost technologies such as strong hybrids compared to Alternative 4. As discussed in more detail in E.1 below, both of the considered phase-ins are projected to require comparable penetration rates of several non-hybrid technologies with some approaching 100 percent penetration. However, as discussed below, the additional lead-time provided by the final standards will allow manufacturers more flexibility to implement technologies at later redesigns and refreshes. The agencies received several comments regarding the timing and stringency of the standards. These comments are discussed in detail in Section E.1 below and in Chapter 7 of the Response to Comments document.
When considering potential Phase 2 standards, the agencies anticipate that the technologies listed above that were considered in Phase 1 will continue to be available in the future, if not already applied under Phase 1 standards, and that additional technologies will also be available:
Sections VI.C below and Section 2 of the RIA provide a detailed analysis of these and other potential technologies for Phase 2, including their feasibility, costs, and effectiveness and projected application rates for reducing fuel consumption and CO
In addition to EPA's CO
A relatively small number of HD pickups and vans are sold by vehicle manufacturers as incomplete vehicles, without the primary load-carrying device or container attached. A sizeable
Phase 1 also includes optional compliance paths for spark-ignition engines identical to engines used in heavy-duty pickups and vans to comply with 2b/3 standards. See 40 CFR 1037.150(m) and 49 CFR 535.5(a)(7). Manufacturers sell such engines as “loose engines” or install these engines in incomplete vehicles that are not cab-complete vehicles. The agencies are providing a temporary loose engine provision for Phase 2 as described in Section V.D.3.e, under Compliance Flexibility Provisions. These program elements are discussed above in Section V.D. on vocational vehicles and XIII.A.2 on engines.
For Phase 1, EPA and NHTSA chose to set vehicle-based standards whereby the entire vehicle is chassis-tested. The agencies will retain this approach for Phase 2. About 90 percent of Class 2b and 3 vehicles are pickup trucks, passenger vans, and work vans that are sold by the original equipment manufacturers as complete vehicles, ready for use on the road. In addition, most of these complete HD pickups and vans are covered by CAA vehicle emissions standards for criteria pollutants (
Three of these features in common are especially significant: (1) Over 95 percent of the HD pickups and vans sold in the United States are produced by Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler—three companies with large light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck sales in the United States; (2) these companies typically base their HD pickup and van designs on higher sales volume light-duty truck platforms and technologies, often incorporating new light-duty truck design features into HD pickups and vans at their next design cycle, and (3) at this time most complete HD pickups and vans are certified to vehicle-based rather than engine-based EPA criteria pollutant and GHG standards. There is also the potential for substantial GHG and fuel consumption reductions from vehicle design improvements beyond engine changes (such as through optimizing aerodynamics, weight, tires, and accessories), and a single manufacturer is generally responsible for both engine and vehicle design. All of these factors together suggest that it is still appropriate and reasonable to base standards on performance of the vehicle as a whole, rather than to establish separate engine and vehicle GHG and fuel consumption standards, as is being done for the other heavy-duty categories. The chassis-based standards approach for complete vehicles is also consistent with NAS
In developing the Phase 1 HD rulemaking, the agencies emphasized creating a program structure that achieves reductions in fuel consumption and GHGs based on how vehicles are used and on the work they perform in the real world. Work-based measures such as payload and towing capability are key among the things that characterize differences in the design of vehicles, as well as differences in how the vehicles will be used. Vehicles in the 2b and 3 categories have a wide range of payload and towing capacities. These work-based differences in design and in-use operation are key factors in evaluating technological improvements for reducing CO
Towing, on the other hand, does not directly factor into test weight as nothing is towed during the test. Hence, setting aside any interdependence between towing capacity and payload, only the higher curb weight caused by any heavier truck components plays a role in affecting measured test results. However towing capacity can be a significant factor to consider because HD pickup truck towing capacities can be quite large, with a correspondingly large effect on vehicle design.
We note too that, from a purchaser perspective, payload and towing capability typically play a greater role than physical dimensions in influencing purchaser decisions on which heavy-duty vehicle to buy. For passenger vans, seating capacity is of course a major consideration, but this correlates closely with payload weight.
For these reasons, as noted above, EPA and NHTSA set Phase 1 standards for HD pickups and vans based on a “work factor” attribute that combines vehicle payload capacity and vehicle towing capacity, in lbs., with an additional fixed adjustment for four-wheel drive (4wd) vehicles. This adjustment accounts for the fact that 4wd, critical to enabling many off-road heavy-duty work applications, adds roughly 500 lbs. to the vehicle weight. The work factor is calculated as follows: 75 percent maximum payload + 25 percent of maximum towing + 375 lbs. if 4wd. Under this approach, target GHG and fuel consumption standards are determined for each vehicle with a unique work factor (analogous to a target for each discrete vehicle footprint in the light-duty vehicle rules). These targets will then be production weighted and summed to derive a manufacturer's annual fleet average standard for its heavy-duty pickups and vans. There was widespread support (and no opposition) for the work factor-based approach to standards and fleet average approach to compliance expressed in
For Phase 2, the agencies proposed to continue using the work-based attribute. The agencies received a variety of comments on the details of the work factor approach. The agencies received comments from The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) regarding the definition of payload and towing and manufacturer's discretion at determining GVWR, GCWR and curb weight of the vehicle. In response, the formula for payload, GVWR minus curb weight, is specified such that it uses the same definition of the input terms as those which have always been used by the agencies for light and heavy duty vehicle regulations, including criteria pollutant emission standards and safety related designations. The agencies feel that there is no ambiguity in the definition of these terms and therefore that payload calculation remains clearly defined with little or no opportunity for manipulation. The agencies have successfully used the previously established definitions of GVWR and curb weight to implement emissions and safety related programs and have not experienced any adverse issues in applying these definitions. The same is true for the definitions of terms used to calculate towing—GCWR minus GVWR. While this definition for towing capacity does not match the method used by manufacturers in their consumer advertising, the agencies determined that the inputs of GCWR and GVWR are clearly defined in our regulations and used for many other emission and safety related determinations and therefore also remain a clear and consistent method to define towing for the purposes of calculating work factor. Again, the agencies have successfully used the previously established definitions of GCWR and have not experienced any issues that would warrant a change to the definition or use of these parameters.
ACEEE commented on recent announcements from two manufacturers that reported increases in payload capacity in their pick-ups due to a decrease in the curb weight of the vehicles from changes to light-weight materials. A reduction in vehicle weight while maintaining the same GVWR will result in a higher payload capacity which will then increase that vehicle's calculated work factor and therefore result in a higher (less stringent) target GHG and fuel consumption standard. Similar to the light-duty (LD) footprint based approach which allows increases in GHG emissions and fuel consumption with increasing footprints, the work factor is designed to allow increases in GHG emissions and fuel consumption with increases in capability to do work, primarily hauling payload and towing. Decreases in curb weight as described in the comment actually demonstrate that the work factor is operating both appropriately and as the agencies intended. By reducing curb weight, these manufacturers are increasing the work capability of their trucks specifically purchased by consumers to transport payload and (sometimes) to tow. Additional payload capacity, while not always needed, will allow the user to transport more goods resulting in an overall reduction in GHGs and fuel used versus taking additional trips to do the same work. This may differ from light-duty pick-ups where transportation of goods may not be the primary use of the vehicle. Additionally, the reduction in curb weight will be beneficial in all other situations of unloaded and partially loaded transport of goods because a reduction in curb weight of the vehicle results in less energy wasted simply to move the vehicle regardless of payload. For this reason, the agencies included mass reduction as among the technologies on which the stringency of the final standards (as well as the phase 1 standards) is based. Mass reduction is discussed in detail in the technology descriptions section below.
Most of the comments supported the continued use of work factor-based standards for heavy duty pickups and vans. The agencies received several comments regarding surplus towing. The American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC) commented that existing NHTSA Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards effectively cap the towing and GCWR in this vehicle segment. Cummins noted that the curves were data-based in Phase 1 and any changes to the curves would require a full study, similar to Phase 1, in order to ensure feasibility and a fair framework for all OEMs. Daimler commented in support of changing weighting of payload to 80 percent and towing to 20 percent of work factor formula and did not oppose a cap on towing. Several commenters supported adopting a mechanism to minimize the incentive the standards provide to increase work factor. ACEEE supported further considering changing the shape of the standards curves, shown below in Figure VI-3 and Figure VI-4, to be flatter at higher work factors. Honeywell commented that towing capacity has increased significantly over the last five years, beyond the needs of most buyers, and that the curves should be flattened starting at 7,500 lbs, noting that this change would impact less that 10 percent of all class 2b/3 vehicles. The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) similarly suggested a cut point of 5,500 lbs. for gasoline trucks and 8,000 lbs. for diesels, based on these cutpoints being near the 90th percentile for the model year 2014 fleet. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) (like ACEEE) commented that light-weighting is being used to increase payload and also supported leveling off the curves to eliminate the incentive to add payload and towing capacity.
After considering these comments, the agencies concluded that the work factor approach established in the Phase 1 rule appropriately accounts for the different utility aspects of heavy-duty vehicles. While trucks and vans may be used differently depending on the required job, the three main attributes of payload, towing and four wheel drive remain properly accounted for at this time in the work factor equation at the current weightings. While a small portion of the fleet may be considered to have excess towing capacity relative to the actual required towing capacity by the customer, the agencies determined that the work factor design does not necessarily result in an incentive for manufacturers to build excessive towing into the vehicle design. Towing capacity increases require improvements to vehicle powertrains, cooling and brakes, generally at the expense of payload, and therefore the work factor reasonably balances an increase in towing with a reduction in payload. Additionally, increases in vehicle weight for additional towing capacity may result in an increase in the emission test weight, further penalizing unnecessary towing capacity. Moreover, as AAPC discusses in their comments, towing and payload are effectively already capped by existing NHTSA safety requirements in this segment. Consumers will ultimately decide on the appropriate balance of payload and towing for their applications, and the agencies therefore believe that establishing a work factor cap for the small percentage of vehicles with the highest towing capabilities is not necessary and will not result in emission increases or fuel consumption reductions under the high towing conditions for which those vehicles were purchased.
The agencies also received comments regarding making changes to the work factor formula for vans. AAPC commented that the payload, towing, and 4wd inputs do not fully represent the intended uses of cargo and passenger vans, where cargo or
While it is likely that a portion of the vans are used exclusively for cargo volume and that towing is not an important attribute for these vans, the commenter failed to provide sufficient new information to support a new work factor metric specifically to address cargo focused vans. The commenter's suggested modification does not sufficiently represent the different van cargo volumes available to consumers today. A cargo volume based modification requires a complete industry van analysis of all available van cargo volumes and GHG and fuel economy performance levels from which an appropriately normalized adjustment would be determined, consistent with the approach used to establish the existing work factor equation for the attributes of payload, towing and four wheel drive. The agencies did not receive the level of detailed information required to determine the impact of cargo volume and establish a work factor correlation. Accordingly, the agencies are not incorporating the suggested change to the work factor for vans.
As noted in the Phase 1 rule, the attribute-based CO
The agencies are adopting Phase 2 standards as proposed based on analyses performed to determine the appropriate HD pickup and van Phase 2 standards and the most appropriate phase in of those standards. These analyses, described below and in the Final RIA, considered:
Based on this analysis, EPA is adopting as proposed CO
For EPA, Section 202(a) (1) provides the Administrator with the authority to establish standards, and to revise those standards “from time to time,” thus providing the Administrator with considerable discretion in deciding when to revise the Phase 1 MY 2018 standards. As noted above, EISA requires that NHTSA provide four full model years of regulatory lead time and three full model years of regulatory stability for its fuel economy standards. See 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3).
Congress has not spoken directly to the meaning of the words ”regulatory stability.” NHTSA believes that the ”regulatory stability” requirement exists to ensure that manufacturers will not be subject to new standards in repeated rulemakings too rapidly, given that Congress did not include a minimum duration period for the MD/HD standards.
Consistent with these authorities, the agencies are adopting more stringent standards beginning with MY 2021, and ending with MY 2027, that consider the level of technology we judge can be applied to new vehicles at reasonable cost to meet the standards. EPA believes the Phase 2 standards are consistent with CAA requirements regarding lead-time, cost, feasibility, and safety. NHTSA believes the Phase 2 standards are the maximum feasible under EISA. Manufacturers in the HD pickup and van market segment have relatively few vehicle lines and redesign cycles are typically longer compared to light-duty vehicles. Also, the timing of vehicle
The agencies received several comments on the Phase 2 standards and the technological basis and feasibility of the standards. The comments are discussed in Sections VI.D and 0below, which provide additional discussion of vehicle redesign cycles and the feasibility of the final Phase 2 standards, and also in Section 7 of the Response to Comments document.
Recognizing that it is unlikely that there is a phase-in approach that equally fits with all manufacturers' unique product redesign schedules, the agencies requested comments on other ways the Phase 2 standards could be phased in. The agencies suggested one alternative approach would be to phase in the standards in a few step changes, for example in MYs 2021, 2024 and 2027 (as with the standards for vocational vehicles, tractors, trailers, and the heavy duty engine standards). Under this example, if the step changes on the order of 5 percent, 10 percent, and 16 percent improvements from the MY 2020 baseline in MYs 2021, 2024 and 2027 respectively, the program would provide CO
AAPC commented in support of an alternative year-over-year phase-in that would phase-in stringency more gradually than proposed (and now adopted). AAPC recommended that rather than a 2.5 percent per year improvement, the increase should be at 1.75 percent per year through MY 2024 and then 3.5 percent per year for MY 2025 through 2027 with the MY 2027 level of stringency equally the proposed level. AAPC commented that this more gradual approach was consistent with the Phase 1 phase-in approach and would help manufacturers manage the long lead time associated with developing the new vehicles and powertrains that will be required in order to comply with the Phase 2 proposal.
The agencies are finalizing the proposed phase-in rather than adopting the approach recommended by AAPC. The more gradual phase-in recommended by AAPC would result in a loss of program benefits in each of the interim years of the program compared to the promulgated standards until the phase-in caught up with that phase-in in MY 2027. Because of the slower phase-in, the overall reduction in each interim year is lower than the phase-in being finalized. The phase-in adopted for Phase 1 with a more gradual ramp-up in standards took into consideration the shorter lead time associated with the Phase 1 standards and the uncertainty associated with implementing a new program. Phase 2 provides more lead-time than Phase 1 and the agencies believe based on their analyses of the standards that the lead-time provided is sufficient, particularly considering the flexibility also provided by credit carry-forward and carry-back provisions.
As with Phase 1 (and like the light-duty vehicle standards), the Phase 2 standards must be met on a production-weighted fleet average basis. No individual vehicle will have to meet a particular target (or the individual fleet average level). Each manufacturer will also have its own fleet average standard. Specifically, each manufacturer will have its own unique fleet average requirement based on the production-weighted average of the heavy duty pickups and vans it chooses to produce. Moreover, averaging, banking, and trading provisions, just alluded to and discussed further below, will provide significant additional compliance flexibility in implementing the standards. It is important to note, however, that while the standards will differ numerically from manufacturer to manufacturer, effective stringency should be essentially the same for each manufacturer. The agencies did not receive comments suggesting changes to this general averaging approach to establishing the standards.
Also, as with the Phase 1 standards, the agencies proposed and are finalizing separate Phase 2 targets for gasoline-fueled (and any other Otto-cycle) vehicles and diesel-fueled (and any other diesel-cycle) vehicles. See 80 FR 40337. The targets will be used to determine the production-weighted fleet average standards that apply to the combined diesel and gasoline fleet of HD pickups and vans produced by a manufacturer in each model year. The stringency increase discussed above for Phase 2 applies equally to the separate gasoline and diesel targets. For the proposal, the agencies considered different rates of increase for the gasoline and diesel targets in order to more equally balance compliance burdens across manufacturers with varying gasoline/diesel fleet mixes. However, at least among major HD pickup and van manufacturers, our analyses suggested limited potential for such optimization, especially considering uncertainties involved with manufacturers' future fleet mix. The agencies did not receive comments on the specific topic of maintaining equivalent rates of increase for gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles. The agencies, however, received several comments regarding maintaining separate standards for the two vehicle types. Some of the comments recommended closing the gap between diesel and gasoline-fueled vehicles by making the gasoline-fueled vehicle standards more stringent. These comments are discussed below.
Described mathematically, EPA's and NHTSA's target standards are defined by the following formulas:
As noted above, the agencies did not propose and are not adopting changes from the final Phase 1 standards for MYs 2018-2020. The MYs 2018-2020 standards are shown in the figures and tables above for reference. The agencies did not receive comments recommending changes to the standards in these model years.
NHTSA and EPA have also analyzed regulatory alternatives to these standards, as discussed in Sections VI.D and 0and Section X. below. The agencies requested comment on all of the alternatives analyzed for the proposal, but requested comment on Alternative 4 in particular. The agencies did not propose Alternative 4 because EPA and NHTSA had outstanding questions regarding relative risks and benefits of Alternative 4 due to the timeframe envisioned by that alternative. As noted above, Alternative 4 would have provided less lead time for the complete phase-in of the Phase 2 standards based on an annual improvement of 3.5 percent per year in MYs 2021-2025 compared to the Alternative 3 per year improvement of 2.5 percent in MYs 2021-2027.
In the proposal, the agencies requested comments, data, and information that would help inform determination of the maximum feasible (for NHTSA) and appropriate (for EPA) stringency for HD pickups and vans and are particularly interested in information and data related to the expected adoption rates of different emerging technologies, such as mild and strong hybridization. The agencies received comments both in support of and not in support of Alternative 4 and also received comments in support of standards more stringent than either the proposal or the Alternative 4 pull ahead. The comments regarding stringency and feasibility are discussed in Sections VI.D and E. As described in these sections, and in Section X and RIA Chapter 11, NHTSA and EPA believe the final Phase 2 standards represent, respectively, the maximum feasible standards under EISA and the most stringent standards reasonably achievable under the CAA considering lead-time, reasonable cost, feasibility, and safety.
As with Phase 1 standards, to calculate a manufacturer's HD pickup and van fleet average standard, the agencies proposed and are finalizing separate target curves for gasoline and diesel vehicles in Phase 2. While diesel and gasoline vehicles have separate work factor-based target standard curves, all of a manufacturer's vehicles are averaged together as a single averaging set to demonstrate compliance. As noted above, the agencies' Phase 2 standards are estimated to result in approximately 16 percent reductions in CO
The agencies requested comment on both the level of stringency of the standards and the continued separate targets for gasoline and diesel HD pickups and vans. AAPC supported the agencies' proposal to maintain separate targets noting that the approach ensures that manufacturers of either engine type will implement the latest CO
Several commenters did not support the proposed approach but instead supported setting a single fuel-neutral set of targets. Cummins commented that there is sufficient lead-time and technology to create a pathway to fuel-neutral targets, and that fuel neutral targets would eliminate any competitive advantage or preference to a particular GHG/FE technology and maintain the environmental benefits envisioned for the program. Daimler, Honeywell, and MEMA similarly commented in support of fuel-neutral standards. Honeywell and Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) suggested basing the standards on a 16 percent improvement from the projected MY 2018 gasoline/diesel combined baseline. ACEEE and ICCT commented in support of a single set of standards set at or close to the capabilities of diesel technology. These commenters suggested that gasoline engines should be subject to more stringent standards than proposed and that gasoline and diesel engines should be held to the same performance-based standards.
Bosch disagreed with maintaining separate targets for gasoline and diesel HD pickups and vans. Bosch recommended that targets be fuel neutral, as they are in the light-duty vehicle programs. Bosch commented that it “believes that a market shift towards spark-ignited vehicles and away from HD pickups and vans powered by “fundamentally more efficient” CI engines would be a very real possibility under Phase 2 if the separate gasoline and diesel targets are finalized as proposed.” Bosch continues that “any such shift would signify not only a move towards less efficient internal combustion engines, but would be counterproductive from a programmatic/environmental and energy standpoint.” Bosch further commented that “diesels from a criteria pollutant (especially NO
The agencies generally prefer to set standards that do not distinguish between fuel types where technological or market-based reasons do not strongly argue otherwise. However, as with Phase 1, we continue to believe that fundamental differences between spark ignition and compression ignition engines warrant unique fuel standards, which is also important in ensuring that our program maintains product choices available to vehicle buyers. In fact, gasoline and diesel fuel behave so differently in the internal combustion engine that they have historically required unique test procedures, emission control technologies and emission standards. These technological differences between gasoline and diesel engines for GHGs and fuel consumption exist presently and will continue to exist after Phase 1 and through Phase 2 until advanced research evolves the gasoline fueled engine to diesel-like efficiencies. This will require significant technological breakthroughs currently in early stages of research such as homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) or similar concepts. Because these technologies are still in the early research stages, we believe the separate fuel type standards are appropriate in the timeframe of this rule to assure the availability of both gasoline and diesel engines. We also project that these separate standards will result in roughly equivalent redesign burdens for engines of both fuel types as evidenced by feasibility and cost analysis in RIA Chapter 10. For the same reasons, the agencies are adopting separate standards for diesel and SI vocational engines. See Section V. above.
In order to maintain the same overall level of stringency as proposed for the program, a fuel neutral standard would result in an increase in stringency for gasoline or spark ignition vehicles with a matching relaxation of stringency for diesel or compression ignition vehicles relative to the separate numerical levels established in the proposal for gasoline and diesel vehicles. Based on the analysis of available technologies for both types of vehicles, the agencies do not feel it is appropriate to adopt such a change for either gasoline or diesel vehicles. This change could lead to an undesirable reduction in penetration of fuel efficient technologies in diesels, particularly from manufacturers who produce predominately diesel vehicles, while requiring a higher penetration of advanced technologies like strong hybridization in gasoline vehicles, distorting consumer choice. Additionally, the agencies do not agree with the comment stating that maintaining separate gasoline and diesel targets of equal increases in stringency of 2.5 percent per year from the Phase 1 final standards will result in a shift to less efficient gasoline vehicles. The agencies determined that manufacturers have similar technology challenges and corresponding costs regardless of fuel type and therefore manufacturers do not have an easier or lower cost long term path to compliance by simply shifting production from one fuel type to the other.
Note further that a manufacturer's fleet average standard is the production weighted average of
The NHTSA fuel consumption target curves and EPA GHG target curves are equivalent. The agencies established the target curves using the direct relationship between fuel consumption and CO
It is expected that measured performance values for CO
The Phase 1 program established testing procedures for HD pickups and vans and NHTSA and EPA are maintaining these testing protocols. The vehicles will continue to be tested using the same heavy-duty chassis test procedures currently used by EPA for measuring criteria pollutant emissions from these vehicles, including the city fuel economy test cycle (FTP) and the highway fuel economy test cycle (HFET). These test procedures are used by manufacturers for certification and emissions compliance demonstrations and by the agencies for compliance verification and enforcement. While the FTP and the HFET driving patterns are identical to that of the light-duty test cycles, other test parameters for running them, such as test vehicle loaded weight, are specific to complete heavy-duty vehicles. Please see Section II.C (2) of the Phase 1 Preamble (76 FR 57166) for a discussion of how HD pickups and vans are tested.
The test procedures for HD pickups and vans currently specify using a fuel with properties established under the light-duty (LD) vehicle Tier 2 program. EPA recently finalized new emission standards under the Tier 3 program for both LD vehicles and HD pickups and vans which will begin to phase-in in MY 2017 for LD vehicles and MY 2018 for vehicles over 6000 pounds GVWR, including HD pickups and vans. As part of the Tier 3 program, new test procedures for gasoline-fueled vehicles requiring the use of a new test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol which is more representative of in-use fuel that the vehicles will encounter. The agencies are investigating any potential impact of changes to the fuel properties on GHG emissions and fuel consumption and have committed to providing appropriate adjustment to the test procedures if necessary to ensure no change in stringency of the Phase 1 or the Phase 2 standards.
AAPC commented that the current methodology of grouping vehicles by the Equivalent Test Weight (ETW) in increments of 500 pounds for determining their GHG and FE performance is too large to capture weight reductions that may occur within a 500 pound grouping. Under the current test procedures, vehicles are tested at 500 lb. increments of inertial weight classes when testing at or above 5500 lbs. test weight. For example, the commenter stated that all vehicles having a calculated test weight basis of 11,251 to 11,750 lbs. are tested at 11,500 lbs. (
The agencies believe this (and similar comments) have some merit. In response, the agencies are finalizing an option allowing manufacturers to divide vehicle models into finer weight groupings of vehicles for the different Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weights (ALVW) for purposes of more precise calculation of CO
As proposed, and as noted above, NHTSA and EPA are retaining the fleet average standards approach finalized in the Phase 1 rule and structurally similar to light-duty Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and GHG standards. The fleet average standard for a manufacturer is a production-weighted average of the work factor-based targets assigned to unique vehicle configurations within each model type produced by the manufacturer in a model year, with separate targets for gasoline and diesel vehicles (which are then combined into a production weighted average which comprises that manufacturer's fleet average standard). Each manufacturer will continue to have an average GHG requirement and an average fuel consumption requirement unique to its new HD pickup and van fleet in each model year, depending on the characteristics (payload, towing, and drive type, as well as gasoline and diesel) of the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer, and on the U.S.-directed production volume of each of those models in that model year. Vehicle models with larger payload/towing capacities and/or four-wheel drive have individual targets at numerically higher CO
The fleet average standard with which the manufacturer must comply will continue to be based on its final production figures for the model year, and thus a final assessment of compliance will occur after production for the model year ends. The assessment of compliance also must consider the manufacturer's use of carry-forward and carry-back credit provisions included in the averaging, banking, and trading program. Because compliance with the fleet average standards depends on actual test group production volumes, it is not possible to determine compliance at the time the manufacturer applies for and receives an (initial) EPA certificate of conformity for a test group. Instead, at certification the manufacturer will demonstrate a level of performance for vehicles in the test group, and make a good faith demonstration that its fleet, regrouped by unique vehicle configurations within each model type, is expected to comply with its fleet average standard when the model year is over. EPA will issue a certificate for the vehicles covered by the test group based on this demonstration, and will include a condition in the certificate that if the manufacturer does not comply with the fleet average, then production vehicles from that test group will be treated as not covered by the certificate to the extent needed to bring the manufacturer's fleet average into compliance. As in the parallel program for light-duty vehicles, additional “model type” testing will be conducted by the manufacturer over the course of the model year to supplement the initial test group data. The emissions and fuel consumption levels of the test vehicles will be used to calculate the production-weighted fleet averages for the manufacturer, after application of the appropriate deterioration factor to each result to obtain a full useful life value.
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that EPA set emissions standards that are applicable for the useful life of the vehicle. EPA will continue the in-use standards approach for individual vehicles that EPA finalized for the Phase 1 program. NHTSA did not adopt Phase 1 in-use standards and did not propose in-use standards for Phase 2. For the EPA program, compliance with the in-use standard for individual vehicles and vehicle models does not impact compliance with the fleet average standard, which will be based on the production-weighted average of the new vehicles. Vehicles that fail to meet their in-use emission standards will be subject to recall to correct the noncompliance. NHTSA is finalizing the use of EPA's useful life requirements to ensure manufacturers consider in the design process the need for fuel efficiency standards to apply for the same duration and mileage as EPA standards. NHTSA will limit such penalties to situations in which it determined that the vehicle or engine manufacturer failed to comply with the standards.
As with Phase 1, the in-use Phase 2 GHG standards for HD pickups and vans will be established by adding an adjustment factor to the full useful life emissions used to calculate the GHG fleet average. Each model's in-use CO
For Phase 1, EPA aligned the useful life for GHG emissions with the useful life that was in place for criteria pollutants: 11 years or 120,000 miles, whichever occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805-04(a)). Since the Phase 1 rule was finalized, EPA updated the useful life for criteria pollutants as part of the Tier 3 rulemaking.
This section addresses greenhouse gases other than CO
In the Phase 1 rule, EPA established emission standards for HD pickups and vans for both nitrous oxide (N
Across both current gasoline- and diesel-fueled heavy-duty vehicle designs, emissions of CH
N
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) suggested that EPA investigate the feasibility of more stringent tailpipe standards. EPA may consider more stringent standards in the future if data is available to support adjustments to the standards as appropriate and consistent with the CAA, but we repeat that at present we know of no further emission reduction technologies for either N
If a manufacturer is unable to meet the N
EPA requested comments on updating GWPs used in the calculation of credits discussed above. For Phase 2, EPA is updating the GWP for methane from 25 to 34 based on IPCC AR5. Please see the full discussion of this issue provided in Sections II.D and XI.D.
CARB suggested that EPA consider eliminating or at least phasing out the use of CO
Air conditioning systems contribute to GHG emissions in two ways—direct emissions through refrigerant leakage and indirect exhaust emissions due to the extra load on the vehicle's engine to provide power to the air conditioning system. HFC refrigerants, which are powerful GHG pollutants, can leak from the A/C system. This includes the direct leakage of refrigerant as well as the subsequent leakage associated with maintenance and servicing, and with disposal at the end of the vehicle's life.
In Phase 1, EPA finalized low leakage requirement for all air conditioning systems installed in 2014 model year and later HDVs, with the exception of Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles. As discussed in Section V.B.(2)(c), EPA is extending leakage standards to vocational vehicles for Phase 2. For air conditioning systems with a refrigerant capacity greater than 733 grams, EPA finalized a leakage standard which is a “percent refrigerant leakage per year” to assure that high-quality, low-leakage components are used in each air conditioning system design. EPA finalized a standard of 1.50 percent leakage per year for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans and Class 7 and 8 tractors. See Section II.E.5. of the Phase 1 Preamble (76 FR 57194-57195) for further discussion of the A/C leakage standard. The leakage standard continues to apply for Phase 2 regardless of the refrigerant used in the A/C system. See Section I.F. for how the Phase 2 program handles the use of alternative refrigerants.
In addition to direct emissions from refrigerant leakage, air conditioning systems create indirect exhaust emissions due to the extra load on the vehicle's engine to provide power to the air conditioning system. These indirect emissions are in the form of the additional CO
AAPC and Nissan commented that the agencies should provide A/C efficiency credits similar to those included in the light-duty vehicle program. AAPC also commented that the AC17 test, included in the light-duty vehicle program to confirm A/C system performance, would be impractical and should not be required for heavy-duty vehicles. The agencies did not propose and are not adopting A/C efficiency credits for heavy-duty pickups and vans. AAPC suggests that the agencies could allow the same credits as are available in the light-duty vehicle program but no data is provided regarding the appropriateness of the credits. The EPA would need to resolve a number of open issues relating to environmental implications of A/C efficiency credits for these vehicles (among them, potential credit generation rate, whether credits would be windfall, implications for the standard stringency) before considering adopting an A/C efficiency credit regime. Also, the AC17 test is an integral part of the light-duty vehicle program serving as a confirmation that the credits are based on actual performance improvements. EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to provide credits based only on the presumption that systems similar to those used in light-duty trucks will
AAPC also recommended that EPA provide credits for reduced refrigerant leakage and alternative refrigerant usage similar to the light-duty vehicle program. In response, as discussed above and in Section I.F, EPA has established standards for refrigerant leakage. EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to provide credits for items that are essentially required. Providing such credits without an increase in total program stringency similar to the light-duty approach to A/C efficiency and refrigerant leakage would result in a loss of program benefits.
NHTSA developed the CAFE model in 2002 to support the 2003 issuance of CAFE standards for MYs 2005-2007 light trucks. NHTSA has since significantly expanded and refined the model, and has applied the model to support every ensuing CAFE rulemaking for both light-duty and heavy-duty. For this analysis, the model was reconfigured to use the work based attribute metric of “work factor” established in the Phase 1 rule instead of the light duty “footprint” attribute metric.
Past analyses conducted using the CAFE model have been subjected to extensive and detailed review and comment, much of which has informed the model's expansion and refinement. NHTSA's use of the model was considered and supported in
Although the CAFE model can also be used for more aggregated analysis (
For the proposal, the agencies conducted coordinated and complementary analyses using two analytical methods for the heavy-duty pickup and van segment by employing both NHTSA's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model. The agencies used EPA's MOVES model to estimate fuel consumption and emissions impacts for tractor-trailers (including the engine that powers the tractor), and vocational vehicles (including the engine that powers the vehicle). Additional calculations were performed to determine corresponding monetized program costs and benefits. For heavy-duty pickups and vans, the agencies performed complementary analyses, which we refer to as “Method A” and “Method B.”
For the final rule, NHTSA's Method A uses a modified version of the CAFE model developed since the NPRM, as well as accompanying updates to CAFE model inputs, to project a pathway the industry could use to comply with each regulatory alternative and the estimated effects on fuel consumption, emissions, benefits and costs were industry to do so. Method A is presented below in Section D and differs from the Method A analysis provided in the NPRM. NHTSA considered the results of the Method A analysis for decision making for the final rule.
EPA's Method B analysis continues to use the CAFE model and inputs developed for the NPRM to identify technology pathways the industry could potentially use to comply with each regulatory alternative, along with resultant impacts on per vehicle costs should that compliance path be utilized, and the MOVES model was used to calculate corresponding changes in total fuel consumption and annual emissions. The results are presented in Section E. Additional calculations were performed to determine corresponding monetized program costs and benefits. NHTSA's consideration of the Method A analysis and EPA's consideration of the Method B analysis led the agencies to the same conclusions regarding the selection of the Phase 2 standards. See Sections D and E for additional discussion of these two methods and the feasibility of the standards.
As a starting point, the model makes use of an input file defining the analysis fleet—that is, a set of specific vehicle models (
A second input file to the model contains a variety of contextual estimates and assumptions. Some of these inputs, such as future fuel prices and vehicle survival and mileage accumulation (versus vehicle age), are relevant to estimating manufacturers' potential application of fuel-saving technologies. Some others, such as fuel density and carbon content, vehicular and upstream emission factors, the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions, and the discount rate, are relevant to calculating physical and economic impacts of manufacturers' application of fuel-saving technologies.
A third input file contains estimates and assumptions regarding the future applicability, availability, efficacy, and cost of various fuel-saving technologies. Efficacy is expressed in terms of the percentage reduction in fuel consumption, cost is expressed in dollars, and both efficacy and cost are expressed on an incremental basis (
Finally, a fourth model input file specifies standards to be evaluated. Standards are defined on a year-by-year basis separately for each regulatory class (passenger cars, light trucks, and heavy-duty pickups and vans). Regulatory alternatives are specified as discrete scenarios, with one scenario defining the no-action alternative or “baseline,” all other scenarios defining regulatory alternatives to be evaluated relative to that no-action alternative.
Given these inputs, the model estimates each manufacturer's potential year-by-year application of fuel-saving technologies to each engine, transmission, and vehicle. Subject to a range of engineering and planning-related constraints (
After estimating the extent to which each manufacturer might add fuel-saving technologies under each specified regulatory alternative, the model calculates a range of physical impacts, such as changes in highway travel (
Since the manufacturers of HD pickups and vans generally only have one basic pickup truck and van with different versions ((
As discussed above, both agencies used a version of NHTSA's CAFE modeling system to estimate technology costs and application rates under each regulatory alternative considered. The modeling system relies on many inputs, including an analysis fleet. In order to estimate the impacts of potential standards, it is necessary to estimate the composition of the future vehicle fleet. Doing so enables estimation of the extent to which each manufacturer may need to add technology in response to a given series of attribute-based standards, accounting for the mix and fuel consumption of vehicles in each manufacturer's regulated fleet. The agencies create an analysis fleet in order to track the volumes and types of fuel economy-improving and CO
Most of the information about the vehicles that make up the 2014 analysis fleet (used in the NPRM and Method B of this FRM) and the 2015 analysis fleet (used in Method A of this FRM) was gathered from the 2014 and 2015 Pre-Model Year Reports submitted to EPA by the manufacturers under Phase 1 of Fuel Efficiency and GHG Emission Program for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks, MYs 2014-2018. The major manufacturers of class 2b and class 3 trucks (Chrysler, Ford and GM) were asked to voluntarily submit updates to their Pre-Model Year Reports. The agencies used these updated data in constructing the analysis fleet for these manufacturers. The agencies agreed to treat this information as Confidential Business Information (CBI) until the publication of the proposed rule. This information can be made public at this time because by now all MY 2014 and MY 2015 vehicle models have been produced, which makes data about them essentially public information.
In addition to information about each vehicle, the agencies need additional information about the fuel economy-improving/CO
The resultant analysis fleets are provided in detail at NHTSA's Web site, along with all other inputs to and outputs from both the NPRM and the current analysis. The agencies invited but did not receive comment on this analysis.
Product cadence in the Class 2b and 3 pickup market has historically ranged from 7-9 years between major redesigns. However, due to increasing competitive pressures and consumer demands the agency anticipates that manufacturers will generally shift to shorter design cycles resembling those of the light duty market. Pickup truck manufacturers in the Class 2b and 3 segments are shown to adopt redesign cycles of six years, allowing two redesigns prior to the end of the regulatory period in 2025.
The Class 2b and 3 van market has changed markedly from five years ago. Ford, Nissan, Ram and Daimler have adopted vans of “Euro Van” appearance, and in many cases now use smaller turbocharged gasoline or diesel engines in the place of larger, naturally-aspirated V8s. The 2014 and 2015 model years used in this analysis
Due to new entrants in the field and increased competition, the agencies anticipate that most manufacturers will increase the pace of product redesigns in the van segment, but that they will continue to trail other segments. The cycle time used in this analysis is approximately ten years between major redesigns, allowing manufacturers' only one major redesign during the regulatory period. The agencies did not receive comment on this anticipated product design cycle.
Additional detail on product cadence assumptions for specific manufacturers is located in Chapter 10 of the RIA.
Since each manufacturer's required average fuel consumption and GHG levels are sales-weighted averages of the fuel economy/GHG targets across all model offerings, sales volumes play a critical role in estimating that burden. The CAFE model requires a forecast of sales volumes, at the vehicle model-variant level, in order to simulate the technology application necessary for a manufacturer to achieve compliance in each model year for which outcomes are simulated.
As stated above, the agencies relied on the pre-model-year compliance submissions from manufacturers to provide sales volumes at the model level based on the level of disaggregation in which the models appear in the compliance data. However, the agencies only use these reported volumes without adjustment for the reference fleet model year (MY 2014 or MY 2015). For all future model years, we combine the manufacturer submissions with sales projections from the 2014 (for the NPRM and Method B of the FRM) or 2015 (for Method A of the FRM) Annual Energy Outlook Reference Case and IHS Automotive to determine model variant level sales volumes in future years.
The projection of total sales volumes for the Class 2b and 3 market segment was based on the total volumes in the 2014 AEO Reference Case in the NPRM and for Method B of this FRM. For the purposes of this analysis, the AEO2014 calendar year volumes have been used to represent the corresponding model-year volumes. While AEO2014 provides enough resolution in its projections to separate the volumes for the Class 2b and 3 segments, the agencies deferred to the vehicle manufacturers and chose to rely on the relative shares present in the pre-model-year compliance data. This methodology remains the same for the Method A FRM analysis, but we have replaced the 2014 AEO reference case with the 2015 AEO reference case.
The relative sales share by vehicle type (van or pickup truck, in this case) was derived from a sales forecast that the agencies purchased from IHS Automotive, and applied to the total volumes in the AEO2014 projection. Table VI-3 shows the implied shares of the total new 2b/3 vehicle market broken down by manufacturer and vehicle type. The same methodology was applied using 2015 IHS/Polk projections, and the total volumes from the AEO2015 projection for Method A of the FRM. The results of the 2015-based projections are presented in the following section about changes made to the model since the NPRM.
Within those broadly defined market shares, volumes at the manufacturer/model-variant level were constructed by applying the model-variant's share of manufacturer sales in the pre-model-year compliance data for the relevant vehicle style, and multiplied by the total volume estimated for that manufacturer and that style.
After building out a set of initial future sales volumes based on the sources described above, the agencies attempted to incorporate new information about changes in sales mix that are not captured by either the existing sales forecasts or the simulated technology changes in vehicle platforms. In particular, Ford has announced intentions to phase out their existing Econoline vans, gradually shifting volumes to the new Transit platform for some model variants (notably chassis cabs and cutaways variants) and eliminating offerings outright for complete Econoline vans as early as model year 2015. In the case of complete Econoline vans, the volumes for those vehicles were allocated to MY 2015 Transit vehicles based on assumptions about likely production splits for the powertrains of the new Transit platform. The volumes for complete Econoline vans were shifted at ratios of 50 percent, 35 percent, and 15
In addition to the inputs summarized above, the analysis of potential standards for HD pickups and vans makes use of a range of other estimates and assumptions specified as inputs to the CAFE modeling system. Some significant inputs (
The analysis estimates the travel, fuel consumption, and emissions over the useful lives of vehicles produced during model years 2014-2030. Doing so requires initial estimates of these vehicles' survival rates (
Expressed as an elasticity of mileage accumulation with respect to the fuel cost per mile of operation, the agencies have applied a rebound effect of 10 percent for today's analysis. Other rebound effects are considered in sensitivity analyses in Sections D.
The model was run with a 20 percent adjustment to reflect differences between on-road and laboratory performance.
Though not reported here, cumulative fuel consumption and CO
Though not reported here, cumulative fuel consumption and CO
Though not reported here, longer-term estimates of fuel consumption and emissions are presented in the accompanying EIS. These estimates include calculations involving vehicle produced after MY 2030 and, consistent with AEO 2014, the model was run with the assumption that fuel consumption and CO
To estimate in what sequence and to what degree manufacturers might add fuel-saving technologies to their respective fleets, the CAFE model iteratively ranks remaining opportunities (
EPCA and EISA require that a manufacturer pay civil penalties if it does not have enough credits to cover a shortfall with one or both of the light-duty CAFE standards in a model year. While these provisions do not apply to HD pickups and vans, at this time, the CAFE model will show civil penalties owed in cases where available technologies and credits are estimated to be insufficient for a manufacturer to achieve compliance with a standard. These model-reported estimates have been excluded from this analysis. For Method A, this aspect of the model has been modified to also exclude from the calculation of “effective cost” used to select among available options to add specific technologies to specific vehicles.
Both the NPRM and the current analysis consider the potential effects on crash safety of the technologies manufacturers may apply to their vehicles to meet each of the regulatory alternatives. NHTSA research has shown that vehicle mass reduction affects overall societal fatalities associated with crashes
The Method B analysis includes estimates of the extent to which HD pickups and vans produced during MYs 2014-2030 may be involved in fatal crashes, considering the mass, survival, and mileage accumulation of these vehicles, taking into account changes in mass and mileage accumulation under each regulatory alternative. These calculations make use of the same coefficients applied to light trucks in the MYs 2017-2025 CAFE rulemaking analysis. Baseline rates of involvement in fatal crashes are 13.03 and 13.24 fatalities per billion miles for vehicles with initial curb weights above and below 4,594 lbs, respectively. Considering that the data underlying the corresponding statistical analysis included observations through calendar year 2010, these rates are reduced by 9.6 percent to account for subsequent impacts of recent Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and anticipated behavioral changes (
The Method A analysis uses the same methodology as described above, but applies coefficients that have been updated to reflect more current data, updated statistical analysis by NHTSA staff, and updated DOT guidance regarding the VSL. Baseline rates of involvement in fatal crashes are 16.06 and 14.35 fatalities per billion miles for pickups and vans with initial curb weights above and below 4,947 lbs, respectively. Considering that the data underlying the corresponding statistical analysis included observations through calendar year 2012, these rates are reduced by 9.6 percent to account for subsequent impacts of recent Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and anticipated behavioral changes (
Today's analysis accounts for the potential to over comply with standards and thereby earn compliance credits, applying these credits to ensuring compliance requirements. In doing so, the agencies treat any unused carried-forward credits as expiring after five model years, consistent with current and standards. For today's analysis, the agencies are not estimating the potential to “borrow”—
While CAFE model calculates vehicular CO
To estimate the value of time savings associated with vehicle refueling, the Method A analysis used estimates that an average refueling event involves refilling 60 percent of the tank's capacity over the course of 3.5 minutes, at an hourly cost of $27.22.
Changes in vehicle travel will entail economic externalities. To estimate these costs, the Method A analysis used estimates that congestion-, crash-, and noise-related externalities will total 5.1¢/mi., 2.8¢/mi., and 0.1¢/mi., respectively.
Method A results predict that the total cost of vehicle ownership and operation will change not just due to changes in vehicle price and fuel outlays, but also due to some other costs likely to vary with vehicle price. To estimate these costs, NHTSA has applied factors of 5.5 percent (of price) for taxes and fees, 15.3 percent for financing, 19.2 percent for insurance, 1.9 percent for relative value loss. The Method A analysis also estimates that average vehicle resale value will increase by 25 percent of any increase in new vehicle price.
The agencies considered over 35 vehicle technologies that manufacturers could use to improve the fuel consumption and reduce CO
The technologies considered in the agencies' analysis are briefly described below. They fall into five broad categories: Engine technologies, transmission technologies, vehicle technologies, electrification/accessory technologies, and hybrid technologies.
In this class of trucks and vans, diesel engines are installed in about half of all vehicles. The buyer's decision to purchase a diesel versus gasoline engine
The following contains a description of technologies the agencies considered as potentially available in the rule timeframe, and hence, having potential to be part of a compliance pathway for these vehicles. Additionally, the agencies did not receive any comments indicating that the technology effectiveness estimates used in the determination of potential reductions in GHGs and fuel consumption are not representative of the expected ranges for expected duty cycles.
The agencies reviewed the engine technology estimates used in the 2017-2025 light-duty rule, the 2014-2018 heavy-duty rule, and the 2015 NHTSA Technology Study. In doing so the agencies reconsidered all available sources and updated the estimates as appropriate. The section below describes both diesel and gasoline engine technologies considered for this program.
One of the most basic methods of reducing fuel consumption in both gasoline and diesel engines is the use of lower viscosity engine lubricants. More advanced multi-viscosity engine oils are available today with improved performance in a wider temperature band and with better lubricating properties. This can be accomplished by changes to the oil base stock (
In addition to low friction lubricants, manufacturers can also reduce friction and improve fuel consumption by improving the design of both diesel and gasoline engine components and subsystems. Approximately 10 percent of the energy consumed by a vehicle is lost to friction, and just over half is due to frictional losses within the engine.
In addition to physical engine friction reduction, manufacturers can reduce the mechanical load on the engine from parasitics, such as oil, fuel, and coolant pumps. The high-pressure fuel pumps of direct-injection gasoline and diesel engines have particularly high demand. Example improvements include variable speed or variable displacement water pumps, variable displacement oil pumps, more efficient high pressure fuel pumps, valvetrain upgrades and shutting off piston cooling when not needed.
Valvetrains with coupled (or coordinated) cam phasing can modify the timing of both the inlet valves and the exhaust valves an equal amount by phasing the camshaft of an overhead valve engine.
In conventional spark-ignited engines throttling the airflow controls engine torque output. At partial loads, efficiency can be improved by using cylinder deactivation instead of throttling. Cylinder deactivation can improve engine efficiency by disabling or deactivating (usually) half of the cylinders when the load is less than half of the engine's total torque capability—the valves are kept closed, and no fuel is injected—as a result, the trapped air within the deactivated cylinders is simply compressed and expanded as an air spring, with reduced friction and
Cylinder deactivation control strategy relies on setting maximum manifold absolute pressures or predicted torque within a range in which it can deactivate the cylinders. Noise and vibration issues reduce the operating range to which cylinder deactivation is allowed, although manufacturers are exploring vehicle changes that enable increasing the amount of time that cylinder deactivation might be suitable. Some manufacturers may choose to adopt active engine mounts and/or active noise cancellations systems to address Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH) concerns and to allow a greater operating range of activation.
Cylinder deactivation has seen a recent resurgence thanks to better valvetrain designs and engine controls. General Motors and Fiat Chrysler have incorporated cylinder deactivation across a substantial portion of their V8-powered lineups, including some heavy duty applications.
SGDI engines inject fuel at high pressure directly into the combustion chamber (rather than the intake port in port fuel injection). SGDI requires changes to the injector design, an additional high pressure fuel pump, new fuel rails to handle the higher fuel pressures and changes to the cylinder head and piston crown design. Direct injection of the fuel into the cylinder improves cooling of the air/fuel charge within the cylinder, which allows for higher compression ratios and increased thermodynamic efficiency without the onset of combustion knock. Recent injector design advances, improved electronic engine management systems and the introduction of multiple injection events per cylinder firing cycle promote better mixing of the air and fuel, enhance combustion rates, increase residual exhaust gas tolerance and improve cold start emissions. SGDI engines achieve higher power density and match well with other technologies, such as boosting and variable valvetrain designs.
Most manufacturers have introduced vehicles with SGDI engines in light duty sectors, including GM and Ford and have announced their plans to increase dramatically the number of SGDI engines in their portfolios. SGDI has not been introduction on heavy duty applications at this time however as these largely dedicated heavy duty engines approach their redesign window, they are expected to become SGDI engines.
The specific power of a naturally aspirated engine is primarily limited by the rate at which the engine is able to draw air into the combustion chambers. Turbocharging and supercharging (grouped together here as boosting) are two methods to increase the intake manifold pressure and cylinder charge-air mass above naturally aspirated levels. Boosting increases the airflow into the engine, thus increasing the specific power level, and with it the ability to reduce engine displacement while maintaining performance. This effectively reduces the pumping losses at lighter loads in comparison to a larger, naturally aspirated engine.
Almost every major manufacturer currently markets a vehicle with some form of boosting. While boosting has been a common practice for increasing performance for several decades, turbocharging has considerable potential to improve fuel economy and reduce CO
The use of GDI in combination with turbocharging and charge air cooling reduces the fuel octane requirements for knock limited combustion enabling the use of higher compression ratios and boosting pressures. Recently published data with advanced spray-guided injection systems and more aggressive engine downsizing targeted towards reduced fuel consumption and CO
Note that for this analysis the agencies determined that this technology path is only applicable to heavy duty applications that have operating conditions more closely associated with light duty vehicles. This includes vans designed mainly for cargo volume or modest payloads and having similar GCWR to light duty applications. These vans cannot tow trailers heavier than similar light duty vehicles and are largely already sharing engines of significantly smaller displacement and cylinder count compared to heavy duty vehicles designed mainly for trailer towing.
ACEEE commented that 10 percent of pick-ups in the heavy duty sector are candidates for turbocharging and downsizing if they do not require higher payloads or towing capacity. Other commenters suggested that downsizing that has occurred in light duty could also occur in heavy duty. As discussed above, the agencies evaluated turbocharging and downsizing in
Cooled exhaust gas recirculation or Boosted EGR is a combustion concept that involves utilizing EGR as a charge diluent for controlling combustion temperatures and cooling the EGR prior to its introduction to the combustion system. Higher exhaust gas residual levels at part load conditions reduce pumping losses for increased fuel economy. The additional charge dilution enabled by cooled EGR reduces the incidence of knocking combustion and obviates the need for fuel enrichment at high engine power. This allows for higher boost pressure and/or compression ratio and further reduction in engine displacement and both pumping and friction losses while maintaining performance. Engines of this type use GDI and both dual cam phasing and discrete variable valve lift. The EGR systems considered in this final rule, consistent with the rule, will use a dual-loop system with both high and low pressure EGR loops and dual EGR coolers. The engines will also use single-stage, variable geometry turbocharging with higher intake boost pressure available across a broader range of engine operation than conventional turbocharged SI engines. Such a system is estimated to be capable of an additional 3 to 5 percent effectiveness relative to a turbocharged, downsized GDI engine without cooled-EGR. The agencies have also considered a more advanced version of such a cooled EGR system that employs very high combustion pressures by using dual stage turbocharging.
The agencies considered the concept that gasoline engines that are normally stoichiometric mainly for emission reasons can run lean over a range of operating conditions and utilize diesel like aftertreatment systems to control NO
Diesel engines have several characteristics that give them superior fuel efficiency compared to conventional gasoline, spark-ignited engines. Pumping losses are much lower due to lack of (or greatly reduced) throttling. The diesel combustion cycle operates at a higher compression ratio, with a very lean air/fuel mixture, and turbocharged light-duty diesels typically achieve much higher torque levels at lower engine speeds than equivalent-displacement naturally-aspirated gasoline engines. Additionally, diesel fuel has a higher energy content per gallon.
Based on confidential business information and the 2010 NAS Report, two major areas of diesel engine design could be improved during the timeframe of this final rule. These areas include aftertreatment improvements and a broad range of engine improvements.
The HD diesel pickup and van segment has largely adopted the SCR type of aftertreatment system to comply with criteria pollutant emission standards. As the experience base for SCR expands over the next few years, many improvements in this aftertreatment system such as construction of the catalyst, thermal management, and reductant optimization may result in a reduction in the amount of fuel used in the process. However, due to uncertainties with these improvements regarding the extent of current optimization and future criteria emissions obligations, the agencies are not considering aftertreatment improvements as a fuel-saving technology in the rulemaking analysis.
Diesel engines in the HD pickup and van segment are expected to have several improvements in their base design in the 2021-2027 timeframe. These improvements include items such as improved combustion management, optimal turbocharger design, and improved thermal management.
The agencies have also reviewed the transmission technology estimates used in the 2017-2015 light-duty and 2014-2018 heavy-duty final rules. In doing so, NHTSA and EPA considered or reconsidered all available sources including the 2015 NHTSA Technology Study and updated the estimates as appropriate. The section below describes each of the transmission technologies considered for this rule.
Manufacturers can also choose to replace 6-speed automatic transmissions with 8-speed automatic transmissions. Additional ratios allow for further optimization of engine operation over a wider range of conditions, but this is subject to diminishing returns as the number of speeds increases. As additional gear sets are added, additional weight and friction are introduced requiring additional countermeasures to offset these losses. Some manufacturers are replacing 6-speed automatics already, and 7 to 10-speed automatics have entered production.
For this rule, a high efficiency transmission refers to some or all of a suite of incremental transmission improvement technologies that should be available within the 2019 to 2027 timeframe. The majority of these improvements address mechanical friction within the transmission. These improvements include but are not limited to: Shifting clutch technology improvements, improved kinematic design, dry sump lubrication systems, more efficient seals, bearings and clutches (reducing drag), component superfinishing and improved transmission lubricants.
The ability to disconnect some of the rotating components in the front axle on 4wd vehicles when the secondary axle is not needed for traction. This will reduce friction and increase fuel economy.
Electric power steering (EPS) or Electrohydraulic power steering (EHPS) provides a potential reduction in CO
The accessories on an engine, including the alternator, coolant and oil pumps are traditionally mechanically-driven. A reduction in CO
Electric water pumps and electric fans can provide better control of engine cooling. For example, coolant flow from an electric water pump can be reduced and the radiator fan can be shut off during engine warm-up or cold ambient temperature conditions which will reduce warm-up time, reduce warm-up fuel enrichment, and reduce parasitic losses.
Indirect benefit may be obtained by reducing the flow from the water pump electrically during the engine warm-up period, allowing the engine to heat more rapidly and thereby reducing the fuel enrichment needed during cold operation and warm-up of the engine. Faster oil warm-up may also result from better management of the coolant warm-up period. Further benefit may be obtained when electrification is combined with an improved, higher efficiency engine alternator used to supply power to the electrified accessories.
Intelligent cooling can more easily be applied to vehicles that do not typically carry heavy payloads, so larger vehicles with towing capacity present a challenge, as these vehicles have high cooling fan loads.
The agencies considered whether to include electric oil pump technology for the rulemaking. Because it is necessary to operate the oil pump any time the engine is running, electric oil pump technology has insignificant effect on efficiency. Therefore, the agencies decided to not include electric oil pump technology.
Mild hybrid systems offer idle-stop functionality and a limited level of regenerative braking and power assist. These systems replace the conventional alternator with a belt or crank driven starter/alternator and may add high voltage electrical accessories (which may include electric power steering and an auxiliary automatic transmission pump). The limited electrical requirements of these systems allow the use of lead-acid batteries or supercapacitors for energy storage, or the use of a small lithium-ion battery pack.
A hybrid vehicle is a vehicle that combines two significant sources of propulsion energy, where one uses a consumable fuel (like gasoline), and one is rechargeable (during operation, or by another energy source). Hybrid technology is well established in the U.S. light-duty market and more manufacturers are adding hybrid models to their lineups. Hybrids reduce fuel consumption through three major mechanisms:
• The internal combustion engine can be optimized (through downsizing, modifying the operating cycle, or other control techniques) to operate at or near its most efficient point more of the time. Power loss from engine downsizing can be mitigated by employing power assist from the secondary power source.
• A significant amount of the energy normally lost as heat while braking can be captured and stored in the energy storage system for later use.
• The engine is turned off when it is not needed, such as when the vehicle is coasting or when stopped.
Hybrid vehicles utilize some combination of the three above mechanisms to reduce fuel consumption and CO
Strong Hybrid technology utilizes an axial electric motor connected to the transmission input shaft and connected to the engine crankshaft through a clutch. The axial motor is a motor/generator that can provide sufficient torque for launch assist, all electric operation, and the ability to recover significant levels of braking energy.
Mass reduction is a technology that can be used in a manufacturer's strategy to meet the Heavy Duty Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 standards. Vehicle mass reduction (also referred to as “down-weighting” or “light-weighting”), decreases fuel consumption and GHG emissions by reducing the energy demand needed to overcome inertia forces, and rolling resistance. Automotive companies have worked with mass reduction technologies for many years and a lot of these technologies have been used in production vehicles. The weight savings achieved by adopting mass reduction technologies offset weight gains due to increased vehicle size, larger powertrains, and increased feature content (sound insulation,
Manufacturers employ a systematic approach to mass reduction, where the net mass reduction is the addition of a direct component or system mass reduction, also referred to as primary mass reduction, plus the additional mass reduction taken from indirect ancillary systems and components, also referred to as secondary mass reduction or mass compounding. There are more secondary mass reductions achievable for light-duty vehicles compared to heavy-duty vehicles, which are limited due to the higher towing and payload requirements for these vehicles.
Mass reduction can be achieved through a number of approaches, even while maintaining other vehicle functionalities. As summarized by NAS in its 2011 light duty vehicle report,
The first key strategy of using less material compared to the baseline component can be achieved by optimizing the design and structure of vehicle components, systems and vehicle structure. Vehicle manufacturers have long used these continually-improving CAE tools to optimize vehicle designs. For example, the Future Steel Vehicle (FSV) project
The second key strategy to reduce mass of an assembly or component involves the substitution of lower density and/or higher strength materials. Material substitution includes replacing materials, such as mild steel, with higher-strength and advanced steels, aluminum, magnesium, and composite materials. In practice, material substitution tends to be quite specific to the manufacturer and situation. Some materials work better than others for particular vehicle components, and a manufacturer may invest more heavily in adjusting to a particular type of advanced material, thus complicating its ability to consider others. The agencies recognize that like any type of mass reduction, material substitution has to be conducted not only with consideration to maintaining equivalent component strength, but also to maintaining all the other attributes of that component, system or vehicle, such as crashworthiness, durability, and noise, vibration and harshness (NVH).
If vehicle mass is reduced sufficiently through application of the two primary strategies of using less material and material substitution described above, secondary mass reduction options may become available. Secondary mass reduction is enabled when the load requirements of a component are reduced as a result of primary mass reduction. If the primary mass reduction reaches a sufficient level, a manufacturer may use a smaller, lighter, and potentially more efficient powertrain while maintaining vehicle acceleration performance. If a powertrain is downsized, a portion of the mass reduction may be attributed to the reduced torque requirement which results from the lower vehicle mass. The lower torque requirement enables a reduction in engine displacement, changes to transmission torque converter and gear ratios, and changes to final drive gear ratio. The reduced powertrain torque enables the downsizing and/or mass reduction of powertrain components and accompanying reduced rotating mass (
In 2015, EPA completed a multi-year study with FEV North America, Inc. on the lightweighting of a light-duty pickup truck, a 2011 GMC Silverado, titled “Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis—Light-Duty Pickup Trucks Model Years 2020-2025.”
In order to determine if technologies identified on light duty trucks are applicable to heavy-duty pickups, EPA contracted with FEV North America, Inc. to perform a scaling study in order to evaluate whether the technologies identified for the light-duty truck would be applicable for a heavy-duty pickup truck. In this study a 2013MY Silverado 2500, a 2007 Mercedes Sprinter and a 2010 Renault Master
In September 2015, Ford announced that its MY 2017 F-Series Super duty pickup (F250) would be manufactured with an aluminum body and overall the truck will be 350 lbs. lighter (5 percent-6 percent) than the current generation truck with steel.
The RIA for this rulemaking shows that 10 percent or less mass reduction is part of the projected strategy for compliance for HD pickups and vans. The cost and effectiveness assumptions for mass reduction technology are described in the RIA.
Tire rolling resistance is the frictional loss associated mainly with the energy dissipated in the deformation of the tires under load and thus influences fuel efficiency and CO
Many factors affect a vehicle's aerodynamic drag and the resulting power required to move it through the air. While these factors change with air density and the square and cube of vehicle speed, respectively, the overall drag effect is determined by the product of its frontal area and drag coefficient, Cd. Reductions in these quantities can therefore reduce fuel consumption and CO
These technologies include improved hoses, connectors and seats for leakage control. They also include improved compressors, expansion valves, heat exchangers and the control of these components for the purposes of improving tailpipe CO
Building on the technical analysis underlying the 2017-2025 MY light-duty vehicle rule, the 2014-2018 MY heavy-duty vehicle rule, and the 2015 NHTSA Technology Study, the agencies took a fresh look at technology cost and effectiveness values for purposes of this rule. For costs, the agencies reconsidered both the direct (or “piece”) costs and indirect costs of individual components of technologies. For the direct costs, the agencies followed a bill of materials (BOM) approach employed by the agencies in the light-duty rule as well as referencing costs from the 2014-2018 MY heavy-duty vehicle rule and a new cost survey performed by Tetra Tech in 2014.
For two technologies, stoichiometric gasoline direct injection (SGDI) and turbocharging with engine downsizing, the agencies relied to the extent possible on the available tear-down data and scaling methodologies used in EPA's ongoing study with FEV, Incorporated. This study consists of complete system tear-down to evaluate technologies down to the nuts and bolts to arrive at very detailed estimates of the costs associated with manufacturing them.
For the other technologies, considering all sources of information and using the BOM approach, the agencies worked together intensively to determine component costs for each of the technologies and build up the costs accordingly. Where estimates differ between sources, we have used engineering judgment to arrive at what we believe to be the best cost estimate available today, and explained the basis for that exercise of judgment.
Once costs were determined, they were adjusted to ensure that they were all expressed in 2012 dollars, and indirect costs were accounted for using a methodology consistent with the new ICM approach developed by EPA and used in the Phase 1 rule, and the 2012-2016 and 2017-2025 light-duty rules. NHTSA and EPA also reconsidered how costs should be adjusted by modifying or scaling content assumptions to account for differences across the range of vehicle sizes and functional requirements, and adjusted the associated material cost impacts to account for the revised content. We present the individual technology costs used in this analysis in Chapter 2.11 of the RIA.
Regarding estimates for technology effectiveness, the agencies used the estimates from the 2014 Southwest Research Institute study as a baseline, which was designed specifically to inform this rulemaking. In addition, the agencies used 2017-2025 light-duty rule as a reference, and adjusted these estimates as appropriate, taking into account the unique requirement of the heavy-duty test cycles to test at curb weight plus half payload versus the light-duty requirement of curb plus 300 lbs. The adjustments were made on an individual technology basis by assessing the specific impact of the added load on each technology when compared to the use of the technology on a light-duty vehicle. The agencies also considered other sources such as the 2010 NAS Report, recent compliance data, and confidential manufacturer estimates of technology effectiveness. The agencies reviewed effectiveness information from the multiple sources for each technology and ensured that such effectiveness estimates were based on technology hardware consistent with the BOM components used to estimate costs. Together, the agencies compared the multiple estimates and assessed their validity, taking care to ensure that common BOM definitions and other vehicle attributes such as performance and drivability were taken into account.
The agencies note that the effectiveness values estimated for the technologies may represent average values applied to the baseline fleet described earlier, and do not reflect the potentially limitless spectrum of possible values that could result from adding the technology to different vehicles. For example, while the agencies have estimated an effectiveness of 0.5 percent for low friction lubricants, each vehicle could have a unique effectiveness estimate depending on the baseline vehicle's oil viscosity rating. Similarly, the reduction in rolling resistance (and thus the improvement in fuel efficiency and the reduction in CO
The assessment of the technology effectiveness and costs was determined from a combination of sources. First an assessment was performed by SwRI under contract with the agencies to determine the effectiveness and costs on several technologies that were generally not considered in the Phase 1 GHG rule time frame. Some of the technologies were common with the light-duty assessment but the effectiveness and costs of individual technologies were appropriately adjusted to match the expected effectiveness and costs when implemented in a heavy-duty application. Finally, the agencies performed extensive outreach to suppliers of engine, transmission and vehicle technologies applicable to heavy-duty applications to get industry input on cost and effectiveness of potential GHG and fuel consumption reducing technologies. The agencies did not receive comments disputing the expected technology effectiveness values or costs developed with input from industry.
To achieve the levels of the Phase 2 standards for gasoline and diesel powered heavy-duty vehicles, a combination of the technologies previously discussed will be required respective to unique gasoline and diesel technologies and their challenges. Although some of the technologies may already be implemented in a portion of heavy-duty vehicles, none of the technologies discussed are considered ubiquitous in the heavy-duty fleet. Also, as will be expected, the available test data show that some vehicle models will not need the full complement of available technologies to achieve these standards. Furthermore, many technologies can be further improved (
Technology costs for HD pickups and vans are shown in Table VI-4. These costs reflect direct and indirect costs to the vehicle manufacturer for the 2021 model year. See Chapter 2.11. of the RIA for a more complete description of the basis of these costs.
As explained above, the CAFE model works by adding technologies in an incremental fashion to each particular vehicle in a manufacturer's fleet until that fleet complies with the imposed standards. It does this by following a predefined set of decision trees whereby the particular vehicle is placed on the appropriate decision tree and it follows the predefined progression of technology available on that tree. At each step along the tree, a decision is made regarding the cost of a given technology relative to what already exists on the vehicle along with the fuel consumption improvement it provides relative to the fuel consumption at the current location on the tree, prior to deciding whether to take that next step on the tree or remain in the current location. Because the model works in this way, the input files must be structured to provide costs and effectiveness values for each technology relative to whatever technologies have been added in earlier steps along the tree. Table VI-5 presents the cost and effectiveness values used in the CAFE model input files.
In addition to the base technology cost and effectiveness inputs described above, the CAFE model accommodates inputs to adjust accumulated effectiveness under circumstances when combining multiple technologies could result in underestimation or overestimation of total incremental effectiveness relative to an “unevolved” baseline vehicle. These so-called synergy factors may be positive, where the combination of the technologies results in greater improvement than the additive improvement of each technology, or negative, where the combination of the technologies is lower than the additive improvement of each technology. The synergy factors used in the NPRM and Method B of the FRM are described in Table VI-6 Method A of the FRM uses synergies derived from a simulation project NHTSA undertook with Autnomie Argonne National Lab. A description of these changes is given in Section D.(8).
The CAFE model also accommodates inputs to adjust accumulated incremental costs under circumstances when the application sequence could result in underestimation or overestimation of total incremental costs relative to an “unevolved” baseline vehicle. For today's analysis, the agencies have applied one such adjustment, increasing the cost of medium-sized gasoline engines by $513 in cases where turbocharging and engine downsizing is applied with variable valve actuation.
The analysis performed using Method A also applied cost inputs to address some costs encompassed neither by the agencies' estimates of the direct cost to apply these technologies, nor by the agencies' methods for “marking up” these costs to arrive at increases in the new vehicle purchase costs. To account for the additional costs that could be incurred if a technology is applied and then quickly replaced, the CAFE model accommodates inputs specifying a “stranded capital cost” specific to each technology. For this analysis, the model was run with inputs to apply about $78 of additional cost (per engine) if gasoline engine turbocharging and downsizing (separately for each “level” considered) is applied and then immediately replaced, declining steadily to zero by the tenth model year following initial application of the technology. The model also accommodates inputs specifying any additional changes owners might incur in maintenance and post-warranty repair costs. For this analysis, the model was run with inputs indicating that vehicles equipped with less rolling-resistant tires could incur additional tire replacement costs equivalent to $21-$23 (depending on model year) in additional costs to purchase the new vehicle. The agencies did not, however, include inputs specifying any potential changes repair costs that might accompany application of any of the above technologies. A sensitivity analysis using Method A, discussed below, includes a case in which repair costs are estimated using factors consistent with those underlying the indirect cost multipliers used to markup direct costs for the agencies' central analysis.
As discussed above, the model considers regulatory alternatives. The results of regulatory alternatives are considered relative to a “no action” alternative where existing standards persist, but no further regulatory action is taken (in this case the MY 2018 standards from Phase I are the last regulatory action taken). The agencies also considered four regulatory alternatives. The preferred alternative with a standard that increases 2.5 percent in stringency annually for MY's 2021-2027, and three others with annual increases in stringency of: 2.0 percent, 3.5 percent, and 4.0 percent for MY's 2021-2025. For each of the “action alternatives” (
The NPRM analysis (and the current analysis) reflect several changes made to the model since 2012, when NHTSA used the model to estimate the effects, costs, and benefits of final CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles produced during MYs 2017-2021, and augural standards for MYs 2022-2025. Some of these changes specifically enable analysis of potential fuel consumption standards (and, hence, CO
• Changes to accommodate standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans, including attribute-based standards involving targets that vary with “work factor.”
• Explicit calculation of test weight, taking into account test weight “bins” and differences in the definition of test weight for light-duty vehicles (curb weight plus 300 pound) and heavy-duty pickups and vans (average of GVWR and curb weight).
• Procedures to estimate increases in payload when curb weight is reduced, increases in towing capacity if GVWR is reduced, and calculation procedures to correspondingly update calculated work factors.
• Expansion of model inputs, procedures, and outputs to accommodate technologies not included in prior analyses.
• Changes to the algorithm used to apply technologies, enabling more explicit accounting for shared vehicle platforms and adoption and “inheritance” of major engine changes.
These changes are reflected in updated model documentation available at NHTSA's Web site, the documentation also providing more information about the model's purpose, scope, structure, design, inputs, operation, and outputs. The agencies invited but did not receive comments on the CAFE model used for the NPRM analysis and used in this final rule for the Method B analysis.
Past comments on the CAFE model have stressed the importance of product cadence—
The model also accommodates estimates of overall limits (expressed as “phase-in caps” in model inputs) on the rates at which manufacturers' may practicably add technology to their respective fleets. So, for example, even if a manufacturer is expected to redesign half of its production in MY 2016, if the manufacturer is not already producing any strong hybrid electric vehicles (SHEVs), a phase-in cap can be specified in order to assume that manufacturer will stop applying SHEVs in MY 2016 once it has done so to at least 3 percent of its production in that model year.
After the light-duty rulemaking analysis accompanying the 2012 final rule regarding post-2016 CAFE standards and related GHG emissions standards, NHTSA staff began work on CAFE model changes expected to better reflect additional considerations involved with product planning and cadence. These changes, summarized below, interact with preexisting model characteristics discussed above.
The term “platform” is used loosely in industry, but generally refers to a common structure shared by a group of vehicle variants. The degree of commonality varies, with some platform variants exhibiting traditional “badge engineering” where two products are differentiated by little more than insignias, while other platforms be used to produce a broad suite of vehicles that bear little outer resemblance to one another.
Given the degree of commonality between variants of a single platform, manufacturers do not have complete freedom to apply technology to a vehicle: while some technologies (
Within the analysis fleet, each vehicle is associated with a specific platform. As the CAFE model applies technology, it first defines a platform “leader” as the vehicle variant of a platform with the highest technology utilization vehicle of mass reduction and aerodynamic technologies. As the vehicle applies technologies, it effectively harmonizes to the highest common denominator of the platform. If there is a tie, the CAFE model begins applying aerodynamic and mass reduction technology to the vehicle with the lowest average sales across all available model years. If there remains a tie, the model begins by choosing the vehicle with the highest average MSRP across all available model years. The model follows this formulation due to previous market trends suggesting that many technologies begin deployment at the high-end, low-volume end of the market as manufacturers build their confidence and capability in a technology, and later expand the technology across more mainstream product lines.
In the HD pickup and van market, there is a relatively small amount of diversity in platforms produced by manufacturers: Typically 1-2 truck platforms and 1-2 van platforms. However, accounting for platforms will take on greater significance in future analyses involving the light-duty fleet. The agency requested but did not receive comments on the general use of platforms within CAFE rulemaking.
In practice, manufacturers are limited in the number of engines and transmissions that they produce. Typically a manufacturer produces a number of engines—perhaps six or eight engines for a large manufacturer—and tunes them for slight variants in output for a variety of car and truck applications. Manufacturers limit complexity in their engine portfolio for much the same reason as they limit complexity in vehicle variants: They face engineering manpower limitations, and supplier, production and service costs that scale with the number of parts produced.
In previous usage of the CAFE model, engines and transmissions in individual models were allowed relative freedom in technology application, potentially leading to solutions that would, if followed, involve unaccounted-for costs associated with increased complexity in the product portfolio. The lack of a constraint in this area allowed the model to apply different levels of technology to the engine in each vehicle at the time of redesign or refresh, independent of what was done to other vehicles using a previously identical engine.
In the current version of the CAFE model, engines and transmissions that are shared between vehicles must apply the same levels of technology in all technologies dictated by engine or transmission inheritance. This forced adoption is referred to as “engine inheritance” in the model documentation.
As with platform-shared technologies, the model first chooses an “engine leader” among vehicles sharing the same engine. The leader is selected first by the vehicle with the lowest average sales across all available model years. If there is a tie, the vehicle with the highest average MSRP across model years is chosen. The model applies the same logic with respect to the application of transmission changes. As with platforms, this is driven by the concept that vehicle manufacturers typically deploy new technologies in small numbers prior to deploying widely across their product lines.
Like earlier versions, the current CAFE model provides for integrated analysis spanning different regulatory classes, accounting both for standards that apply separately to different classes and for interactions between regulatory classes. Light vehicle CAFE standards are specified separately for passenger cars and light trucks. However, there is considerable sharing between these two regulatory classes. Some specific engines and transmissions are used in both passenger cars and light trucks, and some vehicle platforms span these regulatory classes. For example, some sport-utility vehicles are offered in 2WD versions classified as passenger cars and 4WD versions classified as light trucks. Integrated analysis of manufacturers' passenger car and light truck fleets provides the ability to account for such sharing and reduce the likelihood of finding solutions that could involve impractical levels of complexity in manufacturers' product lines. In addition, integrated analysis provides the ability to simulate the potential that manufactures could earn CAFE credits by over complying with one standard and use those credits toward compliance with the other standard (
HD pickups and vans are regulated separately from light-duty vehicles. While manufacturers cannot transfer credits between light-duty and MDHD classes, there is some sharing of engineering and technology between light-duty vehicles and HD pickups and vans. For example, some passenger vans with GVWR over 8,500 lbs. are classified as medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) and thus included in manufacturers' light-duty truck fleets, while cargo vans sharing the same nameplate are classified as HD vans.
The CAFE model retains the ability to use phase-in caps (specified in model inputs) as proxies for a variety of practical restrictions on technology application. Unlike vehicle-specific restrictions related to redesign, refreshes or platforms/engines, phase-in caps constrain technology application at the vehicle manufacturer level. They are intended to reflect a manufacturer's overall resource capacity available for implementing new technologies (such as engineering and development personnel and financial resources), thereby ensuring that resource capacity is accounted for in the modeling process.
In previous CAFE rulemakings, redesign/refresh schedules and phase-in caps were the primary mechanisms to reflect an OEM's limited pool of available resources during the rulemaking time frame and the years leading up to the rulemaking time frame, especially in years where many models may be scheduled for refresh or redesign. The newly-introduced representation platform-, engine-, and transmission-related considerations discussed above augment the model's preexisting representation of redesign cycles and accommodation of phase-in caps. Considering these new constraints, inputs for today's analysis de-emphasize reliance on phase-in caps.
In the NPRM and Method B of the FRM application of the CAFE model, phase-in caps are used only for the most advanced technologies included in the analysis,
For Method A of the NPRM the phase-in caps have been set to 100 percent, so that the model no longer relies on phase-in caps to limit the early-year application of advanced technologies. This changes is further described in the Method B of the FRM specific section below.
Compared to prior analyses of light-duty standards, these model changes, along with characteristics of the HD pickup and van fleet result in some changes in the broad characteristics of the model's application of technology to manufacturers' fleets. First, since the number of HD pickup and van platforms in a portfolio is typically small, compliance with standards may appear especially “lumpy” (compared to previous applications of the CAFE model to the more highly segmented light-duty fleet), with significant over compliance when widespread redesigns precede stringency increases, and/or significant application of carried-forward (aka “banked”) credits.
Second, since the use of phase-in caps has been de-emphasized and manufacturer technology deployment remains tied strongly to estimated product redesign and freshening schedules, technology penetration rates may jump more quickly as manufacturers apply technology to high-volume products in their portfolio.
By design, restrictions that enforce commonality of mass reduction and aerodynamic technologies on variants of a platform, and those that enforce engine inheritance, will result in fewer vehicle-technology combinations in a manufacturer's future modeled fleet. These restrictions are expected to more accurately capture the true costs associated with producing and maintaining a product portfolio.
As mentioned above, NHTSA has also revised the CAFE model to explicitly account for the regulatory “binning” of test weights used to certify light-duty fuel economy and HD pickup and van fuel consumption for purposes of evaluating fleet-level compliance with fuel economy and fuel consumption standards. For HD pickups and vans, test weight (TW) is based on adjusted loaded vehicle weight (ALVW), which is defined as the average of gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and curb weight (CW). TW values are then rounded, resulting in TW “bins”:
This “binning” of TW is relevant to calculation of fuel consumption reductions accompanying mass reduction. Model inputs for mass reduction (as an applied technology) are expressed in terms of a percentage reduction of curb weight and an accompanying estimate of the percentage reduction in fuel consumption, setting aside rounding of test weight. Therefore, to account for rounding of test weight, NHTSA has modified these calculations as follows:
As a result, some applications of vehicle mass reduction will produce no compliance benefit at all, in cases where the changes in ALVW are too small to change test weight when rounding is taken into account. On the other hand, some other applications of vehicle mass reduction will produce significantly more compliance benefit than when rounding is not taken into account, in cases where even small changes in ALVW are sufficient to cause vehicles' test weights to increase by,
In addition, considering that the regulatory alternatives in the agencies' analysis all involve attribute-based standards in which underlying fuel consumption targets vary with “work factor” (defined by the agencies as the sum of three quarters of payload, one quarter of towing capacity, and 500 lb. for vehicles with 4WD), NHTSA has modified the CAFE model to apply inputs defining shares of curb weight reduction to be “returned” to payload and shares of GVWR reduction to be returned to towing capacity. The standards' dependence on work factor provides some incentive to increase payload and towing capacity, both of which are buyer-facing measures of vehicle utility. In the agencies' judgment, this provides reason to assume that if vehicle mass is reduced, manufacturers are likely to “return” some of the change to payload and/or towing capacity. For this analysis, the agencies have applied the following assumptions:
• GVWR will be reduced by half the amount by which curb weight is reduced. In other words, 50 percent of the curb weight reduction will be returned to payload.
• GCWR will not be reduced. In other words, 100 percent of any GVWR reduction will be returned to towing capacity.
• GVWR/CW and GCWR/GVWR will not increase beyond levels observed among the majority of similar vehicles (or, for outlier vehicles, initial values):
The first of two of these inputs are specified along with standards for each regulatory alternative, and the GVWR/CW and GCWR/GVWR “caps” are specified separately for each vehicle model in the analysis fleet.
In addition, NHTSA has changed the model to prevent HD pickup and van GVWR from falling below 8,500 lbs. when mass reduction is applied (because doing so will cause vehicles to be reclassified as light-duty vehicles), and to treat any additional mass for hybrid electric vehicles as
The agencies invited but did not receive comment on estimating how changes in vehicle mass may impact fuel consumption, GVWR, and GCWR.
Since issuing the NPRM, NHTSA has made further changes to the CAFE model, in order to estimate the potential impacts of simultaneous standards for both light-duty vehicles and HD pickups and vans. Among the updates most relevant to analysis supporting the final standards for HD pickups and vans, the current model: includes refinements to enable accounting for platforms, engines, and transmissions sharing between light-duty and HD pickups and vans; reflects refinements to how models for the first application of new technology are identified among shared platforms, engines, and transmissions; allows payback period, discount rate, survival rates, and mileage accumulation schedules to be specified separately for each vehicle class; makes use of large scale simulation modeling to more accurately account for synergies among technologies to estimate the fuel consumption impact of different combinations of technologies; provides the ability to selectively exclude fine payment from the “effective cost” calculation used to simulation manufacturers' decisions regarding the application of fuel-saving technologies; and expands the use of forward planning to estimate decisions to use credits that would otherwise expire. Changes to the CAFE model are discussed at greater length below and in the CAFE model documentation.
Also since issuing the NPRM, NHTSA has revised many model inputs to reflect information that has become available since the proposal. Among the updates most relevant to analysis supporting the final rule, these inputs reflect: an updated vehicle-level market forecast based on data regarding the 2015 model year fleet and a new commercially-available manufacturer- and segment-level market forecast, and spanning light-duty vehicles and HD pickups and vans; newer fuel prices and total vehicle production volumes from the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2015; a database, based on a large-scale full vehicle simulation study, of estimates of the effect of thousands of different combinations of technologies on fuel consumption; and updated mileage accumulation schedules based on a database of more than 70 million odometer readings.
NHTSA implemented these changes to the CAFE model and accompanying inputs to support both today's final rule promulgating new fuel consumption standards for HD pickups and vans and the Draft Technical Assessment Report regarding agency's consideration of CAFE standards for light duty vehicles for model years 2022-2025. This provided a basis to analyze the fleets simultaneously, accounting for interactions between the fleets; the draft RIA (p. 10-18) accompanying the NPRM identified this as a planned improvement for the final rule, and some stakeholders' comments (
The remainder of this section summarizes changes to the CAFE model and inputs made subsequent to the NPRM analysis, summarizes results of the updated analysis, and discusses.
Like earlier versions, the current CAFE model provides for integrated analysis spanning different regulatory classes, accounting both for standards that apply separately to different classes and for interactions between regulatory classes. Light vehicle CAFE standards are specified separately for passenger cars and light trucks. However, there is considerable sharing between these two regulatory classes. Some specific engines and transmissions are used in both passenger cars and light trucks, and some vehicle platforms span these regulatory classes. For example, some sport-utility vehicles are offered in 2WD versions classified as passenger cars and 4WD versions classified as light trucks. Integrated analysis of manufacturers' passenger car and light truck fleets provides the ability to account for such sharing and reduce the likelihood of finding solutions that could involve impractical levels of complexity in manufacturers' product lines. In addition, integrated analysis provides the ability to simulate the potential that manufactures could earn CAFE credits by over complying with one standard and use those credits toward compliance with the other standard (
HD pickups and vans are regulated separately from light-duty vehicles. While manufacturers cannot transfer credits between light-duty and MDHD classes, there is some sharing of engineering and technology between light-duty vehicles and HD pickups and vans. For example, some passenger vans with GVWR over 8,500 pounds are classified as medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) and thus included in manufacturers' light-duty truck fleets,
The FRM Method A analysis uses an overall analysis fleet spanning both the light-duty and HD pickup and van fleets. As discussed below, doing so shows some technology “spilling over” to HD pickups and vans due, for example, to the application of technology in response to current light-duty standards. For most manufacturers, these interactions appear relatively small. For Nissan, however, they appear considerable, because Nissan's heavy-duty vans use engines also used in Nissan's light-duty SUVs. Unlike the Method A analysis, the Method B analysis is independent from the light-duty program.
In the NPRM proposing new standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans, NHTSA and EPA requested comment on the expansion of the analysis fleet such that the impacts of new HD pickup and van standards can be estimated within the context of an integrated analysis of light-duty vehicles and HD pickups and vans, accounting for interactions between the fleets. As mentioned above, some environmental organizations specifically cited commonalities and overlap between light- and heavy-duty products.
The model also accommodates estimates of overall limits (expressed as “phase-in caps” in model inputs) on the rates at which manufacturers' may practicably add technology to their respective fleets. So, for example, even if a manufacturer is expected to redesign half of its production in MY 2016, if the manufacturer is not already producing any strong hybrid electric vehicles (SHEVs), a phase-in cap can be specified in order to assume that manufacturer will stop applying SHEVs in MY 2016 once it has done so to at least 3 percent of its production in that model year. Today's analysis sets all of these caps at 100 percent, relying on other model constraints (in particular, the assumption that many technologies are most practicably applied as part of a vehicle freshening or redesign) to estimate practicable technology application pathways.
The CAFE model retains the ability to use phase-in caps (specified in model inputs) as proxies for a variety of practical restrictions on technology application. Unlike vehicle-specific restrictions related to redesign, refreshes or platforms/engines, phase-in caps constrain technology application at the vehicle manufacturer level. Introduced in the 2006 version of the CAFE model, they were intended to reflect a manufacturer's overall resource capacity available for implementing new technologies (such as engineering and development personnel and financial resources), thereby ensuring that resource capacity is accounted for in the modeling process.
In previous fuel efficiency rulemakings, redesign/refresh schedules and phase-in caps were the primary mechanisms to reflect an OEM's limited pool of available resources during the rulemaking time frame and the years leading up to the rulemaking time frame, especially in years where many models may be scheduled for refresh or redesign. The newly-introduced representation platform-, engine-, and transmission-related considerations discussed above augment the model's preexisting representation of redesign cycles, and as discussed above, inputs for today's analysis de-emphasize reliance on phase-in caps.
The changes discussed above relate specifically to the model's approach to simulating manufacturers' potential addition of fuel-saving technology in response to fuel efficiency standards and fuel prices within an explicit product planning context. The model's approach to simulating compliance decisions also accounts for the potential to earn and use fuel consumption credits, as provided by EPCA/EISA. Like past versions, the current CAFE model can be used to simulate credit carry-forward (a.k.a. banking) between model years and transfers between the passenger car and light truck fleets, but not credit carry-back (a.k.a. borrowing) between model years or trading between manufacturers. Unlike past versions, the current CAFE model provides a basis to specify (in model inputs) fuel consumption credits available from model years earlier than those being simulated explicitly. For example, with today's analysis representing model years 2015-2032 explicitly, credits specified as being available from model year 2014 are made available for use through model year 2019 (given the current 5-year limit on carry-forward of credits).
As discussed in the CAFE model documentation, the model's default logic attempts to maximize credit carry-forward—that is to “hold on” to credits for as long as possible.
The example presented below illustrates how some of aspects of the current model logic around credits impacts estimation of technology application by a manufacturer within the context of a specified set of standards, focusing here on the model's estimate of Ford's potential technology application under the preferred alternative. Overall results for Ford and other manufacturers are summarized in Section VI.D.
Several aspects of the estimated achieved and required fuel consumption levels shown above are notable. First, the characteristics of Ford's fleet as represented in today's analysis fleet are such that the heavy duty pickup and van fleet falls short of average fuel efficiency standard in MY's 2023 through 2027. However, they exceed their standard for MY's 2016 through 2022. The current analysis uses logic that reflect the potential that Ford could use the 5-year carry forward provision to use fuel efficiency credits earned in MY's 2018 through MY 2022, to cover the shortfalls for MY's 2023 to 2027. The model assumes Ford will use as many of the MY 2018 expiring credits as necessary to cover the shortfall in MY 2023. For MY 2024 they will use all available MY 2019 credits before applying any additional MY 2020 credits necessary to cover the shortfall (in this particular case there are enough MY 2019 credits to cover the shortfall in MY 2024). This pattern continues for all model years where there is a shortfall—the model applies the oldest remaining credits first. Even so, today's analysis indicates Ford could be required to pay civil penalties for noncompliance without the addition of modest fuel savings in MY 2027. The change to the model which accounts for credits earned prior to MY 2015 is not illustrated in this example. However, Ford comes in with fuel consumption credits from MY's prior to MY 2015; if they had come in with an initial shortfall, they could have used these banked credits to cover, at least a portion, of that shortfall.
As discussed above, these results provide an estimate, based on analysis inputs, of one way General Motors
The CAFE model does not itself evaluate which technologies will be available, nor does it evaluate how effective or reliable they will be. The technological availability and effectiveness rather, are predefined inputs to the model based on the agencies' judgements and not outputs from the model, which is simply a tool for calculating the effects of combining input assumptions.
In previous versions of the CAFE Model, technology effectiveness values entered into the model as a single number for each technology (for each of several classes), intended to represent the incremental improvement in fuel consumption achieved by applying that technology to a vehicle in a particular class. At a basic level, this implied that successive application of new vehicle technologies resulted in an improvement in fuel consumption (as a percentage) that was the product of the individual incremental effectiveness of each technology applied. Since this construction fails to capture interactive effects—cases where a given technology either improves or degrades the impact of subsequently applied technologies—the CAFE Model applied “synergy factors.” The synergy factors were defined for a relatively small number of technology pairs, and were intended to represent the result of physical interactions among pairs of technologies—attempting to account for situations where 2 x 2 ≠ 4.
For a more specific example, for a vehicle with an initial fuel consumption of FC
This suggests that the combined effectiveness of the two technologies is 14.5 percent. The synergy factors aim to correct for cases where fuel consumption improvements are not perfectly multiplicative, and the combined fuel consumption in the example above is either greater than or less than 14.5 percent.
For this analysis, the CAFE Model has been modified to accommodate the results of the large-scale vehicle simulation study conducted by Argonne National Laboratory (described in more detail in the light-duty Draft TAR). While Autonomie, Argonne's vehicle simulation model, produces absolute fuel consumption values for each simulation record, the results have been modified in a way that preserves much of the existing structure of the CAFE Model's compliance logic, but still faithfully reproduces the totality of the simulation outcomes present in the database. Fundamentally, the implementation represents a translation of the absolute values in the simulation database into incremental improvements and a substantially expanded set of synergy factors.
Since the simulation efforts only included light-duty vehicles, the effectiveness values for heavy duty were not integrated into the heavy-duty fleet; for future rule-makings NHTSA hopes to extend the vehicle simulation efforts to include simulations that would be relevant for heavy-duty pickups and vans. While the effectiveness values for individual technologies remain the same, the synergies between two or more technologies incorporate information from Autonomie Argonne's light-duty pickup simulations. While these synergy values are not a perfect approximation of the interaction of technology applications particular to heavy-duty vehicles, it is consistent with what we did in the NPRM (where we also used synergy values from light-duty pickups).
Updating the synergy values to use Argonne's simulation efforts does two things: (1) It allows that these synergies may occur between more than two technologies, and (2) because the synergies are multiplicative, rather than additive, it allows for the consideration that the order of other technology applications matter in determining the incremental percentage improvement correction of the synergy value. Instead of having one additive incremental percentage synergy value for a pair of technologies, regardless of the order of technology application between these pair of technologies, the synergy values are dependent on the initial state and ending point of a vehicle within the database.
As stated, in the past, synergy values in the Volpe model were represented as pairs. However, the new values are 7-tuples and there is one for every point in the database. The synergy factors are based (entirely) on values in the Argonne database, producing one for each unique technology combination for each technology class, and are calculated as
In order to incorporate the results of the Argonne database, while still preserving the basic structure of the CAFE model's technology module, it was necessary to translate the points in the database into locations on the technology tree.
As an example, a technology state vector describing a vehicle with a SOHC engine, variable valve timing (only), a 6-speed automatic transmission, a belt-integrated starter generator, mass reduction (level 1), aerodynamic improvements (level 2), and rolling resistance (level 1) would be specified as SOHC;VVT;AT6;BISG;MR1;AERO2;ROLL1. Once a vehicle is assigned a technology state (one of the tens of thousands of unique 7-tuples, defined as CONFIG;ENG;TRANS;ELEC;MR;AERO;ROLL), adding a new technology to the vehicle simply represents progress from one technology state to another. The vehicle's fuel consumption is:
In order to develop new mileage accumulation schedules for vehicles regulated under NHTSA's fuel efficiency and CAFE programs (classes 1-3), NHTSA purchased a data set of vehicle odometer readings from IHS/Polk (Polk). Polk collects odometer readings from registered vehicles when they encounter maintenance facilities, state inspection programs, or interactions with dealerships and OEMs. The (average) odometer readings in the data set NHTSA purchased are based on over 74 million unique odometer readings across 16 model years (2000-2015) and vehicle classes present in the data purchase (all registered vehicles less than 14,000 lbs. GVW).
The Polk data provide a measure of the cumulative lifetime vehicle miles
Compared to prior analyses of light-duty standards, these model changes result in some changes in the broad characteristics of the model's application of technology to manufacturers' fleets. Since the use of phase-in caps has been de-emphasized and manufacturer technology deployment remains tied strongly to estimated product redesign and freshening schedules, technology penetration rates may jump more quickly as manufacturers apply technology to high-volume products in their portfolio.
By design, restrictions that enforce commonality of mass reduction and aerodynamic technologies on variants of a platform, and those that enforce engine inheritance, will result in fewer vehicle-technology combinations in a manufacturer's future modeled fleet. As explained in the NPRM proposing new standards for HD pickups and vans, these restrictions are expected to more accurately capture the true costs associated with producing and maintaining a product portfolio.
The new medium-duty van/pickup schedule in Figure VI-6 predicts higher annual VMT for vehicles between ages one through five years, and lower annual VMT for all other vehicle ages, than the old schedule. Over the first 30-year span, the new schedule predicts that medium-duty vans/pickups drive 24,249 (9 percent) fewer miles than the old schedule. We predict the maximum average annual VMT for medium-duty vehicles (23,307 miles) at age two. These changes to the schedule will have important implications on certain benefits of the standards. More monetary fuel savings will occur during the first five years of a vehicle's life under the new schedule, but a decrease in fuel savings will occur overall while using these schedules. For payback periods shorter than 5 years, the new schedule will show shorter payback periods than the old schedule. Section 10 of the RIA offers similar figures for light-duty vehicles types. It also offers further explanation about the shape of the new annual VMT schedule.
Table VI-9 offers a summary of the comparison of lifetime VMT (by class) under the new schedule, compared with lifetime VMT under the old schedule. In addition to the total lifetime VMT expected under each schedule for vehicles that survive to their full useful life, Table VI-9also shows the survival-weighted lifetime VMT for both schedules. This represents the average lifetime VMT for all vehicles, not only those that survive to their full useful life. The percentage difference between the two schedules is not as stark for the survival-weighted schedules: The percentage decrease of survival-weighted lifetime VMT under the new schedules range from 6.5 percent (for medium-duty trucks and vans) to 21.2 percent (for passenger vans).
While the Polk data set contains model-level average odometer readings, the CAFE model assigns lifetime VMT schedules at a lower resolution based on vehicle body style. For the purposes of VMT accounting, the CAFE model classifies every vehicle in the analysis fleet as being one of the following: passenger car, SUV, pickup truck, passenger van, or medium-duty pickup/van. In order to use the Polk data to develop VMT schedules for each of the (VMT) classes in the CAFE model, we constructed a mapping between the classification of each model in the Polk data and the classes in the CAFE model. The only difference between the mapping for the VMT schedules and the rest of the CAFE model is that we merged the SUV and van body styles into one class (for reasons described in our discussion of the SUV/van schedule in Section 10 of the RIA). This mapping allowed us to predict the lifetime miles traveled, by the age of a vehicle, for the categories in the CAFE model.
In estimating the VMT models, we weighted each data point (make/model classification) by the share of each make/model in the total population of the corresponding CAFE class. This weighting ensures that the predicted odometer readings, by class and model year, represent each of vehicle classification among observed vehicles (
First, the majority of each vehicle make/model is well-represented in the sample. For more than 85 percent of make/model combinations, the average odometer readings are collected for 20 percent or more of the total population. Most make/model observations have sufficient sample sizes, relative to their representation in the vehicle population, to produce meaningful average odometer totals at that level.
We also considered whether the representativeness of the odometer sample varies by vehicle age, since VMT schedules in the CAFE model are specific to each age. To investigate, we calculated the percentage of vehicle types (by make, model, and model year) that did not have odometer readings. All model years, apart from 2015, have odometer readings for 96 percent or more of the total types of vehicles observed in the fleet.
While the preceding discussion supports the
It is possible that the odometer sample is biased. If certain vehicles are over-represented in the sample of odometer readings relative to the registered vehicle population, a simple average, or even one weighted by the number of odometer observations will be biased. However, while weighting by the share of each vehicle in the population will account for this bias, it would not correct for a sample that entirely omits a large number of makes/models within a model year. We tested for this by computing the proportion of the count of odometer readings for each individual vehicle type—within a class and model year—to the total count of readings for that class and model year. We also compared the population of each make/model—within each class and model year—to the population of the corresponding class and model year. The difference of these two ratios shows the difference of the representation of a vehicle type—in its respective class and model year—in the sample versus the population. All vehicle types are represented in the sample within 10 percent of their representation in the population, and the variance between the two representations is normally distributed. This suggests that, on average, the likelihood that a vehicle is in the sample is comparable to its proportion in the relevant population, and that there is little under or over sampling of certain vehicle makes/models.
Since model years are sold in in the fall of the previous calendar year, throughout the same calendar year, and even into the following calendar year—not all registered vehicles of a make/model/model year will have been registered for at least a year (or more) until age 3. The result is that some MY 2014 vehicles may have been driven for longer than one year, and some less, at the time the odometer was observed. In order to consider this in our definition of age, we assign the age of a vehicle to be the difference between the average reading date of a make/model and the average first registration date of that make/model. The result is that the continuous age variable reflects the amount of time that a car has been registered at the time of odometer reading, and presumably the time span that the car has accumulated the miles.
After creating the “Age” variable, we fit the make/model lifetime VMT data points to a weighted quartic polynomial regression of the age of the vehicle (stratified by class). The predicted values of the quartic regressions are used to calculate the marginal annual VMT by age for each class by calculating differences in estimated lifetime mileage accumulation by age. However, the Polk data acquired by NHTSA only contains
Based on the vehicle ages for which we have data (from the Polk purchase), the newly estimated annual schedules differ from the previous version in important ways. Perhaps most significantly, the annual mileage associated with ages beyond age 8 begin to, and continue to, trend much lower. The approach taken here attempts to preserve the results obtained through estimation on the Polk observations, while leveraging the existing (NHTS-based) schedules to support estimation of the higher ages (age 16 and beyond). Since the two schedules are so far apart, simply splicing them together would have created not only a discontinuity, but also precluded the possibility of a monotonically decreasing scale with age (which is consistent with previous schedules, the data acquired from Polk, and common sense).
From the old schedules, we expect that the annual VMT is decreasing for all ages. Towards the end of our sample, the predictions for annual VMT increase. In order to force the expected monotonicity, we perform a triangular smoothing algorithm until the schedule is monotonic. This performs a weighted average which weights the observations close to the observation more than those farther from it. The result is a monotonic function, which predicts similar lifetime VMT for the sample span as the original function. Since we do not have data beyond 15 years of age, we are not able to correctly capture that part of the annual VMT curve using only the new dataset. For this reason, we use trends in the old data to extrapolate the new schedule for ages beyond the sample range.
In order to use the VMT information from the newer data source for ages outside of the sample, we use the final in-sample age (15 years) as a seed and then apply the proportional trend from the old schedules to extrapolate the new schedules out to age 30. To do this, we calculated the annual percentage difference in VMT of the old schedule for ages 15-30. The same annual percentage difference in VMT is applied to the new schedule to extend beyond the final in-sample value. This assumes that the overall proportional trend in the outer years is correctly modeled in the old VMT schedule, and imposes this same trend for the outer years of the new schedule. The extrapolated schedules are the final input for the VMT schedules in the CAFE model.
The new VMT data suggests that the VMT schedule used in the last Light-Duty CAFE Final Rule likely does not represent current annual VMT rates. Across all classes, the previous VMT schedules overestimate the average annual VMT. The previous schedules are based on data that is outdated and self-reported, while the observations from Polk are between 5 and 7 years newer than those in the NHTS and represent valid odometer readings (rather than self-reported information).
Additionally, while the NHTS may be a representative sample of
Insofar as these changes better represent actual VMT, they lead to better estimates of actual impacts, such as avoided fuel consumption and GHG emissions, safety impacts, and monetized benefits.
In consultation with other agencies closely involved with VMT estimation (
For the current analysis we updated the reference fleet from MY 2014, to the latest available MY 2015. The projection of total sales volumes for the Class 2b and 3 market segment was based on the total volumes in the 2015 AEO Reference Case. For the purposes of this analysis, the AEO2015 calendar year volumes have been used to represent the corresponding model-year volumes. While AEO2015 provides enough resolution in its projections to separate the volumes for the Class 2b and 3 segments, the agencies deferred to the vehicle manufacturers and chose to rely on the relative shares present in the pre-model-year compliance data.
The relative sales share by vehicle type (van or pickup truck, in this case) was derived from a sales forecast that the agencies purchased from IHS Automotive, and applied to the total volumes in the AEO2015 projection. Table VI-10 shows the implied shares of the total new 2b/3 vehicle market broken down by manufacturer and vehicle type.
Within those broadly defined market shares, volumes at the manufacturer/model-variant level were constructed by applying the model-variant's share of manufacturer sales in the pre-model-year compliance data for the relevant vehicle style, and multiplied by the total volume estimated for that manufacturer and that style.
To produce a unit of output, vehicle manufacturers incur direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include cost of materials and labor costs. Indirect costs are all the costs associated with producing the unit of output that are not direct costs—for example, they may be related to production (such as research and development [R&D]), corporate operations (such as salaries, pensions, and health care costs for corporate staff), or selling (such as transportation, dealer support, and marketing). Indirect costs are generally recovered by allocating a share of the costs to each unit of good sold. Although it is possible to account for direct costs allocated to each unit of good sold, it is more challenging to account for indirect costs allocated to a unit of goods sold. To make a cost analysis process more feasible, markup factors, which relate total indirect costs to total direct costs, have been developed. These factors are often referred to as retail price equivalent (RPE) multipliers.
Cost analysts and regulatory agencies (including both NHTSA and EPA) have frequently used these multipliers to predict the resultant impact on costs associated with manufacturers' responses to regulatory requirements. The best approach, if it were possible, to determining the impact of changes in direct manufacturing costs on a manufacturer's indirect costs would be to actually estimate the cost impact on each indirect cost element. However, doing this within the constraints of an agency's time or budget is not always feasible, and the technical, financial, and accounting information to carry out such an analysis may simply be unavailable.
The one empirically derived metric that addresses the markup of direct costs to consumer costs is the RPE multiplier, which is measured from manufacturer 10-K accounting statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Over roughly a three decade period, the measured RPE has been remarkably stable, averaging 1.5, with minor annual variation. The National Research Council notes that, “Based on available data, a reasonable RPE multiplier would be 1.5.” The historical trend in the RPE is illustrated in Figure VI.13.
RPE multipliers provide, at an aggregate level, the relationship between revenue and direct manufacturing costs. They are measured by dividing total revenue by direct costs. However, because this provides only a single aggregate measure, using RPE multipliers results in the application of a common incremental markup to all technologies. It assures that the aggregate cost impact across all technologies is consistent with empirical data, but does not allow for indirect cost discrimination among different technologies. Thus, a concern in using the RPE multiplier in cost analysis for new technologies added in response to regulatory requirements is that the indirect costs of vehicle modifications are not likely to be the same for all different technologies. For example, less complex technologies could require fewer R&D efforts or less warranty coverage than more complex technologies. In addition, some simple technological adjustments may, for example, have no effect on the number of corporate personnel and the indirect costs attributable to those personnel. The use of RPEs, with their assumption that all technologies have the same proportion of indirect costs, is likely to overestimate the costs of less complex technologies and underestimate the costs of more complex technologies. However, for regulations such as the CAFE and GHG emission standards under consideration, which drive changes to nearly every vehicle system, overall average indirect costs should align with the RPE value. Applying RPE to the cost for each technology assures that alignment.
Modified multipliers have been developed by EPA, working with a
Developing the ICMs from the RPE multipliers requires developing adjustment factors based on the complexity of the technology and the time frame under consideration: The less complex a technology, the lower its ICM, and the longer the time frame for applying the technology, the lower the ICM. This methodology was used in the cost estimation for the recent light-duty MYs 2012-2016 and MYs 2017-2025 rulemaking and for the heavy-duty MYs 2014-2018 rulemaking. The ICMs for the light-duty context were developed in a peer-reviewed report from RTI International and were subsequently discussed in a peer-reviewed journal article.
Since their original development in February 2009, the agencies have made some changes to both the ICMs factors and to the method of applying those factors relative to the factors developed by RTI and presented in their reports. We have described and explained those changes in several rulemakings over the years, most notably the 2017-2025 FRM for light vehicles and the more recent Heavy-duty GHG Phase 2 NPRM.
On balance, NHTSA believes that the empirically derived RPE is a more reliable basis for estimating indirect costs. To ensure overall indirect costs in the analysis align with the RPE value, NHTSA has developed its primary analysis based on applying the RPE value of 1.5 to each technology. NHTSA also has conducted a sensitivity analysis examining the impact of applying the ICM approach in the sensitivity analysis portion later in this Section. This marks a change from the NPRM where we use the ICM multiplier to calculate indirect costs as the central analysis and the RPE multiplier as a sensitivity case.
As proposed in the NPRM we have updated the HD pickup and van mass reduction cost curves with a MY 2014 GMC Silverado EDAG study. The updated mass reduction study suggests that mass reduction will be more costly for heavy-duty vans and pickups than was suggested in the NPRM. This can explain the reduction in mass reduction in the current analysis compared to the NPRM.
NHTSA awarded a contract to EDAG to conduct a vehicle weight reduction feasibility and cost study of a 2014MY full size pick-up truck. The light weighted version of the full size pick-up truck (LWT) used manufacturing processes that will likely be available during the model years 2025-2030 and be capable of high volume production. The goal was to determine the maximum feasible weight reduction while maintaining the same vehicle functionalities, such as towing, hauling, performance, noise, vibration, harshness, safety, and crash rating, as the baseline vehicle, as well as the functionality and capability of designs to meet the needs of sharing components across same or cross vehicle platform. Consideration was also given to the sharing of engines and other components with vehicles built on other platforms to achieve manufacturing economies of scale, and in recognition of resource constraints which limit the ability to optimize every component for every vehicle.
A comprehensive teardown/benchmarking of the baseline vehicle was conducted for the engineering analysis. The analysis included geometric optimization of load bearing vehicle structures, advanced material utilization along with a manufacturing technology assessment that would be available in the 2017 to 2025 time frame. The baseline vehicle's overall mass, center of gravity and all key dimensions were determined. Before the vehicle teardown, laboratory torsional stiffness tests, bending stiffness tests and normal modes of vibration tests were performed on baseline vehicles so that these results could be compared with the CAE model of the light weighted design. After conducting a full tear down and benchmarking of the baseline vehicle, a detailed CAE model of the baseline vehicle was created and correlated with the available crash test results. The project team then used computer modeling and optimization techniques to design the light-weighted pickup truck and optimized the vehicle structure considering redesign of structural geometry, material grade and material gauge to achieve the maximum amount of mass reduction while achieving comparable vehicle performance as the baseline vehicle. Only technologies and materials projected to be available for large scale production and available within two to three design generations (
The design of the LWT was verified, through CAE modeling, that it meets all relevant crash tests performance. The LS-DYNA finite element software used by the EDAG team is an industry standard for crash simulation and modeling. The researchers modeled the crashworthiness of the LWT design
The baseline 2014 MY Chevrolet Silverado's platform shares components across several platforms. Some of the chassis components and other structural components were designed to accommodate platform derivatives, similar to the components in the baseline vehicle which are shared across platforms such as GMT 920 (GM Tahoe, Cadillac Escalade, GMC Yukon), GMT 930 platform (Chevy Suburban, Cadillac Escalade ESV, GMC Yukon XL), and GMT 940 platform (Chevy Avalanche and Cadillac Escalade EXT) and GMT 900 platform (GMC Sierra). As per the National Academy of Science's guidelines, the study assumes engines would be downsized or redesigned for mass reduction levels at or greater than 10 percent. As a consequence of mass reduction, several of the components used designs that were developed for other vehicles in the weight category of light-weighted designed vehicles were used to maximize economies of scale and resource limitations. Examples include brake systems, fuel tanks, fuel lines, exhaust systems, wheels, and other components.
Cost is a key consideration when vehicle manufacturers decide which fuel-saving technology to apply to a vehicle. Incremental cost analysis for all of the new technologies applied to reduce mass of the light-duty full-size pickup truck designed were calculated. The cost estimates include variable costs as well as non-variable costs, such as the manufacturer's investment cost for tooling. The cost estimates include all the costs directly related to manufacturing the components. For example, for a stamped sheet metal part, the cost models estimate the costs for each of the operations involved in the manufacturing process, starting from blanking the steel from coil through the final stamping operation to fabricate the component. The final estimated total manufacturing cost and assembly cost are a sum total of all the respective cost elements including the costs for material, tooling, equipment, direct labor, energy, building and maintenance.
The information from the LWT design study was used to develop a cost curve representing cost effective full vehicle solutions for a wide range of mass reduction levels. At lower levels of mass reduction, non-structural components and aluminum closures provide weight reduction which can be incorporated independently without the redesign of other components and are stand-alone solutions for the LWV. The holistic vehicle design using a combination of AHSS and aluminum provides good levels of mass reduction at reasonably acceptable cost. The LWV solution achieves 17.6 percent mass reduction from the baseline curb mass. Further two more analytical mass reduction solutions (all aluminum and all carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP)) were developed to show additional mass reduction that could be potentially achieved beyond the LWV mass reduction solution point. The aluminum analytical solution predominantly uses aluminum including chassis frame and other components. The carbon fiber reinforced plastics analytical solution predominantly uses CFRP in many of the components. The CFRP analytical solution shows higher level of mass reduction but at very high costs. Note here that both all-Aluminum and all CFRP mass reduction solutions are analytical solutions only and no computational models were developed to examine all the performance metrics.
An analysis was also conducted to examine the cost sensitivity of major vehicle systems to material cost and production volume variations.
Table VI-11 lists the components included in the various levels of mass reduction for the LWV solution. The components are incorporated in a progression based on cost effectiveness.
A fitted curve was developed based on the above listed mass reduction points to derive cost per kilogram at distinct mass reduction points. The current curve shows costs per kilogram approximately six times as expensive for 5 percent mass reduction (MR1) than in the NPRM, and approximately twice as expensive per kilogram for 7.5 percent mass reduction (MR2), which explains the reduction in mass reduction in the current analysis relative to the NPRM.
EPCA and EISA require NHTSA to “implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement” and to establish corresponding fuel consumption standards “that are appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible.”
As in the NPRM, the main analysis of Method A considers costs, benefits and other effects of regulatory alternatives relative to the dynamic baseline—or a baseline which assumes that manufacturers will apply all technologies with associated cost that pays back from retail-priced fuel savings within 6 months of purchase. The assumption is that consumers are willing to pay additional technology costs that return in fuel savings within 6-months of purchase, and that as a result, manufacturers will adopt these technologies regardless of fuel efficiency standards. We considered alternative runs with voluntary overcompliance of technologies with a payback period of 0-months (manufacturers will not voluntarily overcomply if there is a cost associated with a technology), 12-months, 18-months, and 24-months in the sensitivity analysis.
Before considering the effects of increases in the standards, it is important to discuss the baseline costs. These costs are assumed to be incurred even if no additional regulatory action is taken to increase standards beyond the existing MY 2018 standards. Table VI-12 shows the baseline average and total technology costs for each manufacturer in the heavy duty market, and for the heavy duty industry as a whole for the MY 2021 fleet (cost increases relative to the MY 2015 fleet). The updated CAFE model suggests that under no further increasses to stringency beyond MY 2018, manufacturers would spend $136 million—an industry average of $180 per vehicle—on technologies that improve fuel economy in MY 2021. The additonal baseline costs are not distributed across all manufacturers proportional to their fleet size. The average technology costs of an individual manufacturer fleet range from $80 per vehicle for Fiat/Chrysler to $350 per vehicle for General Motors. In order to explain this heterogeneity it is important to consider the sources of increased technology costs: compliance actions, inheritance from heavy duty vehicles, spillover inheritance from the light-duty vehicles, and voluntary overcompliance.
One reason manufacturers incur technology costs in the baseline for MY 2021 vehicles is to achieve compliance with Phase 1 standards, which end their stringency increases in MY 2018. Manufacturers will have different standards and different starting positions relative to these standards. In order to indicate which manufacturers make compliance actions which increase their baseline technology costs, Table VI-12 includes the MY 2015 estimated average fuel consumption and the estimated MY 2018 fuel consumption standard—manufacturers with higher average fuel consumption in MY 2015 than the estimated MY 2018 fuel consumption standard, will apply technology costs to comply with the final MY 2018 standards. The fuel consumption standards are determined by setting work factor based targets and computing the manufacturer's sales-weighted average of these targets. While the individual vehicle targets based on work factor are the same for all vehicles of the same work factor for model years 2018 and beyond, the overall fuel efficiency standard for a manufacturer may change from model year to model year with changes to the work factors of individual vehicle models, as well as changes in relative production volumes of each vehicle model. The model does not capture all means by which a manufacturer's average fuel efficiency standard may change under the MY 2018 attribute-based standards, but does capture changes to work factor—and therefore individual vehicle targets—due to application of mass reduction. The model also predicts changes to the fleet mix of each manufacturer using inputs created from AEO2015 and 2015 IHS/Polk production projections. The
A second source of technology costs is from inheritance; vehicles with shared platforms are assumed to inherit technologies applied to the platform leader at their next redesign or refresh to avoid creating a new body or engine platform,
The final way that manufacturers might accrue additional technology costs in the MY 2021 dynamic baseline scenario is through voluntary overcompliance. As already discussed: In the baseline case of the central analysis it is assumed that manufacturers will apply technologies which payback in fuel savings within 6 months of operation, regardless of whether or not the standards increase in stringency. Depending on the existing technologies and vehicles in a manufacturer's fleet, they may voluntarily overcomply by adding different technologies, or none at all.
The MY 2021 costs of the dynamic baseline scenario are lower in the updated analysis than they were in the NPRM for all manufacturers other than Nissan and Daimler. The average technology costs across the industry are less than half the NPRM costs—dropping from $440/vehicle to $180/vehicle. The largest drop in average costs across the manufacturers is for GM; their costs dropped from $780/vehicle to $350/vehicle. The modeled costs for Nissan dropped from $280 to $230, and for FCA, from $280 to $80.
While considering MY 2021 allows for comparision to the NPRM analysis, not all baseline costs are incurred in MY 2021. Figure VI-8shows the baseline total technology costs, andFigure VI-9, the average technology costs, by manufacturer for all model years. Like the NPRM analysis assumes manufacturers will likely apply most technologies as part of vehicle redesign or freshening; as a result their technology application comes in discrete blocks. GM applies $20 million in total technolgy for their MY 2016 fleet, and an additional $60 million in for MY 2018—their total technology costs vary slightly after this point with the projection of their fleet size and with the effects of technology learning. Similarly, Ford applies $30 million for MY 2017 and an additional $80 million in 2027. Chrysler/Fiat, Daimler, and Nissan apply technology in only one year—Chrysler/Fiat applies $11 million in MY 2018, Daimler $3 million for MY 2020, and Nissan $3 million for MY 2021. While the total technology costs vary between manufacturers, the per-vehicle baseline costs range between $0-350 for all manufacturers and model years.
There are changes to model that help explain the decrease in baseline technology costs for the current analysis. The current analysis uses the synergies simulated by Argonne for the light-duty fleet, while the NPRM analysis uses a limited set of synergy values (also initially estimated for the light-duty fleet. The changes in these synergy factors could impact which technologies are chosen, and how effective the model calculates them to
The final major input change is that the current model uses the 2015 fleet as its reference point, while the NPRM uses the 2014 fleet. This affects the starting point of each manufacturer in the model, and could change their predicted standard (through changes in sales mix and work factor). In order to consider the impacts of using the 2015 reference fleet it is helpful to consider the sales-weighted fuel economy and work factor distributions across the two reference fleets.
Figure VI-10 shows the sales-weighted empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) for GM's work factor and fuel economy for the two reference fleets. The dashed line shows the values for the 2014 reference fleet, and the solid, for the 2015 reference fleet. The y-axis shows the cumulative share of the manufacturer's fleet against the two measures. For GM, the work factor CDF shifted to the right for work factors between 3500 and 5500, suggesting that the proportion of the fleet with work factors in this range increased in the GM fleet. Since increases in work factor will decrease the target value for individual vehicles, this average change in work factor decreases GM's initial CAFE standard.
It should also be noted that some methods of increasing work factor (mainly, decreasing curb weight) can increase the fuel efficiency of a vehicle, while others (increasing the power) can decrease fuel efficiency. The empirical CDF for GM's sales-weighted fuel consumption shows GM's 2015 fleet as having more vehicles with fuel consumption below 6.3 gal/100 mi, fewer with fuel consumption around 6.3 gal/100 mi, significantly more vehicles with fuel consumption around 7.0 gal/100 mi. The average fuel consumption of GM's 2014 fleet was 6.27 gal/100 mi, where the average fuel consumption of GM's 2015 fleet is 6.52 gal/100 mi. The overall increase in GM's average fuel consumption diminishes the effect of the increase in work factor from MY 2014 to MY 2015 at improving their starting position in MY 2015 relative to MY 2014—their MY 2015 standard using the 2014 fleet was 6.36, and using the 2014 fleet and is 6.59. Considering this, their initial shortfall is about the same using either reference fleet.
Figure VI-11 shows the same for Ford. There is a similar pattern of a higher proportion of heavy duty vehicles in Ford's fleet with work factors between 3500 and 5000. This will decrease Ford's initial standard in the model. Ford also shows a decrease in the proportion of heavy duty vehicles with higher fuel consumption, which will result in an overall lower fuel consumption for the 2015 fleet. The result is that Ford will start with a lower standard by using the 2015 fleet rather than the 2014 fleet, and start with a higher fuel efficiency level—both of which will work in the same direction to decrease Ford's shortfall to MY 2018 standards. This suggests that Ford will not need to apply as much technology to comply, and helps to explain their lower baseline technology costs in the current analysis.
Figure VI-12 shows the cumulative distribution function for the work factor of Fiat/Chrysler. Although there is some increase in the left tail of the distribution of FCA's work factor for MY 2015 relative to MY 2014, it is smaller than for the Ford and GM fleets. The CDF of fuel efficiency also shows that Fiat/Chrysler shows nearly identical distribution of fuel consumption between the 2014 and 2015 fleets. These two factors combine to explain why Fiat/Chrysler did not show increases in costs from the NPRM to the current analysis—they did not have as much of a change in shortfall to MY 2018 standards as both GM and Ford.
Figure VI-13 shows the same empirical distribution functions for Nissan. Both the distribution of work factor and fuel consumption are comparable for Nissan's 2014 and 2015 fleets. This helps explain the small change in Nissan's baseline costs between the two analyses.
Figure VI-14 shows the cumulative distribution function for work factor and fuel consumption for Daimler for both the 2014 and 2015 fleets. The distribution of work factor shifted right for work factors above 3500. The fuel consumption curve shifted right for all fuel consumptions. This suggests that Daimler will face a lower standard using the 2015 reference fleet, but that they may also start with a lower initial fuel efficiency level. The change to the 2015 reference fleet does not have clear implications on the relative starting point of Daimler in the analysis relative to the NPRM analysis.
Table VI-13, below, summarizes the stringency of standards, the estimated required fuel efficiency the estimated achieved fuel efficiency, as well as the impacts of each alternative for the overall industry for MY 2030. Using the updated fleet and analysis, the MY 2030 stringency is slightly less that in the NPRM (4.91 gallons/100 mile in today's analysis compared to 4.86 gallons/100 mile in the NPRM for the preferred alternative). As has been noted, the standards are set based in part on the work factor of vehicles; by changing the average work factor of their fleet, manufacturers can change the average stringency of their standard. While the model does not simulate changes to work factor which would increase the
Today's Method A analysis using the updated version of the CAFE model and updated inputs shows that regulatory Alternatives 3 and 4 could be met with a small application of strong (P2) HEVs. However, Alternative 5 could be met with the considerably greater application of strong HEVs. Although there is some increase in the penetration rates between alternatives as stringency increases, the current analysis suggests that under all alternatives, nearly all of the MY 2030 heavy-duty fleet could use 8-speed transmissions, VVT/VVL improvements and turbo-charged engines with application across more than half of the fleet, direct injection could be present in a quarter of the fleet, and cylinder deactivation could play a minor part in the HD fleet. EPS and improved electrical accessories vary more between alternatives; present in 52 percent of the fleet in Alterative 2, 80 percent in Alternatives 3 and 4, and 96 percent in Alternative 5. Aerodynamic improvements and mass reduction follow a similar pattern; with a larger penetration of these technologies with Alternative 3 than with Alternative 2, a similar penetration under Alternatives 3
A way to measure the cost-effectiveness of the technologies on consumers is to look at the payback period. In this context, the payback period is defined as the number of months of driving it will take a consumer to earn back the increased technology costs by the amount they save in fuel by driving a more fuel efficient vehicle. Under the current analysis, the average additional technology cost will payback in fuel savings in under 17 months for Alternative 2, 27 months for Alternatives 3 and 4, and 30 months for Alternative 5. It is important to note that there are inputs other than the cost and effectiveness of technologies which could affect the payback period; the fuel prices and mileage accumulation schedules will affect how quickly the cost of a fuel-saving technology pays back.
The current analysis uses updated fuel price estimates from AEO 2015 that are lower than in the NPRM analysis. Lower fuel prices will decrease the absolute amount of fuel savings (assuming the same number of gallons is consumed) and increase the payback period if the technologies, their cost, and their effectiveness are unchanged. Further, we have updated the vehicle use schedule (vehicle miles traveled, or VMT) based on actual vehicle odometer readings from IHS/Polk data as shown in Figure VI.6 While the overall survival-weighted schedules show 6.5 percent fewer lifetime miles for heavy-duty vehicles, they show more annual miles driven for the first 5-years of use for heavy-duty vehicles. The result is that the overall lifetime fuel savings will decrease, but the fuel savings will be higher for the first 5 years. Since the payback periods under both analyses are shorter than 5 years, using the updated vehicle schedules will show a shorter payback period (if other factors are unchanged) than in the NPRM analysis. The changes in fuel prices and the change in the mileage accumulation schedule work in opposite directions on the payback period; the total change in payback period is attributable to both of these input changes as well as to the changes in the cost
Industry costs in MY 2030 provide one perspective on technology costs. Industry cost in each model year provides additional perspective on the timing, pace and the amount of resources and spending that would need to be allocated to implement technologies and is important in the consideration of the feasibility of the alternatives. Figures Figure VI-15and Figure VI-16 show the total and average additional and total additional technology costs for the industry by model year and alternative. Note that the trend of the total and average costs are very similar, this is because the fleets size the AEO projections suggest a relatively constant fleet size during the considered MY's. The total and average technology costs increase with alternative stringency. It is important to note that Alternatives 3 and 4 both increase total stringency for the MY 2030 industry fleet by 15.6 percent. Also note that these estimations of stringency increases include the model projections of how the application of mass reduction will alter work factor and individual vehicle targets.
The average incremental industry technology costs mature to around $500 under Alternative 2, $1500 under Alternatives 3 and 4, and $1900 under Alternative 5. Figure VI-17 shows the cumulative total industry costs by model year fleet. $4.2 billion in additional technology costs for model years 2016-2030 are associated with Alternative 2, $9.9 billion with Alternative 3, $11.4 billion with Alternative 4, and $14.9 billion with Alternative 5. While the marginal technology costs of Alternative 3 approach those of Alternative 4 as the
In addition to varying across scenario and model year, the impacts of the standards vary across manufacturers. Manufacturers will have different compliance strategies based on which technologies they have already invested in, in both their heavy-duty and light-duty fleets, and based on the effectiveness of new technology applications specific to the vehicles in their heavy duty fleets. Table VI-14 summarizes the initial technology utilization in the 2015 fleet by manufacturer. Ford uses direct injection for 8 percent of their fleet, cylinder deactivation for 13 percent of their fleet, and turbo-charged engines for 8 percent of their fleet. Daimler has already invested to equip all of its fleet with 8-speed automatic transmissions. These differences in initial technology levels affect the new investments each manufacturer would need to further improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets.
Table VI-15 summarizes the alternatives, and a technology pathway General Motors could use to comply with each of the alternatives. The pathway includes implementing 8 speed automatic transmissions across its entire fleet. For Alternatives 2 and 3, no stop-start or HEVs are added to GM's fleet, for Alternative 4, 1 percent of GM's fleet uses stop-start, and for Alternative 5, 2 percent uses stop-start and 13 percent are HEVs. For all alternatives, nearly all of the GM's fleet would use electric power steering and improved electric accessories.
For all alternatives, VVT/VVL is applied to 65 percent of its engines. For Alternative 2, none of its engines get direct injection and 43 percent get turbocharging and downsizing, while for Alternatives 3-5, direct injection is applied to 28 percent of its engines and turbocharging and downsizing is applied to 61 percent of its engines. For all alternatives, all of GM's fleet gets aerodynamic improvements. The average mass reduction is 52 lbs. (0.78 percent of the average curb weight) under Alternative 2, and 350-380 lbs. (5.2-5.7 percent of the average curb weight) under Alternatives 3-5. Similar technology is applied for Alternatives 3 and 4 in MY 2030, but there are significantly more strong hybrids under Alternative 5.
Figure VI-18 and Figure VI-19 show the total and average incremental technology costs by alternative. Under Alternative 2 General Motors' incremental technology cost is $140M in MY 2019, increasing to $180M in MY 2021. The pathways for Alternatives 3 and 4 are very similar, which again should not be surprising given that the standards result in the same total stringency increase in MY 2027 and beyond and the long redesign cycles in the segment. GM's incremental technology cost is $190M in MY 2019, increasing to $400M in MY 2021, and $530M in MY 2028. Under Alternative 5 GM could have a similar compliance strategy as Alternative 3 and 4, but incremental technology cost is $650M in MY 2028. The highest annual average technology cost for GM is: $750 under Alternative 2, $1940 under Alternatives 3 and 4, and $2370 under Alternative 5. In the case of GM, the added lead time of Alternative 4 does not significantly change the cost of their compliance strategy.
Figure VI-20 shows the cumulative total incremental costs for GM under all alternatives. The total costs to comply with Alternative 2 for GM for MY's 2016-2030 is $2.1 billion, for Alternatives 3 and 4 it is $4.8 billion, and for Alternative 5 it is $5.2 billion.
Table VI-16 gives the same summary of a potential compliance strategy for Ford's heavy-duty fleet. Similar to GM, to reach compliance Ford uses 8 speed automatic transmissions in their entire fleet. For Alternatives 3 and 4, Ford uses hybrid technologies in 4 percent of their fleet, and for Alternative 5, they use hybrid technologies in 7 percent of their fleet. In addition to strong hybrids, Ford uses 12v stop-start in 4 percent of their fleet in Alternative 4, and 12v stop-start in 19 percent of their fleet in Alternative 5. The compliance strategy in the NPRM analysis shows Ford using significantly more hybrids and 12v stop-start systems in Alternatives 4 and 5 than the current analysis which likely explains part of the lowered cost for Ford in the current analysis.
Under the current analysis possible compliance strategy, the application of engine technologies for Ford come in discrete chunks, as with GM. Ford uses VVT/VVL in 58 percent of their fleet under all alternatives by MY 2030; they started with 8 percent direct-injection engines, and end with 27 percent; they also started with 8 percent turbo-charged engines, but end with 69 percent for all scenarios. The application of EPS and improved accessories vary across the compliance strategies of different regulatory alternatives; under Alternative 2, only 13 percent of Ford's fleet improves these electrical features, while under Alternatives 3-4, 64 percent, and Alternative 5, 96 percent.
For body-platform technologies, Ford applies in discrete chunks to the same platforms across some Alternatives. They apply an average of 77 lb. (1.2 percent) mass reduction across their fleet in Alternative 2 and 132-142 lb. (2.0-2.2 percent) in Alternative 3-5. Progressively less mass reduction is applied under Alternatives 4 and 5—this is likely because more of the fleet was hybridized and mass reduction to small platforms was no longer necessary to comply. Aerodynamic improvements are not applied in Alternative 2, but are applied to 64 percent of the fleet in Alternative 3 and 4, and to all of the fleet in Alternative 5.
Figure VI-21 and Figure VI-22 show the total and average incremental technology costs for Ford by alternative and model year. Ford adds $80 million in technology costs for MY 2017 and an additional $40 million in MY 2026 in Alternative 2. For the Preferred Alternative, Ford adds $130 million in MY 2017 and an additional $300 million in MY 2026. Under Alternative 4, Ford adds $260 million in MY 2017 and $180 million in MY 2026. Similar to the industry pattern, Ford's compliance strategy involves less annual technology costs early in Alternative 3 than Alternative 4, but their technology costs converge under the two alternatives as the final stringency level is reached under Alternative 3 in MY 2027.
It is important to note that the increase in costs and rate of the increase in costs is significantly different for MY 2017 among the alternatives—with the incremental total cost increase for MY 2017 being double those of Alternative 3 for Alternative 4, and more than double for Alternative 5. MY 2017 is the first redesign year and Ford does not have another scheduled redesign until MY 2026. Under the additional lead time of Alternative 3, the majority of Ford's cost increases occur in the MY 2026 redesign, while Alternatives 4 and 5 put most of the cost burden to reach compliance on the MY 2017 redesign (or would require an additional redesign be added between MY 2017 and 2026).
NHTSA judges the lack of lead time would make Alternatives 4 and 5 beyond maximum feasibility for Ford because its designs for MY 2017 are essentially complete and substantial resources and very high costs would be required to add another vehicle redesign between MY 2017 and MY 2026 to implement the technologies that would be needed to comply with those alternatives.
Figure VI-23 below shows the cumulative total costs for Ford under all action alternatives. The total costs for MY's 2015-2030 under Alternative 2 are $1.3 billion, under Alternative 3 they are $3.4 billion, for Alternative 4 they are $4.5 billion, and finally for Alternative 5 they are $6.7 billion. This further illustrates the point that manufacturers act to minimize costs over multiple model years. The added lead time from Alternative 4 allows them to delay some actions, which will allow them more time to make sure that they are well-implemented.
Table VI-17 shows the MY 2030 summary for Fiat/Chrysler. Fiat/Chrysler is the only manufacturer which uses cylinder deactivation in their reference fleet, and they are the only manufacturer to use cylinder deactivation as a part of their possible compliance strategy. Under all scenarios, FCA increases their initial cylinder deactivation utilization of 13 percent to 24 percent. Under all scenarios turbo-charged engines are applied to 76 percent of FCA's fleet by MY 2030. Other technologies are applied to the FCA equally across all scenarios; 37 percent of their fleet uses VVT and/or VVL, and 64 percent uses 8-speed automatic transmissions under all scenarios.
The additional stringency from Alternative 2 to Alternatives 3-5 results in other increased technology applications in the FCA fleet. Under Alternatives 3-5, the presence of EPS/electrical accessories increases from the 82 percent to the entirety of the FCA fleet. Similarly, increased aerodynamic improvements increase from 84 percent of the fleet to all of it. Finally, 12v stop-start enters 3 percent of the fleet under Alternatives 3-5. Alternatives 3 and 4 look much the same, except that Alternative 3 is the only alternative to use any (1 percent) SHEV-P2 hybrids. Alternative 5 uses twice as much mass reduction than Alternatives 3-4; it uses 37 percent direct injection versus the 24 percent in Alternatives 2-4. The resulting costs are comparable under Alternatives 3 and 4, and almost 50 percent higher under Alternative 5.
Figures Figure VI-24 and Figure VI-25 show the incremental total and average technology costs for Chrysler/Fiat by model year and regulatory stringency. Chrysler/Fiat shows more technology costs for higher stringency alternatives, with annual technology costs of Alternative 3 approaching Alternative 4 annual technology costs as the Alternative 3 approaches the final stringency level in MY 2027. Under all alternatives Chrysler/Fiat incurs increased technology costs starting in MY 2018 and MY 2025, because they are estimated redesign years. The maximum annual technology costs for Chrysler are $92M in Alternative 2, $213M in Alternative 3, $227M in Alternative 4, and $330M in Alternative 5. This results in average technology costs of: $680, $1640, $1690, and $2460, respectively.
As with Ford, the costs and the rate of increase in costs are significantly different in the MY 2018 timeframe among the alternatives, because MY 2018 is the first estimated model year for redesign, and the next estimated redesign opportunity is in MY 2025. Figure identifies the significant differences in the resources and capital that would be required to implement the technologies required to comply with each of the alternatives—with the estimated MY 2018 technology cost increases being 48M under Alternative 3, 78M under Alternative 4, and 112M under Alternative 5. NHTSA judges the short lead time would make Alternatives 4 and 5 beyond maximum feasible for FCA because its designs for MY 2018 are nearing completion and substantial resources and very high costs would be required to add another vehicle redesign between MY 2018 and MY 2025 to implement the technologies that would be needed to comply with those alternatives.
The cumulative technology costs attributable to the action alternatives for FCA are represented in Figure VI-26 below. The total costs for MY's 2016-2030 under alter Alternative 2 are $750 million, under Alternative 3, they are $1.5 billion, for Alternative 4, $1.8 billion, and for Alternative 5 they are $2.6 billion.
Table VI-18 shows the manufacturer-specific MY 2030 summary for Nissan. Nissan's 2015 reference fleet uses VVT and/or VVL on all of their heavy-duty vehicles. Their fleet uses two engines on only one body-style platform. As a result, technologies applied to Nissan's fleet are applied to large proportions of their fleet. Under all scenarios, their entire fleet gains 8-speed automatic transmissions. Under Alternatives 3-5, all of their fleet gets level-2 body-level aerodynamic improvements and all of their fleet gets electric accessory and/or EPS improvements. Under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, one of Nissan's two heavy-duty engines gets direct-injection, while under Alternative 3, both engines get the technology. Direct injection of their entire fleet is the most cost-effective way to reach compliance under Alternative 2, applying 5 percent mass reduction to their entire fleet and direct injection of one of their engines is the most cost-effective strategy under Alternative 4, and applying 10 percent mass reduction to their entire fleet, direct injection to one of their engines, and making their other engine hybrid is the most cost-effective strategy under Alternative 5.
Note that without a change in the work factor or fleet mix, a manufacturer will face the same MY 2030 standard under Alternatives 3 and 4, and a more stringent standard under Alternative 5. However, by applying 5 percent mass reduction in Alternative 4, Nissan is able to reduce their standard by .27 MPG, and by applying 10 percent mass reduction in Alternative 5 to have the same MY 2030 standard under Alternatives 3 and 5. The result is that the CAFE level for Nissan is highest under Alternative 2, where direct injection of their entire fleet is the most cost-effective compliance strategy. We assume that manufacturers are able to make technologies more cost-effectively the longer they are on the market—this is called “learning.” A likely reason that the model prefers direct injection in Alternative 3 but not in Alternatives 4 and 5, is that the longer horizon of the stringency increase (until MY 2027) results in direct injection that is more cost-effective than the shorter time span of Alternatives 4 and 5.
Figures Figure VI-27 and Figure VI-28 show the total and average incremental technology costs for Nissan across the different regulatory alternatives. Nissan applies technology in all alternatives in MY 2021; this is a redesign year for much of their fleet. As might be expected, they incur less technology cost in less stringent scenarios at this redesign. However, under Alternative 3 they apply more technology in MY 2029, making their marginal technology costs under Alternative 3 for MY 2029 and after higher than the marginal technology costs under Alternative 4. They incur less technology costs in the early years and more in MY's 2029 and beyond. In order to explain why the model predicts this action of Nissan it is useful to look at the cumulative total incremental costs in Figure VI-29.
By incurring less technology cost early, and more technology cost later, Nissan has a lower cumulative total cost for MY's 2016-2030 under Alternative 3 than Alternative 4. The total cumulative cost for MY's 2016-2030 of Alternative 2 is $86 million, $178 million for Alternative 3, $258 for Alternative 4, and $387 for Alternative 5. Since Nissan is trying to minimize their total cost under all model years, and not their marginal cost under any single model year, the model chooses a compliance strategy in this case which shows higher marginal costs for Nissan in Alternative
Nissan's first redesign is in MY 2020, and they do not have another redesign scheduled until 2029. Under Alternative 4 and 5 all of their technological application is done in MY 2020, but under Alternative 3 the application can be spread out between the two redesign cycles. NHTSA judges the short lead time to apply technology would make Alternatives 4 and 5 beyond maximum feasibility for Nissan because it puts the burden of all technological application on the MY 2020 redesign. Substantial resources and costs would be required to do so or to add another vehicle redesign between MY 2020 and MY 2029. Since manufacturers must spread out their capital for such deployment endeavors between the light and heavy duty fleets, the ability to spread costs between model years is important to consider.
Table VI-19 shows a MY 2030 summary for Daimler. Daimler came into the analysis with all of their fleet using 8-speed automatic transmissions. Their initial CAFE level in MY 2020 of 25.68 was sufficient to meet their standard under Alternatives 2-5. Their only action to turbo-charge all the engines in their fleet occurs in the dynamic baseline. As a result, no additional actions or costs are incurred under any of the alternatives. For this reason, a figure of their annual technology costs, nor their cumulative total technology costs has not been provided—if it were, it would be a horizontal line showing zero costs for all model years.
Table VI-20 summarizes the impacts of the regulation on the consumer/operator of the heavy-duty vehicles. Consumers of more fuel efficient vehicles will benefit in several ways: They will spend less on fuel to operate vehicles for the same amount of travel, some will drive more because their per-mile travel costs less, and they will spend less time refueling vehicles. In order to estimate the fuel savings for each regulatory alternative, future gasoline prices must be predicted and the rebound effect (per-mile elasticity of operating a vehicle) must be assumed to account for the cost of additional driving. In the main analysis, the rebound effect is assumed to be 10 percent, so that, for example, a 10 percent reduction in the per-mile travel costs will result in a 1 percent increase in the amount of miles driven. Since the literature has also supported other rebound effects, NHTSA tests several sensitivity cases assuming different rebounds: 5 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent. Based on the average miles driven of 2b/3 vans and trucks, the expected lifetime fuel savings for a heavy-duty vehicle under the preferred scenario is $3636.
The other benefits of to the consumer of increasing fuel economy are increased mobility and a decreased amount of time spent refueling the vehicle. Because increasing the efficiency of a vehicle makes per-mile travel cheaper to the operator, consumers of these vehicles can travel more, at less than the total amount they are willing to pay—this increase in welfare that is not accounted for by the cost of travel is the consumer surplus. The estimated mobility benefit is $394 under the preferred alternative. The avoided time refueling also has a value. In order to estimate this value we make several assumptions outlined in more detail of the NPRM description of the model assumptions (Section E). Over the lifetime of a MY 2030 vehicle, we estimate the refueling surplus at $94 under the preferred alternative.
It is also important to note that the average manufacturer costs will not be spread proportionally across the fleet—some vehicles will have incurred more technology costs than others. How manufacturers distribute costs among models will largely depend on the elasticity of particular models and the importance of fleet mix in meeting standards and on total profits. Without privy to this sort of information, we use average technology cost increase as a proxy for measuring the industry and consumer costs across different scenarios. The average technology cost increase is $1472 under the preferred alternative. We assume that all of this cost will be passed onto the consumer in the form of an increase in price. However, we also consider that an increase in price will have other costs to the operator of the vehicle.
More expensive vehicles will have higher taxes/fees associated with their purchase, will be more expensive to insure (these costs are related to the purchase price or value of a vehicle) and will be more expensive to finance (higher loan values will be taken out which result in higher amounts paid in total interest). The total additional costs to the average consumer from the sum of these sources is $589 under the preferred alternative. It is important to keep in mind that the additional cost to finance a more expensive vehicle will have different effects depending on the budget constraint of the consumer. For consumers who are budget-constrained, they will finance more of the vehicle and the costs of financing will be higher for these already-constrained consumers. For consumers who do not have to finance the vehicle, there will be no costs—and therefore, no additional costs—to finance the vehicle. Since budget-constrained consumers likely have a more elastic demand for new vehicles, the increase in price and the heterogeneous increase in financing might work in the same direction to price proportionally more of the most budget-constrained consumers out of the new vehicle market.
Considering all the costs and benefits the standards will have to the consumer, the result is a net benefit to the consumer under all the considered alternatives. The net benefit to the
Table VI-21 summarizes the overall societal impacts of the regulation under different scenarios (relative to the 1b baseline). Net social benefits increase with the stringency of the standards. The net benefits for the preferred alternative are $18.8 billion. The largest benefit of the program comes in the form of fuel savings. The fuel savings reported above do not include fuel tax savings, as taxes are considered a transfer, and not a loss, of societal well-being. The fuel savings are associated with a fuel security externality, which monetizes the economic risk associated with potential fuel price spikes—as fewer gallons of oil are necessary for transportation, this risk decreases. The carbon externality represents the reduced cost of carbon damage when fuel economy increases (and carbon emissions decrease), and is also related directly with fuel savings.
Increasing fuel economy decreases the cost of per-mile travel. Since this reduction in the cost of travel results in an increase of total travel, it also results in an increase of externalities associated with increased total VMT. Of these, the driving surplus represents the societal net increase in benefit from increased mobility consumer surplus—the sum of the benefit to all operators of increased travel which is not captured by the total cost of travel. Defined from the societal perspective, the refueling benefit is the sum of all the value of the time saved on refueling by increasing the average fuel efficiency of the heavy duty fleet. Congestion represents the societal cost of increases in congestion on the roads—the lost value of additional time spent in traffic. The crash externality is the cost of the damage done by the additional crashes that will happen with more VMT exposure, and the noise externality represents the cost of a change in noise related to increases in vehicle travel (in this analysis, it is negligible for all alternatives).
Some VMT-related externalities are not always positive or negative, but depend on the stringency of the standards. For this analysis the criteria pollutant externality is always a benefit, but this need not be the case. Reduction in overall fuel consumed reduces emissions associated with production and distribution of fuels. Increases in VMT will result in more emission of vehicle criteria pollutants and more associated damages. However, increasing fuel-economy though vehicle technologies, such as aerodynamics, mass reduction and improved tire rolling resistance, will result in a decrease in vehicle emissions of and damages from criteria pollutants. Shifts in technologies towards electric and hybrid-electric alternatives can increase the emissions of certain pollutants, and reduce the emissions of others. The stringency increases considered in the heavy-duty analysis do not require these technologies to penetrate the market at such a level that this is visible in the results. For these reasons the externality associated with changes in criteria pollutant emissions is always positive for this analysis.
The vehicle mass reduction in HD pickup and vans is estimated to reduce the net incidence of highway fatalities. By reducing mass on some HD pickup and vans, the fatality rate associated with crashes involving at least one HD pickup or van vehicles decreases. However, the analysis anticipates that the indirect effect of the proposed standards, by reducing the operating costs, would lead to increased travel by HD pickups and vans and, therefore, more crashes involving these vehicles. The sign of the fatality externality varies with the stringency of the standards. Over the lifetime of MY's 2016-2029, for Alternative 2 it is estimated approximately 120 additional fatalities could occur relative to the 30,200 heavy-duty crash-related fatalities in the baseline. For Alternatives 3 and 4 we estimate approximately 50 additional fatalities relative to the no-action alternative. The additional risk of fatality is represented as a social cost in Alternatives 2-4. For Alternative 5 we estimate approximately 110 fewer fatalities (represented as a positive externality). For Alternatives 2-4, the effect of removing mass from the heavier vehicles is less than the effect of increased VMT-exposure; for Alternative 5, it is larger, and the alternative could result in a decrease of fatalities.
The major direct costs of the program are increased technology costs and costs associated with the resultant increase in new vehicle prices and changes in technologies. The sum of technology costs across the industry increase under all increases of stringency, as do the increases in associated additional costs. Additional costs include: additional costs of maintenance associated with certain technologies. These costs will mostly be borne by the consumer, and paid back in the form of fuel savings.
In addition to modeling the societal impacts from a monetary standpoint, the CAFE model also considers the absolute change in the physical emissions of various criteria pollutants across the Alternatives. Table VI-22 summarizes the total environmental impacts from increased fuel efficiency of MYs 2016-2030, taking into consideration the reduction in emissions from increased efficiency, the additional emissions associated with the increased VMT from cheaper per-mile travel, and changes in emissions due to the production and distribution of heavy-duty vehicles. Across all scenarios, the absolute reduction in emissions increases. For context, the percentage change of emissions relative to the baseline emission levels is also provided. The proportional reduction in criteria pollutants greatly varies; the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide—as well as the criteria pollutants—sulfur dioxide and diesel particulate matter—show the largest proportional reductions across all scenarios.
This section describes some of the principal sensitivity results, obtained by running the various scenarios describing the policy alternatives with alternative inputs. OMB Circular A-4 indicates that “it is usually necessary to provide a sensitivity analysis to reveal whether, and to what extent, the results of the analysis are sensitive to plausible changes in the main assumptions and numeric inputs.”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Table VI-23, below, summarizes key metrics for each of the cases included in the sensitivity analysis using Method A for the alternative. The table reflects the percent change in the metrics (columns) relative to the main analysis, due to the particular sensitivity case (rows) for the alternative 3. For each sensitivity run, the change in the metric can we
Each metric represents the sum of the impacts of the preferred alternative over the model years 2015-2029, and the percent changes in the table represent percent changes to those sums. More detailed results for all alternatives are available in the accompanying RIA Chapter 10.
For some of the cases for which results are presented above, the sensitivity of results to changes in inputs is simple, direct, and easily observed. For example, changes to valuation of avoided GHG emissions impact only this portion of the estimated economic benefits; manufacturers' responses and corresponding costs are not impacted. Similarly, a higher discount rate does not affect physical quantities saved (gallons of fuel and metric tons of CO
First, cases involving alternatives to the reference case involving voluntary over compliance of technologies that pay back in six-months involve different degrees of fuel consumption improvement. Increasing the length of the payback period assumption for voluntary over compliance amounts to increasing fuel economy improvements in the absence of the rule (the baseline), and manufacturers are compelled to add less technology in order to comply with the standards (in the regulatory alternatives). Because all estimated impacts of these standards are shown as incremental values relative to this baseline, longer voluntary over compliance payback periods correspond to smaller estimates of incremental impacts.
Table VI-24 shows the effect of varying the voluntary over compliance assumption from the consumer perspective. The baseline over-compliance payback period is as described above—the number of months within which a technology must pay back to the consumer in the form of undiscounted retail fuel savings for a manufacturer to voluntarily apply that technology without regulatory action. The incremental per-vehicle technology cost is the average additional cost of technology applied to MY 2030 vehicles under the final regulation (incremental to the baseline) of each sensitivity case. The per-vehicle lifetime fuel savings is
As can be seen, the baseline voluntary over compliance assumption changes how much of the technology costs and fuel savings are attributed to the regulation; both fewer fuel savings and fewer technology costs are attributed to the regulatory alternative as the payback period defining voluntary over compliance increases. Further, because the model only applies the technologies with the shortest payback periods (the most cost-effective technologies) in the baseline, the fuel savings decrease at a greater proportion than the technology costs. The result is that the payback period of the regulatory alternative increases (and at an increasing rate) as manufacturers are assumed to apply more technology in the baseline.
Cases involving different fuel prices similarly involve different degrees of fuel economy improvement in the absence of the standard, as more, or less, improvement occurs as a result of more, or fewer, technologies appearing cost effective to owner/operators. Low fuel prices change the amount of fuel savings for each technology, since the choice in technology application also involves both the size of the cost and the fuel savings, lower fuel prices can change the rank of the technologies. Under low fuel prices, the model applies fewer SHEV-P2's. The result is a reduction in volumetric fuel savings, and an even larger reduction in monetary fuel savings, because the fuel savings are worth less. There is also a reduction in social costs, and social net benefits. Higher fuel prices correspond to reductions in the volumetric fuel savings attributable to these standards as, but lead to increases in the value of fuel saved (and net social benefits) because each gallon saved is worth more when fuel prices are high.
The low price and 0-month payback case leads to a significant increase in volumetric savings compared to the main analysis. Note that the fuel savings are higher than in the 0-month payback case alone. Part of the reason for this is that the lower fuel price case takes into consideration that when fuel prices are lower, consumers buy more heavy-duty vehicles (this is estimated from the AEO2015 low fuel price case). Another piece of the explanation is that the lower fuel prices result in a different technology cost-effectiveness ranking of technologies, and that the 0 month payback baseline results in no voluntary over compliance in the baseline. Different technologies are picked than in the 0 month pay back sensitivity alone, and the most cost effective that would have been applied in the baseline, are now attributed to the preferred alternative. Similarly, the high price and 24-month payback case results in large reductions to volumetric savings that can be attributed to these standards because more is applied in the baseline. Further, the presence of high fuel prices is not sufficient to lead to increases in either the dollar value of fuel savings or net social benefits.
The case which involves the VIUS-based VMT schedules (the high VMT case) results in greater volumetric fuel and GHG-savings attributable to the standards. Under this case the higher estimate of VMT results in more fuel consumption in the baseline, and a higher absolute change in fuel consumption when fuel-saving technologies are applied in the preferred alternative. These higher amount of gallons saved, results in more monetary fuel savings, comparable social costs, and an increase in overall net social benefits attributed to the standards. The low-VMT schedule, developed as an alternative to the adopted VMT-schedule from the IHS/Polk odometer readings, results in lower volumetric fuel consumption and GHG reductions under the preferred alternative. Lower VMT estimates result in less fuel consumption in the baseline, and a lower absolute change in fuel consumption under the preferred alternative. This schedule attributes lower costs to the standards—the lower fuel savings under the low-VMT schedule changes the technology application decisions of the model, since fewer fuel savings are considered in measure the cost-effectiveness of technologies. The result is lower absolute technology costs, but also lower social net benefits.
The case which makes SHEV-P2's unavailable involves relatively small increases to volumetric fuel savings and CO
The case that uses the ICM mark-up methodology rather than the RPE methodology results in a reduction of volumetric fuel savings and GHG reductions. The reduction in fuel
If, instead of using the values in the main analysis, each sensitivity case were itself the main analysis, the costs and benefits attributable to the final rule will be as they appear in Table VI-25, below.
As noted above, EPCA and EISA require NHTSA to “implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement” and to establish corresponding fuel consumption standards “that are appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible.”
For both the NPRM and the current analysis of potential standards for HD pickups and vans, NHTSA applied NHTSA's CAFE Compliance and Effects Modeling System (sometimes referred to as “the CAFE model” or “the Volpe model”), which DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) developed, maintains, and applies to support NHTSA CAFE analyses and rulemakings. NHTSA used this model in its Method A analysis to evaluate regulatory alternatives for Phase 2 standards applicable to HD pickups and vans, and used results of this analysis to inform its selection of the regulatory alternative that will achieve the maximum feasible improvement in HD pickup and van fuel efficiency. This analysis includes several updates to the model and to accompanying inputs, as discussed above in this section.
In the proposal, the agencies proposed to adopt Alternative 3 from among the five regulatory alternatives under consideration.
The Method A analysis shows in the short term, MY 2017-2021 timeframe, that there are significant differences in the rate at which technologies would need to be applied among the alternatives. NHTSA believes the rates of technology application require for Alternatives 4 and 5 are beyond maximum feasible when considering the availability of manufacturers' resources and capital to implement the technologies in that timeframe, and that Alternatives 4 and 5 would not provide adequate lead time for the industry to fully address reliability considerations.
Like the NPRM analysis (
Weighing against the small additional benefit estimated to be potentially available under Alternative 4, NHTSA also considered the estimated additional costs. Method A analysis shows overall incremental costs (
As mentioned above, these estimated differences were mostly small on a relative basis. Averaged over all model years included in the analysis, estimated incremental costs are $106 higher under Alternative 4 than under Alternative 3. For Daimler and General Motors, there is little or no estimated difference in costs under these two Alternatives. For FCA, Ford, and Nissan, differences are somewhat larger, averaging $120, $173, and $272, respectively. However, as explained in greater detail above, NHTSA's method A analysis shows considerably greater total and average additional costs in earlier model years under Alternative 4 than under Alternative 3.
Although NHTSA's Method A analysis also indicates that some manufacturers could need to apply additional technology as soon as MY 2016 under baseline standards defining the No-Action Alternative, average estimated costs (versus continuation today's technology) in MY 2017 are two thirds more under Alternative 4 than under the No Action Alternative.
Beyond these directly-estimated costs, the agencies also considered factors beyond those addressed quantitatively in either the NPRM analysis or the updated analysis. In general, these other factors reflect risk and uncertainty involved with standards for HD pickups and vans. These risks and uncertainty appear considerably greater than for light-duty vehicles. The HD pickup and van market has significantly fewer vehicle models than the light-duty market making forecasting uncertainty a greater risk to compliance. All current manufacturers of HD pickups and vans also produce light-duty vehicles. These manufacturers' light-duty offerings span wide ranges of models, configurations, shared vehicle platforms, engines, transmissions, and design schedules. As a result, if some specific aspects of production do not progress as initially planned for light-duty vehicles (
Considering further that credits from other manufacturers are not potentially available as for light-duty vehicles (
Regarding Alternative 5, the Method A analysis shows somewhat greater benefits than under Alternatives 3 or 4, but Alternative 5 entails considerably greater costs and dependence on strong hybrid technology, as well as even greater exposure to the above-mentioned uncertainties and risks. Under the Method A analysis for Alternative 5, incremental costs averaged across all model years considered are estimated to be about $400 higher (about 46 percent) than under Alternative 3, and that analysis shows an overall fleet application of approximately 7 percent strong hybrids, with General Motors applying approximately 13 percent and Ford approximately 7 percent.
We have also assumed that fuel-saving technologies will be no more or less reliable than technologies already in production. However, if there is insufficient lead-time to fully develop new technologies, they could prove to be less reliable, perhaps leading to increased repair costs and out-of-service time. If the fuel-saving technologies considered here ultimately involve reliability problems, overall costs will be greater than we have estimated. Method A analysis shows in the short term, MYs 2017-2021 timeframe, there are significant differences in the rate at which technologies would need to be applied among the alternatives. Figures VI.15 and VI.16, above, shows the progression in average and total technology costs and the rate of increase in those costs among the alternatives using Method A. They highlight the increases in resources and capital that would be required to implement the technologies required to comply with each of the alternatives, as well as the reduction in lead time to implement the technologies which increases reliability risk. As discussed further above in the manufacturer-specific effects, Ford and FCA are estimated to redesign vehicles in MYs 2017 and 2018 respectively, and vehicle designs for those model years are complete or nearly complete. The next estimated redesign for Ford is in MY 2026, and for FCA in MY 2025, and substantial resources and very high costs would be required to add another vehicle redesign between the estimated redesign model years to implement the technologies that would be needed to comply with those alternatives.
NHTSA proposed that Alternative 3 represented the maximum feasible alternative under EISA, and EPA proposed that Alternative 3 reflected a reasonable consideration of the statutory factors of technology effectiveness, feasibility, cost, lead time, and safety for purposes of CAA sections 202(a)(1) and (2). Although the agencies and commenters also found that Alternative 4 merited serious consideration, the agencies noted that Alternative 3 was generally designed to achieve the levels of fuel consumption and GHG stringency that Alternative 4 would achieve, but with several years of additional lead time, meaning that manufacturers could, in theory, apply new technology at a more gradual pace, with greater reliability and flexibility.
Some comments on the proposal called for adoption of standards more stringent and/or more rapidly advancing in stringency than those defining Alternative 3. For example, CARB argued that Alternative 4 would, compared to Alternative 3, achieve greater benefits comparably attractive in terms of cost effectiveness and while remaining less stringent than CAFE standards for light-duty trucks.
Citing the potential for fuel-saving technology to migrate from light-duty
On the other hand, some other reviewers commented that the proposed standards could be unduly aggressive considering the products and technologies involved. GM commented that any attempt to force more stringent regulations than proposed, such as Alternative 4, would be extremely detrimental to manufacturers, consumers, the U.S. economy, and the millions of transportation-related jobs. Daimler similarly commented that the proposed standards would be a challenge for automotive manufacturers. Under certain conditions, such a standard may necessitate hybridization of the affected vehicle fleet, which would require substantial development and material costs. All technologies taken into account for the class 2b/3 stringencies should reflect cost effectiveness calculations, especially alternative powertrains such as hybrids, battery, and fuel cell driven electric vehicles. Daimler recommends that the agencies adopt the proposed standard over Alternative 4, as the additional two years of lead-time will be critical for automotive manufacturers in developing the necessary technologies to achieve compliance. Nissan commented that the Alternative 4 3.5 percent per stringency level is simply not feasible, as it does not provide the necessary lead-time to enable manufacturers to balance competitive market constraints with the cost of applying new technologies to a limited product offering. Nissan further commented that to the extent that the more stringent alternative is predicated on the adoption of hybrid and electric powertrain technology, Nissan does not believe that such technology is feasible for this market segment.
The American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC, representing FCA, Ford, and General Motors) further commented that proposals for greater stringency than Alternative 3 are not supportable given the required early introduction of unproven technologies with their associated consumer acceptance risk, as well as the many implicit risks that impact stringency. AAPC commented that the proposed standards are aggressive and will challenge industry. AAPC noted that the baseline fleet includes a high percentage of advanced diesel technology such as SCR, making additional improvements considerably more challenging. In the light-duty fleet, diesel technology accounts for 3 percent of fleet whereas the heavy-duty fleet consists of over 50 percent diesel.
AAPC also noted that Phase 2 technologies are being used today. For example, FCA's modern gasoline engine has robust combustion with multiple spark plugs, variable cam phasing, cylinder deactivation, and cooled EGR. AAPC commented that even with this level of gasoline engine technology, FCA is challenged by the early year Phase 1 standards and will need to look at adding even more technology for Phase 2. AAPC also provided data showing that while smaller displacement boosted gasoline engine technology may be applicable in some variants of commercial vans, this technology is not suited for the pickup truck variants in this segment because of customer demands for towing capability. AAPC commented that concurrent stringency increases in Tier 3/LEV III criteria emission requirements will negatively impact CO
Having considered these comments as well as the updated analysis summarized above, NHTSA is adopting standards under which the stringency of fuel consumption standards for HD pickups and vans advance at an annual rate of 2.5 percent during model years 2021-2027 relative to the 2018 MY Phase 1 standard level. In NHTSA's judgment, this pace of stringency increase will appropriately accommodate manufacturers' redesign workload and product schedules, especially in light of this sector's limited product offerings
Compared to Alternative 3, Alternative 2 would forego significant cost-efficient opportunities to apply conventional and moderately advanced technology in order to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Also, although the updated analysis summarized above shows costs for Alternative 3 (as costs incremental to the No Action Alternative) somewhat higher than estimated in the NPRM analysis, the agencies find that under either the Method A or Method B analyses, AAPC's proposed more gradual progression leading up to MY 2027 would also forego cost-effective improvements which are readily feasible in the lead time provided. Furthermore, the Method A analysis indicates that the standards defining Alternative 3 can likely be met with minimal reliance on hybrid technologies. Considering this, NHTSA also find it unnecessary to extend the lifespan of banked credits or adopt other credit related flexibilities to mitigate the stringency increases under Alternative 3.
Section 202(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act require EPA to establish standards for emissions of pollutants from new motor vehicles and engines which emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, which include GHGs. See Section I.E. above. Under section 202(a)(1) and (2), EPA considers such
As part of the proposed feasibility analysis of potential standards for HD pickups and vans, the agencies applied NHTSA's CAFE Model. The agencies used this model to identify technology pathways that could be used to meet a range of stringencies, based on our projections of technology that will be available in the Phase 2 time frame. The agencies considered these technology pathways and identified the stringency level that will be technology-forcing (
As noted in Section I and discussed further below, the analyses consider two versions of the CAFE model, one updated for the NPRM analysis represented here in Method B, and one further updated for the FRM represented in the Method A analysis described in D immediately preceding this section. The results of both versions are reported relative to two baselines, a flat baseline (designated Alternative 1a) where no improvements are modeled beyond those needed to meet Phase 1 standards and a dynamic baseline (designated Alternative 1b) where certain cost-effective technologies (
For the NPRM, the agencies conducted coordinated and complementary analyses by employing both NHTSA's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model and other analytical tools to project fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts resulting from the Phase 2 standards for HD pickups and vans, against both the flat and dynamic baselines. EPA ran its MOVES model for all HD categories, namely tractors and trailers, vocational vehicles and HD pickups and vans, to develop a consistent set of fuel consumption and CO
As noted earlier, the agencies are adopting as proposed a phase-in schedule of reduction of 2.5 percent per year in fuel consumption and CO
EPA did not estimate the cost of implementing these standards immediately in 2021 without a phase-in, but we qualitatively assessed it to be somewhat higher than the cost of the phase-in we are establishing, due to the workload and product cycle disruptions it could cause, and also due to manufacturers' resulting need to develop some of these technologies for heavy-duty applications sooner than or simultaneously with light-duty development efforts. See 75 FR 25451 (May 7, 2010) (documenting types of drastic cost increases associated with trying to accelerate redesign schedules and concluding that “[w]e believe that it would be an inefficient use of societal resources to incur such costs when they can be obtained much more cost effectively just one year later”). On the other hand, waiting until 2027 before applying any new standards could miss the opportunity to achieve meaningful and cost-effective early reductions not requiring a major product redesign. Comments on the phase-in are discussed in Section B.2. and in the Response to Comments document.
As noted above, at proposal, the agencies requested comment in particular on Alternative 4. EPA is not adopting Alternative 4 due to uncertainty regarding whether or not the potential technologies and market penetration rates included in Alternative 4 would be technologically feasible. Alternative 4 would ultimately reach the same levels of stringency as final Phase 2 standards, but would do so with less lead time. As discussed below, this could require application of both different technologies at higher application rates, neither of which may be feasible (or, at the least, reliable implementable) by MY 2025.
Moreover, the two years of additional lead time provided by the final standards compared to Alternative 4 eases compliance burden by having more vehicle redesigns and lower stringency during the phase-in period. As noted above, historically, the vehicles in this segment are typically only redesigned every 6-10 years, so many of the vehicles may not even be redesigned during the timeframe of the stringency increase. In this case, a manufacturer must either make up for any vehicle that falls short of its target through some combination of early compliance, over compliance, credit carry-forward and carry-back, and
Due to the projected higher technology adoption rates, Alternative 4 is also projected to result in higher costs, and risks of inadequate time to successfully test and integrate new technology, than the standards the agencies are adopting. Moreover, the additional emission reductions and fuel savings predominately occur only during the program phase-in period; from roughly 2030 on, the adopted standards and the pull-ahead alternative are projected to be equivalent from an environmental benefit standpoint. EPA's analysis and responses to comments are discussed in detail below.
In some cases, the Method B (NPRM) version of the model selects strong hybrids as a more cost effective technology over certain other technologies including stop-start and mild hybrid. In other words, strong hybrids are not a technology of last resort in the analysis. Alternative 4 is projected to be met using a significantly higher degree of hybridization including the use of more strong hybrids, compared to the standards the agencies are finalizing. In order to comply with a 3.5 percent per year increase in stringency over MYs 2021-2025, Method B modeling projects that manufacturers would need to adopt more technology compared to the 2.5 percent per year increase in stringency over MYs 2021-2027. The two years of additional lead time provided by the Phase 2 standards reduces the potential number of strong hybrids projected to be used by allowing for other more cost effective technologies to be more fully utilized across the fleet. EPA believes it is technologically feasible to apply this projected amount of hybridization to HD pickups and vans in the lead time provided (
Additionally, EPA recognizes that sufficient engine horsepower and torque needed to meet towing objectives which are important to pickup truck buyers and accordingly the analysis does not down-size engines in conjunction with hybridization. See Section VI.C.4.iv above. Therefore, with no change projected for engine size, the strong hybrid costs do not include costs for engine changes. In light-duty, the use of smaller engines has an associated cost saving which facilitates much of a hybrid's cost-effectiveness. Section E.2 discusses these issues further, and explains further that the results of the updated CAFE model used in Method A are consistent with these conclusions.
Due to these considerations in the NPRM and in the current Method B analysis, EPA has conducted a sensitivity analysis using the Method B version of the model that assumes the use of no strong hybrids. The results of the analysis are also discussed below. The analysis indicates that there will be a technology pathway that will allow manufacturers to meet the final standards without the use of strong hybrids. However, the analysis indicates that costs will be higher and the cost effectiveness will be lower under the no strong hybrid approach.
EPA also analyzed less stringent standards under which manufacturers could comply by deploying a more limited set of technologies than are needed to meet the Phase 2 standards being adopted. However, our assessment concluded with a high degree of confidence that the technologies on which the final Phase 2 standards are premised will be available at reasonable cost in the 2021-2027 timeframe, and that the phase-in and other flexibility provisions allow for their application in a very cost-effective manner, as discussed in this section below. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate (within the meaning of CAA section 202(a)(1) and (2)) to adopt standards of lesser stringency.
More difficult to characterize is the degree to which more or less stringent standards might be appropriate because of under- or over-estimating the costs or effectiveness of the technologies whose performance is the basis of the Phase 2 standards. For the most part, these technologies have not yet been applied to HD pickups and vans, even on a limited basis. EPA is therefore relying to some degree on engineering judgment in predicting their effectiveness. Even so, we believe that we have applied this judgment using the best information available, primarily from a NHTSA contracted study at SwRI
Table VI-27 below shows projected technology adoption rates for both the final Phase 2 standards and for a two-year pull ahead of those standards (
As discussed earlier, EPA also conducted a sensitivity analysis using the Method B version of the model to determine a compliance pathway where no strong hybrids would be utilized. Although EPA in this Method B analysis, projects that strong hybrids may be the most cost effective approach, manufacturers may select another compliance path, mainly a 20 percent penetration rate of mild hybrids. This no strong hybrid analysis included the use of downsized turbocharged engines in vans currently equipped with large V-8 engines. Turbo-downsized engines were not allowed on 6+ liter gasoline vans in the primary analysis because EPA sought to preserve consumer choice with respect to vans that have large V-8s for towing. However, given the recent introduction of vans with considerable towing capacity and turbo-downsized engines, EPA believes it will be feasible for vans in the time-frame of these final rules. The tables below reflect the difference in predicted penetration rates of technologies if strong hybridization is not chosen as a technology pathway. For simplicity, pickup trucks and vans are combined into a single industry wide penetration rate.
The table also shows that when strong hybrids are used as a pathway to compliance, penetration rates of all hybrid technologies would increase substantially between the Phase 2 standards and Alternative 4. The analysis predicts an increase in strong hybrid penetration from 8 percent to 12 percent, a 23 percent penetration of mild hybrids and a 10 percent penetration stop/start engine systems for Alternative 4 compared with the Phase 2 standards (hence much of the increased projected cost between these options, as explained below). Also, by having the final standards apply in MY 2027 instead of MY 2025, the rule is not premised on use of any mild hybrids or stop/start engine systems. This analysis shows that the few years of additional lead time provided by the Phase 2 standards allows manufacturer's important flexibility in choosing a mix of technologies that is best suited for this market.
The tables Table VI-29 and Table VI-30 below provide a further breakdown of projected technology adoption rates specifically for gasoline-fueled pickups and vans which shows potential adoption rates of strong hybrids for each vehicle type. Strong hybrids are not projected to be used in diesel applications. The Alternative 4 analysis shows the use of strong hybrids in up to 48 percent of gasoline pickups, depending on the mix of strong and mild hybrids, and stop/start engine systems in 20 percent of gasoline pickups (the largest gasoline HD segment). It is important to again note that this analysis only shows one pathway to compliance, and the manufacturers may make other decisions,
EPA projects a compliance path for these standards showing aggressive implementation of technologies that the agencies consider to be available in the time frame of these rules. See Section VI.C.4. Under this approach, manufacturers are expected to implement these technologies at aggressive adoption rates on essentially all vehicles across this sector by 2027 model year. In the case of several of these technologies, adoption rates are projected to approach 100 percent. This includes a combination of engine, transmission and vehicle technologies as described in this section across every vehicle. The standard also is premised on less aggressive penetration of particular advanced technologies, including strong hybrid electric vehicles.
EPA projects the Phase 2 standards to be achievable within known design cycles, and we believe these standards will allow different paths to compliance in addition to the one we outline and cost here. As discussed below and throughout this analysis, our rule places a high value on the assurance of in use reliability and market acceptance of new technology, particularly in initial model years of the program.
The NPRM analysis did not predict substantial amounts of technology being added before the start of the MY 2021 standards, and in particular, did not project that there would be substantial additions of more advanced technologies in any redesign cycles occurring before MY 2021. This continues to appear to be a reasonable assumption, since substantial lead time is typically required to develop and implement these advanced technologies. Indeed, as the previous discussion shows (and as discussed again in responding to comments later in this section), it is important to provide two additional years of lead time between MY 2025 and 2027. More recent modeling used to update the NHTSA Method A analysis as described in Section C above allows for technology implementation in pre-2021 model years to both meet the final Phase 1 standards in MY 2018 and to also begin to introduce advanced technologies that will eventually be needed in order to meet the Phase 2 standards. EPA considered this more recent modeling approach with earlier redesign cycles and technology implementation and agrees with NHTSA that this modelling shows that there would be insufficient lead time to adopt the technologies to satisfy the compliance path modelled for Alternatives 4 and 5 in the Method A analysis. See Section VI.D.4 above.
As discussed above, the agencies sought comment on the feasibility and costs associated with the standards being finalized and also on alternative standards. In particular, the agencies sought comment on Alternative 4, which is based on a year-over-year increase in stringency of 3.5 percent in MYs 2021-2025, essentially pulling ahead the alternative 3 standard stringency by two model years. The agencies received several comments in support of more stringent standards. Several NGOs commented that more stringent standards than proposed are feasible through the additional application of technology and that the standards should more closely align with standards established for light-duty trucks. UCS commented that gasoline vehicles could achieve up to a 23.6 percent improvement in MY 2027 while diesel vehicles can achieve an 18 percent improvement. ACEEE similarly recommended increasing the stringency by 7 percent in MY 2027 and that standards should reflect increased use of cylinder deactivation, cooled EGR, and GDI and turbo downsizing in pickups. For diesels, ACEEE commented that additional reductions were possible, based on an estimate of 10 percent penetration of engine downsizing for pickups and 30 percent penetration for vans in 2027, and also assuming 6 percent penetration of hybrids in diesel vans. ICCT commented that the proposed standards represent only a 2.2 and 1.6 percent year-over-year improvement for the gasoline and diesel fleets, respectively, from MYs 2014-2025 compared to an almost 3 percent per year improvement for light-duty trucks in the same time frame. ICCT recommended that the agencies' analysis incorporate the full analysis
The agencies also received comments that any gap between fuel economy requirements for LD and HD pickups for which there is no engineering rationale could produce distortions in the pickup market, shifting sales toward the heavier vehicles. The Center for Biological Diversity similarly commented that closing the gap between large light-duty and heavy-duty pickups and vans is crucial because the overlap in many characteristics allows manufacturers to essentially choose to classify a pickup as “heavy duty” to avoid the more stringent requirements for “light duty” pickups through minor adjustments to the vehicle.
CARB staff commented in support of Alternative 4, commenting that Alternative 4 is technologically feasible, cost-effective and superior to Alternative 3. CARB noted that the Alternative 4 adds only three to 8 months to the payback period. CARB also commented that Alternative 4 remains significantly less stringent than the light-duty truck standards. CARB further commented that Alternative 4 would result in greater emissions and societal benefits than Alternative 3.
The agencies also received several comments opposing setting standards more stringent than those proposed, although none of these commenters opposed the actual proposal. AAPC commented that proposals for greater stringency than Alternative 3 are not supportable given the required early introduction of unproven technologies with their (purportedly) associated consumer acceptance risk, as well as the many implicit risks that impact stringency. AAPC commented that, in their view, the proposed standards are aggressive and will challenge industry. AAPC noted that the baseline fleet (which is over 50 percent diesel) includes a high percentage of advanced diesel technology such as SCR, making additional improvements more challenging. AAPC also noted that Phase 2 technologies are being used today. For example, FCA's modern gasoline engine has robust combustion with multiple spark plugs, variable cam phasing, cylinder deactivation, and cooled EGR. AAPC commented that even with this level of gasoline engine technology, FCA is challenged by the early year Phase 1 standards and will need to look at adding even more technology for Phase 2. AAPC also provided data showing that while smaller displacement boosted gasoline engine technology may be applicable in some variants of commercial vans, this technology is not suited for the pickup truck variants in this segment because of customer demands for towing capability. AAPC commented that concurrent stringency increases in Tier 3/LEV III criteria emission requirements will negatively impact CO
GM commented that any attempt to force more stringent regulations than proposed, such as Alternative 4, would be extremely detrimental to manufacturers, consumers, the U.S. economy, and the millions of transportation-related jobs. Daimler similarly commented that the proposed standards would be a challenge for automotive manufacturers. According to the commenter, under certain conditions, a more stringent standard than proposed may necessitate hybridization of the affected vehicle fleet, which would require substantial development and material costs. Daimler recommends that EPA adopt the proposed standard over Alternative 4, as the additional two years of lead-time will be critical for automotive manufacturers in developing the necessary technologies to achieve compliance. Nissan commented that Alternative 4 at 3.5 percent per year stringency level is simply not feasible, as it does not provide the necessary lead-time to enable manufacturers to balance competitive market constraints with the cost of applying new technologies to a limited product offering. Nissan further commented that to the extent that the more stringent alternative is predicated on the adoption of hybrid and electric powertrain technology, Nissan does not believe that such technology is feasible for this market segment.
After considering the comments, EPA believes that the Phase 2 final standards that the agencies are adopting represent the most stringent standards reasonably achievable within the MY 2021-2027 period. The standards are based largely on the same technologies projected to be used in the light-duty fleet with appropriate adjustments for the heavy-duty fleet because of their specific higher load duty cycles. As shown in the tables 28 and 29 above and repeated below, several technologies are projected to be used at very high adoption rates at or near 100 percent including mass reduction, 8-speed transmissions, engine friction reduction, low rolling resistant tires, improved accessories, and aerodynamic drag reductions. For gasoline engines, some commenters noted that downsize turbo engines which are projected to be used extensively in light-duty vehicles should also be relied on in the heavy-duty analysis, including for HD pickups. As discussed in VI.C.4.vii above, the agencies agree with the comments provided by AAPC that turbo downsizing is likely to be counter-productive in heavy-duty pickups. EPA (and NHTSA in the Method A analysis) thus is projecting the use of downsized turbo engines only for vans. Under heavy loads, turbo downsized engines may have higher CO
EPA also remains concerned about projecting standards predicated on high levels of hybridization in the heavy-duty pickup and van fleet. Many heavy duty applications need maximum payload and cargo volume which may compete with weight increases and lost cargo volume from hybridization, directly reducing the capability and therefore work factor of the vehicle. Additionally, it is likely not feasible to size a hybridization system to be effective for any high or maximum payload or towing operation without changing the utility of the vehicle. A manufacturer choosing to hybridize a heavy duty vehicle would likely target vans that are primarily used for cargo volumetric capacity reasons where a reasonably sized hybrid system could be incorporated and be effective under typical operation. EPA believes that the final Phase 2 standards will drive the orderly use of technology while still providing enough lead time that manufacturers could meet the standards using technology paths other than high penetration rates of strong hybrids. Thus, the gap in stringency between
The proposed rule discussed several considerations that EPA believes remain valid. The NPRM projected that the higher rate of increase in stringency associated with Alternative 4 and the shorter lead time would necessitate the use of a different technology mix under Alternative 4 compared to the Phase 2 standards that the agencies are adopting. The Phase 2 standards are projected to achieve the same final stringency increase as Alternative 4 at about 80 percent of the average per-vehicle cost increase, and without the expected deployment of more advanced technology at high penetration levels. In particular, under EPA's primary analysis, which does not constrain the use of strong hybrids, manufacturers are estimated to deploy strong hybrids in approximately 8 percent of new vehicles (in MY 2027) under the Phase 2 standards, compared to 12 percent under Alternative 4 (in MY 2025). Less aggressive electrification technologies also appear on 33 percent of new vehicles simulated to be produced in MY 2027 under Alternative 4, but are not projected to be necessary under the Phase 2 standards. Additionally, it is important to note that due to the shorter lead time of Alternative 4, there are fewer vehicle refreshes and redesigns during the phase-in period of MY 2021-2025. The longer, shallower phase-in of advanced technologies in the standards that the agencies are adopting allows for more compliance flexibility and closer matching with the vehicle redesign cycles, which (as noted above) can be up to ten years for HD vans. While the Method B CAFE model's algorithm accounts for manufacturers' consideration of upcoming stringency changes and credit carry-forward, the steeper ramp-up of the standard in Alternative 4, coupled with the five-year credit life, results in a prediction that manufacturers would need to take less cost-effective means to comply with the standards compared with the final phase-in period of MY 2021-2027. The public comments from industry commenters confirmed that this is a realistic prediction. For example, the Method B model predicts that some manufacturers will not implement any amount of strong hybrids on their vans during the 2021-2025 timeframe and instead will implement less effective technologies such as mild hybrids at higher penetration rates. There is also a high degree of sensitivity to the estimated effectiveness levels of individual technologies. At high penetration rates of all technologies on a vehicle, the result of a reduced effectiveness of even a single technology could be non-compliance with the standards. If the standards do not account for this uncertainty, there will be a real possibility that a manufacturer who followed the exact technology path we project will not meet their target because a technology performed slightly differently in their application. In this Method B analysis, EPA considered all comments regarding Alternative 4 and concluded that the longer lead time provided by the Phase 2 standards that the agencies are adopting is necessary as it better matches the redesign cycles for vehicles in this market segment and provides the time necessary for manufacturers to more fully utilize a range of technologies best suited for this market segment. These technologies are projected to be available within the lead time provided under the Phase 2 standards—
The tables above show that many technologies will be at or potentially approach 100 percent adoption rates according to the analysis. If certain technologies turn out to be not well suited for certain vehicle models or less effective that projected, other technology pathways will be needed. The additional lead time provided by the Phase 2 standards reduces these concerns because manufacturers will have more flexibility to implement their compliance strategy and are more likely to do so within a product redesign cycle necessary for many new technologies to be implemented.
The agencies also received comments that the standards should be based exclusively on the GHG capabilities of diesel vehicles. The commenters viewed the separate gasoline and diesel standards as preferential treatment of gasoline-powered vehicles which have inherently higher GHG and fuel consumption. As discussed in Section B.1, the agencies are maintaining the separate gasoline and diesel standards for heavy duty pickups and vans. As discussed earlier, diesel engines are fundamentally more efficient than gasoline engines providing the same power (even gasoline engines with the technologies discussed above) while using less fuel. However, dieselization is not a technology path the agencies included in the analysis for the Phase 1 rule or the Phase 2 rules. Gasoline-powered vehicles account for nearly half of the heavy-duty pickup and van market and are used in applications where a diesel may not make sense from a cost or consumer choice standpoint. Commenters did not address the costs of extensive dieselization.
More stringent standards, including Alternative 4, could result in manufacturers switching from gasoline engines to diesel engines in certain challenging segments. While technologically feasible, EPA remains concerned that this pathway could cause a distortion in consumer choices and significantly increase the cost of those vehicles, particularly considering that more stringent standards are projected to require penetration of some form of hybridization. Also, the agencies did not consider the impact dieselization would have on lead-time, as shifting nearly half the market from gasoline to diesel engines would require substantial retooling of production. Commenters also did not account for the costs or address the feasibility of such retooling in the lead time available under either Phase 2 or Alternative 4. In addition, if dieselization occurs by manufacturers equipping vehicles with larger diesel engines designed for broad coverage of applications typical of this sector rather than “right-sized” engines, the towing capability of the vehicles could increase, resulting in higher work factors for the vehicles, higher targets, and reduced program benefits. Bosch commented that holding gasoline vehicles to the same GHG standards as
Based on the information presented here in this Method B analysis, EPA believes that the Phase 2 standards the agencies are finalizing are appropriate within the meaning of CAA section 202(a)(1), for this segment for the model years in question. EPA believes the standards reflect a reasonable consideration of the statutory factors of technology effectiveness, feasibility, cost, lead time, and safety for purposes of CAA sections 202(a)(1) and (2). The standards are appropriately technology-forcing, predicated on performance of technologies not only currently deployed but those which reasonably can be developed during the phase in period. EPA has indicated how technologies not currently deployed in this sector can be reliably commercialized in the lead time provided by the standard. See above and RIA Chapter 2.5 “Technology Application” where the individual technologies available during the phase-in are described in detail. Note that advanced technologies like strong hybridization will require several years of development prior to commercialization to meet required reliability and durability goals in this sector. As noted, the Method B analysis projects that the additional lead-time provided by the Phase 2 standards allows for the implement CO
EPA has also carefully considered the costs of the standards. The technologies associated with meeting the Phase 2 standards are estimated to add costs to heavy-duty pickups and vans as shown in Table VI-31 for the flat baseline. These costs are the average fleet-wide incremental vehicle costs relative to a vehicle meeting the MY 2018 standard in each of the model years shown. Reductions associated with these costs and technologies are considerable, estimated at a 16 percent reduction of fuel consumption and CO
Consistent with EPA's authority under 42 U.S.C. 7521(a) and based on its Method B analysis, EPA is thus finalizing the Phase 2 standards as proposed.
The analysis fleet provides a starting point for estimating the extent to which manufacturers might add fuel-saving (and, therefore, CO
While the Phase 2 standards are scheduled to begin in model year 2021, the requirements they define are likely to influence manufacturers' planning decisions several years in advance. This is true in light-duty planning, and is accentuated by the comparatively long redesign cycles and small number of models and platforms offered for sale in the 2b/3 market segment. Additionally, manufacturers will respond to the cost and efficacy of available fuel consumption improvements, the price of fuel, and the requirements of the Phase 1 standards that specify maximum allowable average fuel consumption and GHG levels for MY 2014-MY 2018 HD pickups and vans (the final standard for MY 2018 is held constant for model years 2019 and
As Table VI-32 shows, the industry as a whole is expected to add about $440 of new technology to each new vehicle model by 2021 under the no-action alternative defined by the Phase 1 standards. Reflecting differences in projected product offerings in the analysis fleet, some manufacturers (notably Daimler) are significantly less constrained by the Phase 1 standards than others and face lower cost increases as a result. General Motors (GM) shows the largest increase in average vehicle cost, but results for GM's closest competitors (Ford and Fiat Chrysler) do not include the costs of their recent van redesigns, which are already present in the analysis fleet (discussed in greater detail below).
The above results reflect the assumption that manufacturers having achieved compliance with standards might act as if buyers are willing to pay for further fuel consumption improvements that “pay back” within 6 months (
The results below represent the impacts of several regulatory alternatives, including those defined by the Phase 2 standards, as incremental changes over the baseline, where the baseline is defined as the state of the world in the absence of this regulatory action (but, of course, including the Phase 1 standards). Large-scale, macroeconomic conditions like fuel prices are constant across all alternatives, including the baseline, as are the fuel economy improvements under the no-action alternative defined by the Phase 1 rule that covers model years 2014-2018 and is constant from model year 2018 through 2020. In the baseline scenario, the Phase 1 standards are assumed to remain in place and at 2018 levels throughout the analysis (
The standards vary in stringency across regulatory alternatives (1-5), but as discussed above, all of the standards are based on the curve developed in the Phase 1 standards that relate fuel economy and GHG emissions to a vehicle's work factor. The alternatives considered here represent different rates of annual increase in the curve defined for model year 2018, growing from a 0 percent annual increase (Alternative 1, the baseline or “no-action” alternative) up to a 4 percent annual increase (Alternative 5). Table VI-34 shows a summary
The technologies applied as inputs to the CAFE model (in either its Method B or A iterations) have been grouped (in most cases) to give readers a general sense of which types of technology are applied more frequently than others, and are more likely to be offered in new class 2b/3 vehicles once manufacturers are fully compliant with the standards in the alternative. Model year 2030 was chosen to account for technology application that occurs once the standards have stabilized, but manufacturers are still redesigning products to achieve compliance—generating technology costs and benefits in those model years. The summaries of technology penetration are also intended to reflect the relationship between technology application and cost increases across the alternatives. The table rows present the degree to which specific technologies are predicted to be present in new class 2b and class 3 vehicles in 2030, and correspond to: Variable valve timing (VVT) and/or variable valve lift (VVL), cylinder deactivation, direct injection, engine turbocharging, 8-speed automatic transmissions, electric power-steering and accessory improvements, micro-hybridization (which reduces engine idle, but does not assist propulsion), full hybridization (integrated starter generator or strong hybrid that assists propulsion and recaptures braking energy), and aerodynamic improvements to the vehicle shape. In addition to the technologies in the following tables, there are some lower-complexity technologies that have high market penetration across all the alternatives and manufacturers; low rolling-resistance tires, low friction lubricants, and reduced engine friction are examples.
In general, as stated above, the Method B model projected that the standards will cause manufacturers to produce HD pickups and vans that are lighter, more aerodynamic, and more technologically complex across all the alternatives. As Table VI-34 shows, there is a difference between the relatively small increases in required fuel economy and average incremental technology cost between the alternatives, suggesting that the challenge of improving fuel consumption and CO
The contrast between alternatives 3 and 4 is even more prominent, with an identical required fuel economy improvement projected to lead to price increases greater than 20 percent based on the more rapid rate of increase and shorter time span of Alternative 4, which achieves all of its increases by MY 2025 while Alternative 3 continues to increase at a slower rate until MY 2027. Despite these differences, the increase in average payback period when moving from Alternative 3 to Alternative 4 to Alternative 5 is fairly constant at around an additional three months for each jump in stringency.
Manufacturers offer few models, typically only a pickup truck and/or a cargo van, and while there are a large number of variants of each model, the degree of component sharing across the variants can make diversified technology application either economically impractical or impossible. This forces manufacturers to apply some technologies more broadly in order to achieve compliance than they might do in other market segments (passenger cars, for example). This difference between broad and narrow application—where some technologies must be applied to entire platforms, while some can be applied to individual model variants—also explains why certain technology penetration rates decrease between alternatives of increasing stringency (cylinder deactivation or mass reductions in Table VI-34, for example). For those cases, narrowly applying a more advanced (and costly) technology can be a more cost effective path to compliance and lead to reductions in the amount of
As noted in Section E.1 above, one driver of the change in technology cost between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 in the Method B analysis is the amount of hybridization projected to result from the implementation of the standards. While only about 5 percent full hybridization (defined as either integrated starter-generator or strong hybrid) is expected to be needed to comply with Alternative 3, the higher rate of increase and compressed schedule moving from Alternative 3 to Alternative 4 is enough to increase the percentage of the fleet adopting full hybridization by a factor of two. To the extent that manufacturers are concerned about introducing hybrid vehicles in the 2b and 3 market, it is worth noting that new vehicles subject to Alternative 3 achieve the same fuel economy as new vehicle subject to Alternative 4 by 2030, with less full hybridization projected under this Method B analysis as being needed to achieve the improvement.
The alternatives also lead to important differences in outcomes at the manufacturer level, both from the industry average and from each other. General Motors, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler, are expected to have approximately 95 percent of the 2b/3 new vehicle market during the years that these standards are being phased in. Due to their importance to this market and the similarities between their model offerings, these three manufacturers are discussed together and a summary of the way each is impacted by the standards appears below in Table VI-35, Table VI-36 and Table VI-37 for General Motors, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler, respectively.
The fuel consumption and GHG standards require manufacturers to achieve an average level of compliance, represented by a sales-weighted average across the specific targets of all vehicles offered for sale in a given model year, such that each manufacturer will have a unique required consumption/emissions level determined by the composition of its fleet, as illustrated above. However, there are more interesting differences than the small differences in required fuel economy levels among manufacturers. In particular, the average incremental technology cost increases with the stringency of the alternative for each manufacturer, but the size of the cost increase from one alternative to the next varies among them, with General Motors showing considerably larger increases in cost moving from Alternative 3 to Alternative 4, than from either Alternative 2 to Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 to Alternative 5. Ford is estimated to have more uniform cost increases from each alternative to the next, in increasing stringency, though still benefits from the reduced pace and longer period of increase associated with Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 4.
The Method B simulation results show all three manufacturers facing cost increases when the stringency of the standards move from 2.5 percent annual increases over the period from MY 2021-2027 to 3.5 percent annual increases from MY 2021-2025, but General Motors has the largest at 75 percent more than the industry average price increase for Alternative 4. GM also faces higher cost increases in Alternative 2 about 50 percent more than either Ford or Fiat Chrysler. And for the most stringent alternative considered, EPA estimates that General Motors will face average cost increases of more than $2,700, in addition to the more than $700 increase in the baseline—approaching nearly $3,500 per vehicle over today's prices.
Technology choices also differ by manufacturer, and some of those decisions are directly responsible for the largest cost discrepancies. For example, in this Method B analysis, GM is estimated to engage in the least amount of mass reduction among the Big 3 after Phase 1, and much less than Fiat Chrysler, but reduces average vehicle mass by over 300 lbs. in the baseline—suggesting that some of GM's easiest Phase 1 compliance opportunities can be found in lightweighting technologies. Similarly, Fiat Chrysler is projected to apply less hybridization than the others, and much less than General Motors, which is simulated in Alternative 4 to have full hybrids (either integrated starter generator or complete hybrid system) on all of its fleet by 2030, nearly 20 percent of which will be strong hybrids, and the strong hybrid share decreases to about 18 percent in Alternative 5, as some lower level technologies are applied more broadly. Because the analysis applies the same technology inputs and the same logic for selecting among available opportunities to apply technology, the unique situation of each manufacturer determined which technology path is projected as the most cost-effective.
In order to understand the differences in incremental technology costs and fuel economy achievement across manufacturers in this market segment, it is important to understand the differences in their starting position relative to these standards. One important factor, made more obvious in the following figures, is the difference between the fuel economy and performance of the recently redesigned vans offered by Fiat Chrysler and Ford (the Promaster and Transit, respectively), and the more traditionally-styled vans that continue to be offered by General Motors (the Express/Savannah). In MY 2014, Ford began the phase-out of the Econoline van platform, moving those volumes to the Euro-style Transit vans (discussed in more detail in Section VI.D.2). The Transit platform represents a significant improvement over the existing Econoline platform from the perspective of fuel economy, and for the purpose of complying with the standards, the relationship between the Transit's work factor and fuel economy is a more favorable one than the Econoline vans it replaces. Since the redesign of van offerings from both Fiat Chrysler and Ford occur in (or prior to) the 2014 model year, the costs, fuel consumption improvements, and reductions of vehicle mass associated with those redesigns are included in the analysis fleet, meaning they are not carried forward as part of the compliance modeling exercise. By contrast, General Motors is simulated to redesign their van offerings after 2014, such that there is a greater potential for these vehicles to incur additional costs attributable to new standards, unlike the costs associated with the recent redesigns of their competitors. The inclusion of these new Ford and Fiat Chrysler products in the analysis fleet is the primary driver of the cost discrepancy between GM and its competitors in both the baseline and Alternative 2 in this Method B analysis, when Ford and Fiat Chrysler have to apply considerably less technology to achieve compliance.
The remaining 5 percent of the 2b/3 market is attributed to two manufacturers, Daimler and Nissan,
As Table VI-38 and Table VI-39 show, Nissan is projected to apply more technology than Daimler in the less stringent alternatives and significantly more technology with increasing stringency. The Euro-style Sprinter vans that comprise all of Daimler's model offerings in this segment put Daimler in a favorable position. However, those vans are already advanced—containing downsized diesel engines and advanced aerodynamic profiles. Much like the Ford Transit vans, the recent improvements to the Sprinter vans occurred outside the scope of the compliance modeling so the costs of the improvements are not captured in the analysis.
Although Daimler's required fuel economy level is much higher than Nissan's (in miles per gallon), Nissan starts from a much weaker position than Daimler and must incorporate additional engine, transmission, platform-level technologies (
While the model does not allow sales volumes for any manufacturer (or model) to vary across regulatory alternatives in the analysis, it is conceivable that under the most stringent alternatives individual manufacturers could lose market share to their competitors if the prices of their new vehicles rise more than the industry average without compensating fuel savings and/or changes to other features.
The Phase 1 program established substantial flexibility in how manufacturers can choose to implement EPA and NHTSA standards while preserving the benefits for the environment and for energy consumption and security. Primary among these flexibilities are the gradual phase-in schedule, and the corporate fleet average approach which encompasses averaging, banking and trading described below. See Section IV.A. of the Phase 1 Preamble (76 FR 57238) for additional discussion of the Phase 1 averaging, banking, and trading and Section IV.A (3) of the Phase 1 Preamble (76 FR 57243) for a discussion of the credit calculation methodology.
Manufacturers in this category typically offer gasoline and diesel versions of HD pickup and van vehicle models. The agencies established chassis-based Phase 1 standards that are equivalent in terms of stringency for gasoline and diesel vehicles and are continuing this same approach to stringency for Phase 2. In Phase 1, the agencies established that HD pickups and vans are treated as one large averaging set that includes both gasoline and diesel vehicles
As explained in Section II.C.(3) of the Phase 1 Preamble (76 FR 57167), and in Section VI.B (3) above, the program is structured so that final compliance is determined at the end of each model year, when production for the model year is complete. At that point, each manufacturer calculates production-weighted fleet average CO
A manufacturer whose fleet generates credits in a given model year will have several options for using those credits to offset emissions from other HD pickups and vans. These options include credit carry-back, credit carry-forward, and credit trading within the HD pickup and van averaging set. These types of credit provisions also exist in the light-duty 2012-2016 and 2017-2025 MY vehicle rules, as well as many other mobile source standards issued by EPA under the CAA. The manufacturer will be able to carry back credits to offset a deficit that had accrued in a prior model year and was subsequently carried over to the current model year, with a limitation on the carry-back of credits to three model years. After satisfying any need to offset pre-existing deficits, a manufacturer may bank remaining credits for use in future years, with a limitation on the carry-forward of credits to five model years. Averaging vehicle credits with engine credits or between vehicle weight classes is not allowed, as discussed in Section I. The agencies did not propose and are not adopting any changes to any of these provisions for the Phase 2 program.
While the agencies proposed to retain 5 year carry-forward of credits for all HD sectors, the agencies requested comment on the merits of a temporary credit carry-forward period of longer than 5 years for HD pickups and vans, allowing Phase 1 credits generated in MYs 2014-2019 to be used through MY 2027. 80 FR 40388. The agencies received several comments regarding credit carry-forward. AAPC commented that manufacturers should be allowed to carry-forward credits indefinitely until they are used to offset a deficit. AAPC commented that longer credit life batter aligns with the longer redesign cycles and the smaller production volumes for HD vehicles compared to light-duty vehicles. AAPC also commented that longer credit life would motivate earlier introduction of technology and lower compliance costs, while not changing the overall effectiveness of the program. Nissan and Daimler commented in support of a one-time credit carry-forward that would allow Phase 1 credits to be used through MY 2027. The UAW also generally supported extended credit carry-forward. The agencies also received comments from CARB that the agencies should not allow Phase 1 credits to be carried forward into Phase 2. CARB commented that Phase 1 credits should be limited to a three year carry-forward or MY 2020 whichever is sooner. CARB is concerned that Phase 1 credits may reduce the efficacy of the Phase 2 program and delay technology development progress.
As noted above, the agencies are retaining the 5 year credit carry-forward provisions as proposed for HD pickups and vans. As discussed in Section VI.C., the agencies believe that the standards are feasible without extending the credit carry-forward provisions. The agencies continue to believe that credit carry-forward provides important flexibility to manufacturer especially in transitioning to more stringent standards and restricting the provision could be disruptive to manufacturer product plans. However, the agencies understand CARB's concerns regarding Phase 1 credits being used to postpone technology progress if some manufacturers were to accumulate large credit banks under Phase 1. Large banks of Phase 1 credits combined with unlimited credit-forward could have the unintended effect of allowing some manufacturers to delay the application of Phase 2 technologies. The 5 year credit carry-forward preserves needed flexibility for transitioning to more stringent Phase 2 standards while also helping to address concerns regarding delaying the introduction of technology in Phase 2 for HD pickups and vans. As discussed in Section I.C.(1)(b)(i), the agencies are extending credit life for certain vocational vehicle subcategories during the transition to the Phase 2 standards. We are doing this for two reasons. First, some manufacturers in these in categories do not have diversified production, which limits the extent to which they can use ABT. Second, the Phase 1 program offer little opportunity for manufacturers to build up their credit balances. Neither of these reasons apply for HD pickups and vans.
As discussed in Section VI.B.4., EPA and NHTSA are changing the HD pickup and van useful life for GHG emissions and fuel consumption from the current 11 years/120,000 miles to 15 years/150,000 miles to make the useful life for GHG emissions consistent with the useful life of criteria pollutants recently updated in the Tier 3 rule. As shown in the Equation VI.1 credits calculation formula below, established by the Phase 1 rule, useful life in miles is a multiplicative factor included in the calculation of CO
Manufacturers provided comments in support of applying the adjustment factor discussed above. CARB recommended not including the adjustment factor. CARB commented that the adjustment would take benefits achieved under the Phase 1 program and allow them to be used to reduce the potential benefits of Phase 2 standards. The agencies do not view the 1.25 adjustment as reducing the benefits of the program because the adjustment to the Phase 1 credits is completely offset by the increase in the useful life used in the Phase 2 credits calculation shown above. In other words, when the Phase 1 credits are used in Phase 2, 1.25 times more credits will be needed to cover a deficit than would be needed under
The Phase 1 program included on an interim basis advanced technology credits for MYs 2014 and later in the form of a multiplier of 1.5 for the following technologies:
As discussed in Section I, the agencies requested comment on whether or not the incentive multiplier credits should be extended to later model years for more advanced technologies such as EVs and fuel cell vehicles. These technologies are not projected to be part of the technology path used by manufacturers to meet the Phase 2 standards for HD pickups and vans. EV and fuel cell technologies will presumably need to overcome the highest hurdles to commercialization for HD pickups and vans in the time frame of the final rules, and also have the potential to provide the highest level of benefit. The agencies received several comments encouraging the agencies to continue advanced technology multipliers in Phase 2 for heavy-duty vehicles. After considering these comments, and considering that EV and fuel technologies have the potential for more significant emission reductions and fuel consumption savings than any of the technologies projected to be used for Phase 2 compliance, the agencies are adopting new incentive multipliers for Phase 2 for these technologies for all heavy-duty vehicle sectors. A detailed discussion of these provisions is provided above in Section I.
NHTSA and EPA established that for Phase 1, EVs and other zero tailpipe emission vehicles be factored into the fleet average GHG and fuel consumption calculations based on the diesel standards targets for their model year and work factor. The agencies also established for electric and zero emission vehicles that in the credits equation the actual emissions and fuel consumption performance be set to zero (
The Phase 1 program established an opportunity for manufacturers to generate credits by applying innovative technologies whose CO
EPA and NHTSA requested comment on establishing a pre-defined technology menu list for HD pickups and vans similar to the approach adopted for light-duty vehicles in the MY 2017-2025 rule.
The agencies received comments recommending off-cycle credits for over a dozen technologies. There are three primary reasons that the agencies are not adopting credits for the individual technologies recommended by commenters. In many cases, the analysis provided by commenters did not
The Phase 1 rule established a comprehensive compliance program for HD pickups and vans that NHTSA and EPA are generally retaining for Phase 2. The compliance provisions cover details regarding the implementation of the fleet average standards including vehicle certification, demonstrating compliance at the end of the model year, in-use standards and testing, carryover of certification test data, and reporting requirements. Please see Section V.B.(1) of the Phase 1 rule Preamble (76 FR 57256-57263) for a detailed discussion of these provisions.
The Phase 1 rule contains special provisions regarding loose engines and optional chassis certification of certain vocational vehicles over 14,000 lbs. GVWR. As proposed, the agencies are extending the optional chassis certification provisions to Phase 2 and are providing a temporary loose engine provision for Phase 2 as described in Section V.D.3.e, under Compliance Flexibility Provisions. See the vocational vehicle Section V.D. and XIII.A.2 for a detailed discussion of the rule for optional chassis certification and Section II.D. for the discussion of loose engines.
Given that the purpose of setting these Phase 2 standards is to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, it is necessary for the agencies to analyze the extent to which these standards will accomplish that purpose. This section describes the agencies' methodologies for projecting the reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel consumption and the methodologies the agencies used to quantify the impacts associated with these standards. In addition, EPA's analyses of the projected change in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO
Different tools exist for estimating potential fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts associated with fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards. One such tool is EPA's official mobile source emissions inventory model named Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES).
Since the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA has made certain updates to MOVES in response to the public comments on the proposal: (1) The projections of vehicle sales, populations, and activity in the version used for the final rulemaking were updated to incorporate the latest projections from the U.S. Department of Energy's Annual Energy Outlook 2015 report;
MOVES was run with user input databases, described in more detail below, that reflected the projected technological improvements resulting from the final rules, such as the improvements in engine and vehicle efficiency, aerodynamic drag, and tire rolling resistance. The changes made to
Another such tool is DOT's CAFE model, which estimates how manufacturers could potentially apply technology improvements in response to new standards, and then calculates, among other things, resultant changes in national fuel consumption and GHG emissions. As described in Section VI, two versions of this model were used for analysis of potential new standards for HD pickups and vans. Both versions use the work-based attribute metric of “work factor” established in the Phase 1 rule for heavy-duty pickups and vans instead of the light-duty “footprint” attribute metric. The CAFE model takes user-specified inputs on, among other things, vehicles that are projected to be produced in a given model year, technologies available to improve fuel efficiency on those vehicles, potential regulatory standards that will drive improvements in fuel efficiency, and economic assumptions. The CAFE model takes every vehicle in each manufacturer's fleet and decides what technologies to add to those vehicles in order to allow each manufacturer to comply with the standards in the most cost-effective way. Based on those results, the CAFE model then calculates total fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts based on those inputs, along with economic costs and benefits. The DOT's CAFE model is further described in detail in Section VI of the Preamble and Chapter 10 of the RIA.
For these rules, the agencies used two analytical methods for the heavy-duty pickup and van segment employing both DOT's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model. The agencies used EPA's MOVES model to estimate fuel consumption and emissions impacts for tractor-trailers (including the engine that powers the tractor) and vocational vehicles (including the engine that powers the vehicle).
For heavy-duty pickups and vans, the agencies performed separate analyses, which we refer to as “Method A” and “Method B.” In Method A, a modified version of the CAFE model was used to project a pathway the industry could use to comply with each regulatory alternative and the estimated effects on fuel consumption, emissions, benefits and costs. In Method B, the MOVES model was used to estimate fuel consumption and emissions from these vehicles. NHTSA considered Method A as its central analysis. EPA considered the results of Method B as its central analysis. The agencies concluded that these methods led the agencies to the same conclusions and the same selection of the final standards. See Chapter 5 of the RIA for additional discussions of these two methods.
For both methods, the agencies analyzed the impact of the final rules, relative to two different reference cases—“flat” (Alternative 1a) and “dynamic” (Alternative 1b). The flat baseline projects very little improvement in new vehicles in the absence of new Phase 2 standards. In contrast, the dynamic baseline projects more improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency in the absence of new Phase 2 standards. The agencies considered both reference cases (for additional details, see Chapter 11 of the RIA). The results for all of the regulatory alternatives relative to both reference cases, derived via the same methodologies discussed in this section, are presented in Section X of the Preamble.
For brevity, a subset of these analyses are presented in this section, and the reader is referred to both Chapter 11 of the RIA and NHTSA's FEIS Chapters 3, 4 and 5 for complete sets of these analyses. In this section, Method A is presented for the final standards (
Because reducing fuel consumption also affects emissions that occur as a result of fuel production and distribution (including renewable fuels), the agencies also calculated those “upstream” changes using the “downstream” fuel consumption reductions predicted by the CAFE model (in “Method A”) and the MOVES model (in “Method B”). As described in Section VI, Method A uses the CAFE model to estimate vehicular fuel consumption and emissions impacts only for HD pickups and vans and to calculate upstream impacts. For vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers, both Method A and Method B use the same upstream tools originally created for the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) rulemaking analysis,
The agencies analyzed the anticipated emissions impacts of the final rules on carbon dioxide (CO
The following sections describe the model inputs and assumptions for both the flat and dynamic reference cases and the control case representing the agencies' final fuel efficiency and GHG standards. The details of all the MOVES runs and input data tables, as well as the MOVES code and database, can be found in the docket.
The flat reference case (identified as Alternative 1a in Section X), includes the impact of Phase 1, but assumes that fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards are not improved beyond the required 2018 model year levels. Alternative 1a functions as one of the baselines against which the impacts of the final standards can be evaluated. The MOVES2014a default road load parameters and energy rates were used for the vocational vehicles and HD pickups and vans for this alternative because we assumed no market-driven improvements in fuel efficiency. The tractor-trailer road load parameters were changed from the MOVES2014a default values to account for projected improvements in the efficiency of the box trailers pulled by combination tractors due to increased penetration of aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires attributed to both EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership and California Air Resources Board's Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas regulation, as described in Section IV of the Preamble. We maintained the same road load inputs for tractor-trailers for 2018 and beyond. The flat reference case assumed the growth in vehicle populations and miles traveled based on the relative annual VMT growth from AEO2015 Final Release for model years 2014 and later.
The dynamic reference case (identified as Alternative 1b in Section X) also includes the impact of Phase 1 and generally assumes that fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards are not improved beyond the required 2018 model year levels. However, for this case, the agencies assume market forces will lead to additional fuel efficiency improvements for HD pickups and vans and tractor-trailers. These additional assumed improvements are described in Section X of the Preamble. No additional fuel efficiency improvements due to market forces were assumed for vocational vehicles. For HD pickups and vans, the agencies applied the CAFE model using the input assumption that manufacturers having achieved compliance with Phase 1 standards will continue to apply technologies for which increased purchase costs will be “paid back” through corresponding fuel savings within the first six months of vehicle operation. The agencies conducted the MOVES analysis of this case in the same manner as for the flat reference case.
The “control” case represents the agencies' final fuel efficiency and GHG standards. The agencies developed additional user input data for MOVES runs to estimate the control case inventories. The inputs to MOVES for the control case account for improvements of engine and vehicle efficiency in vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers. The agencies used the percent reduction in aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance coefficients and absolute changes in average total running weight (gross combined weight) expected from the final rules to develop the road load inputs for the control case, based on the GEM analysis. The agencies developed energy inputs for the control case runs using the percent reduction in CO
Table VII-1 and Table VII-2 describe the improvements in engine and vehicle efficiency from the final rules for each affected model year for vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers that were input into MOVES for estimating the control case emissions inventories. Additional details regarding the MOVES inputs are included in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
In addition, the CO
To account for the potential increase in vehicle use expected to result from improvements in fuel efficiency for vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers due to the final rules (also known as the “rebound effect” and described in more detail in Section IX.E of the Preamble), the control case assumed an increase in VMT from the reference levels by 0.30 percent for the vocational vehicles and 0.75 percent for the combination tractor-trailers.
As explained above and as also discussed in the RIA, the agencies used both DOT's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model, for Method A and B, respectively, to project fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts resulting from these standards for HD pickups and vans, including downstream vehicular emissions as well as emissions from upstream processes related to fuel production, distribution, and delivery.
For Method A, the agencies used the CAFE model which applies fuel properties (density and carbon content) to estimated fuel consumption in order to calculate vehicular CO
As discussed above in Section VI, the standards for HD pickups and vans increase in stringency by 2.5 percent annually during model years 2021-2027. The standards define targets specific to each vehicle model, but no individual vehicle is required to meet its target; instead, the production-weighted averages of the vehicle-specific targets define average fuel consumption and CO
The following four tables present stringency increases and estimated required and achieved fuel consumption and CO
The NPRM analysis suggested that both the achieved and required fuel consumption and CO
While the above tables show the agencies' estimates of average fuel consumption and CO
For Method B, the MOVES model was used to estimate fuel consumption and GHG emissions for HD pickups and vans. MOVES evaluated these standards for HD pickup trucks and vans in terms of grams of CO
NHTSA and EPA expect significant reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption from the final rules—fuel consumption reductions from more efficient vehicles, emission reductions from both downstream (tailpipe) and upstream (fuel production and distribution) sources, and reduction in HFC emissions from the air conditioning leakage standards (see Section V.B.(2)(c)). The following subsections summarize two different analyses of the annual GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions expected from these final rules, as well as the reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption expected over the lifetime of each heavy-duty vehicle category. Section VII.C.(1) shows the impacts of the final rules on fuel consumption and GHG emissions, using the MOVES model for tractor-trailers and vocational vehicles and the DOT's CAFE model for HD pickups and vans (Method A), relative to two different reference cases—flat and dynamic. Section VII.C.2 shows the impacts of the final standards, relative to the flat reference case only, using the MOVES model for all heavy-duty vehicle categories. NHTSA also analyzes these impacts resulting from the final rules and reasonable alternatives in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of its FEIS.
As described in Section VII.A, for the analysis using Method A, the agencies used MOVES to estimate downstream GHG inventories from the final rules for vocational vehicles and tractor-trailers. For HD pickups and vans, DOT's CAFE model was used.
The following two tables summarize the agencies' estimates of HD pickup and van fuel consumption and GHG emissions under the current standards defining the No-Action and final program, respectively, using Method A. Table VII-9 shows results assuming manufacturers will voluntarily make improvements that pay back within six months (
To more clearly communicate these trends visually, the following two charts present the above results graphically for Method A, relative to Alternative 1b. As shown, fuel consumption and GHG emissions follow parallel though not precisely identical paths. Though not presented, the charts for Alternative 1a will appear sufficiently similar that differences between Alternative 1a and Alternative 1b remain best communicated by comparing values in the above tables.
The projected HFC emission reductions due to the HD Phase 2 air conditioning leakage standards for vocational vehicles are 86,735 metric tons of CO
As described in Section VII.A., Method B used MOVES to estimate downstream GHG inventories from the final rules, relative to Alternative 1a, for all heavy-duty vehicle categories (including the engines associated with tractor-trailer combinations and vocational vehicles). The agencies expect reductions in CO
Fuel consumption is calculated from the MOVES output of total energy consumption converted using the fuel heating values assumed in the Renewable Fuels Standard rulemaking
Table VII-20 shows the impacts on downstream GHG emissions and fuel savings in 2025, 2040 and 2050, relative to Alternative 1a, for the final program.
Table VII-21 shows the estimated fuel savings from the final program in 2025, 2040, and 2050, relative to Alternative 1a. The results from the comparable analyses relative to Alternative 1b are presented in Section VII.C.(1).
The upstream GHG emission reductions associated with the production and distribution of gasoline and diesel from crude oil include the domestic emission reductions only. Additionally, since this rulemaking is not expected to impact biofuel volumes mandated by the annual Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) regulations
As background, EPA sets annual renewable fuel volume mandates through a separate RFS notice-and-comment rulemaking process, and the
In conclusion, the impacts of this rulemaking on annual renewable fuel volume mandates are difficult to project at the present time. However, since it is not centrally relevant to the analysis for this rulemaking, we have not included any impacts on renewable fuel volumes in this analysis. The upstream GHG emission reductions of the final program can be found in Table VII-22.
The projected HFC emission reductions due to the HD Phase 2 air conditioning leakage standards for vocational vehicles are 86,735 metric tons of CO
Table VII-23 combines the impacts of the final program from downstream (Table VII-20), upstream (Table VII-22), and HFC to summarize the total GHG reductions in calendar years 2025, 2040 and 2050, relative to Alternative 1a.
In addition to the annual GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions expected from the final rules, we estimated the combined (downstream and upstream) GHG and fuel consumption impacts for the lifetime of the impacted vehicles sold in the regulatory timeframe. Table VII-24 shows the fleet-wide GHG reductions and fuel savings from the final program, relative to Alternative 1a, through the lifetime of heavy-duty vehicles.
The impact of GHG emissions on the climate has been reviewed in the 2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle rulemaking, the 2014-2018 heavy-duty vehicle GHG and fuel efficiency rulemaking, the 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle rulemaking, and the standards for new electricity utility generating units. See 74 FR 66496; 75 FR 25491; 76 FR 57294; 77 FR 62894; 79 FR 1456-1459; 80 FR 64662. This section briefly discusses again some of the climate impact of EPA's actions in context of transportation emissions. NHTSA has analyzed the climate impacts of its specific actions (
Once emitted, GHGs that are the subject of this regulation can remain in the atmosphere for decades to millennia, meaning that (1) their concentrations become well-mixed throughout the global atmosphere regardless of emission origin, and (2) their effects on climate are long lasting. GHG emissions come mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with additional contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural activities, cement production, and some industrial activities. Transportation activities, in aggregate, were the second largest contributor to total U.S. GHG emissions in 2010 (27 percent of total emissions).
The EPA Administrator relied on thorough and peer-reviewed assessments of climate change science prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), the United States Global Change Research Program (“USGCRP”), and the National Research Council of the National Academies (“NRC”)
Based on these assessments, the EPA Administrator determined that the emissions from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases; that these greenhouse gases cause warming; that the recent warming has been attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases; and that warming of the climate endangers the public health and welfare of current and future generations. See
A number of major peer-reviewed scientific assessments have been released since the administrative record concerning the Endangerment Finding closed following EPA's 2010 Reconsideration Denial.
EPA has reviewed these assessments and finds that, in general, the improved understanding of the climate system they present is consistent with the assessments underlying the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
The most recent assessments released were the IPCC AR5 assessments between September 2013 and April 2014, the NRC Abrupt Impacts assessment in December of 2013, and the U.S. National Climate Assessment in May of 2014. The NRC Abrupt Impacts report examines the potential for tipping points, thresholds beyond which major and rapid changes occur in the Earth's climate system or other systems impacted by the climate. The Abrupt Impacts report did find less cause for concern than some previous assessments regarding some abrupt events within the next century, such as disruption of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and sudden releases of high-latitude methane from hydrates and permafrost, but found that the potential for abrupt changes in ecosystems, weather and climate extremes, and groundwater supplies critical for agriculture now seem more likely, severe, and imminent. The assessment found that some abrupt changes were already underway (Arctic sea ice retreat and increases in extinction risk due to the speed of climate change) but cautioned that even abrupt changes such as the AMOC disruption that are not expected in this century can have severe impacts when they happen.
The IPCC AR5 assessments are also generally consistent with the underlying science supporting the 2009 Endangerment Finding. For example, confidence in attributing recent warming to human causes has increased: The IPCC stated that it is extremely likely (>95 percent confidence) that human influences have been the dominant cause of recent warming. Moreover, the IPCC found that the last 30 years were likely (>66 percent confidence) the warmest 30 year period in the Northern Hemisphere of the past 1400 years, that the rate of ice loss of worldwide glaciers and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has likely increased, that there is medium confidence that the recent summer sea ice retreat in the Arctic is larger than it has been in 1450 years, and that concentrations of carbon dioxide and several other of the major greenhouse gases are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years. Climate-change induced impacts have been observed in changing precipitation patterns, melting snow and ice, species migration, negative impacts on crops, increased heat and decreased cold mortality, and altered ranges for water-borne illnesses and disease vectors. Additional risks from future changes include death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in coastal zones and regions vulnerable to inland flooding, food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and flooding, especially for poor populations, reduced access to drinking and irrigation water for those with minimal capital in semi-arid regions, and decreased biodiversity in marine ecosystems, especially in the Arctic and tropics, with implications for coastal livelihoods. The IPCC determined that “[c]ontinued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gases emissions.”
Finally, the recently released National Climate Assessment stated, “Climate change is already affecting the American people in far reaching ways. Certain types of extreme weather events with links to climate change have become more frequent and/or intense, including prolonged periods of heat, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. In addition, warming is causing sea level to rise and glaciers and Arctic sea ice to melt, and oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb carbon dioxide. These and other aspects of climate change are disrupting people's lives and damaging some sectors of our economy.”
Assessments from these bodies represent the current state of knowledge, comprehensively cover and synthesize thousands of individual studies to obtain the majority conclusions from the body of scientific literature and undergo a rigorous and exacting standard of review by the peer expert community and U.S. government.
Based on modeling analysis performed by the agencies, reductions in CO
To assess the impact of the emissions reductions from the final rules, EPA estimated changes in projected atmospheric CO
The analysis projects that the final rules will reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO
EPA determines that the projected reductions in atmospheric CO
The projected reductions are small relative to the change in temperature (1.8-4.8 °C), CO
Based on the projected atmospheric CO
The 2011 NRC assessment on “Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia” determined how a number of climate impacts—such as heaviest daily rainfalls, crop yields, and Arctic sea ice extent—would change with a temperature change of 1 degree Celsius (C) of warming. These relationships of impacts with temperature change could be combined with the calculated reductions in warming in Table VII-25 to estimate changes in these impacts associated with this final rulemaking.
As a substantial portion of CO
EPA's analysis of this final rule's impact on global climate conditions is intended to quantify these potential reductions using the best available science. EPA's modeling results show consistent reductions relative to the baseline case in changes of CO
The heavy-duty vehicle standards are expected to influence the emissions of criteria air pollutants and several hazardous air pollutants (air toxics). This section describes the projected impacts of the final rules on non-GHG emissions and air quality and the health and environmental effects associated with these pollutants. NHTSA further analyzes these projected health and environmental effects resulting from its final rules and reasonable alternatives in Chapter 4 of its FEIS.
In this section, we discuss health effects associated with exposure to some of the criteria and air toxic pollutants impacted by the final heavy-duty vehicle standards.
Particulate matter is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from those smaller than 1 nanometer (10
Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” particles. Particle concentration and composition varies by time of year and location, and, in addition to differences in source emissions, is affected by several weather-related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. A further layer of complexity comes from particles' ability to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration and meteorology, especially temperature.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and by transformations of gaseous emissions (
Scientific studies show exposure to ambient PM is associated with a broad range of health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM ISA), which was finalized in December 2009.
EPA has concluded that “a causal relationship exists” between both long- and short-term exposures to PM
As summarized in the final rule resulting from the last review (2012) of the PM NAAQS, and discussed extensively in the 2009 p.m. ISA, the available scientific evidence significantly strengthens the link between long- and short-term exposure to PM
Several studies evaluated in the 2009 p.m. ISA have examined the association between cardiovascular effects and long-term PM
As detailed in the 2009 p.m. ISA, extended analyses of seminal epidemiological studies, as well as more recent epidemiological studies conducted in the U.S. and abroad, provide strong evidence of respiratory-related morbidity effects associated with long-term PM
The body of scientific evidence detailed in the 2009 PM ISA is still limited with respect to associations between long-term PM
In addition to evaluating the health effects attributed to short- and long-term exposure to PM
For PM
For UFPs, the 2009 PM ISA concluded that the evidence was “suggestive of a causal relationship” between short-term exposures and cardiovascular effects, including changes in heart rhythm and vasomotor function (the ability of blood vessels to expand and contract). It also concluded that there was evidence “suggestive of a causal relationship” between short-term exposure to UFPs and respiratory effects, including lung function and pulmonary inflammation, with limited and inconsistent evidence for increases in ED visits and hospital admissions. Scientific evidence was “inadequate to infer a causal relationship” between short-term exposure to UFPs and additional health effects including premature mortality as well as long-term exposure to UFPs and all health outcomes evaluated.
The 2009 PM ISA conducted an evaluation of specific groups within the general population potentially at increased risk for experiencing adverse health effects related to PM exposures.
Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed through reactions involving VOC and NO
The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is complex. Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical set of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature and sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high for several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically occurs on a single high-temperature day. Ozone and its precursors can be transported hundreds of miles downwind from precursor emissions, resulting in elevated ozone levels even in areas with low local VOC or NO
This section provides a summary of the health effects associated with exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone.
For short-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that respiratory effects, including lung function decrements, pulmonary inflammation, exacerbation of asthma, respiratory-related hospital admissions, and mortality, are causally associated with ozone exposure. It also concludes that cardiovascular effects, including decreased cardiac function and increased vascular disease, and total mortality are likely to be causally associated with short-term exposure to ozone and that evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between central nervous system effects and short-term exposure to ozone.
For long-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that respiratory effects, including new onset asthma, pulmonary inflammation and injury, are likely to be causally related with ozone exposure. The Ozone ISA characterizes the evidence as suggestive of a causal relationship for associations between long-term ozone exposure and cardiovascular effects, reproductive and developmental effects, central nervous system effects and total mortality. The evidence is inadequate to infer a causal relationship between chronic ozone exposure and increased risk of lung cancer.
Finally, inter-individual variation in human responses to ozone exposure can result in some groups being at increased risk for detrimental effects in response to exposure. In addition, some groups are at increased risk of exposure due to their activities, such as outdoor workers or children. The Ozone ISA identified several groups that are at increased risk for ozone-related health effects. These groups are people with asthma, children and older adults, individuals with reduced intake of certain nutrients (
Oxides of nitrogen (NO
The most recent review of the health effects of oxides of nitrogen completed by EPA can be found in the 2016 Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria (Oxides of Nitrogen ISA).
In evaluating a broader range of health effects, the 2016 ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen concluded evidence is “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship” between
The 2016 ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen concluded that people with asthma, children, and older adults are at increased risk for NO
Sulfur dioxide (SO
Information on the health effects of SO
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from combustion processes. Nationally, particularly in urban areas, the majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile sources.
Information on the health effects of CO can be found in the January 2010 Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide (CO ISA).
Controlled human exposure studies of subjects with coronary artery disease show a decrease in the time to onset of exercise-induced angina (chest pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In addition, epidemiologic studies observed associations between short-term CO exposure and cardiovascular morbidity, particularly increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions for coronary heart disease (including ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and angina). Some epidemiologic evidence is also available for increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for congestive heart failure and cardiovascular disease as a whole. The CO ISA concludes that a causal relationship is likely to exist between short-term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity. It also concludes that available data are inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists between long-term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity.
Animal studies show various neurological effects with in-utero CO exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report central nervous system and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures, although the findings have not been consistent across all studies. The CO ISA concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship with both short- and long-term exposure to CO and central nervous system effects.
A number of studies cited in the CO ISA have evaluated the role of CO exposure in birth outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth defects. There is limited epidemiologic evidence of a CO-induced effect on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence for a decrease in birth weight. Animal toxicological studies have found perinatal CO exposure to affect birth weight, as well as other developmental outcomes. The CO ISA concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO and developmental effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of associations between short-term CO concentrations and respiratory morbidity such as changes in pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, and hospital admissions. A limited number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as ozone, SO
Finally, the CO ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term concentrations of CO and mortality. Epidemiologic evidence suggests an association exists between short-term exposure to CO and mortality, but limited evidence is available to evaluate cause-specific mortality outcomes associated with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of CO risk estimates which was often observed in copollutant models contributes to the uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as an indicator for other combustion-related pollutants. The CO ISA also concludes that there is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long-term exposures to CO and mortality.
Diesel exhaust consists of a complex mixture composed of particulate matter, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon monoxide, nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds and numerous low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons. A number of these gaseous hydrocarbon components are individually known to be toxic, including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3-butadiene. The diesel particulate matter present in diesel exhaust consists mostly of fine particles (<2.5 μm), of which a significant fraction is ultrafine particles (<0.1 μm). These particles have a large surface area which makes them an excellent medium for adsorbing organics, and their small size makes them highly respirable. Many of the organic compounds present in the gases and on the particles, such as polycyclic organic matter, are individually known to have mutagenic and carcinogenic properties.
Diesel exhaust varies significantly in chemical composition and particle sizes between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, acceleration, deceleration), and fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions differences between on-road and nonroad engines because the nonroad engines are generally of older technology. After being emitted in the engine exhaust, diesel exhaust undergoes dilution as well as chemical and physical changes in the atmosphere. The lifetime for some of the compounds present in diesel exhaust ranges from hours to days.
In EPA's 2002 Diesel Health Assessment Document (Diesel HAD), exposure to diesel exhaust was classified as likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures, in accordance with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA cancer guidelines.
In the absence of a cancer unit risk, the Diesel HAD sought to provide additional insight into the significance of the diesel exhaust cancer hazard by estimating possible ranges of risk that might be present in the population. An exploratory analysis was used to characterize a range of possible lung cancer risk. The outcome was that environmental risks of cancer from long-term diesel exhaust exposures could plausibly range from as low as 10
Non-cancer health effects of acute and chronic exposure to diesel exhaust emissions are also of concern to EPA. EPA derived a diesel exhaust reference concentration (RfC) from consideration of four well-conducted chronic rat inhalation studies showing adverse pulmonary effects. The RfC is 5 μg/m
It is important to note that the Diesel HAD also briefly summarizes health effects associated with ambient PM and discusses EPA's then-annual PM
Since 2002, several new studies have been published which continue to report increased lung cancer risk with occupational exposure to diesel exhaust from older engines. Of particular note since 2011 are three new epidemiology studies which have examined lung cancer in occupational populations, for example, truck drivers, underground nonmetal miners and other diesel
In light of the growing body of scientific literature evaluating the health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust, in June 2012 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a recognized international authority on the carcinogenic potential of chemicals and other agents, evaluated the full range of cancer-related health effects data for diesel engine exhaust. IARC concluded that diesel exhaust should be regarded as “carcinogenic to humans.”
Heavy-duty vehicle emissions contribute to ambient levels of air toxics that are known or suspected human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. The population experiences an elevated risk of cancer and other noncancer health effects from exposure to the class of pollutants known collectively as “air toxics.”
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) by all routes of exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation of bone marrow cells in mice.
A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood disorders, such as pre- leukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been associated with long-term exposure to benzene.
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
In 1991, EPA concluded that formaldehyde is a carcinogen based on nasal tumors in animal bioassays.
The conclusions by IARC and NTP reflect the results of epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with previous animal, human and mechanistic evidence. Research conducted by the National Cancer Institute reported an increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer and specific lymph hematopoietic malignancies among workers exposed to formaldehyde.
Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed by the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry in 1999
EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde—Inhalation Assessment through the IRIS program for peer review by the National Research Council (NRC) and public comment in June 2010.
Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA's IRIS database as a probable human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.
The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.
EPA most recently evaluated the toxicological and health effects literature related to acrolein in 2003 and concluded that the human carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not be determined because the available data were inadequate. No information was available on the carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity.
Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to acrolein.
Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled, with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation, mucus hypersecretion and congestion. The intense irritancy of this carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory reactions within minutes of exposure.
The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). One of these compounds, naphthalene, is discussed separately below. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Cancer is the major concern from exposure to POM. Epidemiologic studies have reported an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to diesel exhaust, coke oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke; all of these mixtures contain POM compounds.
Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with evaporative emissions from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a product of combustion. Acute (short-term) exposure of humans to naphthalene by inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemolytic anemia and damage to the liver and the nervous system.
Naphthalene also causes a number of chronic non-cancer effects in animals, including abnormal cell changes and growth in respiratory and nasal tissues.
In addition to the compounds described above, other compounds in gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions from motor vehicles will be affected by this action. Mobile source air toxic compounds that will potentially be impacted include ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde, toluene, and xylene. Information regarding the health effects of these compounds can be found in EPA's IRIS database.
Locations in close proximity to major roadways generally have elevated concentrations of many air pollutants emitted from motor vehicles. Hundreds of such studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals, concluding that concentrations of CO, NO, NO
A large-scale review of air quality measurements in the vicinity of major roadways between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pollutants with the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadways were CO, ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO, NO
For pollutants with relatively high background concentrations relative to near-road concentrations, detecting concentration gradients can be difficult. For example, many aldehydes have high background concentrations as a result of photochemical breakdown of precursors from many different organic compounds. This can make detection of gradients around roadways and other primary emission sources difficult.
In the past 15 years, many studies have been published with results reporting that populations who live, work, or go to school near high-traffic roadways experience higher rates of numerous adverse health effects, compared to populations far away from major roads.
Numerous reviews of this body of health literature have been published as well. In 2010, an expert panel of the Health Effects Institute (HEI) published a review of hundreds of exposure, epidemiology, and toxicology studies.
Health outcomes with few publications suggest the possibility of other effects still lacking sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Among these outcomes with a small number of positive studies are neurological impacts (
In addition to health outcomes, particularly cardiopulmonary effects, conclusions of numerous studies suggest mechanisms by which traffic-related air pollution affects health. Numerous studies indicate that near-roadway exposures may increase systemic inflammation, affecting organ systems, including blood vessels and lungs.
Several studies suggest that some factors may increase susceptibility to the effects of traffic-associated air pollution. Several studies have found stronger respiratory associations in children experiencing chronic social stress, such as in violent neighborhoods or in homes with high family stress.
The risks associated with residence, workplace, or schools near major roads are of potentially high public health significance due to the large population in such locations. According to the 2009 American Housing Survey, over 22 million homes (17.0 percent of all U.S. housing units) were located within 300 feet of an airport, railroad, or highway with four or more lanes. This corresponds to a population of more than 50 million U.S. residents in close proximity to high-traffic roadways or other transportation sources. Based on 2010 Census data, a 2013 publication estimated that 19 percent of the U.S. population (over 59 million people) lived within 500 meters of roads with at least 25,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT), while about 3.2 percent of the population lived within 100 meters (about 300 feet) of such roads.
In light of these concerns, EPA has required through the NAAQS process that air quality monitors be placed near high-traffic roadways for determining concentrations of CO, NO
EPA and DOT continue to research near-road air quality, including the types of pollutants found in high concentrations near major roads and health problems associated with the mixture of pollutants near roads.
Environmental justice (EJ) is a principle asserting that all people deserve fair treatment and meaningful involvement with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA seeks to provide the same degree of protection from environmental health hazards for all people. DOT shares this goal and is informed about the potential environmental impacts of its rulemakings through its NEPA process (see NHTSA's DEIS). As referenced below, numerous studies have found that some environmental hazards are more prevalent in areas where racial/ethnic minorities and people with low socioeconomic status (SES) represent a higher fraction of the population compared with the general population. In addition, compared to non-Hispanic whites, some types of minorities may have greater levels of health problems during some life stages. For example, in 2014, about 13 percent of Black, non-Hispanic and 24 percent of Puerto Rican children were estimated to currently have asthma, compared with 8 percent of white, non-Hispanic children.
As discussed in Section VIII.A.(8) of this document and NHTSA's FEIS, concentrations of many air pollutants are elevated near high-traffic roadways. If minority populations and low-income populations disproportionately live near such roads, then an issue of EJ may be present. We reviewed existing scholarly literature examining the potential for disproportionate exposure among minorities and people with low SES, and we conducted our own evaluation of two national datasets: The U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing Survey for calendar year 2009 and the U.S. Department of Education's database of school locations.
Publications that address EJ issues generally report that populations living near major roadways (and other types of transportation infrastructure) tend to be composed of larger fractions of nonwhite residents. People living in neighborhoods near such sources of air pollution also tend to be lower in income than people living elsewhere. Numerous studies evaluating the demographics and socioeconomic status of populations or schools near roadways have found that they include a greater percentage of minority residents, as well as lower SES (indicated by variables such as median household income). Locations in these studies include Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; Wayne County, MI; Orange County, FL; and the State of California
People with low SES often live in neighborhoods with multiple stressors and health risk factors, including reduced health insurance coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates, limited access to fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and elevated rates of obesity and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease. Although questions remain, several studies find stronger associations between air pollution and health in locations with such chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that populations in these areas may be more susceptible to the effects of air pollution.
More recently, three publications report nationwide analyses that compare the demographic patterns of people who do or do not live near major roadways.
We analyzed two national databases that allowed us to evaluate whether homes and schools were located near a major road and whether disparities in exposure may be occurring in these environments. The American Housing Survey (AHS) includes descriptive statistics of over 70,000 housing units across the nation. The study survey is conducted every two years by the U.S. Census Bureau. The second database we analyzed was the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data, which includes enrollment and location information for schools across the U.S.
In analyzing the 2009 AHS, we focused on whether or not a housing unit was located within 300 feet of “4-or-more lane highway, railroad, or airport.”
In examining schools near major roadways, we examined the Common Core of Data (CCD) from the U.S. Department of Education, which includes information on all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts nationwide.
Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or attend school near major roadways are more likely to be of a minority race, Hispanic ethnicity, and/or low SES. The emission reductions from these final rules will likely result in widespread air quality improvements, but the impact on pollution levels in close proximity to roadways will be most direct. Thus, these final rules will likely help in mitigating the disparity in racial, ethnic, and economically based exposures.
Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is transparent to visible light.
EPA is working to address visibility impairment. Reductions in air pollution from implementation of various programs associated with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) provisions have resulted in substantial improvements in visibility and will continue to do so in the future. Because trends in haze are closely associated with trends in particulate sulfate and nitrate due to the relationship between their concentration and light extinction, visibility trends have improved as emissions of SO
In the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Congress recognized visibility's value to society by establishing a national goal to protect national parks and wilderness areas from visibility impairment caused by manmade pollution.
EPA has also concluded that PM
The welfare effects of ozone can be observed across a variety of scales,
Ozone can produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on the concentration level and the duration of the exposure.
The most recent Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone presents more detailed information on how ozone affects vegetation and ecosystems.
Wet and dry deposition of ambient particulate matter delivers a complex mixture of metals (
Adverse impacts to human health and the environment can occur when particulate matter is deposited to soils, water, and biota.
The ecological effects of acidifying deposition and nutrient enrichment are detailed in the Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur-Ecological Criteria.
Building materials including metals, stones, cements, and paints undergo natural weathering processes from exposure to environmental elements (
Emissions from producing, transporting and combusting fuel contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds, some of which are considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in vegetation damage.
Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants, which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in other cases to nitrogen oxides.
As described in Section VII, the agencies conducted two analyses for these rules using DOT's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model, relative to different reference cases (
For brevity, a subset of these analyses are presented in this section and the reader is referred to both Chapter 11 of the RIA and NHTSA's FEIS Chapters 3, 4 and 5 for complete sets of these analyses. In this section, Method A is presented for the final standards, relative to both the dynamic baseline (Alternative 1b) and the flat baseline (Alternative 1a). Method B is presented for the final standards, relative only to the flat baseline.
The following subsections summarize two slightly different analyses of the annual non-GHG emissions reductions expected from these standards. Section VIII.A.(1) presents the impacts of the
Increasing efficiency in heavy-duty vehicles will result in reduced fuel demand and, therefore, reductions in the emissions associated with all processes involved in getting petroleum to the pump. Both Method A and Method B project these impacts for fuel consumed by vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers, using EPA's MOVES model. See Section VII.A. for the description of this methodology. To project these impacts for fuel consumed by HD pickups and vans, Method A used similar calculations and inputs applicable to the CAFE model, as discussed above in Section VI. More information on the development of the emission factors used in this analysis can be found in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
The following two tables summarize the projected upstream emission impacts of the final program on both criteria pollutants and air toxics from the heavy-duty sector, relative to Alternative 1b (dynamic baseline conditions under the No-Action Alternative) and Alternative 1a (flat baseline conditions under the No-Action Alternative), using analysis method A. Using either No-Action Alternative shows decreases in upstream emissions of all criteria pollutants, precursors, and air toxics; using Alternative 1a as the reference point attributes more of the emission reduction to the standards. Note that the rule is projected, in all analyses, of reducing emissions of NO
For vocational vehicles and tractor-trailers, the agencies used the MOVES model to determine non-GHG emissions inventories. The improvements in engine efficiency and road load, the increased use of APUs, and VMT rebound were included in the MOVES analysis. For NHTSA's Method A analysis, presented in this section, the DOT CAFE model was used for HD pickups and vans. Further information about DOT's CAFE model is available in Section VI.C and Chapter 10 of the RIA. The following two tables summarize the projected downstream emission impacts of the final program on both criteria pollutants and air toxics from the heavy-duty sector, relative to Alternative 1b and Alternative 1a, using analysis Method A. Using either baseline shows a reduction in all criteria pollutants and air toxics—except for 1,3-Butadiene,
The following two tables summarize the projected upstream emission impacts of the final program on both criteria pollutants and air toxics from the heavy-duty sector, relative to Alternative 1b and Alternative 1a, using analysis Method A. Under both baselines, Method A predicts a decrease in total emissions by calendar year 2050, but the amount attributable to the standards is larger using the flat baseline than the dynamic baseline.
Table VIII-7 shows the lifetime Non-GHG reductions for model years 2018-2029 attributable to the standards using Method A relative to both No-Action Alternatives. For NO
Increasing efficiency in heavy-duty vehicles will result in reduced fuel demand and, therefore, reductions in the emissions associated with all processes involved in getting petroleum to the pump. To project these impacts, Method B estimated the impact of reduced petroleum volumes on the extraction and transportation of crude oil as well as the production and distribution of finished gasoline and diesel. For the purpose of assessing domestic-only emission reductions, it was necessary to estimate the fraction of fuel savings attributable to domestic finished gasoline and diesel and, of this fuel, what fraction is produced from domestic crude. Method B estimated the emissions associated with production and distribution of gasoline and diesel from crude oil based on emission factors in the “Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy used in Transportation” model (GREET) developed by DOE's Argonne National Laboratory. In some cases, the GREET values were modified or updated by the agencies to be consistent with the National Emission Inventory (NEI) and emission factors from MOVES. Method B estimated the projected corresponding changes in upstream emissions using the same tools originally created for the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) rulemaking analysis,
Table VIII-8 summarizes the projected upstream emission impacts of the final program on both criteria pollutants and air toxics from the heavy-duty sector, relative to Alternative 1a, using analysis Method B. The comparable estimates relative to Alternative 1b are presented in Section VIII.C.(1).
The final program will impact the downstream emissions of non-GHG pollutants. These pollutants include oxides of nitrogen (NO
Additional reductions in tailpipe emissions of NO
For vocational vehicles and tractor-trailers, the agencies used MOVES to determine non-GHG emissions impacts of the final rules, relative to the flat baseline (Alternative 1a) and the dynamic baseline (Alternative 1b). The improvements in engine efficiency and road load, the increased use of APUs, and VMT rebound were included in the MOVES analysis. For this analysis, Method B also used the MOVES model for HD pickups and vans.
The downstream criteria pollutant and air toxics impacts of the final program, relative to Alternative 1a, using analysis Method B, are presented in Table VIII-9.
As noted above, EPA is adopting Phase 1 and Phase 2 requirements to control PM
It is worth noting that the emission reductions shown in Table VIII-9 are not incremental to the emissions reductions projected in the Phase 1 rulemaking. This is because, as described in Sections III.D.(1).a of the Preamble, the agencies have revised their assumptions about the adoption rate of APUs. This final rule assumes that without the Phase 2 program (
As shown in Table VIII-12, EPA estimates that the final program will result in overall net reductions of NO
In addition to the annual non-GHG emissions reductions expected from the final rules, EPA estimated the combined (downstream and upstream) non-GHG impacts for the lifetime of the impacted vehicles. Table VIII-13 shows the fleet-wide reductions of NO
Changes in emissions of non-GHG pollutants due to these rules will impact air quality. Information on current air quality and the results of our air quality modeling of the projected impacts of these rules are summarized in the following section. Additional information is available in Chapter 6 of the RIA.
Nationally, levels of PM
There are two primary NAAQS for PM
There are many areas of the country that are currently in nonattainment for the annual and 24-hour primary PM
The EPA has already adopted many mobile source emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient PM concentrations. As a result of these and other federal, state and local programs, the number of areas that fail to meet the PM
The primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone are 8-hour standards with a level of 0.07 ppm. The most recent revision to the ozone standards was in 2015; the previous 8-hour ozone primary standard, set in 2008, had a level of 0.075 ppm. Final nonattainment designations for the 2008 ozone standard were issued on April 30, 2012, and May 31, 2012.
States with ozone nonattainment areas are required to take action to bring those areas into attainment. The attainment date assigned to an ozone nonattainment area is based on the area's classification. The attainment dates for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 timeframe, depending on the severity of the problem in each area. Nonattainment area attainment dates associated with areas designated for the 2015 NAAQS will be in the 2020-2037 timeframe, depending on the severity of the problem in each area.
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient ozone levels. As a result of these and other federal, state and local programs, 8-hour ozone levels are expected to improve in the future. However, even with the implementation of all current state and federal regulations, there are projected to be counties violating the ozone NAAQS well into the future. The emission reductions from this action, which will take effect as early as model year 2018, will be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS.
The EPA most recently completed a review of the primary NAAQS for NO
The EPA most recently completed a review of the primary SO
There are two primary NAAQS for CO: An 8-hour standard (9 ppm) and a 1-hour standard (35 ppm). The primary NAAQS for CO were retained in August 2011. There are currently no CO nonattainment areas; as of September 27, 2010, all CO nonattainment areas have been redesignated to attainment.
The past designations were based on the existing community-wide monitoring network. EPA is making changes to the ambient air monitoring requirements for CO. The new requirements are expected to result in approximately 52 CO monitors operating near roads within 52 urban areas by January 2015 (76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011).
Because DPM is part of overall ambient PM and cannot be easily distinguished from overall PM, we do not have direct measurements of DPM in the ambient air. DPM concentrations are estimated using ambient air quality modeling based on DPM emission inventories. DPM emission inventories are computed as the exhaust PM emissions from mobile sources combusting diesel or residual oil fuel. DPM concentrations were recently estimated as part of the 2011 NATA.
The most recent available data indicate that the majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects. The levels of air toxics to which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they engage, as discussed in detail in EPA's most recent Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule.
Along with reducing GHGs, the Phase 2 standards also have an impact on non-GHG, criteria and air toxic pollutant, emissions. As shown above in Section VIII.C, the standards will impact exhaust emissions of these pollutants from vehicles and will also impact emissions that occur during the refining and distribution of fuel (upstream sources). Reductions in emissions of NO
Emissions and air quality modeling decisions are made early in the analytical process because of the time and resources associated with full-scale photochemical air quality modeling. As a result, the inventories used in the air quality modeling and the benefits modeling are different from the final emissions inventories presented in Section VIII.C. The air quality inventories and the final inventories are consistent in many ways, but there are some important differences. For example, in this final rulemaking, EPA is adopting Phase 1 and Phase 2 requirements to control PM
This section presents the costs, benefits and other economic impacts of the Phase 2 standards. It is important to note that NHTSA's fuel consumption standards and EPA's GHG standards will both be in effect, and each will lead to average fuel efficiency increases and GHG emission reductions.
The net benefits of the Phase 2 standards consist of the effects of the program on:
The benefits and costs of these rules are analyzed using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, consistent with current OMB guidance.
The program may also have other economic effects that are not included here. As discussed in Sections III through VI of this Preamble and in Chapter 2 of the RIA, the technology cost estimates developed here take into account the costs to hold other vehicle attributes, such as size and performance, constant. With these assumptions, and because welfare losses represent monetary estimates of how much buyers would have to be compensated to be made as well off as they would have been in the absence of this regulation,
As the 2012-2016 and 2017-2025 light-duty GHG/CAFE rules discussed, if other vehicle attributes are not held constant, then the technology cost estimates do not capture the losses to vehicle buyers associated with these changes.
Where possible, we identify the uncertain aspects of these economic impacts and attempt to quantify them (
This and other sections of the Preamble address Section 317 of the Clean Air Act on economic analysis. Section IX.L addresses Section 321 of the Clean Air Act on employment analysis. The total monetized benefits and costs of the program are summarized in Section IX.K for the final program and in Section X for all alternatives.
The agencies sought comment on numerous aspects of the analyses presented in this section, such as the potential omissions of costs or benefits, additional impacts of the standards on vehicle attributes and performance, and the quantification of uncertainty. Responses to comments on specific aspects of the analysis are addressed as appropriate in the relevant sections below, and in Sections III through VI of this Preamble as they relate to certain technologies. Further detail can be found in Section 11 of the RTC.
The HD Phase 2 standards will implement both the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act requirement that NHTSA establish fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and the Clean Air Act requirement that EPA adopt technology-based standards to control pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and engines contributing to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. NHTSA's statutory mandate is intended to further the agency's long-standing goals of reducing U.S. consumption and imports of petroleum energy to improve the nation's energy security.
From an economics perspective, government actions to improve our nation's energy security and to protect our nation from the potential threats of climate change address “externalities,” or economic consequences of decisions by individuals and businesses that extend beyond those who make these decisions. For example, users of transportation fuels increase the entire U.S. economy's risk of having to make costly adjustments due to rapid increases in oil prices, but these users generally do not consider such costs when they decide to consume more fuel.
Similarly, consuming transportation fuel also increases emissions of greenhouse gases and other more localized air pollutants that occur when fuel is refined, distributed, and consumed. Some of these emissions increase the likelihood and severity of potential climate-related economic damages, and others cause economic damages by adversely affecting human health. The need to address these external costs and other adverse effects provides a well-established economic rationale that supports the statutory direction given to government agencies to establish regulatory programs that reduce the magnitude of these adverse effects at reasonable costs.
The Phase 2 standards will require manufacturers of new heavy-duty vehicles, including trailers (HDVs), to improve the fuel efficiency of the products that they produce. As HDV users purchase and operate these new vehicles, they will consume significantly less fuel, in turn reducing U.S. petroleum consumption and imports as well as emissions of GHGs and other air pollutants. Thus, as a consequence of the agencies' efforts to meet our statutory obligations to improve U.S. energy security and EPA's obligation to issue standards “to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant . . . from motor vehicles” that endangers public health and welfare,
Potential savings in fuel costs appear to offer HDV buyer's strong incentives to pay higher prices for vehicles that feature technology or equipment that reduces fuel consumption. These potential savings also appear to offer HDV manufacturers similarly strong incentives to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Economic theory suggests that interactions between vehicle buyers and sellers in a normally-functioning competitive market would lead HDV manufacturers to incorporate all technologies that contribute to lower net costs into the vehicles they offer, and buyers to purchase them willingly. Nevertheless, many readily available technologies that appear to offer cost-effective increases in HDV fuel efficiency (when evaluated over their expected lifetimes using conventional discount rates) have not been widely adopted, despite their potential to repay buyers' initial investments rapidly.
This economic situation is commonly known as the “energy efficiency gap” or “energy paradox.” This situation is perhaps more challenging to understand with respect to the heavy-duty sector versus the light-duty vehicle sector. Unlike light-duty vehicles—which are purchased and used mainly by individuals and households—the vast majority of HDVs are purchased and operated by profit-seeking businesses for which fuel costs represent a substantial operating expense. We asked for comments on our hypotheses about causes of the gap, as well as data or other information that can inform our understanding of why this situation seems to persist. The California Air Resources Board, CALSTART, Consumer Federation of America, Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, and International Council on Clean Transportation supported, either in whole or in part, the agencies' arguments for potential barriers to market adoption. Caterpillar Inc. et al., Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), Randall Lutter, Brian Mannix, NAFA Fleet Management Association (NAFA), Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA), and Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company express skepticism or raise concerns about the agencies' discussion. The skeptical comments, discussed in more depth in context below, generally find it implausible that regulations can save money for profit-seeking businesses. If the savings were real, they argue, then private markets would have adopted these technologies without regulations; the agencies must therefore have exaggerated the benefits or underestimated the costs of the standards. Problems exist not in private market operations, they claim, but rather in the economic analysis of those operations.
The economic analysis of these standards is based on the engineering analysis of the costs and effectiveness of the technologies. The agencies have detailed their findings on costs and effectiveness in Preamble Sections III, IV, V, and VI, and RIA Chapter 2. If these cost and effectiveness estimates are correct, and if the agencies have not omitted key costs or benefits, then the efficiency gap exists, even if it seems implausible to some. As will be discussed further below, comments that raise issues with that technical analysis, such as concerns about maintenance and reliability costs of the technologies, present possible reasons that the gap is not as large as the agencies have found, and are discussed in the cost and effectiveness sections mentioned above. Comments that question the explanations provided for the gap without addressing the cost and effectiveness analyses do not provide evidence of an absence of the gap. Explaining why the gap exists is a separate and difficult challenge from observing the existence of the gap, because of the difficulties involved in developing tests of the different possible explanations. As discussed below, there is very little empirical evidence on behaviors that might lead to the gap, even while there continues to be substantial evidence, via the cost and effectiveness analysis, of the gap's existence. On the basis of that evidence, the agencies believe that a significant number of fuel efficiency improving technologies would remain far less widely adopted in the absence of these standards.
Economic research offers several possible explanations for why the prospect of these apparent savings might not lead HDV manufacturers and buyers to adopt technologies that would be expected to reduce HDV operating costs. Some of these explanations involve failures of the HDV market for reasons other than the externalities caused by producing and consuming fuel. Examples include situations where information about the performance of fuel economy technologies is incomplete, costly to obtain, or available only to one party to a transaction (or “asymmetrical”), as well as behavioral rigidities in either the HDV manufacturing or HDV-operating industries, such as standardized or inflexibly administered operating procedures, or requirements of other regulations on HDVs. Examples that do not involve market failures include possible effects on the performance, reliability, carrying capacity, maintenance requirements of new technology under the demands of everyday use, or transaction or adjustment costs. We note again that these and other hypotheses are presented as potential explanations of the finding of an efficiency gap based on an engineering analysis. They are not themselves the basis for regulation.
In the HD Phase 1 rulemaking (which, in contrast to these standards, did not apply to trailers), and in the Phase 2 NPRM, the agencies raised various hypotheses that might explain this energy efficiency gap or paradox.
• Imperfect information in the new vehicle market: Information available to prospective buyers about the effectiveness of some fuel-saving technologies for new vehicles may be inadequate or unreliable. If reliable information on their effectiveness in reducing fuel consumption is unavailable or difficult to obtain, HDV buyers will understandably be reluctant to pay higher prices to purchase vehicles equipped with unproven technologies.
Some commenters argue that this explanation implies implausibly that the agencies have information that those with profit motives do not, and that EPA's SmartWay Program has already served the function of sharing public information with the private sector. Other commenters agree with the agencies that imperfect information is a potential market barrier.
As discussed in the NPRM, one common theme from recent research
• Imperfect information in the resale market: Buyers in the used vehicle market may not be willing to pay adequate premiums for more fuel efficient vehicles when they are offered for resale to ensure that buyers of new vehicles can recover the remaining value of their original investment in higher fuel efficiency. The prospect of an inadequate return on their original owners' investments in higher fuel efficiency may contribute to the short payback periods that buyers of new vehicles appear to demand.
CEI rejects this hypothesis, asserting that buyers in this market do consider the value of technologies on used vehicles; other commenters support this possibility.
The recent research cited above (Klemick et al. 2015, Roeth et al. 2013, Aarnink et al. 2012) found mixed evidence for imperfect information in the market for used HDVs. On the one hand, some studies noted that fuel-saving technology is often not appreciated in the used vehicle market, because of imperfect information about its benefits, or greater mistrust of its performance among buyers in the used vehicle market than among buyers of new vehicles. When buyers of new vehicles considered features that would affect value in the secondary market, those features were rarely related to fuel economy. In addition, some used-vehicle buyers might have a larger “knowledge gap” than new-vehicle buyers. In other cases, the lack of interest might be due to the intended use of the used HDVs, which may not reward the presence of certain fuel-saving technologies. In other cases, however, fuel-saving technology can lead to a premium in the used market, as for instance to meet the more stringent requirements for HDVs operating in California.
• Principal-agent problems causing split incentives: An HDV buyer may not be directly responsible for its future fuel costs, or the individual who will be responsible for fuel costs may not participate in the HDV purchase decision. In these cases, the signal to invest in higher fuel efficiency normally provided by savings in fuel costs may not be transmitted effectively to HDV buyers, and the incentives of HDV buyers and fuel buyers will diverge, or be “split.” The trailers towed by heavy-duty tractors, which are typically not supplied by the tractor manufacturer or seller, present an obvious potential situation of split incentives that was not addressed in the HD Phase 1 rulemaking, but which may apply in this rulemaking. If there is inadequate pass-through of price signals from trailer users to their buyers, then low adoption of fuel-saving technologies may result.
CEI argues that, even if these split incentives existed, vehicle purchasers still might not invest in fuel-saving technologies due to capital constraints. As discussed below, capital constraints may be an issue for smaller companies, but they do not appear to be a significant concern for larger companies. Mr. Lutter provides a working paper
Other recent research identifies split incentives, or principal-agent problems, as a potential barrier to technology adoption. For instance, Vernon and Meier (2012) estimate that 23 percent of trailers may be exposed to split incentives due to businesses that own and lease trailers to HDV operators not having an incentive to invest in trailer-specific fuel-saving technology.
Klemick et al. (2015), Aarnink et al. (2012), and Roeth et al. (2013) provide mixed evidence on the severity of the split-incentive problem. Focus groups often identify diverging incentives between drivers and the decision-makers responsible for purchasing vehicles. Aarnink et al. (2012) and Roeth et al. (2013) cite examples of split incentives involving trailers and fuel surcharges, although the latter also cites other examples where these same issues do not lead to split incentives. In an effort to minimize problems that can arise from split incentives, many businesses that operate HDVs also train drivers in the use of specific technologies or to modify their driving behavior in order to improve fuel efficiency, while some also offer financial incentives to their drivers to conserve fuel. All of these options can help to reduce the split incentive problem.
• Uncertainty about future fuel cost savings: HDV buyers may be uncertain about future fuel prices, or about maintenance costs and reliability of some fuel efficiency technologies. In contrast, the costs of fuel-saving technologies are immediate. If buyers
Various commenters support this hypothesis. The CEI draws on the experience of nitrogen oxides (NO
• Adjustment and transactions costs: Potential resistance to new technologies—stemming, for example, from drivers' reluctance or slowness to adjust to changes in the way vehicles operate—may slow or inhibit new technology adoption. If a conservative approach to new technologies leads HDV buyers to adopt them slowly, then successful new technologies will be adopted over time without market intervention, but only with potentially significant delays in achieving the fuel saving, environmental, and energy security benefits they offer. There also may be costs associated with training drivers to realize potential fuel savings enabled by new technologies, or with accelerating fleet operators' scheduled fleet turnover and replacement to hasten their acquisition of vehicles equipped with these technologies. These factors might present real resource costs to firms that are not reflected in a typical engineering analysis.
CEI argues that these costs are normal aspects of the innovation process, and competition continually drives firms to innovate in most industries. As discussed below, innovation is not always a continual and smooth response to competition as CEI suggests.
Klemick et al. (2015), Roeth et al. (2013), and Aarnink et al. (2012) provide some support for the view that adjustment and transactions costs may impede HDV buyers from investing in higher fuel efficiency. These studies note that HDV buyers are less likely to select new technology when it is not available from their preferred manufacturers. Some technologies are only available as after-market additions, which can add other costs to adopting them.
• Driver acceptance of new equipment or technologies as a barrier to their adoption. HDV driver turnover is high in the U.S., and businesses that operate HDVs are concerned about retaining their best drivers. Therefore, they may avoid technologies that require significant new training or adjustments in driver behavior.
NAFA Fleet Management Association states that the standards will increase pressure on already strained driver and technician resources. The agencies understand that the industry experiences a great deal of driver turnover; we do not know how the standards will affect that turnover. Changes to vehicles that require some changes in driver behavior may increase driver turnover. For instance, drivers who prefer manual transmissions may respond poorly to vehicles with automatic transmissions. On the other hand, the switch to automatic transmissions may facilitate entry of new drivers who no longer need to learn as much about shifting.
For some technologies that can be used to meet these standards, such as automatic tire inflation systems, training costs are likely to be minimal. Other technologies, such as stop-start systems, may require drivers to adjust their expectations about vehicle operation, and it is difficult for the agencies to anticipate how drivers will respond to such changes.
• Constraints on access to capital for investment. If buyers of new vehicles have limited funds available, then they must choose between investing in fuel-saving technology and other vehicle technologies or attributes.
CEI states that investments require tradeoffs: Investment in fuel economy crowds out other investments. There would be tradeoffs in purchasing choices if capital markets are constrained, and fuel-saving technologies do not provide returns sufficient to achieve the hurdle rates that the buyers require. Klemick et al. (2015) did not find capital constraints to be a problem for the medium- and large-sized businesses participating in their study. On the other hand, Roeth et al. (2013) noted that access to capital can be a significant challenge to smaller or independent businesses, and that price is always a concern to buyers. Section XIV.D. discusses the agencies' outreach to small businesses to learn about their special circumstances. These are reflected in various flexibilities for small businesses in the regulations.
• “Network externalities,” where the benefits to new users of a technology depend on how many others have already adopted it. If the value of a technology increases with increasing adoption, then it can be difficult for the adoption process to begin: Each potential adopter has an incentive to wait for others to adopt before making the investment. If all adopters wait for others, then adoption may not happen.
One example where network externalities seem likely to arise is the market for natural gas-fueled HDVs: The limited availability of refueling stations may reduce potential buyers' willingness to purchase natural gas-fueled HDVs, while the small number of such HDVs in use does not provide sufficient economic incentive to construct more natural gas refueling stations. Some businesses that operate HDVs may also be concerned about the difficulty in locating repair facilities or replacement parts, such as single-wide tires, wherever their vehicles operate. When a technology has been widely adopted, then it is likely to be serviceable even in remote or rural places, but until it becomes widely available, its early adopters may face difficulties with repairs or replacements. By accelerating the widespread adoption of these technologies, these standards may assist in overcoming these difficulties.
Consumer Federation of America states that network externalities are a potentially important barrier to adoption of fuel-saving technologies.
• First-mover disadvantage. Many manufacturers prefer to observe the market and follow other manufacturers rather than be the first to market with a specific technology. The “first-mover disadvantage” has been recognized in other research where the “first-mover” pays a higher proportion of the costs of developing technology, but loses the long-term advantage when other
Several commenters support the existence of the first-mover disadvantage. Roeth et al. (2013) noted that HDV buyers often prefer to have technology or equipment installed by their favored original equipment manufacturers. However, some technologies may not be available through these preferred sources, or may be available only as after-market installations from third parties (Aarnink et al. 2012, Roeth et al. 2013). Manufacturers may be hesitant to offer technologies for which there is not strong demand, especially if the technologies require significant research and development expenses and other costs of bringing the technology to a market of uncertain demand. Roeth et al. (2013) noted that it can take years, and sometimes as much as a decade, for a specific technology to become available from all manufacturers.
As mentioned above, the Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that EPA regulations on nitrogen oxides (NO
In summary, the agencies recognize that businesses that operate HDVs are under competitive pressure to reduce operating costs, which should compel HDV buyers to identify and rapidly adopt cost-effective fuel-saving technologies. Outlays for labor and fuel generally constitute the two largest shares of HDV operating costs, depending on the price of fuel, distance traveled, type of HDV, and commodity transported (if any), so businesses that operate HDVs face strong incentives to reduce these costs.
However, the relatively short payback periods that buyers of new HDVs appear to require suggest that some combination of the factors cited above impedes this process. Markets for both new and used HDVs may face these problems, although it is difficult to assess empirically the degree to which they actually do. Even if the benefits from widespread adoption of fuel-saving technologies exceed their costs, their use may remain limited or spread slowly because their early adopters bear a disproportionate share of those costs. In this case, as CFA says in its comments, these standards may help to overcome such barriers by ensuring that these measures will be widely adopted.
Providing information about fuel-saving technologies, offering incentives for their adoption, and sharing HDV operators' real-world experiences with their performance through voluntary programs such as EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership should assist in the adoption of new cost-saving technologies. Nevertheless, other barriers that impede the diffusion of new technologies are likely to remain. Buyers who are willing to experiment with new technologies expect to find cost savings, but those savings may be difficult to verify or replicate. As noted previously, because benefits from employing these technologies are likely to vary with the characteristics of individual routes and traffic patterns, buyers of new HDVs may find it difficult to identify or verify the effects of fuel-saving technologies in their operations. Risk-averse buyers may also avoid new technologies out of concerns over the possibility of inadequate returns on their investments, or with other possible adverse impacts.
As various commenters note, competitive pressures in the HDV freight transport industry can provide a strong incentive to reduce fuel consumption and improve environmental performance. Nevertheless, HDV manufacturers may delay in investing in the development and production of new technologies, instead waiting for other manufacturers to bear the initial risks of those investments. In addition, not every HDV operator has the requisite ability or interest to access and utilize the technical information, or the resources necessary to evaluate this information within the context of his or her own operations.
As discussed previously, whether the technologies available to improve HDVs' fuel efficiency would be adopted widely in the absence of the program is challenging to assess. To the extent that these technologies would be adopted in its absence, neither their costs nor their benefits should be attributed to the program.
The agencies will continue to explore reasons for the slow adoption of readily available and apparently cost-effective technologies for improving fuel efficiency.
The direct manufacturing costs (DMCs) used throughout this analysis are derived from several sources. Many of the tractor, vocational and trailer DMCs can be sourced to the Phase 1 rule which, in turn, were sourced largely from a contracted study by ICF International for EPA.
Importantly, technology costs differ from package costs which include adoption rates. Package costs have changed more significantly due to changes to the adoption rates as described throughout the earlier sections of this Preamble and briefly below in Section IX.B.1.(d).
For HD pickups and vans, we have similarly used costs from the proposal except for the updating to 2013 dollars. As explained in the proposal, we relied primarily on the Phase 1 rule and the recent light-duty 2017-2025 model year rule since most technologies expected on these vehicles are, in effect, the same as those used on light-duty pickups. Many of those technology DMCs are based on cost teardown studies which the agencies consider to be the most robust method of cost estimation. However, because most of the HD versions of those technologies are expected to be more costly than their light-duty counterparts, we have scaled upward most of the light-duty DMCs for this analysis. We have also used some costs developed under contract to NHTSA by Tetra Tech.
Importantly, in our methodology, all technologies are treated as being sourced from a supplier rather than being developed and produced in-house. As a result, some portion of the total indirect costs of making a technology or system—those costs incurred by the supplier for research, development, transportation, marketing etc.—are contained in the sales price to the engine and/or vehicle/trailer manufacturer (
We present the details—sources, DMC values, scaling from light-duty values, markups, learning effects, adoption rates—behind all our costs in Chapter 2 of the RIA.
To produce a unit of output, engine and truck manufacturers incur direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include cost of materials and labor costs. Indirect costs are all the costs associated with producing the unit of output that are not direct costs—for example, they may be related to production (such as research and development [R&D]), corporate operations (such as salaries, pensions, and health care costs for corporate staff), or selling (such as transportation, dealer support, and marketing). Indirect costs are generally recovered by allocating a share of the costs to each unit of good sold. Although it is possible to account for direct costs allocated to each unit of good sold, it is more challenging to account for indirect costs allocated to a unit of goods sold. To make a cost analysis process more feasible, markup factors, which relate total indirect costs to total direct costs, have been developed. These factors are often referred to as retail price equivalent (RPE) multipliers.
While the agencies have traditionally used RPE multipliers to estimate indirect costs, in recent GHG/CAFE/fuel consumption rules RPEs have been replaced in the primary analysis with indirect cost multipliers (ICMs). ICMs differ from RPEs in that they attempt to estimate not all indirect costs incurred to bring a product to point of sale, but only those indirect costs that change as a result of a government action or regulatory requirement. As such, some indirect costs, notably health and retirement benefits of retired employees, among other indirect costs, will not be expected to change due to a government action and, therefore, the portion of the RPE that covered those costs does not change.
Further, the ICM is not a “one-size-fits-all” markup as is the traditional RPE. With ICMs, higher complexity technologies like hybridization or moving from a manual to automatic transmission may require higher indirect costs—more research and development, more integration work, etc.—suggesting a higher markup. Conversely, lower complexity technologies like reducing friction or adding passive aero features may require fewer indirect costs thereby suggesting a lower markup.
Notably, ICMs are also not a simple multiplier as are traditional RPEs. The ICM is broken into two parts—warranty related and non-warranty related costs. The warranty related portion of the ICM is relatively small while the non-warranty portion represents typically over 95 percent of indirect costs. These two portions are applied to different DMC values to arrive at total costs (TC). The warranty portion of the markup is applied to a DMC that decreases year-over-year due to learning effects (described below in Section IX.B.1.c).
In the NPRM, the agencies expressed concern that some potential costs associated with this rulemaking may not be adequately captured by our ICMs. ICMs are estimated based on a few specific technologies and these technologies may not be representative of the changes actually made to meet the requirements. We requested and received comment on this issue. Specifically, some commenters argued that we had underestimated costs associated with R&D and costs associated with our compliance programs, both of which are indirect costs. However, we address those indirect costs separately because GHG-related R&D and GHG-related
We provide more details on our ICM approach and the markups used for each technology in Chapter 2.12 of the RIA.
For some of the technologies considered in this analysis, manufacturer learning effects will be expected to play a role in the actual end costs. The “learning curve” or “experience curve” describes the reduction in unit production costs as a function of accumulated production volume. In theory, the cost behavior it describes applies to cumulative production volume measured at the level of an individual manufacturer, although it is often assumed—as both agencies have done in past regulatory analyses—to apply at the industry-wide level, particularly in industries that utilize many common technologies and component supply sources. Both agencies believe there are indeed many factors that cause costs to decrease over time. Research in the costs of manufacturing has consistently shown that, as manufacturers gain experience in production, they are able to apply innovations to simplify machining and assembly operations, use lower cost materials, and reduce the number or complexity of component parts. All of these factors allow manufacturers to lower the per-unit cost of production (
In this analysis, the agencies are using the same approach to learning as done in the proposal and in past GHG/CAFE/fuel consumption rules. In short, learning effects result in rapid cost reductions in the early years following introduction of a new technology. The agencies have estimated those cost reductions as resulting in 20 percent lower costs for every doubling of production volume. As production volumes increase, learning rates continue at the same pace but flatten asymptotically due to the nature of the persistent doubling of production required to realize that cost reduction. As such, the cost reductions flatten out as production volumes continue to increase. Consistent with the Phase 1 rule, we refer to these two distinct portions of the “learning cost reduction curve” or “learning curve” as the steeper and flatter portions of the curve. On that steep portion of the curve, costs are estimated to decrease by 20 percent for each double of production or, by proxy, in the third and then fifth year of production following introduction. On the flat portion of the curve, costs are estimated to decrease by 3 percent per year for 5 years, then 2 percent per year for 5 years, then 1 percent per year for 5 years. Also consistent with the Phase 1 rule, the majority of the technologies we expect will be adopted are considered to be on the flat portion of the learning curve meaning that the 20 percent cost reductions are rarely applied. The agencies requested and received comments on our approach to estimating learning effects, specifically with respect to cost reductions applied to waste heat recovery and APUs. Commenters suggested that, since waste heat recovery is not in production, the agencies should not have applied learning effect to that technology. They also argued that, since APUs have been around for years, applying any cost reduction effects to their costs is “questionable.” The agencies disagree with both of these comments. Whether production-related learning-by-doing cost reductions or from other factors, we are aware of dramatic changes to waste heat recovery systems that clearly make that technology less costly. We describe these changes in more detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA. Also, to suggest that APUs cannot undergo any cost reductions from learning does not seem reasonable. The agencies have placed that technology on the flat portion of the learning curve since it is well established. As a result, the estimated learning effects are not large in scale, but to suggest that an APU will cost the same in the 2020s as it does today, in constant dollar terms, is not reasonable. Further, the commenter provided no supporting data or information to support this claim.
We provide more details on the concept of learning-by-doing and the learning effects applied in this analysis in Chapter 2.11 of the RIA.
Determining the stringency of these standards involves a balancing of relevant factors—chiefly technology feasibility and effectiveness, costs, and lead time. For vocational vehicles, tractors and trailers, the agencies have projected a technology path to achieve these standards reflecting an application rate of those technologies the agencies consider to be available at reasonable cost in the lead times provided. The agencies do not expect (and do not require) each of the technologies for which costs have been developed to be employed by all trucks and trailers across the board.
For HD pickups and vans, the CAFE model determines the technology adoption rates that are estimated to most cost effectively meet the standards. Similar to vocational vehicles, tractors and trailers, package costs are rarely if ever a simple sum of all the technology costs since each technology will be expected to be adopted at different rates. The methods for estimating technology adoption rates and resultant costs per vehicle (and other impacts) for HD pickups and vans are discussed above in Section VI. Individual technology costs are presented in Chapter 2.11 of the final RIA.
We provide details of expected technology adoption rates for each of the regulatory subcategories in Chapter 2 of the RIA. We present package costs both in Sections III through VI of this Preamble and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA.
As noted above in Section IX.B.1, the agencies are using technology costs from many different sources. These sources, having been published in different years, present costs in different year dollars (
The agencies have also estimated additional and/or new compliance costs associated with these standards. Normally, compliance program costs will be considered part of the indirect costs and, therefore, will be accounted for via the markup applied to direct manufacturing costs. However, since the agencies are proposing new compliance elements that were not present during development of the indirect cost markups used in this analysis, additional compliance program costs are being accounted for via a separate “line-item.” New research and development costs (see below) are being handled in the same way.
The new compliance program elements included in this rule are new powertrain testing within the vocational vehicle program, and an all-new compliance program (since none has existed to date) for the trailer program. The remaining compliance provisions are identical to those in Phase 1, and the estimated costs therefore are derived using the same methodology used to estimate compliance costs in the Phase 1 rule. Compliance program costs cover costs associated with any necessary compliance testing and reporting to the agencies. The details behind the estimated compliance program costs are provided in Chapter 7 of the RIA.
The agencies requested and received comments on our compliance cost estimates. Some commenters were concerned that we had significantly underestimated costs. In response, we have adjusted our compliance costs estimates, including those for testing and reporting, and have increased our annual compliance costs from roughly $6 million per year to nearly $11 million per year. This excludes the estimated $16 million in 2020 to build and/or upgrade facilities to conduct testing. We discuss our updated estimates in more detail in Chapter 7 of the RIA.
Much like the compliance program costs described above, we have estimated additional HDD engine, vocational vehicle and tractor R&D associated with these standards that is not accounted for via the indirect cost markups used for these segments. Much like the Phase 1 rule, EPA is estimating these additional R&D costs will occur over a 4-year timeframe as these standards come into force and industry works on means to comply. After that period, the additional R&D costs go to $0 as R&D expenditures return to their normal levels and R&D costs are accounted for via the ICMs—and the RPEs behind them—used for these segments. The details behind the estimated R&D costs are provided in Chapter 7 of the RIA
The agencies requested and received comments on our R&D estimates. One commenter suggested that our estimate of $960 million over four years, for hundreds of types of disparate vehicles was unrealistic given the $80 million of R&D spent on the Super Truck program over 5 years. Unfortunately, no better estimate was provided by commenters. We have increased our estimated R&D, relative to that estimated in the proposal, by roughly $14 million per year for 4 years resulting in a total additional R&D estimate of over $1 billion. Importantly, as noted, this R&D spending is an additional expenditure above and beyond that estimated as part of the indirect cost markups which include in them an estimate of roughly 4 percent of revenues spent on R&D. Another way of stating this is that roughly 4 percent of our technology costs are actually estimated as R&D-related costs. Given our annual technology costs of $2 billion to $5 billion per year from 2021 through 2027, or over $24 billion over those 7 years, we are estimating another $1 billion in R&D via our indirect cost markups (4 percent of $24 billion). In other words, we are really estimating roughly $2 billion in R&D spending during the calendar years 2021 through 2027.
The agencies have estimated the costs of the vehicle standards on an annual basis for the years 2018 through 2050, and have also estimated costs for the full model year lifetimes of MY 2018 through MY 2029 vehicles. Table IX-2 shows the annual costs of these standards along with net present values using both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. Table IX-3 shows the discounted model year lifetime costs of these standards at both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates along with sums across applicable model years.
New technology costs begin in MY 2018 as trailers begin to add new technology. Compliance costs begin with the new standards with capital cost expenditure in that year for building and upgrading test facilities to conduct the powertrain testing in the vocational program. Research and development costs begin in 2021 and last for 4 years as engine, tractor and vocational vehicle manufacturers conduct research and development testing to integrate new technologies into their engines and vehicles.
The new GHG and fuel consumption standards will result in significant improvements in the fuel efficiency of affected vehicles, and drivers of those vehicles will see corresponding savings associated with reduced fuel expenditures. The agencies have estimated the impacts on fuel consumption for these standards. Details behind how these changes in fuel consumption were calculated are presented in Section VII of this Preamble and in Chapter 5 of the RIA. The total number of miles that vehicles are driven each year is different under the regulatory alternatives than in the reference case due to the “rebound effect” (discussed below in Section IX.E), so the changes in fuel consumption associated with each alternative are not strictly proportional to differences in the fuel economy levels they require.
The expected annual impacts on fuel consumption are shown in Table IX-4. Table IX-5 shows the MY lifetime changes in fuel consumption. The gallons shown in these tables as reductions in fuel consumption reflect reductions due to these standards and include any increased consumption resulting from the rebound effect (discussed below in Section IX.E).
We have also estimated the changes in fuel expenditures, or the fuel savings, using fuel prices estimated in the Energy and Information Administration's 2015 Annual Energy Outlook.
The agencies expect increases in maintenance costs under these standards. In the NPRM, we estimated maintenance costs associated with lower rolling resistance tires. In the final rule, we have included maintenance costs for many more systems, including waste heat recovery, APUs, transmission fluids, etc. We have estimated that these maintenance costs will be incurred throughout the vehicle lifetime at intervals consistent with typical replacement intervals. Those intervals are difficult to quantify given the variety of vehicles and operating modes within the HD industry. We detail the inputs used to estimate maintenance impacts in Chapter 7.3.3 of the RIA.
We have heard from at least one source
Table IX-9 shows the annual increased maintenance costs of the final program along with net present values using both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. Table IX-10 shows the discounted model year lifetime increased maintenance costs of the final program at both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates along with sums across applicable model years.
The “rebound effect” has been defined in a variety of different ways in the energy policy and economics literature. One common definition states that the rebound effect is the increase in demand for an energy service when the cost of the energy service is reduced due to efficiency improvements.
In our analysis and discussion below, we focus on one widely-used metric to estimate the rebound effect associated with all types of more intensive vehicle use, the increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that results from improved fuel efficiency. VMT can often provide a reasonable approximation for all types of more intensive vehicle use. For simplicity, we refer to this as “the VMT rebound effect” or “the direct VMT rebound” throughout this section, although we acknowledge that it is an approximation to the rebound effect associated with all types of more intensive vehicle use. The agencies use our VMT rebound estimates to generate VMT inputs that are then entered into the EPA MOVES national emissions inventory model and the Volpe Center's HD CAFE model. Both of these models use these inputs along with many others to generate projected emissions and fuel consumption changes resulting from each of the regulatory alternatives analyzed.
The following sections describe the factors affecting the magnitude of HDV VMT rebound; review the econometric and other evidence related to HDV VMT rebound; and summarize how we estimated the HDV rebound effect for this rulemaking.
The magnitude and timing of HDV VMT rebound are driven by the interaction of many different factors.
If fuel cost savings are passed on to the HDV operators' customers (
Conversely, if fuel efficiency standards lead to net increases in the total costs of HDV operation because fuel cost savings do not fully offset the increase in HDV purchase prices and associated depreciation costs, then the price of HDV services could rise. This is likely to spur a decrease in HDV VMT, and perhaps a shift to alternative shipping modes. These effects could also ripple through the economy and affect GDP. Note, however, that we project fuel cost savings will offset technology costs in our analysis supporting the final standards.
It is also important to note that any increase in HDV VMT resulting from the final standards may be offset, to some extent, by a decrease in VMT by older HDVs. This may occur if lower fuel costs resulting from our standards cause multi-vehicle fleet operators to shift VMT to newer, more efficient HDVs in their fleet or cause operators with newer, more efficient HDVs to be more successful at winning contracts than operators with older HDVs.
Also, as discussed in Chapter 8.2 of the RIA, the magnitude of the rebound effect is likely to be influenced by the extent of any market failures that affect the demand for more fuel efficient HDVs, as well as by HDV operators' responses to their perception of the tradeoff between higher upfront HDV purchase costs versus lower but uncertain future expenditures on fuel.
As discussed above, HDV VMT rebound is defined as the change in HDV VMT that occurs in response to an increase in HDV fuel efficiency. We are not aware of any studies that directly estimate this elasticity for the U.S. In the proposal, we discussed a number of econometric analyses of other related elasticities that could potentially be used as a proxy for measuring HDV VMT rebound, as well as several other analyses that may provide insight into the magnitude of HDV VMT rebound.
We also discussed several challenges that researchers face in attempting to quantify the VMT rebound effect for HDVs,
This section reviews new econometric analyses that have been produced since the release of the proposal. All of these analyses study the change in HDV use (measured in VMT, ton-mile, or fuel consumption) in response to changes in fuel price ($/gallon) or fuel cost ($/mile or $/ton-mile). The studies presented below attempt to estimate these elasticities in the HDV sector using varying approaches and data sources.
Concurrent with the development of the proposal for this rule, EPA contracted with Energy and Environmental Research Associates (EERA) to analyze the HDV rebound effect for regulatory assessment purposes. Excerpts of EERA's initial report to EPA are included in the NPRM docket and contain detailed qualitative discussions of the rebound effect as well as data sources that could be used in quantitative analysis.
At the time of publication of the NPRM, Winebrake et al. (2015) published two papers in Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment based on the EERA work mentioned above.
Winebrake, J.J.,
The results in Winebrake et al. are that the null hypothesis—which states that the fuel price elasticity of VMT and the fuel price elasticity of fuel consumption are zero—cannot be rejected with statistical confidence. The papers hypothesize that low elasticities may be due to a range of possibilities including: (1) The common use of fuel surcharges; (2) adjustments in other operational costs such as labor; (3) possible principal-agent problems affecting driver behavior; and (4) the nature of freight transportation as an input to a larger supply chain system that is driven by other factors. These two papers suggest that previous regulatory analysis that uses a five percent rebound effect for combination trucks and a 15 percent rebound effect for single unit trucks may be overestimating the direct VMT rebound effect.
To the best of our knowledge, the Winebrake et al. paper represents the first peer-reviewed work in the last two decades, after Gately (1990),
However, there is also other recent work that has not been peer reviewed, or that studies HD VMT rebound in other countries, that bears mention. Resources for the Future (RFF) filed a comment on the proposal with a Working Paper by Leard et al. (2015) to address HDV rebound effects.
Leard et al. report a VMT rebound effect result of 18.5 percent with respect to fuel costs per mile for combination trucks.
Recently, Wadud (2016) has estimated price elasticities of diesel demand in the U.K.
At the time the agencies conducted their analysis of the proposed Phase 2 HD fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards, the agencies determined that the evidence did not lend itself to any changes in the values used to estimate the VMT rebound effect in the HD Phase 1 rulemaking. The agencies used the rebound effects estimate of 15 percent for vocational vehicles five percent for combination tractors, and 10 percent for HD pickup trucks and vans from the HD Phase 1 rulemaking.
The emergence of new information as well as public comment are cause for updating the quantitative values used to estimate the VMT rebound effect from those estimated by the analysis conducted for the HD Phase 1 rulemaking. For vocational trucks, the Winebrake et al. study found no responsiveness of truck travel to diesel fuel prices, suggesting a VMT rebound of essentially zero. Leard et al. suggested a VMT rebound effect for vocational trucks of roughly 12 percent. For combination trucks, the Winebrake et al. study found a rebound effect of essentially zero percent. The Leard et al. study found a VMT elasticity rebound effect of roughly 18 percent for combination trucks. In addition to the RFF comments to which Leard et al. was included, EPA and NHTSA received ten other comments on HDV rebound during the comment period for the proposal, six of which were substantive. One of these commenters suggested that the agencies' rebound numbers “appear reasonable.” The five others commented that the rebound estimates for both combination and vocational vehicles used in the proposal were overestimated, and suggested using the Winebrake et al. estimates.
In revising the HD VMT rebound estimates, we give somewhat greater consideration to the findings of Winebrake et al. because it is peer-reviewed and published, whereas Leard et al. is a Working Paper. Based on this consideration and on the comments that we received in response to the proposal, the agencies have chosen to revise the VMT rebound estimate for vocational trucks down to five percent, and have elected to maintain the use of the five percent rebound effect for tractors. We note that while the Winebrake et al. work supports rebound estimates of zero percent for vocational vehicles and tractors, using a five percent value is conservative and leaves some consideration of uncertainty, as well as some consideration of the (un-peer reviewed and unpublished) findings of the Leard et al. study. The five percent value is in range of the two U.S. studies and generally addresses the issues raised by the commenters. We did not receive new data or comments on our estimated VMT rebound effect for heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans. Therefore, we have elected to use the 10 percent value used for the proposal.
It should be noted that the rebound estimates we have selected for our analysis represent the VMT impact from the final standards with respect to changes in the fuel cost per mile driven. As described in the RIA (Chapter 8), the HDV rebound effect should ideally be a measure of the change in fuel consumed with respect to the change in
In the NPRM, due to timing constraints, we used the same “overall” VMT rebound value for each of the alternatives. For the final rulemaking, we determined VMT rebound separately for each HDV category and for each alternative. The agencies made simplifying assumptions in the VMT rebound analysis for this final rulemaking, similar to the approach taken during HD Phase 1 final rules. For example, due to timing constraints, the agencies did not have the final technology package costs for each of the alternatives prior to the need to conduct the emission inventory analysis. Therefore, the agencies used the technology package costs developed for each of the NPRM alternatives. Chapter 8.3.3 in the RIA provides more details on our assessment of HDV VMT rebound. In addition, Chapter 7 of the RIA presents VMT rebound for each HDV sector that we estimated for the final program. These VMT impacts are reflected in the estimates of total fuel savings and reductions in emissions of GHG and other air pollutants presented in Section VII and VIII of this Preamble for all categories.
For the purposes of this final rulemaking, we have not taken into account any potential fuel savings or GHG emission reductions from the rail sector due to mode shift because estimates of this effect seem too speculative at this time. Similarly, we have not taken into account any fuel savings or GHG emissions reductions from the potential shift in VMT from older HDVs to newer, more efficient HDVs because we have found no evidence of this potential effect from fuel efficiency standards. The agencies requested comment on these assumptions in the NPRM, but did not receive any.
Note that while we focus on the VMT rebound effect in our analysis of these final rules, there are at least two other types of rebound effects discussed in the energy policy and economics literature. In addition to VMT rebound effects, there are “indirect” rebound effects, which refers to the purchase of other goods or services (that consume energy) with the costs savings from energy efficiency improvements; and “economy-wide” rebound effects, which refers to the increased demand for energy throughout the economy in response to the reduced market price of energy that happens as a result of energy efficiency improvements. One commenter pointed out that consumers may use their savings from lower fuel costs as a result of the direct rebound effect to buy more goods and services, which indirectly increases the use of energy (
Another commenter suggested that the indirect or economy-wide rebound effect could be large enough so as to fully offset the fuel savings and GHG emissions benefits of the rule.
As discussed in this rule, all of the fuel costs savings will not necessarily be passed through to the consumer in terms of cheaper goods and services. First, there may be market barriers that impede trucking companies from passing along the fuel cost savings from the rule in the form of lower rates. Second, there are upfront vehicle costs (and potentially transaction or transition costs associated with the adoption of new technologies) that would partially offset some of the fuel cost savings from our rule, thereby limiting the magnitude of the impact on prices of final goods and services. Also, it is not clear how the fuel savings from the rule would be utilized by trucking firms. For example, trucking firms may reinvest fuel savings in their own company; retain fuel savings as profits; pass fuel savings onto customers or others; or increase driver pay. Finally, it is not clear how the different pathways that fuel savings would be utilized would affect greenhouse gas emissions.
Research on indirect and economy-wide rebound effects is scant, and we have not identified any peer-reviewed research that attempts to quantify indirect or economy-wide rebound effects for HDVs. In particular, the agencies are not aware of any peer-reviewed approach which indicates that the magnitude of indirect or economy-wide rebound effects, if any, would be significant for this final rule.
In order to test the effect of alternative assumptions about the rebound effect, NHTSA examined the sensitivity of its estimates of benefits and costs of the proposed Phase 2 program for HD pickups and vans to alternative assumptions about the rebound effect. While the main analysis for pickups and vans assumes a 10 percent rebound effect, the sensitivity analysis estimates the benefits and costs of these standards under the assumptions of 5, 15, and 20 percent rebound effects. This sensitivity analysis can be found in Section IX.E.3 of the NPRM Preamble
The agencies considered two additional potential indirect effects which may lead to unintended consequences of the program to improve the fuel efficiency and reduce GHG emissions from HD trucks. The next sections cover the agencies' qualitative discussions on potential class shifting and fleet turnover effects.
Heavy-duty vehicles are typically configured and purchased to perform a function. For example, a concrete mixer truck is purchased to transport concrete, a combination tractor is purchased to move freight with the use of a trailer, and a Class 3 pickup truck could be purchased by a landscape company to pull a trailer carrying lawnmowers. The purchaser makes decisions based on many attributes of the vehicle, including the gross vehicle weight rating of the vehicle, which in part determines the amount of freight or equipment that can be carried. If the Phase 2 standards impact either the performance of the vehicle or the marginal cost of the vehicle relative to the other vehicle classes, then consumers may choose to purchase a different vehicle, resulting in the unintended consequence of increased fuel consumption and GHG emissions in-use.
The agencies, along with the NAS panel, found that there is little or no literature which evaluates class shifting between trucks.
Light-duty pickup trucks, those with a GVWR of less than 8,500 lbs, are currently regulated under the existing GHG/CAFE standards for light duty vehicles. The increased stringency of the light-duty 2017-2025 MY vehicle rule has led some to speculate that vehicle consumers may choose to purchase heavy-duty pickup trucks that are currently regulated under the HD Phase 1 program if the cost of the light-duty regulation is high relative to the cost to buy the larger heavy-duty pickup trucks. Since fuel consumption and GHG emissions rise significantly with vehicle mass, a shift from light-duty trucks to heavy-duty trucks would likely lead to higher fuel consumption and GHG emissions, an untended consequence of the regulations. Given the significant price premium of a heavy-duty truck (often five to ten thousand dollars more than a light-duty pickup), we believe that such a class shift would be unlikely whether or not this program exited. These final rules would continue to diminish any incentive for such a class shift because they would narrow the GHG and fuel efficiency performance gap between light-duty and heavy-duty pickup trucks. The regulations for the HD pickup trucks, and similarly for vans, are based on similar technologies and therefore reflect a similar expected increase in cost when compared to the light-duty GHG regulation. Hence, the combination of the two regulations provides little incentive for a shift from light-duty trucks to HD trucks. To the extent that this regulation of heavy-duty pickups and vans could conceivably encourage a class shift towards lighter pickups, this unintended consequence
The projected cost increases for this action differ between Class 8 day cabs and Class 8 sleeper cabs, reflecting our conservative assumption for purposes of this analysis on shifting that compliance with these standards would lead truck consumers to specify sleeper cabs equipped with APUs or alternatives to APU while day cab consumers would not. Since Class 8 day cab and sleeper cab trucks perform essentially the same function when hauling a trailer, this raises the possibility that the additional cost for an APU or alternatives to APU equipped sleeper cab could lead to a shift from sleeper cab to day cab trucks. We do not believe that such an intended consequence would occur for the following reasons. The addition of a sleeper berth to a tractor cab is not a consumer-selectable attribute in quite the same way as other vehicle features. The sleeper cab provides a utility that long-distance trucking fleets need to conduct their operations—an on-board sleeping berth that lets a driver comply with federally-mandated rest periods, as required by the Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's hours-of-service regulations. The cost of sleeper trucks is already higher than the cost of day cabs, yet the fleets that need this utility purchase them.
A trucking fleet could instead decide to put its drivers in hotels in lieu of using sleeper berths, and switch to day cabs. However, this is unlikely to occur in any great number, since the added cost for the hotel stays would far overwhelm differences in the marginal cost between day and sleeper cabs. Even if some fleets do opt to buy hotel rooms and switch to day cabs, they would be highly unlikely to purchase a day cab that was aerodynamically worse than the sleeper cab they replaced, since the need for features optimized for long-distance hauling would not have changed. So in practice, there would likely be little difference to the environment for any switching that might occur. Further, while our projected costs in the NPRM assumed the purchase of an APU for compliance for nearly all sleeper cabs, the updated analysis reflects additional flexibility in the final rules that would allow manufacturers to use several other alternatives to APUs that would be much less expensive. Thus, even though we are now projecting that APU costs will be somewhat higher than what we projected for the NPRM, manufacturers and consumers will not be required to use them. In fact, this regulatory structure would allow compliance using a near zero cost software utility that eliminates tractor idling after five minutes. Using this compliance approach, the cost difference between a Class 8 sleeper cab and day cab due to these regulations is small. We are proposing this alternative compliance approach reflecting that some sleeper cabs are used in team driving situations where one driver sleeps while the other drives. In that situation, an APU is unnecessary since the tractor is continually being driven when occupied. When it is parked, it would automatically eliminate any additional idling through the shutdown software. If trucking businesses choose this option, then costs based on purchase of APUs may overestimate the costs of this program to this sector.
Class shifting from combination tractors to vocational vehicles may occur if a customer deems the additional marginal cost of tractors due to the regulation to be greater than the utility provided by the tractor. The agencies initially considered this issue when deciding whether to include Class 7 tractors with the Class 8 tractors or regulate them as vocational vehicles. The agencies' evaluation of the combined vehicle weight rating of the Class 7 shows that if these vehicles were treated significantly differently from the Class 8 tractors, then they could be easily substituted for Class 8 tractors. Therefore, the agencies will continue to include both classes in the tractor category. The agencies believe that a shift from tractors to vocational vehicles would be limited because of the ability of tractors to pick up and drop off trailers at locations which cannot be done by vocational vehicles.
The agencies do not envision that the regulatory program would cause class shifting within the vocational vehicle class. As vocational vehicles include a wide variety of vehicle types, and serve a wide range of functions, the diversity in the vocational vehicle segment can be primarily attributed to the variety of customer needs for specialized vehicle bodies and added equipment, rather than to the chassis. The new standards are projected to lead to a small increase in the incremental cost per vehicle. However, these cost increases are consistent across the board for both vocational vehicles and the engines used in the vehicle (Table V-30 at Preamble Section V.C.(2)(e)). The agencies believe that the utility gained from the additional technology package would outweigh the additional cost for vocational vehicles.
In conclusion, NHTSA and EPA believe that the regulatory structure for HD vehicles and engines would not significantly change the current competitive and market factors that determine purchaser preferences. Furthermore, even if a small amount of shifting would occur, any resulting GHG impacts would likely to be negligible because any vehicle class that sees an uptick in sales is also being regulated for GHG emission control and fuel efficiency. Therefore, the agencies did not include an impact of class shifting on the vehicle populations used to assess the benefits of the program.
A regulation that affects the cost to purchase and/or operate trucks could affect whether a consumer decides to purchase a new truck and the timing of that purchase. The term pre-buy refers to the idea that truck purchases may occur earlier than otherwise planned to avoid the additional costs associated with a new regulatory requirement. Slower fleet turnover, or low-buys, may occur when owners opt to keep their existing truck rather than purchase a new truck due to the incremental cost of the regulation.
Several commenters raised the possibility of pre-buy for these standards. Allison Transmission, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, and the Truck Renting and Leasing Association point toward pre-buy associated with standards from the 2000s for nitrogen oxides (NO
The 2010 NAS HD Report discussed the topics associated with medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fleet turnover. NAS noted that there is some empirical evidence of pre-buy behavior in response to the 2004 and 2007 heavy-duty engine emission standards, with larger impacts occurring in response to higher costs.
. . . during periods of stable or growing demand in the freight sector, pre-buy behavior may have significant impact on purchase patterns, especially for larger fleets with better access to capital and financing. Under these same conditions, smaller operators may simply elect to keep their current equipment on the road longer, all the more likely given continued improvements in diesel engine durability over time. On the other hand, to the extent that fuel economy improvements can offset incremental purchase costs, these impacts will be lessened. Nevertheless, when it comes to efficiency investments, most heavy-duty fleet operators require relatively quick payback periods, on the order of two to three years.
The regulations are projected to return fuel savings to the vehicle owners that offset the cost of the regulation within a few years. The effects of the regulation on purchasing behavior and sales will depend on the nature of the market failures and the extent to which firms consider the projected future fuel savings in their purchasing decisions.
If trucking firms or other buyers account for the rapid payback, they are unlikely to strategically accelerate or delay their purchase plans at additional cost in capital to avoid a regulation that will lower their overall operating costs. As discussed in Section IX.A., this scenario may occur if this program reduces uncertainty about fuel-saving technologies. More reliable information about ways to reduce fuel consumption allows truck purchasers to evaluate better the benefits and costs of additional fuel savings, primarily in the original vehicle market, but possibly in the resale market as well. In addition, these standards are expected to lead manufacturers to install more fuel-saving technologies and promote their purchase; the increased availability and promotion may encourage sales.
Other market failures may leave open the possibility of some pre-buy or delayed purchasing behavior. Firms may not consider the full value of the future fuel savings for several reasons. For instance, truck purchasers may not want to invest in fuel efficiency because of uncertainty about fuel prices. Another explanation is that the resale market may not fully recognize the value of fuel savings, due to lack of trust of new technologies or changes in the uses of the vehicles. Lack of coordination (also called split incentives—see Section IX.A) between truck purchasers (who may emphasize the up-front costs of the trucks) and truck operators, who like the fuel savings, can also lead to pre-buy or delayed purchasing behavior. If these market failures prevent firms from fully internalizing fuel savings when deciding on vehicle purchases, then pre-buy and delayed purchase could occur and could result in a slight decrease in the GHG benefits of the regulation.
Thus, whether pre-buy or delayed purchase is likely to play a significant role in the truck market depends on the specific behaviors of purchasers in that market. Without additional information about which scenario is more likely to be prevalent, the agencies are not projecting a change in fleet turnover characteristics due to this regulation.
Industry purchasing in relation to the advent of the Phase 1 standards offers at least some insight into the impacts of these standards. The Environmental Defense Fund observes that MY 2014 heavy-duty trucks had the highest sales since 2005. Any trends in sales are likely to be affected by macroeconomic conditions, which have been recovering since 2009-2010. The standards may have affected sales, but the size of that effect is likely to be swamped by the effects of the economic recovery. It is unlikely to be possible to separate the effects of the existing standards from other confounding factors.
We estimate the global social benefits of CO
The SC-CO
The 2010 SC-CO
Accordingly, EPA and other agencies continue to engage in research on modeling and valuation of climate impacts with the goal to improve these estimates. The EPA and other federal agencies also continue to consider feedback on the SC-CO
After careful evaluation of the full range of comments submitted to OMB, the IWG continues to recommend the use of the SC-CO
To date, the Committee has released an interim report, which recommended against doing a near term update of the SC-CO
The four global SC-CO
Applying the global SC-CO
EPA calculated the global social benefits of CH
As discussed in the proposed rulemaking, a challenge particularly relevant to the monetization of non-CO
However, in the time leading up to the proposal for this rulemaking, a paper by Marten et al. (2014) provided the first set of published SC-CH
The resulting SC-CH
In addition to requesting comment on these estimates in the proposed rulemaking, EPA noted that it had initiated a peer review of the application of the Marten et al (2014) non-CO
Since then, EPA received responses that supported use of the Marten et al. estimates. Three reviewers considered seven charge questions that covered issues such as the EPA's interpretation of the Marten et al. estimates, the consistency of the estimates with the SC-CO
The EPA also carefully considered the full range of public comments and associated technical issues on the Marten et al. estimates received in this rulemaking and determined that it would continue to use the estimates in the final rulemaking analysis. Based on the evaluation of the public comments on this rulemaking, the favorable peer review of the application of Marten et al. estimates, and past comments urging EPA to value non-CO
The application of directly modeled estimates from Marten et al. (2014) to benefit-cost analysis of a regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO
The CH
(b)
While the rulemaking will result in reductions of HFC-134a, EPA is unaware of analogous estimates of the social cost of HFC-134a and has therefore used an alternative valuation approach and presented the results in this sensitivity analysis, separate from the main benefit cost analysis. Specifically, EPA has used the global warming potential (GWP) for HFC-134a to convert the emissions of this gas to CO
The GWP is a simple, transparent, and well-established metric for assessing the relative impacts of non-CO
EPA applies the GWP approach to estimate the benefits associated with reductions of HFCs in each calendar year. Under the GWP Approach, EPA converted HFC-134a to CO
In determining the relative social costs of the different gases, the Marten et al. (2014) analysis accounts for differences in lifetime and radiative efficiency between the non-CO
Of these effects, the human health effect of elevated tropospheric ozone levels resulting from methane emissions is the closest to being monetized in a way that would be comparable to the SCC. Premature ozone-related cardiopulmonary deaths resulting from global increases in tropospheric ozone concentrations produced by the methane oxidation process have been the focus of a number of studies over the past decade (
This section discusses the economic benefits from reductions in health and environmental impacts resulting from non-GHG emission reductions that can be expected to occur as a result of the Phase 2 standards. CO
It is important to quantify the health and environmental impacts associated with the standards because a failure to adequately consider ancillary impacts could lead to an incorrect assessment of their costs and benefits. Moreover, the health and other impacts of exposure to criteria air pollutants and airborne toxics tend to occur in the near term, while most effects from reduced climate change are likely to occur only over a time frame of several decades or longer.
Impacts such as emissions reductions, costs and benefits are presented in this analysis from two perspectives:
• A “model year lifetime analysis” (MY), which shows impacts of the program that occur over the lifetime of the vehicles produced during the model years subject to the Phase 2 standards (MYs 2018 through 2029).,
• A “calendar year analysis” (CY), which shows annual costs and benefits of the Phase 2 standards for each year from 2018 through 2050. We assume the standard in the last model year subject to the standards applies to all subsequent MY fleets developed in the future.
In previous light-duty and heavy-duty GHG rulemakings, EPA has quantified and monetized non-GHG health impacts using two different methods. For the MY analysis, EPA applies PM-related “benefits per-ton” values to the stream of lifetime estimated emission reductions as a reduced-form approach to estimating the PM
This two-pronged approach to estimating non-GHG impacts is precipitated by the length of time needed to prepare the necessary emissions inventories and the processing time associated with full-scale photochemical air quality modeling for a
The chief limitation when using air quality inventories based on emissions from the proposal in the CY modeling analysis is that they can diverge from the estimated emissions of the final rulemaking. How much the emissions might diverge and how that difference would impact the air quality modeling and health benefit results is difficult to anticipate. For the FRM, EPA concluded that when comparing the proposal and final rule inventories, the differences were enough to justify the move of the typical CY benefits analysis (based on air quality modeling) from the primary estimate of costs and benefits to a supplemental analysis in an appendix to the RIA (See RIA Appendix 8.A).
This section presents the benefits-per-ton values used to monetize the benefits from reducing population exposure to PM associated with the standards. EPA bases its analyses on peer-reviewed studies of air quality and health and welfare effects and peer-reviewed studies of the monetary values of public health and welfare improvements, and is generally consistent with benefits analyses performed for the analysis of the final Tier 3 Vehicle Rule,
EPA is also requiring that rebuilt engines installed in new incomplete vehicles (
As described in Section VIII, the standards will reduce emissions of several criteria and toxic pollutants and their precursors. In this analysis, EPA only estimates the economic value of the human health benefits associated with the resulting reductions in PM
This analysis uses estimates of the benefits from reducing the incidence of the specific PM
EPA received comment regarding the omission of ozone-related benefits from the non-GHG benefits analysis included in the proposal. EPA agrees that total benefits are underestimated when ozone-related benefits are not included in the primary analysis. However, for reasons described in the introduction to this section, PM- and ozone-related health benefits based on air quality modeling for the CY analysis are not included in the primary estimate of costs and benefits. Instead, they can be found as a supplemental analysis to the RIA in Appendix 8A.
The PM-related dollar-per-ton benefit estimates used in this analysis are provided in Table IX-17. As the table indicates, these values differ among pollutants, and also depend on their original source, because emissions from different sources can result in different degrees of population exposure and resulting health impacts. In the summary of costs and benefits, Section IX.K of this Preamble, EPA presents the monetized value of PM-related improvements associated with the final program.
The benefit-per-ton technique has been used in previous analyses, including EPA's 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Rule,
A more detailed description of the benefit-per-ton estimates is provided in Chapter 8 of the RIA that accompanies this rulemaking. Readers interested in reviewing the complete methodology for creating the benefit-per-ton estimates used in this analysis can consult EPA's “Technical Support Document: Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM
As Table IX-17 indicates, EPA projects that the per-ton values for reducing emissions of non-GHG pollutants from both vehicle use and upstream sources such as fuel refineries will increase over time.
One commenter supported the inclusion of all quantifiable impacts of reductions in non-GHG pollutants. Specifically, they suggested the inclusion of ecosystem benefits from reduced non-GHG pollutants including those to crops as well as consideration of the impacts on toxic air contaminants such as diesel PM.
In addition to the PM-related co-pollutant health impacts EPA quantifies in this analysis, EPA acknowledges that there are a number of other health and human welfare endpoints that we are not able to quantify or monetize because of current limitations in the methods or available data. These impacts are associated with emissions of air toxics (including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, naphthalene and ethanol), ambient ozone, and ambient PM
The Phase 2 standards are designed to require improvements in the fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and, thereby, reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions. In turn, the Phase 2 standards help to reduce U.S. petroleum imports. A reduction of U.S. petroleum imports reduces both financial and strategic risks caused by potential sudden disruptions in the supply of imported petroleum to the U.S., thus increasing
U.S. energy security is generally considered as the continued availability of energy sources at an acceptable price. Most discussion of U.S. energy security revolves around the topic of the economic costs of U.S. dependence on oil imports. While the U.S. has reduced its consumption and increased its production of oil in recent years, it still relies on oil from potentially unstable sources. In addition, oil exporters with a large share of global production have the ability to raise the price of oil by exerting the monopoly power associated with a cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), to restrict oil supply relative to demand. These factors contribute to the vulnerability of the U.S. economy to episodic oil supply shocks and price spikes.
In 2014, U.S. expenditures for imports of crude oil and petroleum products, net of revenues for exports, were $178 billion and expenditures on both imported oil and domestic petroleum and refined products totaled $469 billion (in 2013$) (see Figure IX-1).
Focusing on changes in oil import levels as a source of vulnerability has been standard practice in assessing energy security in the past, but given current market trends both from domestic and international levels, adding changes in consumption of petroleum to this assessment may provide better information about U.S. energy security. The major mechanism through which the economy sustains harm due to fluctuations in the (world) energy market is through price, which itself is leveraged through both imports and consumption. However, the United States, may be increasingly insulated from the physical effects of overseas oil disruptions, though the price impacts of an oil disruption anywhere will continue to be transmitted to U.S. markets. As of 2015, Canada accounted for 63 percent of U.S. net oil imports of crude oil and petroleum products. The implications of the U.S. becoming a significant petroleum producer have yet to be discerned in the literature, but it can be anticipated that this will have some impact on energy security.
In 2010, just over 40 percent of world oil supply came from OPEC nations. The AEO 2015 projects that this share will stay high; dipping slightly from 37 percent by 2020 and then rising gradually to over 40 percent by 2035 and thereafter. Approximately 30 percent of global supply is from Middle East and North African countries alone, a share that is also expected to grow. Measured in terms of the share of world oil resources or the share of global oil export supply, rather than oil production, the concentration of global petroleum resources in OPEC nations is even larger. As another measure of concentration, of the 137 countries/principalities that export either crude or refined products, the top 12 have recently accounted for over 55 percent of exports.
Compiled from EIA oil price data, IEA2012 [IEA Response System for Oil Supply Emergencies (
See table on P. 11.and Hamilton 2011 “Historical Oil Shocks,”(
The agencies used EPA's MOVES model to estimate the reductions in U.S. fuel consumption due to these final rules for vocational vehicles and tractors. For HD pickups and vans, the agencies used both DOT's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model to estimate the fuel consumption impacts. (Detailed explanations of the MOVES and CAFE models can be found in Chapter 5 of the RIA. See IX.C of the Preamble for estimates of reduced fuel consumption from these final rules). Based on a detailed analysis of differences in U.S. fuel consumption, petroleum imports, and imports of petroleum products, the agencies estimate that approximately 90 percent of the reduction in fuel consumption resulting from adopting improved GHG emission and fuel efficiency standards is likely to be reflected in reduced U.S. imports of crude oil and net imported petroleum products.
In order to understand the energy security implications of reducing U.S. oil imports, EPA has worked with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), which has developed approaches for evaluating the social costs and energy security implications of oil use. The energy security estimates provided below are based upon a methodology developed in a peer-reviewed study entitled, “
When conducting this analysis, ORNL considered the full cost of importing petroleum into the U.S. The full economic cost is defined to include two components in addition to the purchase price of petroleum itself. These are: (1) The higher costs for oil imports resulting from the effect of U.S. demand on the world oil price (
The literature on energy security for the last two decades has routinely combined the monopsony and the macroeconomic disruption components when calculating the total value of the energy security premium. However, in the context of using a global value for the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) the question arises: how should the energy security premium be used when some benefits from these rules, such as the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are calculated from a global perspective? Monopsony benefits represent avoided payments by U.S. consumers to oil producers that result from a decrease in the world oil price as the U.S. decreases its demand for oil. Although there is clearly an overall benefit to the U.S. when considered from a domestic perspective, the decrease in price due to decreased demand in the U.S. also represents a loss to oil producing countries, one of which is the U.S. Given the redistributive nature of this monopsony effect from a global perspective, it is excluded in the energy security benefits calculations for these final rules.
In contrast, the other portion of the energy security premium, the avoided U.S. macroeconomic disruption and adjustment cost that arises from reductions in U.S. petroleum imports, does not have offsetting impacts outside of the U.S., and, thus, is included in the energy security benefits estimated for these final rules. To summarize, the agencies have included only the avoided macroeconomic disruption portion of the energy security benefits to estimate the monetary value of the total energy security benefits of these final rules.
For this rulemaking, ORNL updated the energy security premiums by incorporating the most recent oil price forecast and energy market trends, particularly regional oil supplies and demands, from the AEO 2015 into its model.
The first component of the full economic costs of importing petroleum into the U.S. follows from the effect of U.S. import demand on the world oil price over the long-run. Because the U.S. is a sufficiently large purchaser of global oil supplies, its purchases can affect the world oil price. This monopsony power means that increases in U.S. petroleum demand can cause the world price of crude oil to rise, and conversely, that reduced U.S. petroleum demand can reduce the world price of crude oil. Thus, one benefit of decreasing U.S. oil purchases, due to improvements in the fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, is the potential decrease in the crude oil price paid for all crude oil purchased.
There is disagreement in the literature about the magnitude of the monopsony component, and its relevance for policy analysis. Brown and Huntington (2013)
Recently, the Council on Foreign Relations (
The recent National Academy of Science (NAS 2015) Report, “Cost, Effectiveness and the Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles,”
There is also a question about the ability of gradual, long-term reductions, such as those resulting from these final rules, to reduce the world oil price in the presence of OPEC's monopoly power. OPEC is currently the world's marginal petroleum supplier, and could conceivably respond to gradual reductions in U.S. demand with gradual reductions in supply over the course of several years as the fuel savings resulting from these rules grow. However, if OPEC opts for a long-term strategy to preserve its market share, rather than maintain a particular price level (as they have done recently in response to increasing U.S. petroleum production), reduced demand will create downward pressure on the global price. The Oak Ridge analysis assumes that OPEC does respond to demand reductions over the long run, but there is still a price effect in the model. Under the mid-case behavioral assumption used in the premium calculations, OPEC responds by gradually reducing supply to maintain
The second component of the oil import premium, “avoided macroeconomic disruption/adjustment costs,” arises from the effect of oil imports on the expected cost of supply disruptions and accompanying price increases. A sudden increase in oil prices triggered by a disruption in world oil supplies has two main effects: (1) It increases the costs of oil imports in the short-run and (2) it can lead to macroeconomic contraction, dislocation and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses. For example, ORNL estimates the combined value of these two factors to be $6.30/barrel (2013$) when U.S. oil imports are reduced in 2025, with a range from $2.92/barrel to $10.22/barrel of imported oil reduced.
Since future disruptions in foreign oil supplies are an uncertain prospect, each of the disruption cost components must be weighted by the probability that the supply of petroleum to the U.S. will actually be disrupted. Thus, the “expected value” of these costs—the product of the probability that a supply disruption will occur and the sum of costs from reduced economic output and the economy's abrupt adjustment to sharply higher petroleum prices—is the relevant measure of their magnitude. Further, when assessing the energy security value of a policy to reduce oil use, it is only the change in the expected costs of disruption that results from the policy that is relevant. The expected costs of disruption may change from lowering the normal (
By late 2015/early 2016, world oil prices were sharply lower than in 2014. Future prices remain uncertain, but sustained markedly lower oil prices can have mixed implications for U.S. energy security. Under lower prices U.S. expenditures on oil consumption are lower, and they are a less prominent component of the U.S. economy. This would lessen the issue of imported oil as an energy security problem for the U.S. On the other hand, sustained lower oil prices encourage greater oil consumption, and reduce the competitiveness of new U.S. oil supplies and alternative fuels. The AEO 2015 low oil price outlook, for example, projects that by 2030 total U.S. petroleum supply would be 10 percent lower and imports would be 78 percent higher than the AEO Reference Case. Under the low-price case, 2030 prices are 35 percent lower, so that import expenditures are 16 percent higher.
A second potential proposed energy security effect of lower oil prices is increased instability of supply, due to greater global reliance on fewer suppling nations,
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and others argue that there are little, if any, energy security benefits associated with these rules. In large part CEI argues that oil supplies are plentiful and that current oil prices are low so that reduced consumption of petroleum products due to these rules would have no effect on energy security. However, the discussion of current low oil prices (“lowest Labor Day gasoline prices in a decade”) does not assure the absence of future oil supply shocks or price shocks, or even speak to their reduced likelihood. CEI points out that the current low oil prices have been observed before as recently as a decade ago, as they have in more than one instance before that. For example, oil prices were even lower in 1999. But in the intervening periods, oil supply and price shocks have continued to recur, and the recent price record only amplifies oil's high historical price volatility.
Also, sharply lower world oil prices do not clearly imply greater energy security for the U.S. Current low world oil prices may reduce the U.S.'s fracking industry's tight oil production (as CEI points out), or other sources of oil supplies around the world. Some have hypothesized that reduction in oil production outside of OPEC may be the objective of some OPEC producers. With low oil prices, U.S.' oil import share over time might be larger, increasing the U.S.' dependence on imported oil.
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), Operation Free and the Investor Network on Climate Risk agree that these rules do improve America's energy security. SAFE goes on to state that several policy options should be included in these rules to further enhance energy security. The agencies agree that these rules enhances America's energy security, but do not have information to evaluate the policy options that SAFE proposes.
The recent economics literature on whether oil shocks are the threat to economic stability that they once were is mixed. Some of the current literature asserts that the macroeconomic component of the energy security externality is small. For example, the National Research Council (2009) argued that the non-environmental externalities associated with dependence on foreign oil are small, and potentially trivial.
One reason, according to Nordhaus, is that monetary policy has become more accommodating to the price impacts of oil shocks. Another is that consumers have simply decided that such movements are temporary, and have noted that price impacts are not passed on as inflation in other parts of the economy. He also notes that real changes to productivity due to oil price increases are incredibly modest,
Blanchard and Gali (2010) contend that improvements in monetary policy (as noted above), more flexible labor markets, and lessening of energy intensity in the economy, combined with an absence of concurrent shocks, all contributed to lessen the impact of oil shocks after 1980. They find “. . . the effects of oil price shocks have changed over time, with steadily smaller effects on prices and wages, as well as on output and employment.”
At the same time, the implications of the “Shale Oil Revolution” are now being felt in the international markets, with current prices at four year lows. Analysts generally attribute this result in part to the significant increase in supply resulting from U.S. production, which has put liquid petroleum production roughly on par with Saudi Arabia. The price decline is also attributed to the sustained reductions in U.S. consumption and global demand growth from fuel efficiency policies and previously high oil prices. The resulting decrease in foreign imports, down to about one-third of domestic consumption (from 60 percent in 2005, for example
However, other papers suggest that oil shocks, particularly sudden supply shocks, remain a concern. Both Blanchard and Gali's and Nordhaus work were based on data and analysis through 2006, ending with a period of strong global economic growth and growing global oil demand. The Nordhaus work particularly stressed the effects of the price increase from 2002-2006 that were comparatively gradual (about half the growth rate of the 1973 event and one-third that of the 1990 event). The Nordhaus study emphasizes the robustness of the U.S. economy during a time period through 2006. This time period was just before rapid further increases in the price of oil and other commodities with oil prices more-than-doubling to over $130/barrel by mid-2008, only to drop after the onset of the largest recession since the Great Depression.
Hamilton (2012) reviewed the empirical literature on oil shocks and suggested that the results are mixed, noting that some work (
Some of the recent literature on oil price shocks has emphasized that economic impacts depend on the nature of the oil shock, with differences between price increases caused by sudden supply loss and those caused by rapidly growing demand. Most recent analyses of oil price shocks have confirmed that “demand-driven” oil price shocks have greater effects on oil prices and tend to have positive effects on the economy while “supply-driven” oil shocks still have negative economic impacts (Baumeister, Peersman and Van Robays (2010)).
The general conclusion that oil supply-driven shocks reduce economic output is also reached in a recently published paper by Cashin et al. (2014)
Finally, despite continuing uncertainty about oil market behavior and outcomes and the sensitivity of the U.S. economy to oil shocks, it is generally agreed that it is beneficial to reduce petroleum fuel consumption from an energy security standpoint. It is not just imports alone, but both imports and consumption of petroleum from all sources and their role in economic activity, that may expose the U.S. to risk from price shocks in the world oil price. Reducing fuel consumption reduces the amount of domestic economic activity associated with a commodity whose price depends on volatile international markets.
The last often-identified component of the full economic costs of U.S. oil imports are the costs to the U.S. taxpayers of existing U.S. energy security policies. The two primary examples are maintaining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and maintaining a military presence to help secure a stable oil supply from potentially vulnerable regions of the world. The SPR is the largest stockpile of government-owned emergency crude oil in the world. Established in the aftermath of the 1973/1974 oil embargo, the SPR provides the U.S. with a response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy. It also allows the U.S. to meet part of its International Energy Agency obligation to maintain emergency oil stocks, and it provides a national defense fuel reserve. While the costs for building and maintaining the SPR are more clearly related to U.S. oil use and imports, historically these costs have not varied in response to changes in U.S. oil import levels. Thus, while the effect of the SPR in moderating price shocks is factored into the ORNL analysis, the cost of maintaining the SPR is excluded.
U.S. military costs are excluded from the analysis performed by ORNL because their attribution to particular missions or activities is difficult, and because it is not clear that these outlays would decline in response to incremental reductions in U.S. oil imports. Most military forces serve a broad range of security and foreign policy objectives. The agencies also recognize that attempts to attribute some share of U.S. military costs to oil imports are further challenged by the need to estimate how those costs might vary with incremental variations in U.S. oil imports.
In the proposal to these rules, the agencies solicited comments on quantifying the military benefits from reduced U.S. imports of oil. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) notes that the National Research Council (NRC)
Using the ORNL “oil premium” methodology, updating world oil price values and energy trends using AEO 2015 and using the estimated fuel savings from these final rules estimated from the MOVES/CAFE models, the agencies have calculated the annual energy security benefits of these final rules through 2050.
Although it provides benefits to drivers as described above, increased vehicle use associated with the rebound effect also contributes to increased
The agencies estimate these costs using the same methodology as used in the two light-duty and the HD Phase 1 rule analyses, which relies on estimates of congestion, crash, and noise costs imposed by automobiles and light trucks developed by the Federal Highway Administration to estimate these increased external costs caused by added driving.
By reducing the frequency with which drivers typically refuel their vehicles and by extending the upper limit of the range that can be traveled before requiring refueling (
The savings in refueling time are calculated as the total amount of time the driver of a typical truck in each class will save each year as a consequence of pumping less fuel into the vehicle's tank. The calculation does not include any reduction in time spent searching for a fueling station or other time spent at the station; it is assumed that time savings occur only when truck operators are actually refueling their vehicles.
The calculation uses the reduced number of gallons consumed by truck type and divides that value by the tank volume and refill amount to get the number of refills, then multiplies that by the time per refill to determine the number of hours saved in a given year. The calculation then applies DOT-recommended values of travel time savings to convert the resulting time savings to their economic value, including a 1.2 percent growth rate in those time savings going forward.
The increase in travel associated with the rebound effect produces additional benefits to vehicle owners and operators, which reflect the value of the added (or more desirable) social and economic opportunities that become accessible with additional travel. The analysis estimates the economic benefits from increased rebound-effect driving as the sum of fuel expenditures incurred plus the consumer surplus from the additional accessibility it provides. As evidenced by the fact that vehicles make more frequent or longer trips when the cost of driving declines, the benefits from this added travel exceed added expenditures for the fuel consumed. The amount by which the benefits from this increased driving exceed its increased fuel costs measures the net benefits from the additional travel, usually referred to as increased consumer surplus.
The agencies' analysis estimates the economic value of the increased consumer surplus provided by added driving using the conventional approximation, which is one half of the product of the decline in vehicle operating costs per vehicle-mile and the resulting increase in the annual number of miles driven. Because it depends on the extent of improvement in fuel economy, the value of benefits from increased vehicle use changes by model year and varies among alternative standards. Under even those alternatives that will impose the highest standards, however, the magnitude of the consumer surplus from additional vehicle use represents a small fraction of this benefit.
The annual benefits associated with increased travel are shown in Table IX-27 along with net present values at both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. The discounted model year lifetime benefits are shown in Table IX-28. The methodology used in this final rule is the same as that used in the proposal, except that costs have been updated to 2013 dollars.
This section presents the costs, benefits, and other economic impacts of the Phase 2 standards. It is important to note that NHTSA's fuel consumption standards and EPA's GHG standards will both be in effect, and will jointly lead to increased fuel efficiency and reductions in GHG and non-GHG emissions. The individual categories of benefits and costs presented in the tables below are defined more fully and presented in more detail in Chapter 8 of the RIA. These include:
• The vehicle program costs (costs of complying with the vehicle CO
• changes in fuel expenditures associated with reduced fuel use by more efficient vehicles and increased fuel use associated with the “rebound” effect, both of which result from the program,
• the global economic value of reductions in GHGs,
• the economic value of reductions in non-GHG pollutants,
• costs associated with increases in noise, congestion, and crashes resulting from increased vehicle use,
• savings in drivers' time from less frequent refueling,
• benefits of increased vehicle use associated with the “rebound” effect, and
• the economic value of improvements in U.S. energy security impacts.
For a discussion of the cost of ownership and the agencies' payback analysis of vehicles covered by this rule, please see Section IX.M.
The agencies conducted two analyses using two analytical methods referred to as Method A and Method B. For an explanation of these methods, please see Section I.D. And as discussed in Section X.A.1, the agencies present estimates of benefits and costs that are measured against two different assumptions about improvements in fuel efficiency that might occur in the absence of the Phase 2 standards. The first case (Alternative 1a) uses a baseline that projects very little improvement in new vehicles in the absence of new Phase 2 standards, and the second (Alternative 1b) uses a more dynamic baseline that projects more significant improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency.
Table IX-29 shows benefits and costs for these standards from the perspective of a program designed to improve the nation's energy security and conserve energy by improving fuel efficiency. From this viewpoint, technology costs occur when the vehicle is purchased. Fuel savings are counted as benefits that occur over the lifetimes of the vehicles produced during the model years subject to the Phase 2 standards as they consume less fuel. The table shows that benefits far outweigh the costs, and the final program is anticipated to result in large net benefits to the U.S economy.
Table IX-30 through Table IX-32 report benefits and cost from the perspective of reducing GHG. Table IX-30 shows the annual impacts and net benefits of the final program for selected future years, together with the net present values of cumulative annual impacts from 2018 through 2050, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent rates.
Table IX-31 and Table IX-32 show the discounted lifetime costs and benefits for each model year affected by the Phase 2 standards at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively.
Executive Order 13563 (January 18, 2011) directs federal agencies to consider regulatory impacts on, among other criteria, job creation.
The overall effect of the final rules on motor vehicle sector employment depends on the relative magnitude of output and substitution effects, described below. Because we do not have quantitative estimates of the output effect, and only a partial estimate of the substitution effect, we cannot reach a quantitative estimate of the overall employment effects of the final rules on motor vehicle sector employment or even whether the total effect will be positive or negative.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2015, about 910,000 people in the U.S. were employed in the Motor Vehicle and Parts Manufacturing Sector (NAICS 3361, 3362, and 3363),
The employment effects of environmental regulation are difficult to disentangle from other economic changes and business decisions that affect employment, over time and across regions and industries. In light of these difficulties, we lean on economic theory to provide a constructive framework for approaching these assessments and for better understanding the inherent complexities in such assessments. Neoclassical microeconomic theory describes how profit-maximizing firms adjust their use of productive inputs in response to changes in their economic conditions.
The substitution effect describes how, holding output constant, regulation affects labor intensity of production. Although increased environmental regulation may increase use of pollution control equipment and energy to operate that equipment, the impact on labor demand is ambiguous. For example, equipment inspection requirements, specialized waste handling, or pollution technologies that alter the production process may affect the number of workers necessary to produce a unit of output. Berman and Bui (2001) model the substitution effect as the effect of regulation on pollution control equipment and expenditures required
In summary, as output and substitution effects may be positive or negative, theory alone cannot predict the direction of the net effect of regulation on labor demand at the level of the regulated firm. Operating within the bounds of standard economic theory, empirical estimation of net employment effects on regulated firms is possible when data and methods of sufficient detail and quality are available. The literature, however, illustrates difficulties with empirical estimation. For example, studies sometimes rely on confidential plant-level employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau, possibly combined with pollution abatement expenditure data that are too dated to be reliably informative. In addition, the most commonly used empirical methods do not permit estimation of net effects.
The conceptual framework described thus far focused on regulatory effects on plant-level decisions within a regulated industry. Employment impacts at an individual plant do not necessarily represent impacts for the sector as a whole. The approach must be modified when applied at the industry level. At the industry level, labor demand is more responsive if: (1) The price elasticity of demand for the product is high, (2) other factors of production can be easily substituted for labor, (3) the supply of other factors is highly elastic, or (4) labor costs are a large share of total production costs.
In addition to changes to labor demand in the regulated industry, net employment impacts encompass changes in other related sectors. For example, these standards are expected to increase demand for fuel-saving technologies. This increased demand may increase revenue and employment in the firms providing these technologies. At the same time, the regulated industry is purchasing the equipment, and these costs may impact labor demand at regulated firms. Therefore, it is important to consider the net effect of compliance actions on employment across multiple sectors or industries.
If the U.S. economy is at full employment, even a large-scale environmental regulation is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on aggregate net employment.
Affected sectors may experience transitory effects as workers change jobs. Some workers may retrain or relocate in anticipation of new requirements or require time to search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could bid up wages to attract workers. These adjustment costs can lead to local labor disruptions. Although the net change in the national workforce is expected to be small, localized reductions in employment may adversely impact individuals and communities just as localized increases may have positive impacts.
If the economy is operating at less than full employment, economic theory does not clearly indicate the direction or magnitude of the net impact of environmental regulation on employment; it could cause either a short-run net increase or short-run net decrease.
Environmental regulation may also affect labor supply. In particular, pollution and other environmental risks may impact labor productivity or employees' ability to work.
To summarize, economic theory provides a framework for analyzing the impacts of environmental regulation on employment. The net employment effect incorporates expected employment changes (both positive and negative) in the regulated sector and elsewhere. Labor demand impacts for regulated firms, and also for the regulated industry, can be decomposed into output and substitution effects which may be either negative or positive. Estimation of net employment effects for regulated sectors is possible when data of sufficient detail and quality are
Achates Power, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, BlueGreen Alliance, Ceres, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Natural Resources Defense Council, and JD Gilroy expressed support for the standards' potential to increase employment in the vehicle manufacturing industry. They argued that the standards will drive new jobs, reward organizations that innovate with respect to fuel efficiency, and help maintain the U.S. position as a leader in industries related to truck manufacturing and fuel efficiency technology. Brian Mannix points out the difficulty associated with generating complete employment forecasts that include all direct and indirect effects. He concludes that the agencies are correct to be careful about estimating a definitive forecast.
Comments from the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) urge EPA and NHTSA to ensure that the standards avoid market disruptions or “pre-buy/no-buy” boom and bust cycles. UAW suggests that in the past, market disruptions caused by pre-buy in anticipation of the 2007 and 2010 NO
NAFA Fleet Management Association expressed concern that the standards would make it more difficult to hire qualified drivers and technicians, and would require additional employee training. As discussed in Section IX.A., the effects of the standards on hiring and retention of drivers and technicians are not well understood. The agencies expect that normal market forces should help to alleviate any labor shortages, whether or not they are associated with the standards. The Recreational Vehicle (RV) Industry Association expresses concern that buyers RVs do not consider fuel expenditures when purchasing vehicles; as a result, increased up-front costs of the vehicle might reduce their sales. The RV industry was disproportionately hurt during the Great Recession and has only recently experienced a recovery.
In the labor economics literature there is an extensive body of peer-reviewed empirical work analyzing various aspects of labor demand, relying on the above theoretical framework.
Analytic challenges make it very difficult to accurately produce net employment estimates for the whole economy that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, compliance spending, and environmental benefits propagate through the macro-economy. Quantitative estimates are further complicated by the fact that macroeconomic models often have very little sectoral detail and usually assume that the economy is at full employment. EPA is currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on modeling economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. For more information, see:
This section describes changes in employment in the motor vehicle, trailer, and parts (hence, motor vehicle) manufacturing sectors due to these final rules. We focus on the motor vehicle manufacturing sector because it is directly regulated, and because it is likely to bear a substantial share of
We follow the theoretical structure of Berman and Bui
Following the Berman and Bui framework for the impacts of regulation on employment in the regulated sector, we consider two effects for the motor vehicle sector: The output effect and the substitution effect.
If truck or trailer sales increase, then more people will be required to assemble trucks, trailers, and their components. If truck or trailer sales decrease, employment associated with these activities will decrease. The effects of this final rulemaking on HD vehicle sales thus depend on the perceived desirability of the new vehicles. On one hand, this final rulemaking will increase truck and trailer costs; by itself, this effect would reduce truck and trailer sales. In addition, while decreases in truck performance would also decrease sales, this program is not expected to have any negative effect on truck performance. On the other hand, this final rulemaking will reduce the fuel costs of operating the trucks; by itself, this effect would increase truck sales, especially if potential buyers have an expectation of higher fuel prices. The agencies have not made an estimate of the potential change in truck or trailer sales. However, as discussed in IX.E., the agencies have estimated an increase in vehicle miles traveled (
The output effect, above, measures the effect due to new truck and trailer sales only. The substitution effect includes the impacts due to the changes in technologies needed for vehicles to meet these standards, separate from the effect on output (that is, as though holding output constant). This effect includes both changes in employment due to incorporation of abatement technologies and overall changes in the labor intensity of manufacturing. We present estimates for this effect to provide a sense of the order of magnitude of expected impacts on employment, which we expect to be small in the automotive sector, and to repeat that regulations may have positive as well as negative effects on employment.
One way to estimate this effect, given the cost estimates for complying with the final rule, is to use the ratio of workers to each $1 million of expenditures in that sector. The use of these ratios has both advantages and limitations. It is often possible to estimate these ratios for quite specific sectors of the economy: For instance, it is possible to estimate the average number of workers in the motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing sector per $1 million spent in the sector, rather than use the ratio from another, more aggregated sector, such as motor vehicle manufacturing. As a result, it is not necessary to extrapolate employment ratios from possibly unrelated sectors. On the other hand, these estimates are averages for the sectors, covering all the activities in those sectors; they may not be representative of the labor required when expenditures are required on specific activities, or when manufacturing processes change sufficiently that labor intensity changes. For instance, the ratio for the motor vehicle manufacturing sector represents the ratio for all vehicle manufacturing, not just for emissions reductions associated with compliance activities. In addition, these estimates do not include changes in sectors that supply these sectors, such as steel or electronics producers. They thus may best be viewed as the effects on employment in the motor vehicle sector due to the changes in expenditures in that sector, rather than as an assessment of all employment changes due to these changes in expenditures. In addition, this approach estimates the effects of increased expenditures while holding constant the labor intensity of manufacturing; it does not take into account changes in labor intensity due to changes in the nature of production. This latter effect could either increase or decrease the employment impacts estimated here.
Some of the costs of these final rules will be spent directly in the motor vehicle manufacturing sector, but it is also likely that some of the costs will be spent in the motor vehicle body and trailer and motor vehicle parts manufacturing sectors. The analysis here draws on estimates of workers per $1 million of expenditures for each of these sectors.
There are several public sources for estimates of employment per $1 million expenditures. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides its Employment Requirements Matrix (ERM),
The Census Bureau provides the Annual Survey of Manufacturers
RIA Chapter 8.11.2.2 provides the details on the values of workers per $1 million in expenditures in 2014 (2012 for EC) for the sectors mentioned above. In 2013$, these range from 0.4 workers per $1 million for Motor Vehicle Manufacturing in the ERM as well as for Light Truck & Utility Vehicle Manufacturing in the ASM, to 3.5 workers per $1 million in expenditures for Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing in the EC. These values are then adjusted to remove the employment effects of imports through use of a ratio of domestic production to domestic sales of 0.78.
Over time, the amount of labor needed in the motor vehicle industry has changed: Automation and improved methods have led to significant productivity increases. The BLS ERM, for instance, provided estimates that, in 1997, 1.09 workers in the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing sector were needed per $1 million, but only 0.39 workers by 2014 (in 2013$).
Finally, to simplify the presentation and give a range of estimates, we compared the projected employment among the 3 sectors for the ERM, EC, and ASM, and we provide only the maximum and minimum employment effects estimated across the ERM, EC, and ASM. We provide the range rather than a point estimate because of the inherent difficulties in estimating employment impacts; the range gives an estimate of the expected magnitude. The ERM estimates in the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Sector are consistently the minimum values. The ASM estimates in the Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing Sector are the maximum values for all years but 2027, when the ASM values for Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing provide the maximum values.
Section IX.B. of the Preamble discusses the vehicle cost estimates developed for these final rules. The final step in estimating employment impacts is to multiply costs (in $ millions) by workers per $1 million in costs, to estimate employment impacts in the regulated and parts manufacturing sectors. Increased costs of vehicles and parts will, by itself, and holding labor intensity constant, be expected to increase employment between 2018 and 2027 between zero and 4.5 thousand jobs each year.
While we estimate employment impacts, measured in job-years, beginning with program implementation, some of these employment gains may occur earlier as motor vehicle manufacturers and parts suppliers hire staff in anticipation of compliance with the standards. A job-year is a way to calculate the amount of work needed to complete a specific task. For example, a job-year is one year of work for one person.
The overall effect of these final rules on motor vehicle sector employment depends on the relative magnitude of the output effect and the substitution effect. Because we do not have quantitative estimates of the output effect, and only a partial estimate of the substitution effect, we cannot reach a quantitative estimate of the overall employment effects of these final rules on motor vehicle sector employment or even whether the total effect will be positive or negative.
These standards are not expected to provide incentives for manufacturers to shift employment between domestic and
Although not directly regulated by these final rules, employment effects in the transport and shipping sector are likely to result from these regulations. If the overall cost of shipping a ton of freight decreases because of increased fuel efficiency (taking into account the increase in upfront purchasing costs), in a perfectly competitive industry some of these costs savings, depending on the relative elasticities of supply and demand, will be passed along to customers. Consumer Federation of America expects reduced shipping costs to be passed along to customers. With lower prices, demand for shipping would lead to an increase in demand for truck shipping services (consistent with the VMT rebound effect analysis) and therefore an increase in employment in the truck shipping sector. In addition, if the relative cost of shipping freight via trucks becomes cheaper than shipping by other modes (
In addition to the effects on the trucking industry and related truck parts sector, these final rules will result in reductions in fuel use that lower GHG emissions. Fuel saving, principally reductions in liquid fuels such as diesel and gasoline, will affect employment in the fuel suppliers industry sectors, principally the Petroleum Refinery sector.
Section IX.C. of this Preamble provides estimates of the effects of these standards on expected fuel consumption. While reduced fuel consumption represents savings for purchasers of fuel, it also represents a loss in value of output for the petroleum refinery industry, which will result in reduced sectoral employment. Because this sector is material-intensive, the employment effect is not expected to be large.
As a result of this final rulemaking, it is anticipated that trucking firms will experience fuel savings. Fuel savings lower the costs of transportation goods and services. In a competitive market, some of the fuel savings that initially accrue to trucking firms are likely to be passed along as lower transportation costs that, in turn, could result in lower prices for final goods and services. Some commenters provide estimates of per-household fuel savings ranging from $150 per year by 2030 (Clean Fuels Ohio, Edison Solar, a mass comment campaign sponsored by Pew Charitable Trusts, Quasar Energy Group), to $400 in 2035 (Environmental Defense Fund); they view these savings as providing benefits to the wider economy. The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association emphasizes concerns about the costs that the standards will impose. Although the agencies do not endorse the particular values provided in the comments, we agree that the standards will provide net benefits to the U.S.; as shown in Section IX.K., the benefits exceed the costs by a wide margin. As noted above, the Consumer Federation of America expects consumers to recover these fuel savings via the costs of goods and services relying on HD vehicles. The agencies note that some of the savings might also be retained by firms for investments or for distributions to firm owners. Again, how much accrues to customers versus firm owners will depend on the relative elasticities of supply and demand. Regardless, the savings will accrue to some segment of consumers: Either owners of trucking firms or the general public, and the effect will be increased spending by consumers in other sectors of the economy, creating jobs in a diverse set of sectors, including retail and service industries.
As described in Section IX.C.(2), the retail value of fuel savings from this final rulemaking is projected to be $15.8 billion (2013$) in 2027, according to Table IX-6. If all those savings are spent, the fuel savings will stimulate increased employment in the economy through those expenditures. If the fuel savings accrue primarily to firm owners, they may either reinvest the money or take it as profit. Reinvesting the money in firm operations could increase employment directly. If they take the money as profit, to the extent that these owners are wealthier than the general public, they may spend less of the savings, and the resulting employment impacts would be smaller than if the savings went to the public. Thus, while fuel savings are expected to decrease employment in the refinery sector, they are expected to increase employment through increased consumer expenditures.
The primary employment effects of these rules are expected to be found throughout several key sectors: Truck and engine manufacturers, the trucking industry, truck parts manufacturing, fuel production, and consumers. These rules initially takes effect in model year 2018; the unemployment rate at that time is unknowable. In an economy with full employment, the primary employment effect of a rulemaking is likely to be to move employment from one sector to another, rather than to increase or decrease employment. For that reason, we focus our partial quantitative analysis on employment in the regulated sector, to examine the impacts on that sector directly. We discuss the likely direction of other impacts in the regulated sector as well as in other directly related sectors, but we do not quantify those impacts, because they are more difficult to quantify with reasonable accuracy, particularly so far into the future.
For the regulated sector, we have not quantified the output effect. The
Lower prices for shipping are expected to lead to an increase in demand for truck shipping services and, therefore, an increase in employment in that sector, though this effect may be offset somewhat by changes in employment in other shipping sectors. Reduced fuel production implies less employment in the fuel provision sectors. Finally, any net cost savings are expected to be passed along to some segment of consumers: Either the general public or the owners of trucking firms, who are expected then to increase employment through their expenditures. Under conditions of full employment, any changes in employment levels in the regulated sector due to this program are mostly expected to be offset by changes in employment in other sectors.
This section examines the economic impacts of the Phase 2 standards from the perspective of buyers, operators, and subsequent owners of new HD vehicles at the level of individual purchasers of different types of vehicles. In each case, the analysis assumes that HD vehicle manufacturers are able to recover their costs for improving fuel efficiency—including direct technology outlays, indirect costs, and normal profits on any additional capital investments—by charging higher prices to HD vehicle buyers.
Table IX-34 reports aggregate benefits and costs to buyers and operators of new HD vehicles for the final program using Method A. The table reports economic impacts on buyers using only the 7 percent discount rate, since that rate is intended to represent the opportunity cost of capital that HD vehicle buyers and users must divert from other investment opportunities to purchase more costly vehicles. As it shows, fuel savings and the other benefits from increased fuel efficiency—savings from less frequent refueling and benefits from additional truck use—far outweigh the higher costs to buyers of new HD vehicles. As a consequence, buyers, operators, and subsequent owners of HD vehicles subject to the Phase 2 standards are together projected to experience large economic gains under the final program. It should be noted that, because the original buyers may not hold the vehicles for their lifetimes, and because those who own or operate the vehicles may not pay for the fuel, these benefits and costs do not necessarily represent benefits and costs to identifiable individuals.
As Table IX-34 shows, the agencies have estimated the increased costs for maintenance of the new technologies that HD vehicle manufacturers will employ to decrease fuel consumption, and these costs are included together with those for purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. Manufacturers' efforts to comply with the Phase 2 standards could also result in changes to vehicle performance and capacity for certain vehicles. For example, reducing the mass of HD vehicles in order to improve fuel efficiency could be used to improve their load-carrying capabilities, while some engine technologies and aerodynamic modifications could reduce payload capacity.
It is also useful to examine the cost of purchasing and owning a new vehicle that complies with the Phase 2 standards and its payback period—the point at which cumulative savings from lower fuel expenditures outpace increased vehicle costs. For example, a new MY 2027 tractor is estimated to cost roughly $13,550 more (on average, or roughly 13 to 14 percent of a typical $100,000 reference case tractor) due to the addition of new GHG reducing/fuel consumption improving technology. This new technology will result in lower fuel consumption and, therefore, reduced fuel expenditures. But how many months or years will pass before the reduced fuel expenditures will surpass the increased upfront costs?
Table IX-35 presents the discounted annual increased vehicle costs and fuel savings associated with owning a new MY 2027 HD pickup or van using both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. Table IX-36 and Table IX-37 show the same information for a MY 2027 vocational vehicle and a tractor/trailer, respectively. These comparisons include sales taxes, excise taxes (for vocational and tractor/trailer) and increased insurance expenditures on the higher value vehicles, as well as maintenance costs throughout the lifetimes of affected vehicles.
The fuel expenditure column uses retail fuel prices specific to gasoline and diesel fuel as projected in AEO2015.
As shown, payback will occur in the 3rd year of ownership for HD pickups and vans (the first year where cumulative net costs turn negative), in the 4th year for vocational vehicles and early in the 2nd year for tractor/trailers. Note that each table reflects the average vehicle and reflects proper weighting of fuel consumption/costs (gasoline vs. diesel).
As discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NHTSA and EPA considered the potential safety impact of technologies that improve Medium− and Heavy-Duty vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions when determining potential regulatory alternatives. The safety assessment of the technologies in this rule was informed by two comprehensive NAS reports, an extensive analysis of safety effects of HD pickups and vans using estimates from the DOT report on the effect of mass reduction and vehicle size on safety, and focused agency-sponsored safety testing and research. The following section provides a concise summary of the literature and work considered by the agencies in development of this final rule.
As required by EISA, the National Research Council has been conducting continuing studies of the technologies and approaches for reducing the fuel consumption of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The first was a report issued in 2010, “Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles” (“NAS Report”). The second was a report issued in 2014, “Reducing the Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two-First Report” (“NAS HD Phase 2 First Report”). While the reports primarily focused on reducing vehicle fuel consumption and emissions through technology application, and examined potential regulatory frameworks, both reports contain findings and recommendations related to safety. In developing this rule, the agencies carefully considered the reports' findings related to safety.
In particular, NAS indicated that idle reduction strategies can also accommodate for the safety of the driver in both hot and cold weather conditions. The agencies considered this potential approach for application of idle reduction technologies by allowing for override provisions, as defined in 40 CFR 1037.660(b), where operator safety is a primary consideration. Override is allowed if the external ambient temperature reaches a level below which or above which the cabin temperature cannot be maintained within reasonable heat or cold exposure threshold limit values for the health and safety of the operator (not merely comfort).
NAS also reported extensively on the emergence of natural gas (NG) as a viable fuel option for commercial vehicles, but alluded to the existence of uncertainties regarding its safety. The committee found that while the public crash databases do not contain information on vehicle fuel type, the information, at the time of the report, indicates that the crash-related safety risk for NG storage on vehicles does not appear to be appreciably different from diesel fuel risks. The committee also found that while there are two existing SAE-recommended practice standards for NG-powered HD vehicles, the industry could benefit from best practice directives to minimize crash risks for NG fuel tanks, such as on shielding to prevent punctures during crashes. As a final point, NAS stated that manufacturers and operators have a great incentive to prevent possible NG leakage from a vehicle fuel system because it will be a significant safety concern and reduce vehicle range. No recommendations were made for additional Federal safety regulations for these vehicles. In response, the agencies reviewed and discussed the existing NG vehicle standards and best practices cited by NAS in Section XI of the NPRM.
In the NAS Committee's Phase 1 report, the Committee indicated that aerodynamic fairings detaching from trucks on the road could be a potential safety issue. However, the Phase 2 interim report stated that “Anecdotal information gained during the observations of on-road trailers indicates a few skirts badly damaged or missing from one side. The skirt manufacturers report no safety concerns (such as side skirts falling off) and little maintenance needed.”
The NAS report also identified the link between tire inflation and condition and vehicle stopping distance and handling, which impacts overall safety. The committee found that tire pressure monitoring systems and automatic tire inflation systems are being adopted by fleets at an increasing rate. However, the committee noted that there are no standards for performance, display, and system validation. The committee recommended that NHTSA issue a white paper on the minimum performance of tire pressure systems from a safety perspective.
The agencies considered the safety findings in both NAS reports in developing this rule and conducted additional research on safety to further examine information and findings of the reports.
This analysis considered the potential crash safety effects on the technologies manufacturers may apply to HD pickups
The Method A analysis included estimates of the extent to which HD pickups and vans produced during MYs 2014-2030 may be involved in fatal crashes, considering the mass, survival, and mileage accumulation of these vehicles, taking into account changes in mass and mileage accumulation under each regulatory alternative. These calculations make use of the same coefficients applied to light trucks in the MYs 2017-2025 CAFE rulemaking analysis. As discussed above, vehicle miles traveled may increase due to the fuel economy rebound effect, resulting from improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and cost of fuel, as well as the assumed future growth in average vehicle use. Increases in total lifetime mileage increase exposure to vehicle crashes, including those that result in fatalities. Consequently, the modeling system computes total fatalities attributed to vehicle use for vehicles of a given model year based on safety class and weight threshold. These calculations also include a term that accounts for the fact that some of the vehicles involved in future crashes will comply with more stringent safety standards than those involved in past crashes upon which the base rates of involvement in fatal crashes were estimated. Since the use of mass reducing technology is present within the model, safety impacts may also be observed whenever a vehicle's base weight decreases. Thus, in addition to computing total fatalities related to vehicle use, the modeling system also estimates changes in fatalities due to reduction in a vehicle's curb weight.
The total fatalities attributed to vehicle use and vehicle weight change for vehicles of a given model year are then summed. Lastly, total fatalities occurring within the industry in a given model year are accumulated across all vehicles. In addition to using inputs to estimate the future involvement of modeled vehicles in crashes involving fatalities, the model also applies inputs defining other crash-related externalities estimated on a dollar per mile basis. For vehicles above 4,594 lbs—
The 2010 National Research Council report “Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles” recommended that NHTSA perform a thorough safety analysis to identify and evaluate potential safety issues with fuel efficiency-improving technologies. The Department of Transportation Volpe Center's 2015 report titled “Review and Analysis of Potential Safety Impacts and Regulatory Barriers to Fuel Efficiency Technologies and Alternative Fuels in Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles” summarizes research and analysis findings on potential safety issues associated with both the diverse alternative fuels (natural gas-CNG and LNG, propane, biodiesel, and power train electrification), and the specific FE technologies recently adopted by the MD/HDV fleets.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study's rationale, background, and key objective, namely, to identify the technical and operational/behavioral safety benefits and disbenefits of MD/HDVs equipped with FE technologies and using emerging alternative fuels (AFs). Recent MD/HDV national fleet crash safety statistical averages are also provided for context, although no information exists in crash reports relating to specific vehicle FE technologies and fuels. (NHTSA/FARS and FMCSA/CSA databases do not include detailed information on vehicle fuel economy technologies, since the state crash report forms are not coded down to an individual fuel economy technology level).
Chapters 2 and 3 are organized by clusters of functionally-related FE technologies for vehicles and trailers (
• Both CNG- and LNG-powered vehicles present potential hazards, and call for well-known engineering and process controls to assure safe operability and crashworthiness. However, based on the reported incident rates of NGVs and the experiences of adopting fleets, it appears that NGVs can be operated at least as safely as diesel MD/HDVs.
• There are no safety contraindications to the large scale fleet adoption of CNG or LNG fueled heavy duty trucks and buses, and there is ample experience with the safe operation of large public transit fleets. Voluntary industry standards and best practices suffice for safety assurance, though improved training of CMV operators and maintenance staff in natural gas safety of equipment and operating procedures is needed.
• Observing CNG and LNG fuel system and maintenance facility standards, coupled with sound design, manufacture, and inspection of natural gas storage tanks will further reduce the
• Biodiesel blends used as drop-in fuels have presented some operational safety concerns dependent on blending fraction, such as material compatibility, bio-fouling sludge accumulation, or cold-weather gelling. However, best practices for biodiesel storage, and improved gaskets and seals that are biodiesel resistant, combined with regular maintenance and leak inspection schedules for the fuel lines and components enable the safe use of biodiesel in newer MD/HDVs.
• Propane (LPG, or autogas) presents well-known hazards including ignition (due to leaks or crash) that are preventable by using Overfill Prevention Devices (OPDs), which supplement the automatic stop-fill system on the fueling station side, and pressure release devices (PRDs). Established best practices and safety codes (
• As the market penetration of hybrid and electric drivetrain accelerates, and as the capacity and reliability of lithium ion batteries used in Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems (RESS) improve, associated potential safety hazards (
The safety findings from literature review pertaining to the specific FE technologies implemented to date in the MD/HDV fleet include:
• Telematics—integrating on-board sensors, video, and audio alerts for MD/HDV drivers—offer potential improvements in both driver safety performance and fuel efficiency. Both camera and non-camera based telematics setups are currently integrated with available crash avoidance systems (such as ESC, RSC, LDWS, etc.) and appear to be well accepted by MD/HDV fleet drivers.
• Both experience abroad and the cited US studies of trucks equipped with active speed limiters indicated a safety benefit, as measured by up to 50 percent reduced crash rates, in addition to fuel savings and other benefits, with good CMV driver acceptance. Any negative aspects were small and avoidable if all the speed limitation devices were set to the same speed, so there will be less need for overtaking at highway speeds.
• No literature reports of adverse safety impacts were found regarding implementation of on-board idle-reduction technologies in MD/HDVs (such as automatic start-stop, direct-fired heaters, and APUs).
• There was no clear consensus from the literature regarding the relative crash rates and highway safety impacts of LCVs, due to lack of sufficient data and controls and inconsistent study methodologies. Recent safety evaluations of LCVs and ongoing MAP-21 mandated studies will clarify and quantify this issue.
• Tire technologies for FE (including ATIS, TPMS, LRR and single-wide tires) literature raised potential safety concerns regarding lower stability or loss of control,
• Aerodynamic technologies that offer significant fuel savings have raised potential concerns about vehicle damage or injury in case of detached fairings or skirts, although there were no documented incidents of this type in the literature.
• Some light weighting materials may pose some fire safety and crashworthiness hazards, depending on their performance in structural or other vehicle subsystem applications (chassis, powertrain, and crash box or safety cage). Some composites (fiberglass, plastics, CFRC, foams) may become brittle on impact or due to weathering from UV exposure or extreme cold. Industry has developed advanced, high performance lightweight material options tailored to their automotive applications,
Chapter 3 provides complementary inputs on the potential safety issues associated with FE technologies and alternative fuels obtained from Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The broad cross-section of SMEs consulted had experience with the operation of “green” truck and bus fleets, were Federal program managers, or were industry developers of FE systems for MD/HDVs. Safety concerns raised by the SMEs can be prevented or mitigated by complying with applicable regulations and safety standards and best practices, and are being addressed by evolving technologies, such as electronic collision prevention devices. Although SMEs raised some safety concerns, their experience indicates that system- or fuel-specific hazards can be prevented or mitigated by observing applicable industry standards, and by training managers, operators and maintenance staff in safety best practices. Specific safety concerns raised by SMEs based on their experience included:
• Alternative fuels did not raise major safety concerns, but generally required better education and training of staff and operators. There was a concern expressed regarding high pressure (4000 psi) CNG cylinders that could potentially explode in a crash scenario or if otherwise ruptured. However, aging CNG fuel tank safety can be assured by enforcing regulations such as FMVSS No. 304, and by periodic inspection and end-of-life disposal and replacement. A propane truck fleet manager stated that the fuel was as safe as or safer than gasoline, and reported no safety issues with the company's propane, nor with hybrid gasoline-electric trucks. OEMs of drivetrain hybridization and electrification systems, including advanced Lithium Ion batteries for RESS, indicated that they undergo multiple safety tests and are designed with fail-safes for various misuse and abuse scenarios. Integration of hybrid components downstream by bodybuilders in retrofits, as opposed to new vehicles, was deemed a potential safety risk. Another potential safety concern raised was the uncertain battery lifetime due to variability of climate, duty-cycles, and aging. Without state-of-charge indicators, this could conceivably leave vehicles underpowered or stranded if the battery degrades and is not serviced or replaced in a timely manner.
• ITS and telematics raised no safety concerns; on the contrary, fleet managers stated that “efficient drivers are safer drivers.” Monitoring and recording of driver behavior, combined with coaching, appeared to reduce distracted and aggressive driving and provided significant FE and safety benefits.
• A wide-base single tire safety concern was the decrease in tire redundancy in case of a tire blowout at highway speeds. For LRRs, a concern was that they could negatively affect truck stopping distance and stability control.
• A speed-limiter safety concern was related to scenarios when such trucks pass other vehicles on the highway instead of staying in the right-hand lane
• Aerodynamic systems' safety performance to date was satisfactory, with no instances of on-road detaching. However, covering underside or other components with aerodynamic fairings can make them harder to inspect, such as worn lugs, CNG relief valve shrouds, wheel covers, and certain fairings. Drivers and inspectors need to be able to see through wheel covers and to be able to access lug nuts through them. These covers must also be durable to withstand frequent road abuse.
• For lightweighting materials, the safety concern raised was lower crashworthiness (debonding or brittle fracture on impact) and the potential for decreased survivability in vehicle fires depending on the specific material choice and its application.
The key finding from the literature review and SME interviews is that there appear to be no major safety hazards preventing the adoption of FE technologies, or the increased use of alternative fuels and vehicle electrification. In view of the scarcity of hard data currently available on actual highway crashes that can be directly or causally attributed to adoption of FE technologies and/or alternative fuels by MD/HDVs, and the limited experience with commercial truck and transit bus fleets operations equipped with these technologies, it was not possible to perform a quantitative, probabilistic risk assessment, or even a semi-quantitative preliminary hazard analysis (PHA). Chapter 4 employs a deterministic scenario-based hazard analysis of potential crash or other safety concerns identified from the literature review or raised by subject matter experts (SMEs) interviewed (
The scenario-based deterministic hazard analysis reflected not only the literature findings and SMEs' safety concerns, but also real truck or bus mishaps that have occurred in the past. Key hazard analysis scenarios included: CNG-fueled truck and bus vehicle fires or explosions due to tank rupture, when pressurized fuel tanks were degraded due to aging or when PRDs failed; LNG truck crashes leading to fires, or LNG refueling-related mishaps; the flammability or brittle fracture issues related to light weighting materials in crashes; reduced safety performance for either LRR or wide-base tires; highway pile-ups when LCVs attempt to pass at highway speeds; aerodynamic components detaching while the vehicle traveled on a busy highway or urban roadway; and fires resulting in overheated lithium ion batteries in electric or hybrid buses. These hypothetical worst case scenarios appear to be preventable or able to be mitigated by observing safety regulations and voluntary standards, or with engineering and operational best practices.
Chapter 5 reviews and discusses the existing federal and state regulatory framework for safely operating MD/HDVs equipped with FE technologies or powered by alternative fuels. The review identifies potential regulatory barriers to their large-scale deployment in the national fleet that could delay achievement of desired fuel consumption and environmental benefits, while ensuring equal or better safety performance.
Chapter 6 summarizes the major findings and recommendations of this preliminary safety analysis of fuel efficiency technologies and alternative fuels adopted by MD/HDVs. The scenario-based hazard analysis, based on the literature review and experts' inputs, indicates that MD/HDVs equipped with advanced FE technologies and/or using alternative fuels have manageable potentially adverse safety impacts. The findings suggest that the potential safety hazards identified during operation, maintenance, and crash scenarios can be prevented or mitigated by complying with safety regulations and voluntary standards and industry best practices. The study also did not identify any major regulatory barriers to rapid adoption of FE technologies and alternative fuels by the MD/HDV fleet.
DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and NHTSA sponsored a test program conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory to explore the effects of tire rolling resistance levels on Class 8 tractor-trailer stopping distance performance over a range of loading and surface conditions. The objective was to determine whether a relationship exists between tire rolling resistance and stopping distance for vehicles of this type. The overall results of this research suggest that tire rolling resistance is not a reliable indicator of Class 8 tractor-trailer stopping distance.
The correlation coefficients (R2 values) for linear regressions of wet and dry stopping distance versus overall vehicle rolling resistance values did not meet the minimum threshold for statistical significance for any of the test conditions. Correlation between CRR and stopping distance was found to be negligible for the dry tests for both loading conditions. While correlation was higher for the wet testing (showing a slight trend in which lower CRRs correspond to longer stopping distances), it still did not meet the minimum threshold for statistical significance. In terms of compliance with Federal safety standards, it was found that the stopping distance performance of the vehicle with the four tire sets studied in this research (with estimated tractor CRRs which varied by 33 percent), were well under the FMVSS No. 121 stopping distance requirements.
The agencies considered the Organic Rankine Cycle waste heat recovery (WHR) as a fuel saving technology in the rulemaking timeframe. The basic approach of these systems is to use engine waste heat from multiple sources to evaporate a working fluid through a heat exchanger, which is then passed through a turbine or equivalent expander to create mechanical or electrical power. The working fluid is then condensed as it passes through a heat exchanger and returns to back to the fluid tank, and pulled back to the flow circuit through a pump to continue the cycle.
Despite the promising performance of pre-prototype WHR systems, manufacturers have not yet arrived at a consensus on which working fluid(s) to be used in WHR systems to balance concerns regarding performance, global warming potential (GWP), and safety. Working fluids have a high GWP (conventional refrigerant), are expensive (low GWP refrigerant), are hazardous (such as ammonia, etc.), are flammable (ethanol/methanol), or can freeze (water). One challenge is determining how to seal the working fluid properly under the vacuum condition and high temperatures to avoid safety issues for flammable/hazardous working fluids. Because of these challenges, choosing a working fluid will be an important factor for system safety, efficiency, and overall production viability.
The agencies believe manufacturers will require additional time and development effort to assure that a working fluid that is both appropriate, given the noted challenges, and has a low GWP for use in waste heat recovery systems. Based on this and other factors, the analysis used for both the proposed Preferred Alternative and for this final rule assumes that WHR will not achieve a significant market penetration for diesel tractor engines (
The agencies received safety related comments to the NPRM focused on the vehicle and operator safety benefits of central tire inflation systems, potential safety and traction impacts of low rolling resistance tires, and recommendations that NHTSA continue evaluations of potential safety impacts of fuel saving technologies.
AIR CTI, Inc., a supplier of central tire inflation systems, highlighted the safety benefits to both vehicle operation and the operators themselves through proper tire pressure management. More specifically, the proper tire inflation levels for the load being carried contributes to both proper handing for road conditions and reducing irregular road surface vibration from being transmission to vehicle component and, ultimately, the vehicle operator, where there may be potential health implications over prolonged exposure.
The agencies appreciate the additional points provided by AIR CTI in terms of not only the potential fuel efficiency benefits of central tire inflation systems but the potential equipment longevity benefits, vehicle dynamic impacts, and the potential to reduce driver fatigue and injury through proper tire inflation for the load being carried.
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) commented on the potential impact of Low Rolling Resistance Tires by indicating that, “The safety effects of LRRTs are not totally understood. While the “. . . agencies analysis indicate that this proposal should have no adverse impact on vehicle or engine safety,” ATA remains leery of potential unintended consequences resulting from new generation tires that have yet to be developed. This especially holds true in terms of overall truck braking distances.” The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) similarly commented on LRRTs and their ability to meet the tractions needs in mountainous regions.
The agencies continue to stand behind the low rolling resistance tire research conducted to date, which includes the study mentioned in the previous section, along with any research supporting the development, and maintenance, of FMVSS No. 121. The agencies agree, though, that continuing research will be important as new tire technologies enter the marketplace, and like the extensive rolling resistance testing conducting to support the Phase 1 regulation and, in part, this final rule, the agencies will continue to monitor developments in the tire supply marketplace through the EPA Smartway program and other, potential, research. NHTSA notes that FMVSS No. 121 will continue to play a role in ensuring the safety of both current and future tire technologies.
The ATA also expressed support for the NHTSA study mentioned in the previous section,
NHTSA and EPA considered the potential safety impact of technologies that improve MDHD vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions as part of the assessment of regulatory alternatives and selection of the final regulatory approach. The safety assessment of the technologies in this final rule was informed by two NAS reports, an analysis of safety effects of HD pickups and vans using estimates from the DOT report on the effect of mass reduction and vehicle size on safety, and agency-sponsored safety testing and research. The agencies considered safety from the perspective of both direct effects and indirect effects.
In terms of direct effects on vehicle safety, research from NAS and Volpe, and direct testing of technologies like the ORNL tire work, indicate that there are no major safety hazards associated with the adoption of technologies that improve MDHD vehicle fuel efficiency and GHG emissions or the increased use of alternative fuels and vehicle electrification. The findings suggest that the potential safety hazards identified during operation, maintenance, and crash scenarios can be prevented or mitigated by complying with safety regulations, voluntary standards, and industry best practices. Tire testing showed tire rolling resistance did not impact of Class 8 tractor-trailer stopping distance for the tires tested. For HD pickup and vans, mass reduction is anticipated to reduce the net incidence of highway fatalities, because of the beneficial effects of mass reduction in the majority of HD pickup and vans which weigh more than 4,594 lbs. Taken together, these studies suggest that the fuel efficiency improving technologies assessed in the studies can be implemented with no degradation in overall safety.
However, analysis anticipates that the indirect effect of these standards, by reducing the operating costs, will lead to increased travel by tractor-trailers and HD pickups and vans and, therefore, more crashes involving these vehicles.
As discussed in the NPRM and throughout this Preamble, in developing this program, the agencies considered a number of regulatory alternatives that could result in potentially fewer or greater GHG emission and fuel consumption reductions than the Phase 2 program we are adopting. This section summarizes the alternatives we considered and presents estimates of the CO
In developing alternatives, both agencies must consider a range of stringency. NHTSA must consider EISA's requirement for the MD/HD fuel efficiency program. In particular, 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) and (3) contain the following three requirements specific to the MD/HD vehicle fuel efficiency improvement program: (1) The program must be “designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement;” (2) the various required aspects of the program must be appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for MD/HD vehicles; and (3) the standards adopted under the program must provide not less than four model years of lead time and three model years of regulatory stability. In considering
As explained in the Phase 1 rule, NHTSA has broad discretion in balancing the above factors in determining the improvement that the manufacturers can achieve. The fact that the factors may often be conflicting gives NHTSA significant discretion to decide what weight to give each of the competing policies and concerns and then determine how to balance them—as long as NHTSA's balancing does not undermine the fundamental purpose of the EISA: Energy conservation, and as long as that balancing reasonably accommodates “conflicting policies that were committed to the agency's care by the statute.”
EPA also has significant discretion in considering a range of stringency. Section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires only that the standards “take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.” This language affords EPA considerable discretion in how to weight the critical statutory factors of emission reductions, cost, and lead time. See 76 FR 57129-57130.
The alternatives presented here follow the format of the alternatives addressed in the NPRM. Among the alternatives are a preferred alternative (in this action, the “final program”), more stringent alternatives, and less stringent alternatives (including “no action” alternatives). As discussed in this Preamble's Sections II (Engines), III (Tractors), IV (Trailers), V (Vocational Vehicles), and VI (Pickups and Vans), NHTSA and EPA determined Alternative 3 to be the preferred alternative, or the final program, for each vehicle category. This Section X describes all of the alternatives considered, and provides context for the relative stringency associated with the final program.
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. All of the alternatives were modeled using the same methodologies described in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
The alternatives considered for the final rule were conceptually similar to (and for some elements, identical to) to the alternatives considered for the proposal. The alternatives in order of increasing fuel efficiency and GHG emissions reductions are as follows:
Comments on the alternatives overlapped with comments on the overall stringency of the proposed Phase 2 program. These comments were mixed. Some operators and manufacturers supported the least stringent alternatives. Many other commenters, however, including most non-governmental organizations, supported more stringent standards with less lead time. They generally supported Alternative 4. Many technology and component suppliers supported more stringent standards but with the proposed lead time, and thus generally supported the Alternative 3 timeframe. Vehicle manufacturers strongly opposed the more stringent standards and reduced lead time of Alternative 4. To the extent any of these commenters provided technical information to support their comments on stringency and lead time, it is discussed in Sections II through VI.
Many of the comments supporting more stringent standards stated that they would be “cost-effective.” In general, however, we did not find costs or cost-effectiveness to be a significantly limiting factor in determining the stringency of the standards. Rather, we found that actual technological feasibility and lead time to be the more limiting factors. Manufacturers and suppliers have limited research and development capacities, and although they have some ability to expand, that ability is constrained by the lead time required. Lead time includes time not only to design and develop a technology, but to bring it to market in reliable form. During the prototype stage, all prototype components must be available and extensive engine and vehicle tests must be conducted. The production start-up phase would follow. After that, significant efforts must be made to advance the system from a prototype to a commercial product, which typically takes about five years for complex systems. During this approximate five-year period, multiple vehicles will go through weather condition tests, long lead-time parts and tools will be identified, and market launch and initial results on operating stability will be completed. Production designs will be released, all product components should be made available, production parts on customer fleets and weather road testing will be verified before finally launching production, and distribution of parts to the vehicle service network for maintenance and repair will be readied. See Section I.C above; see also RIA Chapter 2.3.9. New technologies then are ordinarily phased into the commercial market, so that fleet operators are assured of technology reliability and utility before making extensive purchases. Commenters supporting the more stringent alternatives based on cost-effectiveness generally did not address these very real lead time constraints.
OMB guidance regarding regulatory analysis 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:
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. When 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
A no-action alternative is also required as a baseline against which to measure environmental impacts of these standards and alternatives. NHTSA, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, is documenting these estimated impacts in the EIS published with this final rule.
The No Action Alternative for today's analysis, 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 indefinitely 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 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, by the market forecast underlying the agencies' analysis, 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 (
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 deployment. Particularly relevant to this sector are DOE's 21st Century Truck Partnership, EPA's voluntary SmartWay Transport program, and California's AB32 fleet requirements.
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 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 rules. Except as noted below, these baselines are largely the same as the proposed Alternatives 1a and 1b, which reflected different assumptions about the extent to which the market would pay for additional fuel-saving technology without new Phase 2 standards. The agencies received limited comments on these reference cases. Some commenters expressed support for the la baseline in the context of the need for the regulations, arguing that little improvement would occur without the regulations. Others supported the 1a
For trailers, the agencies considered two No Action alternatives to cover a nominal range of uncertainty. The trailer category is unique in the context of this rulemaking because it is the only heavy-duty category not regulated under Phase 1. The agencies project that in 2018, about half of new 53′ dry van and reefer trailers will have technologies qualifying for the SmartWay label for aerodynamic improvements and about 90 percent would have the lower rolling resistance tires. About half also have automatic tire inflation systems to maintain optimal tire pressure. For Alternative 1a as presented in this action (referred to as the “flat” baseline), this technology adoption remains constant after 2018. In the second case, Alternative 1b, the agencies projected that the combination of EPA's voluntary SmartWay program, DOE's 21st 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. The agencies projected that the fraction of the in-use fleet qualifying for SmartWay will continue to increase beyond 2027 as older trailers are replaced by newer trailers. We projected that these improvements will continue until 2040 when 75 percent of new trailers will 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 payback periods for fuel efficiency technologies available for vocational vehicles are generally longer than the payback 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 by 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 will either not be applied or will 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 will either not be applied or will only be applied as a substitute for more expensive fuel efficiency technologies to tractors (thereby enabling manufacturers to offer tractors that are less expensive to purchase), except as necessitated by the Phase 1 fuel consumption and GHG standards. In Alternative 1b the agencies estimated that some available technologies will save enough fuel to pay back fairly quickly—within the first six months of ownership. The agencies considered a range of information to formulate these two baselines for tractors.
Both public
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. This phenomenon, which is discussed in Section IX.A, is often called the energy paradox. Consistent with the discussion above of reasons for needed lead time, 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 often state that they would
The agencies believe that using the two baselines addresses the uncertainties we have identified for tractors. The six-month payback 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 by 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
For vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers, Alternative 2 represents a stringency level which is approximately half as stringent overall as the final standards. The agencies developed Alternative 2 to consider a continuation of the Phase 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. Put another way, Alternative 2 is not technology-forcing.
The agencies' decisions regarding which technologies could be applied to comply with Alternative 2 considered not only the use of off-the shelf technologies, but also considered other factors, such as how broadly certain technologies fit in-use applications and regulatory structure. The resulting Alternative 2 could be met with fewer technologies and lower penetration rates than those the agencies project will be used to meet the final Phase 2 standards. 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. Overall, Alternative 2 for the final rules is conceptually similar to Alternative 2 in the NPRM. However, some changes have been made to reflect new information provided in public comments.
The agencies project that Alternative 2 combination 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 Alternative 2 for vocational vehicles assessed for these final rules does differ somewhat from the proposal because it reflects new duty cycles that weight idle emissions more heavily. The agencies project that the Alternative 2 vocational vehicle standard could be met without any use of strong hybrids or any other type of transmission technology. Rather, it could be met with off-the-shelf idle reduction technologies, low rolling resistance tires, and axle efficiency improvements.
The Alternative 2 trailer standards would apply to only 53-foot dry and refrigerated box trailers and could be met through the use of less effective aerodynamic technologies and higher rolling resistance tires versus what the agencies projected could be used to meet Alternative 3 (
As discussed above in Section VI, the HD pickup truck and van alternatives are characterized by an annual required percentage change (decrease) in the functions defining attribute-based targets for per-mile fuel consumption and GHG emissions. Under the standards in each 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 MY 2018 (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 year. Therefore, although the alternatives involve steady increases in the functions defining the targets, stringency increases faced by 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 for additional discussion of this topic. Alternative 2 represents a 2.0 percent annual improvement through 2025 in fuel consumption/GHG emissions relative to the work-factor curve in 2020. This would be 0.5 percent less stringent per year compared to the standards of Alternative 3.
For HD pickups and vans in the Method A analysis, NHTSA projects 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 Alternative 3 standards, but at lower application rates. In EPA's Method B analysis, the biggest technology difference EPA projects between Alternative 2 and the Alternative 3 final standards is that most manufacturers could meet the Alternative 2 standards without any use of stop-start or other mild or strong hybrid technologies.
The agencies are not adopting standards reflecting Alternative 2 for reasons of both policy and law. Technically feasible alternate standards are available that provide for greater emission reductions and reduced fuel consumption than provided under Alternative 2. These more stringent standards, which are being adopted, are feasible at reasonable cost, considering both per-vehicle and per-engine cost, cost-effectiveness, direct benefits to
The agencies are adopting Alternative 3 for HD engines, HD pickup trucks and vans, Class 2b through Class 8 vocational vehicles, Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, and trailers. Details regarding modeling of this final program are included in Chapter 5 of the RIA. Note that Alternative 3 for the final rules differs from the Alternative 3 in the NPRM. The differences are largely in response to significant comments on the proposed rule. Although some aspects of the final Alternative 3 are more aggressive than proposed (including adopting some aspects of the proposed Alternative 4), others are less aggressive. As a result of these changes, the preferred alternative in this final rule is projected to achieve more GHG emission reductions and more reductions of fuel consumption than the proposed alternative 4. See Section X.B below and RIA Chapter 5.
Unlike the Phase 1 standards where the agencies projected that manufacturers could meet the Phase 1 standards with off-the-shelf technologies only, the agencies project that meeting the Alternative 3 standards will require a combination of off-the-shelf technologies applied at higher market penetration rates and new technologies that are still in various stages of development and not yet in production. Although this alternative is technology-forcing, it must be kept in mind that the standards themselves are performance-based and thus do not mandate that any particular technology be used to meet the standards.
We have described in detail above, and also in Chapter 2 of the RIA, the precise bases for each of these standards (that is, for each segment covered under the program). Sections II through VI of this Preamble provide comprehensive explanations of the agencies' assessment of the extent to which such standards could be met through the accelerated application of technologies and our reasons for concluding that the identified technologies for each of the vehicle and engine standards that constitute the updated Alternative 3 represent the maximum feasible (within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 32902 (k)) and reasonable (for purposes of CAA section 202(a)(1) and (2)) based on all of the information available to the agencies at the time of this rulemaking. In particular, the agencies determined that many engine improvements could be achieved sooner than we projected in our NPRM analysis, some even sooner than projected as part of the Alternative 4 analysis.
As indicated by its description in the title above, Alternative 4 represents standards that are effective on a more accelerated timeline in comparison to the timeline of in the proposed Alternative 3 standards. This alternative is unchanged from Alternative 4 in the proposal. The agencies believe that reanalyzing the same Alternative 4 provides a useful context for commenters who supported the proposed Alternative 4.
In the NPRM, Alternatives 3 and 4 were both designed to achieve similar fuel efficiency 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 the proposed Alternative 3, but 3 years sooner (2 years for heavy-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 agencies projected in the NPRM that meeting Alternative 4 combination tractor standards would require applying initially higher adoption rates of the projected technologies for Alternative 3. This included a projection of slightly higher per-technology effectiveness for Alternative 4 versus 3. Alternative 4 also assumes that there would be more optimization of combination tractor powertrains and earlier market penetration of engine waste heat recovery systems.
The agencies also projected that meeting the Alternative 4 vocational vehicle standard would require earlier adoption rates of the same technology packages projected for Alternative 3.
Meeting the Alternative 4 trailer standards would require earlier implementation of more effective aerodynamic technologies, including the use of aerodynamic skirts and boat tails. This would be in addition to implementing lower rolling resistance tires for nearly all trailers.
HD pickup truck and van standards defining Alternative 4 represent a 3.5 percent annual improvement in fuel consumption and GHG emissions through 2025 relative to the work-factor curves in 2020. This would require earlier adoption of all the Alternative 3 technologies.
As discussed above and in the feasibility discussions in Sections II-VI, we are adopting those elements of the proposed Alternative 4 where we have determined them to be feasible in the lead time provided. However, the agencies have determined that it is unlikely that all elements of Alternative 4 could be achieved by 2024. In fact, the agencies can only project that the engine improvements and some tire improvements will be achievable on the Alternative 4 timeline. Thus, we do not believe these alternative standards to be feasible overall, and we are consequently unable to accurately estimate costs for them. The agencies received many comments supporting the Alternative 4 standards where the commenter noted they supported them because they would be “cost-effective” based on the proposed analysis of costs. However, we do not consider this conclusion to be accurate. We do not believe the proposed analysis fully represents the costs for this alternative
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 NPRM, and as repeated above and in the feasibility discussions in Sections II-VI, we are not adopting 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. No commenters provided any new information to refute this finding. We believe that for some or all of the categories, the Alternative 5 standards are simply technically infeasible within the lead time allowed. We have not 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. (Indeed, how can cost estimates for an alternative which essentially cannot be done at all be realistic?) We also believe this alternative, if it could somehow be effectuated, would result in a decrease in the in-use reliability and durability of new heavy-duty vehicles and that we do not have the ability to accurately quantify 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 3, assuming (against our view) that such standards would be feasible at all.
The following tables compare the overall fuel consumption and GHG emissions reductions 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 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.
Also note that the agencies analyzed pickup and van overall fuel consumption and emissions reductions and benefits and costs using the NHTSA's 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 a version of the CAFE model to estimate average per vehicle cost, and this analysis extended through model year 2030.
The agencies are finalizing a more stringent program than proposed, so that the preferred alternative for the FRM (Alternative 3) achieves greater reductions and net benefits than the proposed program would have. Moreover, because the agencies analyzed the same Alternative 4 for the FRM as for the NPRM, the FRM preferred alternative also achieves greater reductions than Alternative 4 would have.
The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) accompanying today's notice presents more detailed results of the agencies' analysis.
Table X-1 through Table X-4 summarize the key NHTSA estimates of the costs and benefit of the program using Method A. The first two tables show the costs and benefits using a 3 percent discount rate under both the flat and dynamic baselines. The third and fourth tables show the costs and benefits using a 7 percent discount rate for both baselines. Under all possible combinations of discount rate and baseline the net benefits from highest to lowest are as follows: Alternative 5; Alternative 3; Alternative 4; Alternative 2.
Table X-5 and Table X-6 show the estimated fuel savings and GHG reductions considering alternatives under both baselines. Under both baselines, the reductions in both fuel and GHG's are highest under Alternative 5, higher under Alternative 3 than Alternative 4, and lowest under Alternative 2.
Table X-9 summarizes EPA's estimates of GHG and fuel reductions of the program using Method B for calendar years 2040 and 2050.
NGV America estimates that approximately 65,200 natural gas trucks were operating in the U.S. in 2014. This represents 0.3 percent of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet in the U.S. based on EPA's estimated 17.5 million heavy-duty trucks operating in the U.S.
This combined rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA is designed to regulate two separate characteristics of heavy-duty vehicles: Emissions of GHGs and fuel consumption (especially petroleum fuels). The use of natural gas as a heavy-duty fuel can impact both of these. In the case of diesel or gasoline powered vehicles, there is a close relationship between GHG emissions and petroleum consumption. The situation is different for non-petroleum fuels like natural gas. Natural gas also has a lower carbon content than petroleum fuels. Thus, a natural gas vehicle that could achieve the same fuel efficiency as a diesel-powered vehicle would emit about 20 percent less CO
For Phase 2, the agencies have reevaluated the potential use of natural gas in the heavy-duty sector and the impacts of such use. As discussed below, based on our review of the literature and external projections we believe that the use of natural gas is unlikely to become a major fuel source for medium and heavy-duty vehicles during the Phase 2 time frame. Thus, since we project natural gas vehicles to have little impact on both overall GHG emissions and fuel consumption during the Phase 2 time frame, the agencies see no need to make fundamental changes to the Phase 1 approach for natural gas engines and vehicles.
As part of this rulemaking, the agencies developed a lifecycle analysis of natural gas used by the heavy-duty truck sector, which is presented in Section XI.B. We also present the results of analyses projecting the future use of natural gas by heavy-duty trucks, identify a number of potential emission control technologies, and discuss the
Both gasoline and diesel vehicles can be designed or modified to use natural gas. Several engine parameters and characteristics come into play in comparing engines powered by natural gas with engines powered by conventional fuels.
Gasoline-fueled engines are typically spark-ignition engines that rely on stoichiometric combustion, which means that essentially all the oxygen from the engine's intake air is consumed in the combustion process. Converting a gasoline-fueled engine to run on natural gas involves changing the hardware used to store and deliver fuel to the engine, but the combustion strategy remains largely unchanged. The engine must be recalibrated for the different fuel properties, but combustion typically remains stoichiometric. In addition, the catalysts may require significant changes to enable the heavy-duty engine to comply with the emission standards.
Diesel-fueled engines are compression-ignition engines that rely on lean-burn combustion, which means that the engine takes in a substantial quantity of excess air (oxygen) that is not consumed in the combustion process. Engines usually have turbochargers to compress the intake air, which allows for greater power output and thermodynamic efficiency. Converting a diesel-fueled engine to run on natural gas may involve a minimal set of changes to engine calibrations to maintain lean-burn operation and the overall operating characteristics of a compression-ignition engine, although there are substantial changes to the fuel storage and delivery systems. Compressed ignition natural gas engines either require the use of a pilot injection of a small amount of diesel fuel to initiate the combustion event when the natural gas is directly injected, or more commonly, a mixture (never more than 50 percent natural gas) of natural gas and diesel fuel is combusted for fumigated natural gas engines. It is also possible to convert a diesel-fueled engine to run on natural gas by adding a spark plug. The option of changing the calibration strategy to rely on stoichiometric combustion would allow for simpler engine design and operation, but it would come at a cost of higher fuel consumption and CO
Engines running on natural gas are capable of meeting the same criteria and GHG emission standards that apply for gasoline and diesel engines, although complying with the methane tailpipe emission standard has posed a challenge for engine manufacturers up to this point. In the case of reducing PM and CO
On-vehicle fuel storage for natural gas is also an important design parameter. The most common method today is compressed natural gas (CNG), which involves storing the fuel as a gas at very high pressure (up to ~3600 psi) to increase the density of the fuel, although the fuel remains less dense than diesel fuel. Compared to diesel fuel, CNG increases vehicle weight (because of heavier high pressure fuel tanks) and generally reduces the range relative to gasoline or diesel vehicles. Nevertheless, CNG technology is readily available and does not involve big changes for operators. The alternative is to extensively cool the fuel so that it can be stored as liquefied natural gas (LNG) at a lower pressure, which involves more extensive hardware changes for managing the fuel as a cryogenic liquid. LNG fuel storage also involves a substantial weight increase, but LNG has a higher density than CNG so LNG vehicles can store much more fuel than CNG vehicles in the same volume. LNG technology is available for a limited number of truck models, mostly for line-haul service where range is a paramount consideration. The cryogenic fuel requires substantial changes in hardware and procedures for refueling stations and operators. An additional difference from CNG is that because LNG must be kept cool to prevent evaporation, significant losses will occur if a vehicle is not used frequently enough. For example, an LNG vehicle left parked over a period of multiple days will eventually vent the fuel to prevent tank failure, as the system takes on heat from the surrounding environment and the pressure increases.
This section is organized into three sections. The first section summarizes the upstream emissions associated with natural production and distribution. The second section summarizes the downstream emissions associated with the actual use of the fuel. The last section summarizes the results of the lifecycle emissions analysis and provides a comparison between natural gas lifecycle and diesel fuel lifecycle emissions. Only the overall results of the lifecycle emissions analysis between natural gas and diesel fuel are presented here, with more detail provided in Chapter 13 of the RIA.
Upstream methane emissions (occurring in natural gas production, processing, transmission, storage and distribution) have been estimated and summarized in the annual EPA report Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (GHG Inventory) for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As a basis for estimating the lifecycle impact of natural gas use by heavy-duty trucks, we used the year 2014 methane emission estimates in the most recent GHG Inventory, published in 2016. Substantial amounts of new information on methane emissions from oil and gas systems have become available recently from a number of channels, including EPA's GHG Reporting program, industry organizations, and various research studies. EPA reviewed this information and revised its estimates of methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum facilities for the 2016 GHG Inventory. Comparing the most recent GHG Inventory estimate for 2013 to the previous GHG Inventory for 2013, methane emissions are about one third higher for the aggregated natural gas system than the previous estimate. The GHG Inventory also includes the quantity of carbon dioxide which is coproduced with methane throughout the natural gas system and emitted to the atmosphere through venting, flaring, and as fugitive emissions. Since the GHG Inventory only represents U.S.-based methane and carbon dioxide emissions, it does not estimate the GHG emissions caused by the production of natural gas in Canada which is imported to the U.S. The imported Canadian natural gas comprises about 10 percent of U.S. natural gas consumption. To estimate the GHG emissions from this Canadian natural gas, we assume that it has the same GHG emissions profile as U.S.-produced natural gas.
The GHG Inventory is updated annually to account for new emission sources (
Emission estimates in the GHG Inventory are generally bottom-up estimates which are per-unit (compressor, pneumatic valve, etc.) emission estimates based on measured or calculated emission rates from such emission sources.
In addition to the national-level data available through the GHG Inventory, facility-level petroleum and natural gas systems data are also available through EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).
The EPA-promulgated 2012 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS OOOO) will reduce emissions of ozone precursors from natural gas facilities and have methane and hazardous air pollutant reduction co-benefits. The NSPS standards require that emissions from natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured be controlled using flaring or reduced emission completion (REC) technology from completions and workovers starting in 2012. RECs used by natural gas well drillers capture the natural gas emissions that occur during well completion, instead of venting or flaring the emissions. Starting in January 2015, RECs are required for natural gas well completions and workovers. The NSPS also regulates the emissions from certain new natural gas production equipment, including dehydrator vents and condensate tanks.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects natural gas production to increase by about 19 percent by 2025. However, as noted in the 2016 Second Biennial Report of the United States of America, EPA projects emissions of methane to increase, by only 5 percent during this timeframe; thus, methane emissions in 2025 are expected to be 12 percent lower than in 2014 per equivalent volume of natural gas being produced.
EPA is taking additional steps to reduce the emissions of methane from natural gas and oil production facilities. On May 12, 2016, EPA finalized regulations (2016 NSPS OOOOa) which, among other things, include methane standards for oil and gas equipment used across the oil and gas sources currently only regulated for VOCs, and require the use of reduced emissions completions at hydraulically fractured oil wells.
In the GHG Inventory, emissions associated with powering the units or equipment (
Downstream emissions associated with natural gas differ between CNG and LNG. We discuss the emissions of both types below.
Natural gas used as CNG is compressed at the retail stations that sell the CNG and the fleet facilities which fuel the CNG fleet vehicles. Thus, it is typically off-loaded from the broader natural gas system where the vehicles using CNG are refueled. To get the natural gas to the CNG retail facilities, which are mostly located in or near urban areas, the natural gas is normally shipped through the distribution system downstream of the natural gas transmission system. CNG trucks are then refueled at the retail stations providing CNG. Each time a CNG refueling event occurs, a small amount of natural gas is released to the environment. We estimated the volume of CNG emitted by this equipment during refueling based on past data collected on these types of fueling fittings (described in RIA Chapter 13.1.2.1). Since CNG storage systems are designed handle very high pressures, they must be designed to have no leaks, so the CNG could remain stored in the CNG tanks indefinitely. However, should a leak occur, the very high pressure at which CNG is stored dramatically increases fugitive emissions. We do not have any data to suggest that fugitive emissions from CNG trucks and assume for this analysis that CNG fugitive emissions from CNG storage at retail/fleet facilities and by trucks is zero. However, we recognize that this clearly underestimates the methane emissions from these storage facilities since they are unlikely to be leak-free in every instance.
Stored at 3600 psi the energy density of CNG is only about 25 percent of the energy density of diesel fuel. This lower energy density is a disincentive for using CNG in long haul trucks because it limits the vehicle's range. However, as described in the Chapter 13.1.3.1 of the RIA, using an adsorbent for natural gas (ANG) could improve the energy density of CNG, which would make it a better candidate for natural gas storage for long range combination trucks.
A primary reason for liquefying natural gas is that it allows storing the natural gas at about 60 percent of the density of diesel fuel, which is more than twice as dense as CNG. For this reason, LNG is a primary fuel being considered by long haul trucks.
Liquefaction is the first step downstream of the natural gas production, processing and distribution system for making LNG available to trucks. This step involves cooling the natural gas until it undergoes a phase change from a gas to a liquid at a low pressure. LNG plants are configured differently depending on their ultimate capacity. Large LNG export facilities produce 5 million metric tons, or more, per year of LNG and the economy of scale of these large plants supports the significant addition of capital to reduce their operating costs and energy use. An LNG plant solely producing LNG for truck fuel would likely be significantly smaller (
LNG is typically transported to the retail station using insulated trailers designed specifically for transporting LNG. Boil-off emissions can occur during transport, but only if the temperature of the LNG increases to the point the pressure relief valve opens. However, since the LNG is super cooled, boil off events are likely to be rare. LNG is also stored in an insulated storage tank at the retail facility. Heat gain in the storage tank could eventually lead to boil-off emissions. Service stations with little LNG demand are at a higher risk of boil-off emissions compared to service stations which have a significant throughput volume. LNG stations could be configured to avoid boil-off events to the atmosphere, such as venting to a co-located CNG facility, venting to a nearby natural gas pipeline, or oxidizing the methane to carbon dioxide. In the absence of other information, we used CARB's estimate of boil-off emissions for LNG transportation by the tanker truck between the LNG plant and retail outlets and from LNG retail facilities.
LNG vehicles generally refuel LNG retail outlets or fleet refueling facilities much the same as other vehicles. However, because the fuel is under pressure, when the refueling nozzle is disconnected from the LNG tank nozzle, a small amount of methane is released to the environment. We estimated the volume of LNG emitted by this equipment during refueling based on past data collected on these types of fueling fittings (described in RIA Chapter 13). In addition, operators sometimes reduce the pressure in the truck's LNG tank to speed up the refueling process, which can emit methane as well. In some cases the retail station is equipped with another hose and associated piping to vent the excess gas to the retail stations' storage tank where it would usually condense back to a liquid due to the lower temperature of that tank, or perhaps be vented to a natural gas pipeline. However, for those retail outlets without such vent lines to the storage tank, the operator may simply vent the truck's storage tank to the atmosphere. We estimated the emissions for a boil-off event or venting an LNG tank prior to refueling as part of a sensitivity analysis for our lifecycle analysis.
The differences between CNG and LNG refueling patterns are important. Only a single facility, the retail outlet, is required for distributing CNG, while LNG requires both a liquefaction plant and a retail outlet and a means for transporting the LNG from the liquefaction plant to retail. Relying on a single facility simplifies the logistics of providing CNG and reduces the opportunity for methane leakage to the environment. However, this emissions disadvantage of LNG compared to CNG is offset somewhat because LNG is expected to access natural gas from the upstream transmission system (due to lower prices), which avoids methane emissions associated with the downstream natural gas distribution system.
There are several different ways that diesel heavy-duty engines can be configured to use natural gas as a fuel. The first is a spark ignition (Otto cycle) natural gas (SING) engine. The SING heavy duty engine burns the fuel stoichiometrically and uses a three-way catalyst, and some also add an oxidation catalyst to provide the greatest emissions reduction. In this case the engine compression ratio is reduced similar to that of a gasoline engine and thus its thermal efficiency is lower than a diesel-like engine by about 10-15 percent.
The second is a direct injection natural gas (DING), diesel cycle. The DING engine uses a small quantity of diesel fuel (pilot injection) or a glow plug as ignition sources. As the injection system for the diesel fuel does not have the capability of greater injection quantities, this option has no dual-fuel properties. On the other hand, an optimization of the pilot injection can be made to achieve lower emissions. An advanced high pressure direct injection (HPDI) fuel system combining the injection of both diesel fuel and natural gas can be used for lean burn combustion. This enables the engine to maintain the efficiency advantage of a compression ignition engine while running mainly CNG/LNG.
The third is a mixed-fuel natural gas (MFNG), diesel cycle. In a mixed-fuel engine, natural gas is mixed with intake air before induction to the cylinder and diesel fuel is used as ignition source. Mixed-fuel vehicle/engine means any vehicle/engine engineered and designed to be operated on the original fuel(s), or a mixture of two or more fuels that are
Each of these natural gas engine types has its merits. The SING engine is less costly, but is less fuel efficient and because of the lower compression ratio it has less torque than the DING and MFNG diesel cycle engines. Furthermore, the SING engine usually is designed for a shorter lifespan. The DING engine is likely the most expensive because of the special natural gas/diesel fuel injection system and large required amount of natural gas (LNG or CNG) storage since the truck must run on natural gas. However, because the truck can run almost completely on natural gas, the DING engine has the potential to more quickly pay down the higher investment cost of the natural gas truck. The MFNG engine provides the truck owner the flexibility to operate either on both natural gas and diesel fuel, or solely on diesel fuel, but at the expense of a slower natural gas investment pay down rate because at most 60 percent of the fuel it consumes can be natural gas.
Phase 1 set methane emission standards for both CNG and LNG trucks, so it is important to separate those trucks built before 2014 from those built in 2014 and later. The trucks built before 2014 only needed to meet standards for nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and other criteria pollutants, which means that the methane emissions from these trucks are unregulated. Our certification data show that the methane tailpipe emissions from these trucks/buses ranges from 2-5 g/bhp-hr for both spark ignition (gasoline type) and compression ignition (diesel type) engines.
For 2014 and later, DING and MFNG natural gas trucks or natural gas conversions of 2014 and later diesel trucks, the trucks must meet a 0.1 g/bhp-hr methane emission standard in the case of a larger truck engine tested with an engine dynamometer, and a 0.05 g/mile methane emission standard in the case of smaller trucks tested on a chassis dynamometer.
Some amount of combustion gases typically leaks into the crankcase across the piston rings (blow-by) These crankcase emissions generally include some unburned fuel along with other combustion products, and for natural gas engines, this includes methane. The crankcase of the spark ignition engines is vented into the intake of the engines; thus, any methane that ends up in the crankcase is rerouted back to the engine where it would be combusted. For compression ignition engines, however, the crankcase emissions are allowed to be vented into the exhaust pipe downstream of the aftertreatment devices, and therefore can be released to the atmosphere, provided the manufacturer measures them and includes them in the total emissions. This means that crankcase emissions of methane count against the Phase 1 methane standard. Another potential source of methane emissions from CNG and LNG trucks is fugitive emissions from the engine and from the piping which routes the fuel to the engine. Thus, either while parked or operated, this part of the vehicle fuel and engine systems could leak methane to the environment (which is different from boil-off emissions from LNG trucks discussed below). We do not have data nor did we develop an estimate for these potential fugitive emissions from these types of in-use leaks. If the natural gas vehicles are well maintained, these emissions are likely to be very low.
The thermal efficiency (the ratio of energy converted to work versus energy consumed) of the natural gas engine also plays a role in the lifecycle emissions of the truck. Natural gas engines are generally less efficient than their gasoline and diesel counterparts. Furthermore, manufacturers often choose to produce spark-ignition stoichiometric natural gas engines for use in diesel applications. Spark-ignition natural gas engines can be as much as 15 percent less efficient than compressed ignition engines which operate on diesel fuel. In our lifecycle analysis, we provide two different sensitivities for natural gas vehicles assuming that they are 5 percent and 15 percent less efficient.
An important difference between CNG and LNG is the way in which the fuels are stored on the vehicle. The CNG is contained in a permanently sealed system while the LNG system is potentially open to the environment (depending on operating patterns). Provided that there are no leaks in the storage system, the CNG truck is inherently low (zero) emitting with respect to evaporative emission and a parked truck would contain the CNG indefinitely. However, this is not so for LNG trucks, which would have very high emissions if the truck were to be parked so long that its entire contents would boil off and be emitted to the environment. Methane venting emissions mean loss of fuel for the operator, which creates a disincentive to allow the fuel to warm to the point of venting. Nevertheless, even occasional venting events can have significant impacts. Thus, EPA remains concerned about boil-off emissions from LNG truck fuel storage systems. When the liquefied natural gas is pumped into the truck LNG tanks, it is “supercooled,” meaning that the pressure of the LNG is well below the pressure at which the natural gas vent valve would relieve the LNG pressure. If the truck is driven extensively, the drawdown of liquid level will reduce the pressure in in the storage tank which will cause some of the fuel to boil off and the heat of vaporization would thus cool the rest of the liquid in the LNG storage tank. It is possible that the fuel would maintain its supercooled temperature, or possibly even cool further below its supercooled temperature, the entire time until the LNG is completely consumed.
Unless the truck is driven enough to consume the LNG fuel while is still at the very low-temperature and low-pressure, it will warm due to the ambient temperature gradient through the tank wall, and vaporize, causing the temperature and pressure of the LNG to rise. When the pressure reaches a maximum of 230 psi a safety release valve releases the methane gas to vent
A large amount of methane can be released with each boil-off event. If aware of the impending boil-off, such as when the truck is being maintained, the truck driver could hook up the LNG tank to a hose which would vent the natural gas emissions to a CNG system which could reuse the boil-off natural gas as CNG, or vent the natural gas emission to a natural gas pipeline. Otherwise the boil-off emission would simply vent to the atmosphere. If the truck had 200 gallons of LNG storage capacity, the estimated quantity of boil-off emissions would range from 3 to 9 gallons of LNG for each boil-off event depending on the fill level of the LNG tank, assuming that the boil-off event results in a drop of pressure in the LNG tank from 230 psi to 170 psi. Each boil-off event has the potential to release on the order of 5,300-15,800 grams of CH
To estimate the lifecycle impact of natural gas used by heavy-duty trucks, we totaled the estimated CO
To establish the impacts of natural gas use in the heavy-duty fleet, it was necessary to compare the lifecycle impacts of natural gas against the base fuel it is replacing, which generally is diesel fuel. The lifecycle impact of diesel fuel was estimated by the 2015 GREET model for the current production and use of diesel fuel. In 2015, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) updated its diesel fuel lifecycle analysis to assess diesel fuel use by trucks in the year 2014.
To illustrate the relative full lifecycle impact of natural gas-fueled heavy-duty vehicles compared to diesel fueled heavy-duty vehicles, we assessed two different scenarios. The first is a conversion of a 2014 or later diesel engine to use CNG. Of the tens of thousands of heavy-duty natural gas trucks currently in use, most are of this type. It is likely that nearly all CNG conversions being done in 2021 and later will be for vehicles subject to the 2014 and 2016 methane emissions standards. Thus, for this analysis we assume that all converted natural gas trucks will need to comply with the methane standards. The methane standard requires heavy-duty trucks to comply with a 0.1 g/bhp-hr or a 0.05 g/mile methane tailpipe standard. Based on certification data for post-2014 CNG trucks, the trucks emit from 0.7 to 2 g/bhp-hr methane and thus require the use of CO
The second scenario we assessed is a combination LNG tractor trailer (LNG is most common with tractors because it provides a greater range of operation). While the fuel storage in this case is LNG (as opposed to CNG in the case above), the engine options are similar to the above case (diesel and gasoline cycle as represented by the thermal efficiency sensitivities). Also similar to the CNG case, we assume that these engines continue to emit 1 gram per brake-horsepower-hour of methane despite being subjected to either the 0.1 gram per brake horsepower-hour or the 0.05 gram per mile methane emission standard. We make two different assumptions with respect to refueling and boil off emissions. In the LNG average case, we assume a modest quantity of refueling and boil-off methane emissions as estimated by GREET. The second boil-off emission estimate is a sensitivity analysis which assumes that the LNG storage tank is either vented to the atmosphere each time the driver refills his tank, or that there is a boil-off event for each LNG tank filling. As discussed above, we do not expect such high refueling and boil-off emissions to be common practices for newer trucks that are operated regularly. However, as the use of these trucks decreases as they age and are sold into the secondary market, the risk for refueling and boil-off emission events increases—this estimate provides a simple sensitivity emission estimate. The relative lifecycle analysis is shown in Figure XI-1.
A third comparison made in Figure XI-1 is the relative tailpipe-only emissions for diesel and natural gas trucks. The quantity of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a diesel truck is from GREET. The carbon dioxide emissions from a natural gas-fueled truck is calculated and is based on the carbon-hydrogen content of methane. The methane emissions from a natural gas-fueled truck is based on natural gas truck certification data (and so does not include any methane emissions from the natural gas storage tanks onboard the truck nor other fugitive emissions).
The first two bars of Figure XI-1 show that based solely on tailpipe emissions (with thermal efficiency adjustments and assuming 1 g/bhp-hr methane emissions at the truck), CNG trucks are estimated to emit about 10 percent less GHG emissions than diesel engines if the engine is only 5 percent less efficient than a diesel engine, and about the same GHG emissions if the engine is 15 percent less efficient than a diesel engine. The four full lifecycle analyses represented by the right four bars in the figure show that CNG trucks are estimated to emit less GHG emissions than diesel trucks, although if their thermal efficiency is much lower (15 percent less than the diesel fueled engine) their GHG emissions would decrease to 5 percent lower than diesel trucks.
Figure XI-1 also shows that LNG trucks with an average extent of boil-off emissions can have about the same greenhouse gas footprint as diesel trucks, provided the engines' energy efficiency is only 5 percent lower than diesels. However, if the LNG engine is 15 percent less energy efficient than the diesel fuel engine, the GHG emissions of the LNG truck would be higher. In addition, an LNG truck with refueling or high boil-off emissions, would emit about one third more GHG emissions than diesel fuel trucks. From a lifecycle perspective, LNG trucks appear higher emitting than CNG trucks largely because of the low thermal efficiency of the small liquefaction facilities. If a fleet of LNG trucks were to access LNG from a large, LNG export facility, which are much more energy efficient than the smaller liquefaction facilities, the relative lifecycle impacts of the LNG trucks would be much better.
It is important to point out the uncertainties associated with the lifecycle estimates provided in the above figures. As discussed above, there is uncertainty in both the upstream and downstream methane emission estimates for natural gas facilities and equipment, and the trucks that consume natural gas. There is also uncertainty in the diesel fuel lifecycle analysis conducted by GREET and NETL. Finally, the lifecycle analysis is sensitive to the GWP factor used to assess methane and nitrous oxide, and if a different GWP value were to be used, it would affect the relative lifecycle impact of natural gas relative to diesel in heavy-duty trucks (see Chapter 13.1.4 of the RIA for sensitivity analyses regarding upstream methane emissions and the use of different GWP factors).
We compared our lifecycle emission estimates for natural gas, relative to diesel fuel, with the estimates provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). For our emissions estimate used in the comparison we used the carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO
The lifecycle analysis at proposal comparing the GHG impacts of natural gas versus diesel fuel use by heavy-duty trucks did receive some comments. Probably the most prevalent comment is that EPA was underestimating methane emissions from the upstream natural gas sector. As noted above, the analysis for this final rule increased the estimate of methane emissions from the upstream natural gas sector by about one third. Other comments suggested that the Agencies should find emissions data or estimate methane emissions from the potential methane emission points for which there was no data to make such an estimate in our lifecycle analysis. The final rule natural gas lifecycle analysis does make methane emission estimates at some of those likely methane emission points for which we did not have data, nor make any estimates. Some commenters stated that the natural gas lifecycle analysis should be dropped because a similar lifecycle analysis was not conducted for other alternative fuels. The agencies chose to do a natural gas lifecycle analysis because of some of the projections for a rapid transition of heavy-duty trucks to natural gas, and because of methane's potency as a greenhouse gas. Other comments are presented and discussed in Section 12.3 of the RTC.
We reviewed several sources to estimate how much natural gas is currently being used and is projected to be used by heavy-duty trucks. Projections for this emerging technology range from 7 percent of new heavy-duty vehicle sales to over 40 percent by 2040. Large uncertainties exist even since the 2014 NAS First Report was written.
First, in its 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), EIA estimates that natural gas fueled 0.4 percent of the energy use of heavy-duty trucks in 2014. This estimate is consistent with the fraction of the heavy-duty fleet which is fueled by natural gas as estimated by the industry.
Second, the EIA projection is based on an economic analysis which considers the increased cost of manufacturing a natural gas truck over a diesel truck, the fuel savings for using natural gas instead of diesel fuel, and whether the payback time of the fuel savings against the increased truck cost would result in purchases of natural gas trucks. As part of this analysis, EIA assumes that lighter heavy-duty trucks would use CNG, which is a lower cost technology suited for the shorter driving distances for these trucks. The long haul trucks, however, require larger on-board stores of fuel to extend the driving range which is satisfied by storing the natural gas as a liquid. As noted earlier, LNG has about 60 percent of the energy density of diesel fuel, compared to CNG which has only 25 percent of the energy density of diesel fuel. To satisfy the long driving range of the long haul trucks, EIA assumed that they would use LNG rather than CNG. The assumptions used by EIA for conducting its economic analysis are reasonable.
Third, EIA is one of the several organizations in the world which collects fuel pricing data and projects future fuel prices using a sophisticated modeling platform. One of the most important assumptions in projecting the future use of natural gas in the transportation sector is the relative price of natural gas to the price of diesel fuel. Thus, we started with the EIA methodology and updated the diesel and natural gas prices in our analysis using the most recent AEO projections.
In 2015, the price of natural gas purchased by industrial users was less than $5 per million BTU. The price of crude oil has been volatile during 2015 as the Brent crude oil price started at about $50 per barrel, but decreased to under $30 per barrel, but now (Spring 2016) seems to be selling in the range of $30 to $40 dollars per barrel. EIA reported the average retail diesel fuel price in 2015 was about $2.70 cents per gallon.
In its 2015 AEO projections, EIA estimates that crude oil prices in the upcoming years will increase slightly and are projected to reach $140/bbl in 2040. Natural gas prices are also expected to increase only slightly over this period.
Fifth, the assumptions regarding payback used by EIA seemed reasonable. EIA projects that natural gas trucks begin to be purchased when the payback times are 4 years or less based on a survey conducted by the American Trucking Association. The 2014 NAS Phase 2 First Report cites the payback for the extra cost of natural gas trucks as 2 years, but other sources report a longer return closer to 4 years.
For many fleets, the perceived payback times are too long to be interested in purchasing natural gas trucks without subsidies to compensate for the higher purchase price. According to EIA data, half the natural gas consumption by cars and trucks is in California, a state that subsidizes the purchase price of natural gas vehicles, and also subsidizes the cost of natural gas dispensing stations. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard in place in California also incentivizes natural gas use because natural gas is considered to
Based on the EIA projections for crude oil and natural gas prices, the payback time of LNG trucks is expected to remain relatively long until sometime after 2030 when crude oil prices are projected to begin increasing and the diesel fuel price increases above $4 per gallon. Thus, natural gas use by heavy-duty trucks is not projected by EIA to increase above 1 percent of the heavy-duty fuel demand until after 2030.
Even when the apparent payback time for CNG and LNG trucks use is favorable to fleet owners, low fuel availability could still slow the transition to CNG and LNG. This is because CNG and LNG availability at service stations is currently 1 percent or less of the availability of gasoline and diesel fuel and therefore not available for most fleets. LNG availability is particularly challenging because in addition to an LNG service station, an LNG liquefaction plant would be needed as well.
If the number of natural gas truck sales remains a small portion of the heavy-duty truck fleet, even if natural gas trucks emit either higher or lower greenhouse gas emissions than diesel fuel trucks, there would be little impact on overall greenhouse gas emissions. The low natural gas use by the heavy-duty sector during the Phase 2 timeframe will give us time to learn more about both upstream and downstream methane emissions to gain a better understanding of the lifecycle impacts of natural gas use by heavy-duty trucks. It will allow EPA more time to consider and put into place the best additional steps to further reduce upstream and downstream methane emissions which will improve the lifecycle impacts of natural gas use by heavy-duty trucks should the heavy duty truck fleet begin consuming natural gas in much larger quantities.
Although natural gas vehicles are already subject to evaporative emission standards, the increasing interest in using natural gas as a heavy-duty fuel has led industry to further investigate how to improve the overall emission performance of natural gas vehicles, especially with respect to reducing methane leaks.
As described in Section XII.A.3, EPA is adopting a 5 day hold time requirement for LNG fuel tanks to reduce venting emissions.
As described in Section II., EPA is not adopting the proposed changes related to crankcase emission control from natural gas engines.
The discussion below includes new and revised natural gas program requirements being finalized. It also address other topics for with the agencies are not taking any action at this time. We will continue to monitor the market growth of these vehicles and we plan to review the greenhouse gas emissions impacts at a future date when natural gas vehicles comprise a larger percentage of the overall heavy duty fleet.
The Phase 1 GHG rule included a compliance alternative allowing heavy-duty manufacturers and conversion companies to comply with the respective methane or nitrous oxide standards by means of over-complying with CO
Since the Phase 1 rule was finalized, a new IPCC report has been released with new GWP estimates. EPA asked for comment on whether the methane GWP used to establish the GHG equivalency value for the CO
We received a number of comments on this issue. For the most part, the environmental community favored using the more recent GWP value and even some commented that EPA should use a methane GWP based on a 20 year timeframe. On the other hand, the natural gas industry and natural gas truck manufacturers commented that EPA should not update to the newer GWP values but continue to use the methane GWP value from the AR4 IPCC report because EPA is still using the methane GWP from the AR4 today in other contexts. Although EPA is currently using AR4 values in other contexts, it is unlikely that EPA will still be using AR4 values in 2021 when the Phase 2 requirements begin. Thus, comments opposing the use the methane GWP from the later IPCC report are not persuasive. EPA will continue to base the credit adjustment on a 100 year timescale because it seems to best balance short-term versus long-term effects of climate change.
Of the possible 100 year methane GWP values presented in the IPCC AR5 report, EPA is choosing to use the value of 34 because it is the primary value presented by the IPCC and because the approach of not accounting for the CO
To be consistent with other lifecycle analyses, the agencies are continuing to use AR4 value of 25 for the methane GWP in our lifecycle analyses. However, as discussed in Chapter 13.1 of the RIA, we have also conducted sensitivity analyses using methane GWP values ranging from 7.6 to 72.
EPA requested comment on the current assigned deterioration factors for CO
EPA requested comment on the feasibility and appropriateness of a regulatory requirement that LNG fueled vehicles include a warning system that would notify the driver of a pending boil-off event as one means reduce the frequency of such events and thus limit the release of methane. We received several comments expressing safety concern related to this approach. While such a system could be beneficial to the owner of a vehicle, EPA is not taking action at this time. We encourage innovation for safe technologies to evolve for warning of potential boil-off events which would also save the vehicle owner the cost of the fuel in the tank while protecting the atmosphere from large amounts of methane gas.
EPA proposed to require manufacturers to comply with the existing evaporative emission standards by showing compliance with a 5-day hold time. 80 FR 40510. We also solicited comment on the ability of emerging technologies to address an extension of 5-day requirement to a longer period of time such as 10 days. After considering the comments, EPA is not extending the hold time beyond 5 days in this rule.
The specifications of the 5-Day Hold Time SAE J2343 safety related standard will only affect LNG vehicles starting in the year 2021 to help prevent boil-off events. After speaking to LNG truck manufacturers and LNG fuel providers, our understanding is that most LNG is dispensed at about 100 to 120 pounds per square inch gauge (psig), which corresponds to −200 degrees Fahrenheit) and at that temperature, new LNG trucks with new LNG storage tanks are achieving more than a 5-day hold time today. However, over time, the vacuum insulation of the LNG storage tank scan fail, resulting in degraded LNG hold-time as the truck ages. The requirement that the LNG truck must meet the 5-day hold-time over its entire useful life will likely improve the truck's hold time after the first several years in service. While LNG tank manufacturers are further developing their technologies for improvement of hold times and reducing boil-off from LNG storage tanks on trucks, the 5-day hold time requirement over the truck's useful life will ensure that they make the improvements to the period of the truck's life which is most at risk for boil-off events, which is when the truck is sold off into the secondary market and its use diminishes.
EPA considered requiring new trucks to have the capability to use cold fuel. Most of the LNG trucks on the road at this time use the warmer fuel; therefore, most refueling stations are dispensing the warmer fuel only. A cold fuel requirement could force refueling stations to make a large potentially burdensome investment to provide the colder fuel in addition to the warmer fuel, because only a few cold fuel LNG trucks might be sold in that area. We would need to study the implications of this scenario further and gain a better understanding of the emissions from boil-off events before we would feel confident in how a cold LNG fuel requirement would affect the refueling industry and reduce methane emissions. A cold LNG fuel requirement would likely be more feasible for new fleets since they could design their truck fleet and their own fueling equipment from the ground up to use the cold LNG fuel.
Another possible approach would be to increase the R- value of the tank to keep the warm fuel colder for longer. This likely would further reduce boil-off events, although, again, we are uncertain of the benefits versus the costs. We believe that ensuring that the 5-day hold time can be met over the truck's useful life is the best, lowest cost strategy to reduce the number of boil-off events.
Although we are not requiring it, EPA is interested in watching the progression of innovative technologies that can capture methane emissions during a boil-off event to prevent large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. We encourage design and development of ideas such as a methane canister using adsorbents such as ANG
Instead of discharging methane to the environment, the methane potentially could be burned to CO
When refueling a natural gas vehicle, some amount of methane is vented to the atmosphere. Requirements adopted as part of the Tier 3 rules require use of the ANSI-NGV1-2006 standard practice to meet the evaporative emissions refueling requirement.
For LNG, in addition to the boil-off issue, there is the issue of the recurrence of manual venting at refueling by truck operators. Under high pressure
Onboard diagnostics for engines used in vehicle applications greater than 14,000 lbs GVWR are already required to detect and warn the operator when methane leaks occur due to wear of connections and components of the CNG or LNG fuel system (74 FR 8310, February 24, 2009). We requested comments on requiring on-board monitoring to track boil-off events, as well as comment on whether the excess vapors were properly vented to the station storage tanks or NG pipeline or whether the gaseous methane emissions were vented to atmosphere during refueling events. 80 FR 40512. Each boil off event has the potential to release on the order of 5,300-15,800 grams of CH
As described above, the climate impact of leaks and other methane emissions that occur upstream of the vehicle can potentially be large enough to more than offset the CO
Although NAS (2014) focused its recommendations on natural gas, it also discussed dimethyl ether (DME), which is a potential heavy-duty truck fuel sourced from natural gas. Dimethyl ether has a high cetane number (more than 55), although its energy density is about 60 percent of that of diesel fuel. Dimethyl ether is a volatile fuel, like liquefied petroleum gas that can be stored as a liquid at normal ambient temperatures under moderate pressure. Typical DME fuel tanks would be designed to prevent any significant evaporative emissions.
A DME fueled truck is only modestly more expensive than a diesel fuel truck. The fuel tank is more expensive than a diesel fuel tank, but much less expensive than an LNG tank since it does not need to be heavily insulated. The engine modifications to enable using DME are also modest. Because DME does not have carbon-carbon bonds that form particulate matter particles during combustion, the particulate filter, which is standard equipment on new diesel trucks, can be eliminated. This offsets some of the engine and fuel tank costs.
Although DME is sourced from cheap natural gas, the conversion of natural gas to DME and moving the fuel to retail outlets greatly increases the cost of the fuel. Based on the crude oil and natural gas prices in early 2014 (about $100 per barrel), DME is more expensive than LNG, but still lower in cost than diesel fuel (DME is estimated to cost $3.50/DGE, or $0.30 DGE less than diesel fuel.) After the decline in crude oil prices, DME is estimated to be priced higher than diesel fuel.
Because there is very little DME use in the U.S. (there is only a very small fleet of trucks in California), we did not conduct a lifecycle assessment of DME, but note here a few aspects of a lifecycle analysis for DME. First, since DME is sourced from natural gas, the upstream methane emissions from the natural gas industry would still be allocated to DME. Second, there are no venting issues associated with DME as there are with LNG refueling or boil-off. Third, because DME has a lifetime of less than a week in the atmosphere, it has little direct climate impacts. Thus, it is likely that DME would have a lower GHG impact than LNG trucks, and perhaps lower than CNG trucks, although we would have to study DME use in trucks further to be more certain.
The agencies are revising the regulatory text specifying test procedures and compliance provisions used for Phase 1. For the most part, these amendments apply exclusively to the Phase 2 rules. In a few limited instances, the agencies are adopting changes to the Phase 1 program. These limited changes to the Phase 1 program are largely conforming amendments, and are described below, along with other minor changes to the Phase 1 compliance program. These changes generally continue to apply under the Phase 2 program.
For the convenience of the reader, we are republishing 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 in their entirety, including text that is not being amended. We are also republishing Phase 1 text in 40 CFR part 86. We note, however, that we have not reconsidered, rethought, or reopened the Phase 1 rules in a general sense. We have also not reconsidered, rethought, or reopened the stringency of the Phase 1 standards or other fundamental
The agencies received very few comments of these changes. Daimler commented that the agencies should not make any changes to Phase 1 because manufacturers have already developed systems to comply with the existing requirements. We do not necessarily agree that would be a sufficient reason to keep us from amending Phase 1 requirements through notice and comment rulemaking. Nevertheless, we note that we are not finalizing changes that would have any significant impact on the manufacturers' Phase 1 compliance structures.
EPA is relocating the GHG standards and other regulatory provisions for chassis-certified HD pickups and vans in the Code of Federal Regulations from 40 CFR 1037.104 to 40 CFR 86.1819-14. Accordingly, NHTSA is modifying any of EPA's references in 49 CFR parts 523 and 535 to accommodate the migration. EPA is making this change largely to address ambiguities regarding the application of additional provisions from 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, for these vehicles. The approach in 40 CFR 1037.104 was to state that all of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, applies except as specified in 40 CFR 1037.104; however, the recent standards adopted for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks included several changes to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, that should not apply for chassis-certified HD pickups and vans. Based on our experience implementing the Phase 1 program, we believe it is appropriate to include the GHG standards for chassis-certified HD pickups and vans in the same part as light-duty vehicles (40 CFR part 86, subpart S). All other certification requirements for these heavy-duty vehicles—criteria exhaust standards, evaporative and refueling standards, provisions for onboard diagnostics, and the range of certification and compliance provisions—are in that subpart. We note that we have not experienced the same challenges for other heavy-duty vehicles, and are therefore not relocating the other provisions of 40 CFR part 1037.
This migration has highlighted a few areas where we need to clarify how the regulations apply for chassis-certified HD pickups and vans. In particular, EPA is adopting the following changes:
• Clarify that the GHG standards apply at high-altitude conditions.
• State that fleet-average calculation of carbon-related exhaust emissions (CREE) is not required for chassis-certified HD pickups and vans. Instead, heavy-duty vehicles are subject to CO
• Clarify that requirements related to model types and production-weighted average calculation apply only for passenger automobiles and light trucks.
• State that the credit and debit provisions of 40 CFR 86.1865-12(k)(5) do not apply for chassis-certified HD pickups and vans.
• Clarify that the Temporary Lead Time Allowance Alternative Standards in 40 CFR 86.1865-12(k)(7) do not apply for chassis-certified HD pickups and vans.
• State that the early credit provisions of 40 CFR 86.1866-12, 86.1867-12, 86.1868-12, 86.1869-12, 86.1870-12, and 86.1871-12 do not apply for chassis-certified HD pickups and vans.
EPA is revising the approach to classifying gaseous-fuel engines with respect to both GHG and criteria emission standards. The general approach is to continue to divide these engines into spark-ignition and compression-ignition categories, but we will apply the compression-ignition standards to all engines that qualify as heavy heavy-duty engines based on the primary intended service class.
EPA is also revising the regulation to spell out how to apply enforcement liability for a situation in which the
Heavy-duty vehicles fueled by natural gas have for many years been subject to evaporative emission standards and test procedures. While fuel systems containing gasoline require extensive design features to handle vented fuel, fuel systems containing natural gas generally prevent evaporative losses by remaining sealed. In the case of compressed natural gas, there is a voluntary consensus standard, ANSI NGV1-2006, that is designed to ensure that there are no leaks or losses during a refueling event. Since compressed natural gas systems remain sealed indefinitely once the refueling event is complete, we understand that complying with the ANSI refueling standard is sufficient to demonstrate that the vehicle also complies with all applicable evaporative emission standards. The Light-Duty Tier 3 final rule included provisions to clarify that compressed natural gas systems meeting the applicable ANSI standard are deemed to comply with EPA's evaporative emission standards. In response to comments received on the proposed rule, we are adding a reference to a supplemental ANSI standard that similarly specifies system-integrity requirements for CNG-fueled heavy-duty vehicles that allow for substantially higher refueling rates; this supplemental standard will eventually be incorporated into ANSI NGV1.
Systems using liquefied natural gas (LNG) behave similarly, except that the cryogenically stored fuel needs to be vented to prevent an over-pressure situation if the vehicle is not used for an extended time, as described in Section XI. Such vehicles are currently subject to evaporative emission standards and test procedures, though there are some
While the hold-time requirements of SAE J2343 are clear, there appears to be very little description of the procedure to determine how much time passes between a refueling event and initial venting. To ensure that all manufacturers are subject to the same set of requirements, we are adding a minimal set of specifications corresponding to the demonstration under SAE J2343. In particular, the regulation specifies that the tank must remain at rest throughout the measurement procedure, ambient temperatures must remain between 20 and 30 °C, and the hold-time period starts when the tank pressure reaches 690 kPa (100 psi) after a conventional refueling event. We are also adopting a simplified standard that translates the five-day hold time into a maximum allowable pressure build over a shorter time for parked vehicles. In particular, for vehicles parked for at least 12 hours, tank pressure must not increase by more than an average of 9 kPa (1.3 psi) per hour. The pressure increase corresponding to the five-day hold-time standard is about 7.5 kPa per hour. The additional margin is intended to account for variability related to different ambient conditions, vehicle handling, nonlinear pressure increases, measurement instruments, and other factors. This is intended to give vehicle owners a more practical performance measure to evaluate whether tanks continue to meet the hold-time requirement.
Manufacturers may rely on SAE J2343 to meet evaporative and refueling standards immediately with completion of the final rule; this demonstration becomes mandatory for vehicles produced on or after January 1, 2020.
One commenter suggested that we add a reference to European test protocols for CNG heavy-duty vehicles to allow for a higher refueling flow rate than is allowed under the EPA regulations, which are based on hardware and procedures for light-duty vehicles (ANSI NGV1). We learned that the European protocol is based on systems up to 3000 psi and is therefore not valid for most heavy-duty CNG vehicles in the United States. Representatives of the natural gas industry responded to the comment suggesting the European protocol by recommending that we instead reference a recently published supplement to ANSI NGV1, which accommodates the higher flow rates corresponding to heavy-duty vehicles and current refueling technology. We are accordingly revising the regulation to reference this additional ANSI document, which is known as CSA IR-1-15, “Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) High Flow Fueling Connection Devices.”
EPA is adopting the following changes that apply broadly for different types of vehicles or engines:
• Providing additional detail about manufacturers obligations with respect to delegated assembly. In response to comments, we have delayed the applicability of these provisions until January 1, 2018 to provide manufacturers with additional lead time. See 40 CFR 1037.150(e) and 1037.621.
• Add a requirement for vehicle manufacturers that sell incomplete vehicles to secondary vehicle manufacturers to provide emission-related assembly instructions to ensure that the completed vehicle will be in a certified configuration.
• Specify parameters for determining a vehicle's curb weight, consistent with current practice for vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
• Revise the recordkeeping requirement to specify a uniform eight-year retention period for all data supporting an application for certification. The provision allowing for one-year retention for “routine data” is no longer necessary now that data collection is all recorded in electronic format. EPA is also clarifying that the eight-year retention period is calculated relative to the latest associated application for certification, not from the date the data were generated.
• Change the rounding for analytically derived CO
• Clarify how manufacturers may amend an application for certification after the end of the model year.
• Remove the general recordkeeping provisions from 40 CFR 1037.735 that are already described in 40 CFR 1037.825.
• Clarify how EPA will conduct selective enforcement audits (SEAs) for engines (in 40 CFR 1036.301) and vehicles and components (in 40 CFR 1037.301-1037.320) with respect to GHG emissions.
• Add provisions to provide a streamlined path for off-cycle credit for adding Phase 2 technologies to Phase 1 vehicles. See 40 CFR 1037.150.
EPA proposed a different equation with a ratio of 0.8330 in 40 CFR 1037.525 for the case of full yaw sweep measurements to determine wind-averaged drag correction as an amendment to the Phase 1 program. Some commenters argued that this change would impact stringency, but we disagree because manufacturers are already subject to EPA compliance using both methods (full yaw sweep and ±6 degree measurements), and this Phase 1 flexibility was not used in setting the level of the Phase 1 standards. Nevertheless, we are adopting the final rule without this change to the Phase 1 standards. Other changes in the existing Phase 1 regulations for MY 2017 will serve to mitigate any impacts, and the agencies are no longer convinced the potential disruption to manufacturers' compliance plan is warranted.
In Phase 1, the agencies intended GHG and fuel consumption standards for segments of the National Program to be in alignment so that manufacturers will not be required to build vehicles to meet in equivalent standards. Despite the intent, NHTSA and EPA have identified several scenarios where credits and compliance to both sets of standards are not aligned. This misalignment can have various impacts on compliance with the National Program.
For example, a manufacturer of tractors could have two vehicle families that with same number of vehicles but with opposite and equal compliance margins with standards. In this scenario, the first family will over-comply with the GHG standard while the second family will under-comply with the GHG standard by the same amount of grams CO
In order to correct this misalignment, NHTSA proposed to amend the existing fuel consumption standards and the method for calculating performance values for all compliance categories by increasing the significant digits in these conversion values. Increasing the significant digits in these values will result in more precise alignment between final compliance credit balances.
NHTSA proposed that the increase resolution would apply retroactively starting for the model year 2013 standard. However, because the Phase 1 fuel consumption standards created a difference in compliance margins which could potentially have an adversely impact for certain manufacturers who have already developed engineering plans considering previous credit balance, NHTSA sought comments on whether optional to allow manufacturer to continue using the Phase 1 standards. No comments were received in response.
NHTSA is finalizing its standards and performances for the Phase 1 and 2 programs with increased significant digits as the only option for compliance. Retaining the previous accuracy does not maintain a single national program and aligning credit balances is more important because it ensures the same compliance outcome. Manufacturers who may have planned their compliance strategies using the previous approach would not be able to take advantage of any relaxations in in the NHTSA program because the national program requires one single compliance fleet and manufacturers would still need to comply with the more stringent EPA standards.
In the Phase 1 final rule, the agencies added provisions for certain types of vocational tractors and vocational vehicles that operate off-road to be exempt from standards, although standards will still apply to the engines installed in these vehicles. An exemption was warranted because these vehicles operate in a manner essentially making them incompatible with fuel saving and emission reduction technologies, such as performing work in an off-road environment, being speed restricted, or having off-road components or other features making them incompatible for roadways. For the Phase 1 program, off-road vehicle manufacturers meeting the exemption provisions are required to provide EPA and NHTSA, through the EPA database, a report within 90 days after the end of each model year identifying its off-road vehicles. The report must provide a description of each excluded vehicle configuration, including an explanation of why it qualifies for the exclusion and the production volume. A manufacturer having an off-road vehicle that does not meet the criteria under the agencies' off-road exemptions in 40 CFR 1037.631 and 49 CFR 535.5 is allowed to submit a petition under 40 CFR 1037.150(h) and 49 CFR 535.8 describing how and why its vehicles should qualify for exclusion based on criteria that are equivalent to those specified in 40 CFR 1037.631.
Under Phase 1 compliance processes, manufacturers have not been using the petitioning process to get approval of an exemption for off-road vehicles that do not meet the specified criteria to qualify for an exemption. Instead, manufacturers have been submitting information to EPA during production for a given model year to determine whether or not these vehicles qualify for an exemption, or if they need to get certificates of conformity for the vehicles they already produced. EPA and NHTSA collaboratively determine whether manufacturers should qualify for an exemption under 40 CFR 1037.150(h) and 49 CFR 535.8, and EPA shares the decision with the manufacturer.
For the Phase 1 and 2 standards, the agencies are revising the regulations to clarify the process for vehicle manufacturers to get approval for an exemption in unusual circumstances in which the vehicle should be exempt even though it does not automatically qualify for an exemption under the criteria specified in 40 CFR 1037.631 and 49 CFR 535.5. Most importantly, we now specify at 40 CFR 1037.150(h) and 49 CFR 535.8 that manufacturers must get approval for the exemption before producing the subject vehicles to avoid violating statutory prohibitions. EPA and NHTSA will continue to collaborate in making any final decisions on exemptions.
Note that vehicles meeting the qualifying criteria under 40 CFR 1037.631 and 49 CFR 535.5 are exempt without request; however, if manufacturers want to address any uncertainty by getting EPA and NHTSA to affirm that their vehicles do in fact meet the specified criteria, they may ask for preliminary approval under 40 CFR 1037.210.
For vehicle and engine technologies that can reduce GHG and fuel consumption, but for which there is not yet an established method for quantifying reductions, the agencies encourage the development of such technologies through providing “innovative technology” credits. Manufacturers seeking innovative technology credits must quantify the reductions in fuel consumption and GHG emissions that the technology is expected to achieve, above and beyond those achieved on the existing test procedures.
Manufacturers submitting innovative technology requests must send a detailed description of the technology and a recommended test plan to EPA as detailed in 40 CFR 1036.610 and 1037.610. The test plan must include whether the manufacturer is applying for credits using the improvement factor method or the separate-credit method. It is recommended that manufacturers not conduct testing until the agencies can collaboratively approve the test plan in which a determination is made on the qualification of the technology as innovative. EPA in consultation with NHTSA also makes the decision at that time whether to seek public comments on the test plan if there are unknown factors in the test methodology.
The agencies have received feedback from manufacturers that the final approval process is not clearly defined, which has caused a substantial time commitment from manufacturers. To address this feedback, for the final rule, the agencies are adopting further clarification in 40 CFR 1036.610 and 1037.610 defining the steps manufacturers must follow after an approval is granted for a test plan. This includes specifications for submitting the final documentation to the agencies for final approval and for determining credit amounts. The agencies are adding the same level of detail as required for the final documentation required in EPA's light duty off-cycle program in 40 CFR 86.1869-12(e)(2). These specifications should provide manufacturers with a clear understanding of the required documentation and approval process to reduce the time burden placed on manufacturers.
NHTSA is also adding similar provisions from its light duty CAFE program specified in 49 CFR 531.6(b)(2) and 533.6(c)(2) for limiting the approval of innovative technologies under its program for those technologies related to crash-avoidance technologies, safety
The National Program was designed to provide manufacturers with averaging, banking and trading (ABT) flexibilities for meeting the GHG and fuel efficiency standards to optimize the effectiveness of the program. As a part of these flexibilities, manufacturers generating a shortfall in fuel consumption credits for a given model year must submit a credit plan to NHTSA describing how it plans to resolve its deficits within 3 models year. To assist manufacturers, NHTSA is modify 49 CFR 535.9(a)(6) of its regulation to clarify and provide guidance to manufacturers on the requirements for a credit allocation plan which contains provisions to acquire credits from another manufacturer which will be earned in future model years.
The current regulations do not specify if future credit acquisition is permitted or not and the revision is intended to clarity that it is, with respect to the limitation a credit shortfall can only be carried forward three years. Providing this clarification is intended to increase transparency within the program and ensure all manufacturers are aware of its available flexibilities. NHTSA is adopting the requirement that in order for a credit allocation plan to be approved, NHTSA will require an agreement signed by both manufacturers. This requirement will assist NHTSA with its determination that the credits will become available to the acquiring manufacturer when they are earned.
Previously, NHTSA decided not to include recordkeeping provisions in its regulations for the Phase 1 program. EPA regulations include recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 1036.250, 1036.735, 1036.825, 1037.250, 1037.735, and 1037.825. For the Phase 2 program, NHTSA is adding recordkeeping provisions to facilitate its compliance validation program for the final rule. For the Phase 1 and 2 programs, manufacturers test and conduct modeling to determine GHG emissions and fuel consumption performance, and EPA and NHTSA perform validation testing. EPA uses the results of the validation tests to create a finalized report that confirms the manufacturer's final model year GHG emissions and fuel consumption results. Each agency will use this report to enforce compliance with its standards.
NHTSA assesses compliance with fuel consumption standards each year, based upon EPA final verified data submitted to NHTSA for its heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency program established pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32902(k). NHTSA may conduct verification testing throughout a given model year in order to validate data received from manufacturers and will discuss any potential issues with EPA and the manufacturer. See 49 CFR 535.9. After the end of the model year, NHTSA may also decide to conduct field inspections in order to confirm whether or not a new vehicle was manufactured as originally certified. NHTSA may conduct field inspections separately or in coordination with EPA. To facilitate inspections, the agencies will add additional provisions to the EPA recordkeeping provisions to require manufacturers to keep build documents for each manufactured tractor or vocational vehicle. Each build document will be required to contain specific information on the design, manufacturing, equipment and certified components for a vehicle. NHTSA will request build documents through EPA and the agencies will collaborate on the finding of all field inspections. Manufacturers will be required to keep records of build documents for a period of 8 calendar years.
In addition to the new GHG standards in these rules, EPA and NHTSA are amending various aspects of the regulations as part of the HD GHG Phase 1 standards for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles, as described in Section XII. EPA is also taking the opportunity to amend regulatory provisions for other requirements that apply for heavy-duty highway engines, and for certain types of nonroad engines and equipment.
Most of the amendments described in this section represent minor technical issues and, as such, were not the subject of extensive comment. Two exceptions are the issues related to glider kits and to competition vehicles, as noted below. The rest of this section, for which we received fewer comments, generally includes only references to the more significant comments, such as comments that impacted our conclusions for the provisions adopted in the final rule. See the RTC for a more complete discussion of the comments.
For the convenience of the reader, we are republishing some related text that is not being amended. We note, however, that we have not reopened the standards or other fundamental aspects of these programs that remain unchanged substantively.
This section describes a range of regulatory amendments for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles that are not directly related to GHG emission standards. Note that Section XIII. B. describes new requirements for glider kits and Section XIII. F. describes additional changes related to test procedures that affect heavy-duty highway engines.
Motor vehicles conventionally comprise a familiar set of vehicles within a relatively narrow set of parameters—motorcycles, cars, light trucks, heavy trucks, buses, etc. The definition of “motor vehicle;” however, is written broadly to include a very wide range of vehicles. Almost any vehicle that can be safely operated on streets and highways is considered a motor vehicle under 40 CFR 85.1703. Development of EPA's emission control programs is generally focused on a consideration of the technology, characteristics, and operating parameters of conventional vehicles, and typically includes efforts to address concerns for special cases. For example, the driving schedule for light-duty vehicles includes a variation for vehicles that are not capable of reaching the maximum speeds specified in the Federal Test Procedure.
Industry innovation in some cases leads to some configurations that make it particularly challenging to meet regulatory requirements. We are aware that plug-in hybrid-electric heavy-duty vehicles are an example of this. An engine for such a vehicle is expected to have a much lower power rating and duty cycle of engine speeds and loads than a conventional heavy-duty engine. The costs of regulatory compliance and the mismatch to the specified duty cycle can make it cost-prohibitive for engine manufacturers to certify such an engine under the heavy-duty highway engine program.
To address concerns about certifying atypical engines to highway heavy-duty standards for use in hybrid vehicles, we are therefore adopting a provision allowing manufacturers of heavy-duty
California ARB suggested that we limit relief to hybrid vehicles that have a series configuration, or to hybrid vehicles that have a minimum all-electric range. We chose not to adopt these limitations because these features are not fundamental to what we believe is the basis for accommodating special vehicle designs. For example, if a vehicle needs a 20-kW gasoline engine to recharge batteries used for propulsion, and provides a small amount of power directly to the wheels, we believe this should not be disqualified from using the specialty-vehicle provisions because there is no expectation that 20 kW engines will be certified to the conventional highway heavy-duty engine standards anytime in the foreseeable future.
We proposed to offer this flexibility for hybrids, amphibious vehicles, and low-speed vehicles. We also received comment advocating that certain qualifying all-terrain vehicles are in a similar situation since they have unique engine-performance requirements that prevent them from finding compliant highway engines; we have modified the rule to also apply the specialty vehicle provisions to these all-terrain vehicles. The regulations will limit this allowance to vehicles that have portal axles, which are specialized axles that increase ground clearance. Cost and/or performance limits for such axles preclude their use for vehicles intended for use primarily on highways. Thus, we believe vehicles with such axles are designed primarily for off-road operation, while retaining the ability to occasionally operate on highways.
Under approach being adopted for these various vehicles, compression-ignition engines could be certified to alternate standards that are equivalent to the emission standards under 40 CFR part 1039, and spark-ignition engines could be certified to alternate standards that are equivalent to the Blue Sky emission standards under 40 CFR part 1048.
These alternate standards relate primarily to the engine certification-based emission standards and certification requirements. All vehicle-based requirements for evaporative emissions continue to apply as specified in the regulation. In addition, hybrid vehicles would still be subject to all the standards and requirements that apply to heavy-duty vehicles under 40 CFR part 1037. For example, manufacturers would need to perform powertrain testing and run GEM to determine the applicable g/ton-mile emission rate for hybrid vehicles. However, the agencies are not requiring vehicle certification for the three other types of specialty vehicles. Low-speed vehicles are already excluded from the vehicle requirements under Phase 1, while the amphibious and all-terrain vehicles would present significant challenges to the vehicle simulations.
This allowance is intended to lower the barrier to introducing innovative technology for motor vehicles. It is not intended to provide a full alternative compliance path to avoid certifying to the emission standards and control requirements for highway engines and vehicles. To accomplish this, EPA will allow a manufacturer to produce no more than 1,000 hybrid vehicles in a single model year under this program, and no more than 200 amphibious vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, or speed-limited vehicles. In the case of hybrid vehicles, we are also acting on California ARB's request that we adopt a sunset provision for hybrid vehicles; accordingly, the simplified certification applies only through model year 2027. In the meantime we will monitor implementation of the program and consider whether there is any long-term need for these or other streamlined certification provisions for hybrid vehicles.
As described in the proposed rule, California ARB is in the process of developing similar provisions for a reduced compliance burden for qualifying highway vehicles toward the goal of incentivizing vehicles with hybrid powertrains and low-NO
In the HD Phase 1 rule, the agencies included a provision allowing manufacturers to certify Class 4 and
EPA requested comment on how best to address this issue in a way that resolves the various and competing concerns. Commenters argued for and against allowing certification of the heavier vehicles to chassis-based emission standards. In the final rule, we are adopting a limited allowance to certify vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR using chassis-based certification procedures of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. In particular, manufacturers may rely on chassis-based certification for heavier vehicles only if there is a family with vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that can properly accommodate the bigger vehicles as part of the same family. As part of this arrangement, chassis-certified vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR may not rely on a work factor that is greater than the largest work factor that applies for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR from the same family.
The Clean Air Act requires that heavy-duty standards for criteria pollutants such as NO
On September 5, 2012, EPA adopted final NCPs for heavy heavy-duty diesel engines, which were available to manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines unable to meet the current oxides of nitrogen (NO
In EPA's regulations, NCP penalties are calculated from inputs specific to the standards for which NCPs are available. The input values are specified in 40 CFR 86.1105-87. EPA is removing paragraph (j) of this section which specifies the vacated inputs for the 2010 NO
The 2012 rule made amendments to four different sections in 40 CFR part 86. The amendments to 40 CFR 86.1104-91 and 86.1113-87 were supported during the rulemaking and were not questioned in the Court's decision. Nevertheless, these revisions were vacated along with the rest of the rule. In the NPRM, EPA re-proposed these changes, even though we had already provided full notice and opportunity for public comment for these changes. Since we are adopting text that is already in the CFR, the final rule consists of leaving these sections of the regulations unchanged.
The changes to 40 CFR 86.1104-91 affect the upper limit. The upper limit (UL) is the emission level established by regulation above which NCPs are not available. A heavy duty engine cannot use NCPs to be certified for a level above the upper limit. CAA section 206(g)(2) refers to the upper limit as a percentage above the emission standard, set by regulation, that corresponds to an emission level EPA determines to be “practicable.” The upper limit is an important aspect of the NCP regulations not only because it establishes an emission level above which no engine may be certified using NCPs, but it is also a critical component of the cost analysis used to develop the penalty rates. The regulations specify that the relevant costs for determining the COC50 and the COC90 factors are the difference between an engine at the upper limit and one that meets the applicable standards (see 40 CFR 86.1113-87).
The regulatory approach adopted under the prior NCP rules set the upper limit at the prior emission standard when a prior emission standard exists and is then changed to become more stringent. EPA concluded that this upper limit should be reasonably achievable by all manufacturers with engines or vehicles in the relevant class. It should be within reach of all manufacturers of HD engines or HD vehicles that are currently allowed so that they can continue to sell their engines and vehicles while finishing their development of fully complying engines. A manufacturer of a previously certified engine or vehicle should not be forced to immediately remove a HD engine or vehicle from the market when an emission standard becomes more stringent. The prior emission standard generally meets these goals because manufactures have already certified their vehicles to that standard.
One of EPA's changes to the regulations in 40 CFR 86.1104-91 clarifies that EPA may set the upper limit at a level below the previous standard if we determine that the lower level is achievable by all engines or vehicles in the relevant subclass. This was the case for the vacated NCP rule. Another change allows us to set the upper limit at a level above the previous standard in unusual circumstances, such as where a new standard for a different pollutant, or other requirement, effectively increases the stringency of the standard for which NCPs would apply. This occurred for heavy heavy-duty engines with the 2004 standards.
The changes to 40 CFR 86.1113-87 correct EPA organizational units and mail codes to which manufacturers must send information. The previous information is no longer valid.
Since the promulgation of the first NCP rule in 1985, subsequent NCP rules generally have been described as continuing “phases” of the initial NCP
• The extent to which the criteria are intended to constrain EPA's ability to set NCPs
• The timing for evaluating the criteria
• The meaning of technological laggard
As its primary finding in the 2013 decision, the Court stated that EPA had not provided sufficient notice or opportunity for comment regarding its interpretation of these criteria. To address the Court's notice and comment concern, EPA solicited comments in the Phase 2 NPRM on our proposed revisions to these criteria. Note that we proposed changes that are different from those at issue during the court case.
Several commenters on the 2012 rule argued (implicitly or explicitly) that EPA cannot establish NCPs unless all of the regulatory criteria for NCPs (in 40 CFR 86.1103-87) are met. Some went further to argue that EPA must demonstrate that the criteria are met. However, the actual regulatory text has never stated that EPA may establish NCPs only if all criteria are met, but rather that EPA shall establish NCPs “provided that EPA finds” the criteria are met. These criteria were included in the regulations to clarify that manufacturers should not expect EPA to initiate a rulemaking to establish NCPs where these criteria were not met. Moreover, the regulations clearly defer to EPA's judgment for finding that the criteria are met. While EPA must explain the basis of our finding, the regulatory language does not require us to prove or demonstrate that the criteria are met.
This interpretation is consistent with the text of the Clean Air Act, which places no explicit restrictions on when EPA can set NCPs. In fact, it seems to create a presumption that NCPs will be available. The Act actually requires EPA to allow certification of engines that do not meet the standard unless EPA determines the practicable upper limit to be equal to the new emission standard.
To address this confusion, the revised regulatory text explicitly states that where EPA cannot determine if all of the criteria have been met, we may presume that they have. In other words, EPA does not have the burden to prove they have been met. This policy was opposed by Volvo in its comments to this current rulemaking. It stated that EPA findings “must be subject to public review and scrutiny” to “adequately protect complying manufacturers' competitive interests.” However, EPA sees no basis in the Act to believe that Congress intended EPA to protect complying manufacturers by denying a request for NCPs. Rather, Congress directed EPA to
In order to properly understand the appropriate timing for evaluating each of the NCP criteria, it is necessary to understand the purpose of each. When considered together, these criteria evaluate the likelihood that a manufacturer will be technologically unable to meet a standard on time. However, when EPA initially proposed the NCP criteria, we noted that the first two criteria addressed whether there was a possibility for a technological laggard to develop. When the first criterion (that there be a new standard) is met, it creates the possibility for a technological laggard to exist. When manufacturers must perform substantial work (as required for the second criterion), it is possible that at least one will be unsuccessful and will become a laggard. Thus, when evaluating these first two criteria, the purpose is to determine whether the standard created the possibility for a laggard to exist. The third criterion is different because it asks whether that
In this context, it becomes clear that since the first two of these criteria are intended to address the question of whether a given standard creates the possibility for this to occur, they are evaluated before the third criterion that addresses the likelihood that the possibility will actually happen. In most cases, it is possible to evaluate these criteria at the point a new standard is adopted. This is the value of these criteria, that they can usually be evaluated long before there is enough information to know whether a technological laggard is actually likely. For example, where EPA adopts a new standard that is not technology-forcing, but rather merely an anti-backsliding standard, EPA could determine at the time it is adopted that the second criterion is not met so that manufacturers would know in advance that no NCPs will be made available for that standard.
One question that arose in the 2012 rule involved how to evaluate the second criterion if significant time has passed and some work toward meeting the standard has already been completed. To address this question, the revised text clarifies that this criterion is to be evaluated based on actual work needed to go from meeting the previous standard to meeting the current standard, regardless of the timing of such changes. EPA looks at whether “substantial work” is or was required to meet the revised standard at any time after the standard was issued—the important question is whether manufacturers who were using technology that met the previous standard would need to build upon that technology to meet the revised standard.
Questions also arose in 2012 about the meaning of the term “technological laggard.” While the regulations do not define “technological laggard,” EPA has previously interpreted this as meaning a manufacturer who cannot meet the emission standard due to technological difficulties, not merely economic difficulties (67 FR 51464-51465, August 8, 2002). Some have interpreted this to mean that NCPs cannot be made available where a manufacturer tries and fails to meet a standard with one technology but knew that another technology would have allowed them to meet the standard. In other words, that it made a bad business decision. However, EPA's reference to “economic difficulties” applies where a technological path exists—at the time EPA is evaluating the third criterion—that would allow the manufacturer to meet the standard on time, but the manufacturer chooses not to use it for economic reasons. The key question is whether or not the technological path exists at the time of the evaluation. To address this confusion, the revised text clarifies that where there is uncertainty about whether a failure to meet the standards is a technological failure, EPA may presume that it was. Note that this does not mean that EPA might declare any failure to meet standards as a technological failure. The change would only apply where it is not clear.
EPA and manufacturers have gained substantial experience with in-use testing over the last four or five years. This has led to important insights in ways that the test protocol can be adjusted to be more effective. EPA is accordingly making the following changes to the regulations in 40 CFR part 86, subparts N and T:
• Revise the NTE exclusion based on aftertreatment temperature to associate the exclusion with the specific aftertreatment device that does not meet the temperature criterion. For example, there should be no NO
• Clarify that exhaust temperatures should be measured continuously to evaluate whether those temperatures stay above the 250 °C threshold.
• Add specifications to describe where to measure temperatures for exhaust systems with multiple aftertreatment devices.
• Include a provision to add 0.00042 g/hp-hr to the PM measurement to account for PM emissions vented to the atmosphere through the crankcase vent.
• Increase the time allowed for submitting quarterly reports from 30 to 45 days after the end of the quarter.
As described elsewhere, EPA is making several changes to 40 CFR part 86. This includes primarily the GHG standards for Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles in subpart S. EPA is also making regulatory changes related to hearing procedures, adjustment factors for infrequent regeneration of aftertreatment devices, and the testing program for heavy-duty in-use vehicles.
EPA is making several minor amendments to 40 CFR part 86, including the following:
• Revise 40 CFR 86.1811-17 to clarify that the Tier 2 SFTP for 4,000 mile testing applies to MDPVs, alternative fueled vehicles, and flexible fueled vehicles when operated on a fuel other than gasoline or diesel fuel, even though these vehicles were not subject to SFTP standards under the Tier 2 program. We described this in the Preamble to the Tier 3 final rule, and we are now making this explicit in the regulations.
• Revise 40 CFR 86.1813-17 to clarify that gaseous-fueled vehicles are not subject to the bleed emission test or standard.
• Revise 40 CFR 86.1823 to extend the default catalyst thermal reactivity coefficient for Tier 2 vehicles to also apply for Tier 3 vehicles. This change was inadvertently omitted from the recent Tier 3 rulemaking. EPA will also be interested in a broader review of the appropriate default value for the catalyst thermal reactivity coefficient in some future rulemaking. EPA will be interested in reviewing any available data related to this issue.
• Establish a minimum maintenance interval of 1500 hours for DEF filters for heavy-duty engines. This reflects the technical capabilities for filter durability and the expected maintenance in the field.
• Add crankcase vent filters to the list of maintenance items for heavy-duty engines. This allows manufacturers to specify a maintenance interval of 50,000 miles, or request a shorter interval under § 86.004-25. We are also revising consolidating regulatory provisions in § 86.004-25 to allow us to remove § 86.007-25; this reorganization does not change any regulatory requirements.
• Remove the idle CO standard from 40 CFR 86.007-11 and 40 CFR 86.008-10. This standard no longer applies, since all engines are now subject to diagnostic requirements instead of the idle CO standard.
• Revise 40 CFR 86.094-14 to consolidate the streamlined certification procedures for small-volume manufacturers. The consolidated section reduces potential confusion by listing only the provisions that do not apply, rather than trying to create (and maintain) a comprehensive list of all the provisions that apply, in addition to the provisions that do not apply. Except for removing obsolete content, the revised regulation does not include substantive changes to the specified procedures.
• Revise 40 CFR 86.1301 to remove obsolete content.
EPA is also adopting several amendments to remove obsolete text, update cross references, and streamline redundant regulatory text. For example, paragraph (f)(3) of Appendix I includes a duty cycle for heavy-duty spark-ignition engines that is no longer specified as part of the certification process.
As part of the Phase 1 standards, EPA applied the exemption and importation provisions from 40 CFR part 1068, subparts C and D, to heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles. EPA also specified that the defect reporting provisions of 40 CFR 1068.501 were optional. In an earlier rulemaking, EPA applied the selective enforcement auditing under 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E (75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010). EPA is in this rule adopting the rest of 40 CFR part 1068 for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles, with certain exceptions and special provisions.
40 CFR part 1068 captures a range of compliance provisions that are common across our engine and vehicle programs. These regulatory provisions generally provide the legal framework for implementing a certification-based program. 40 CFR part 1068 works in tandem with the standard-setting part for each type of engine/equipment. This allows EPA to adopt program-specific provisions for emission standards and certification requirements for each type of engine/equipment while taking a uniform approach to the compliance provisions that apply generally.
Many of the provisions in 40 CFR part 1068 were originally written to align with the procedures established in 40 CFR part 85 and part 86. EPA expects the following provisions from 40 CFR part 1068 to not involve a substantive change for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles:
• Part 1068, subpart A, describes how EPA handles confidential information, how the Administrator may delegate decision-making within the agency, how EPA may enter manufacturers' facilities for inspections, what information manufacturers must submit to EPA, how manufacturers are required to use good engineering judgment related to certification, and how EPA may require testing or perform testing. There is also a description of labeling requirements that apply uniformly for different types of engines/equipment.
• The prohibited acts, penalties, injunction provisions, and related requirements of 40 CFR 1068.101 and 1068.125 correspond to what is specified in Clean Air Act sections 203 through 207 (also see section 213(d)).
• 40 CFR 1068.103 describes how a certificate of conformity applies on a model-year basis. With the exception of the stockpiling provisions in paragraph (g), as described below, these provisions generally mirror what already applies for heavy-duty highway engines.
• 40 CFR 1068.120 describes requirements that apply for rebuilding engines. This includes more detailed provisions describing how the rebuild requirements apply for cases involving a used engine to replace a certified engine.
• 40 CFR part 1068, subpart F, describes procedural requirements for voluntary and mandatory recalls. As noted below, EPA is modifying these regulations to eliminate a few instances where the part 1068 provisions differ from what is specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
• 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, describes how EPA would hold a hearing to consider a manufacturer's appeal of an adverse compliance decision from EPA. These procedures apply for penalties associated with violations of the prohibited acts, recall, nonconformance penalties, and generally for decisions related to certification. As noted below, EPA is migrating these procedures from 40 CFR part 86, including an effort to align with EPA-wide regulations that apply in the case of a formal hearing.
EPA is adopting a requirement for manufacturers to comply with the defect-reporting provisions in 40 CFR 1068.501. Defect reporting under 40 CFR 1068.501 involves a more detailed approach for manufacturers to track possible defects and establishes thresholds to define when manufacturers must perform an investigation to determine an actual rate of emission-related defects. These thresholds are scaled according to production volumes, which allows us to adopt a uniform protocol for everything from locomotives to lawn and garden equipment. Manufacturers that also produce nonroad engines have already been following this protocol for several years. These defect-reporting requirements are also similar to the rules that apply in California.
40 CFR part 1068 includes a definition of “engine” to clarify that an engine becomes subject to certification requirements when a crankshaft is installed in an engine block. At that point, a manufacturer may not ship the engine unless it is covered by a certificate of conformity or an exemption. Most manufacturers have opted into this definition of “engine” as part of the replacement engine exemption as specified in 40 CFR 85.1714. We are making this mandatory for all manufacturers. A related provision is the definition of “date of manufacture,” which we use to establish that an engine's model year is also based on the date of crankshaft installation. To address the concern that engine manufacturers might install a large number of crankshafts before new emission standards start to apply as a means of circumventing those standards, we state in 40 CFR 1068.103(g) that manufacturers must follow their normal production plans and schedules for building engines in anticipation of new emission standards. In addition to that broad principle, we state that we will consider engines to be subject to the standards for the new model year if engine assembly is not complete within 30 days after the end of the model year with the less stringent standards.
40 CFR part 1068 also includes provisions related to vehicle manufacturers that install certified engines. EPA states in 40 CFR 1068.105(b) that vehicle manufacturers are in violation of the tampering prohibition if they do not follow the engine manufacturers' emission-related installation instructions, which we approve as part of the certification process.
40 CFR part 1068 also establishes that vehicles have a model year and that installing certified engines includes a requirement that the engine be certified to emission standards corresponding to the vehicle's model year. An exception to allow for normal production and build schedules is described in 40 CFR 1068.105(a). This “normal-inventory” allowance is intended to allow for installation of previous-tier engines that are produced under a valid certificate by the engine manufacturer shortly before the new emission standards start to apply. Going beyond normal inventory is considered to be “stockpiling.” Stockpiling such engines will be considered an unlawful circumvention of the new emission standards. The range of companies and production practices is much narrower for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles than for nonroad engines and equipment. EPA is therefore finalizing the proposed additional specifications to define or constrain engine-installation schedules that will be considered to fall within normal-inventory practices. In particular, vehicle manufacturers must follow their normal production schedules to use up their supply of “previous-tier” engines once new emission standards start to apply; the regulation further specifies that this allowance may not extend beyond three months into the year in which new standards apply. For any subsequent installation of previous-tier engines, EPA requires that vehicle manufacturers get EPA approval based on a demonstration that the excess inventory is a result of unforeseeable circumstances rather than circumvention of emission standards. EPA approval in those circumstances will be limited to a maximum of 50 engines to be installed for up to three additional months for a single vehicle manufacturer.
We are finalizing these stockpiling provisions, although we received two comments that supported changes from the proposal. Daimler suggested a greater allowance of 1000 or more engines meeting the earlier tier of standards to correspond to prevailing production volumes. This comment appears to reflect an expectation that engine manufacturers would continue to produce these previous-tier engines after the new emission standards have started to apply; however, this is not the case. The inventory allowance is focused on vehicle manufacturers using up their normal inventories of engines that were built before the change in emission standards over some number of months into the New Year. Even high-volume vehicle manufacturers should not be buying large quantities of engines shortly before a change in emission standard. The inventory allowance rather allows for vehicle manufacturers to prudently plan to make a reasonable transition to the new
Gillig also commented on the stockpiling provisions, advocating a June 30 date for using up their inventory of previous-tier engines. Their production schedule typically involves building a single bus in a day, with the transition to new standards depending on engine manufacturers to provide compliant engines in a timely manner. The proposed allowance was intended to accommodate current business practices that involved using up normal inventory of previous-tier engines within three months after new standards start to apply, with a possible extension to six months if the manufacturer needs additional time to use up the last few of its normal inventory of previous-tier engines. We believe this approach is consistent with Gillig's recommendation.
EPA considered applying 40 CFR part 1068 broadly. It is relatively straightforward to apply the provisions of this part to all engines subject to the criteria emission standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, and the associated vehicles. Manufacturers of comparable nonroad engines are already subject to all these provisions. However, highway motorcycles and Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles subject to criteria emission standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, are covered by a somewhat different compliance program. EPA is therefore applying only the hearing procedures from 40 CFR part 1068 for highway motorcycles, light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and chassis-certified Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles. See Section XIII.D.(1) for a description of the hearing procedures from 40 CFR part 1068.
Note that EPA is amending 40 CFR 85.1701 to specify that the exemption provisions of 40 CFR part 85, subpart R, apply to heavy-duty engines subject to regulation under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A. This is intended to limit the scope of this provision so that it does not apply for Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. This change corrects an inadvertently broad reference to heavy-duty vehicles in 40 CFR 85.1701.
EPA proposed several amendments related to both criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from glider vehicles, as well as related provisions for glider kits.
With respect to GHG emissions, EPA proposed that all glider vehicles (whether produced by large or small manufacturers) meet the Phase 2 vehicle standards (which, among other things, would entail glider kit manufacturers generating fuel maps for each engine that would be used). This would remove a transition provision from the Phase 1 rules which allowed glider vehicles to use engines not certified to the Phase 1 standards. 40 CFR 1037.150(j). Glider vehicles produced by large manufacturers are presently subject to the Phase 1 vehicle standards, but those produced by small manufacturers are not. 40 CFR 1037.150(c). Put a different way, the combination of these two provisions means that non-small businesses could use pre-2013 engines in glider vehicles, but were required to meet (and certify to) the Phase 1 GHG vehicle standards. EPA proposed to require all glider vehicles to meet the applicable GHG standards as of January 1, 2018. See generally 80 FR 40528.
In the March, 2016 Notice of Data Availability, EPA solicited further comment on possible exceptions to the proposal.
EPA received many comments from manufacturers of both glider kits and glider vehicles, many comments from manufacturers of engines meeting current criteria pollutant standards and dealers selling trucks containing those compliant engines, and comments from the NGO community and from CARB. Engine and vehicle manufacturers took opposing positions. Some supported the proposed approach, and urged an earlier effective date to avoid a pre-buy of glider vehicles with highly polluting engines. Others stated that the proposed provisions exceeded EPA's authority to set emission standards for new engines and new vehicles, in addition to objecting to the proposed provisions as a matter of policy. See Section I.E.1 of this document and RTC Section 14.2. Some of the comments helped EPA target flexibility for glider vehicles that serve arguably legitimate purposes (such as reclaiming relatively new powertrains from vehicles chassis that fail prematurely), without causing substantial adverse environmental impacts. All of these comments are fully summarized and responded to in RTC Section 14.2. We set out here the actions we are taking in this Phase 2 rule, and then explain the basis for those actions.
We are finalizing the proposed glider-related provisions but have made several revisions in recognition of the differences between glider vehicles produced to avoid the 2010 criteria pollutant emission standards and those manufactured for other more legitimate purposes. The provisions being finalized are intended to allow a transition to a long-term program in which manufacture of glider vehicles better reflects the original reason manufacturers began to offer these vehicles—to allow the reuse of relatively new powertrains from damaged vehicles.
Under the provisions being finalized for the long-term program, all glider vehicles will need to be covered by both vehicle and engine certificates. The vehicle certificate will require compliance with the GHG vehicle standards of 40 CFR part 1037. The engine certificate will require compliance with the GHG engine standards of 40 CFR part 1036, plus the criteria pollutant standards of 40 CFR part 86. Used/rebuilt/remanufactured engines may be installed in the glider vehicles without meeting standards for the year of glider vehicle assembly, provided the engines are within their regulatory useful life (or meet similar criteria). These engines would still need to meet criteria pollutant standards corresponding to the year of the engine.
EPA is also finalizing a transitional program that will allow glider vehicle manufacturers additional flexibility. The first step allows each
Effective January 1, 2018, the long-term program begins generally, but with certain transitional flexibilities. In other words, except for the following allowances, glider vehicles will need to comply with the long-term program. The exceptions are:
• Small businesses may produce a limited number of glider vehicles without meeting either the engine or vehicle standards of the long-term program. Larger vehicle manufacturers may provide glider kits to these small businesses without the assembled vehicle meeting the applicable vehicle standards. This number is limited to the small vehicle manufacturer's highest annual production volume in 2010 through 2014 or 300, whichever is less.
• Model year 2010 and later engines are not required to meet the Phase 1 GHG engine standards.
• Used/rebuilt/remanufactured engines may be installed in the glider vehicles without meeting standards for the year of glider vehicle assembly, provided the engines are within their regulatory useful life (this provision continues from the transitional program).
These 2018 allowances mostly continue after 2020, but effective January 1, 2021, all glider vehicles will need to meet the Phase 2 GHG vehicle standards. This means that large manufacturers providing glider kits to small manufacturers will need to meet the GHG vehicle standards for the completed vehicle (pursuant to the delegated assembly provisions), or ship the glider kit to the final glider vehicle manufacturer pursuant to the incomplete vehicle provisions (where the final glider vehicle manufacturer would be the certificate holder).
EPA is thus discontinuing both 40 CFR 1037.150(c) and (j) in this Phase 2 rulemaking. As finalized, the Phase 2 regulations will therefore generally treat glider vehicles the same as other new vehicles.
EPA is also providing a limited allowance for small business manufacturers as described in 40 CFR 1037.150(t), and also providing a generally-applicable allowance that is conditioned on the age of the reused engine as described in 1037.635. See Section XIII.B.(4) below. EPA is also adopting new definitions of “glider vehicle” and “glider kit” in 40 CFR 1037.801 that are generally consistent with the common understanding of these terms as meaning new chassis with a rebuilt or other used engine and new chassis designed to accept a rebuilt or other used engine/powertrain. EPA is also clarifying its requirements for certification and revising its definitions for glider manufacturers, as described below, to ensure that affected manufacturers understand their responsibilities under the regulations.
It is important to emphasize that EPA is not banning gliders. Rather, as described below, EPA is requiring that glider vehicles meet the standards that all other new trucks are required to meet, unless eligible for certain limited exemptions that provide flexibility for small businesses and for certain other specific applications. Moreover, the provisions being finalized are more flexible than those proposed, but focus the additional flexibility on vehicles using relatively clean engines, and on engines within their regulatory useful life, consistent with the original purpose of glider kits and vehicles.
EPA proposed to begin these requirements January 1, 2018, but requested comment on beginning the requirements sooner. Since the NPRM, production of gliders has surged and now likely exceeds 10,000 per year. We are concerned that by finalizing restrictions for 2018 in this rule we risk causing a pre-buy scenario where production surges further in 2017. This would be both very harmful to the environment and disruptive to the market. To avoid these problems and to ensure a smoother transition, we are finalizing a glider kit and glider vehicle production limit for calendar year 2017 for glider vehicles using high polluting engines. The allowable production is based on past sales for all large and small manufacturers. Specifically, each manufacturer's combined 2017 production of glider kits and glider vehicles using high polluting engines will be capped at the manufacturer's highest annual production of glider kits and glider vehicles for any year from 2010 to 2014. All vehicles within this allowance will remain subject to the existing Phase 1 GHG provisions as they presently apply. Any glider kits or glider vehicles produced beyond this allowance will be subject to all requirements applicable to new engines and new vehicles for MY 2017.
Current standards for NO
These emission impacts have been compounded by the increasing sales of these vehicles. Estimates provided to EPA indicate that production of glider vehicles has increased by an order of magnitude from what it was in the 2004-2006 time frame—from a few hundred each year to thousands.
At proposal, EPA estimated the environmental impact of 5,000 glider vehicles per year, which would be roughly 2 percent of the Class 8 vehicles manufactured annually.
For the final rule, EPA has updated its analysis of the environmental impacts of gliders. The updated analysis used the same emissions modeling tool used to estimate the other emissions impacts of the rule, described in Section VII of the Preamble. The modeling of gliders assumed annual glider sales of 10,000 for 2015 and later, consistent with the comments received on the proposal. The modeling also assumed that these gliders emit at the level equivalent to the engines meeting the MY 1998-2001 standards, since most glider vehicles currently being produced use remanufactured engines of this vintage, and projects them to have the same usage patterns/lifetimes as similar new vehicles. (We did not attempt to account for any miscalibration of these engines). This analysis shows that without the new restrictions, glider vehicles on the road in 2025 would emit nearly 300,000 tons of NO
EPA is thus amending its rules to generally require that glider vehicles produced on or after January 1, 2017 use engines certified to the standards applicable to the calendar year in which assembly of the glider vehicle is completed, with an exception in 2017 that provides a larger number of glider vehicles under the transitional production allowance. (Other exceptions to this general requirement are discussed later). This requirement applies to all pollutants, and thus encompasses criteria pollutant standards as well as the separate GHG standards. Used or rebuilt engines may be used, as long as they have been certified to the same standards that apply for the calendar year of glider vehicle assembly. For example, if assembly of a glider vehicle is completed in calendar year 2020, the engine must generally meet standards applicable for MY 2020. (If the engine standards for model year 2020 are the same as for model years 2017 through 2019, then any model year 2017 or later engine may be used).
EPA is amending these rules because, with the advent in MY 2007 of more stringent HD diesel engine criteria pollutant standards, continuation of provisions allowing unlimited use of rebuilt and reused engines meeting much earlier MY criteria pollutant standards results in unnecessarily high in-use emissions. See Section XII.B.(3) above. As stated there, these emissions form an increasingly high percentage of the vehicular inventory for such dangerous pollutants as NO
The older engines currently being used in most glider vehicles could be retrofitted with exhaust aftertreatment to meet current standards. However, the primary reason these engines have been used is because they do
Recognizing that the environmental impacts of gliders using newer engines will generally be much smaller, EPA requested comment on whether we should treat such gliders differently than gliders using older engines. 80 FR 40528; 81 FR 10826. Based on comments received on the NODA, EPA is finalizing additional flexibilities for newer engines and for engines with very low mileage. More specifically, EPA will allow engines meeting any of the following criteria to be used in glider vehicles without meeting current engine standards for either criteria pollutants or GHGs:
(1) Engines still within their original useful life in terms of both miles and years.
(2) Engines of any age with less than 100,000 miles of engine operation, provided the engines' miles are properly documented.
(3) Engines less than three years old with any number of accumulated miles of engine operation.
Engines covered by these three criteria are consistent with the original intended use of glider kits—the salvaging of relatively new powertrains from vehicle chassis that have been damaged or have otherwise failed prematurely. Most of these engines would be covered by the first criterion. While nearly all of these engines would be model year 2010 or later, this criterion would theoretically allow use of model year 2008 or 2009 engines in calendar years before 2020. Nevertheless, such engines would have been certified to the same PM standards as the 2010 engines, and would likely have NO
Several commenters supported allowing unlimited production of glider vehicles if they use engines certified to 2010 or later NO
To balance these factors, EPA is finalizing an interim provision—a provision which may sunset if EPA adopts new more stringent NO
Several commenters expressed concern about the impact of the proposed changes on small businesses that produce glider vehicles. However, commenters opposing the proposed requirements/clarifications did not address the very significant adverse environmental impacts of the huge increase in glider vehicle production over the last several years. EPA recognized at the time of the proposal that production of a smaller number of other gliders by small manufacturers may be appropriate, at least as an interim allowance. 80 FR 40529. To allow this, EPA is adopting the proposed provision that will somewhat preserve the regulatory status quo for existing small businesses, allowing limited production using highly polluting engines based on recent sales. This means a limited number of glider vehicles produced by small businesses may use older rebuilt or used engines, provided those engines were certified to standards from the year of the engine's manufacture. (Note that beginning in MY 2021, these vehicles will have to meet the GHG vehicle standards, although they would not be required to meet current criteria pollutant standards.) For example, an existing small business that produced glider vehicles between 2010 and 2014, with a peak production of 200 in 2013, may produce up to 200 glider vehicles per year under without having to certify them to the GHG standards, or re-certifying the engines to the now-applicable EPA standards for criteria pollutants (so long as the engine is certified to criteria pollutant standards for the year of its manufacture). To be eligible for this provision, 40 CFR 1037.150(t), the regulation specifies that no small entity may produce more than 300 glider vehicles (including any glider kits it sells to another assembler) using the older engines in any given model year without recertifying the engines to current EPA standards. EPA believes that this level reflects the upper end of the range of production that occurred before significant avoidance of the 2007 criteria pollutant standards began. EPA believes that, given this relief combined with the other changes being made into the final regulations, any small businesses that have been focused on producing gliders for legitimate purposes will not be significantly
This small business flexibility is intended for small entities for whom glider production is a substantial portion of their revenue to allow them to transition to the long-term program where they would generally install newer cleaner engines. (We recognize that the final regulations will allow some small businesses to produce a limited number of glider vehicles with higher polluting engines as a side business, but do not expect these manufacturers to produce very many glider vehicles.) We intend to monitor its use and may place additional restriction on this flexibility in the future consistent with this intended purpose.
We are also adopting provisions to facilitate a smoother transition for small businesses that assemble glider vehicles from glider kits produced by larger manufacturers. Although the long-term program will require vehicle certificates for glider vehicles produced by small manufacturers using exempted engines, we are delaying the requirement for a vehicle certificate until 2021 for these glider vehicles. This means the large glider kit manufacturers may continue the Phase 1 allowance to sell exempted glider kits (
Although we are allowing this flexibility for glider kit manufacturers, they remain responsible to take reasonable steps to ensure that their glider kits are not used to produce complete vehicles in violation of the regulations. Most importantly, the glider kit manufacturer must comply fully with the requirements of 40 CFR 1037.622, which specifies certain minimum requirements for shipping uncertified incomplete vehicles. If the glider kit manufacturer is the certificate holder, then the glider kit manufacturer would have to comply with the delegated assembly requirements of 40 CFR 1037.621. See 40 CFR 1037.635(d)(3). In addition, we would expect manufacturers of glider kits to have records to verify that the vehicle assembler to whom they are shipping an uncertified glider kit (which would remain permissible under Phase 1) is aware of the regulatory requirements and is eligible to produce glider vehicles with older engines that do not meet current criteria pollutant standards (
Finally, we are adopting a new provision in 40 CFR 1036.150(o) that would allow an engine manufacturer to modify a used engine to be identical to a previously certified configuration. (This is similar to the allowance in 40 CFR 1068.201(i).) This allows the manufacturer to include the used engine in an existing certificate for the purposes of complying with the requirement to meet current standards when installing an engine into a glider vehicle. For example, if an engine manufacture modified a used 2009 engine to be identical to a certified 2017 engine, we would allow the 2009 engine to be covered by the 2017 certificate, which would allow it to be installed into a glider vehicle without restriction.
Other than the production volume provision discussed at the beginning of this Section XIII.B, the requirement for gliders to meet engine and vehicle standards applicable to other new vehicles and engines do not take effect before January 1, 2018. With respect to the criteria pollutant engine standards, EPA believes this provides sufficient time to “permit the development and application of the requisite control measures” (CAA section 202(a)(3)(D)) because compliant engines are available today, although manufacturers will need several months to change business practices to comply.
Some commenters argued that because some of these requirements relate to criteria pollutant standards, EPA must provide at least four years lead time pursuant to section 202(a)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act. EPA addresses these comments in Section I.E.(1) and in the RTC Sections 1.3.1 and 14.2. With respect to the vehicle standards, EPA notes that the requirements already apply for vehicles not produced by small businesses. EPA believes that delaying the applicability of the vehicle standards to small businesses until 2021 when Phase 2 takes effect provides ample time to comply with vehicle GHG standards. See CAA section 202(a)(2) (standards to provide lead time sufficient to allow for “development and application of the requisite technology”).
With respect to statutory authority for the criteria pollutant standards under the Clean Air Act, EPA notes first that it has broad authority to control all pollutant emissions from “any” rebuilt heavy duty engines (including engines beyond their statutory useful life). See CAA section 202(a)(3)(D). EPA is to give “appropriate” consideration to issues of cost, energy, and safety in developing such standards, and to provide necessary lead time to implement those standards. If a used engine is placed in a new glider vehicle, the engine will be considered a “new motor vehicle engine” because it is being used in a new motor vehicle. See CAA section 216(3) and Section I.E.(1). With respect to the vehicle-based GHG standards, there is no question that the completed glider vehicle is a “motor vehicle” under the Clean Air Act. Some commenters have questioned whether a glider kit (without an engine) is a motor vehicle. However, EPA considers glider kits to be incomplete motor vehicles and entities manufacturing gliders to be manufacturers of those vehicles, and EPA has the authority to regulate incomplete motor vehicles and manufacturers thereof, including un-motorized chassis. See Section I.E.(1)
Under the CAA, it is also important that “new” is determined based on legal title and does not consider prior use. Thus, glider vehicles that have a new vehicle identification number (VIN) and new title are considered to be “new motor vehicles” even if they incorporate previously used components. It is also the case that under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not consider the fact that a vehicle retained the VIN of the donor vehicle from which the engine was obtained determinative of whether or
The CAA also defines “manufacturer” to include any person who assembles new motor vehicles. As proposed, EPA is revising its regulatory definitions of these terms in 40 CFR 1036.801 and 1037.801 to more clearly reflect these aspects of the CAA definitions. The revised definitions make clear that:
• New glider kits are “new motor vehicles.” Manufacturers therefor must certify to the Phase 2 vehicle standards unless they are selling the glider kit to a secondary manufacturer that has its own certificate.
• Previously used engines installed into glider kits are “new motor vehicle engines.”
• Any person who completes assembly of a glider vehicle is a “manufacturer” thereof.
EPA also notes that under existing regulations, glider kit assemblers (
To further clarify that EPA considers both glider kits and completed glider vehicles to be motor vehicles, EPA is adding a clarification to our definition of “motor vehicle” in 40 CFR 85.1703 regarding vehicles such as gliders that clearly are intended for use on highways, consistent with the CAA definition of “motor vehicle” in CAA section 216(2). The regulatory definition previously contained a provision stating that vehicles lacking certain safety features required by state or federal law are not “motor vehicles.” EPA recognized that this caveat needed a proper context: Is the safety feature one that would prevent operation on highways? See 80 FR 40529. If not, absence of that feature does not result in the vehicle being other than a motor vehicle. The amendment will consequently make clear that vehicles that are clearly intended for operation on highways are motor vehicles, even if they do not have every safety feature. This clarifying provision takes effect with this rule.
We note that NHTSA and EPA have separate definitions for motor vehicles under their separate statutory authorities. As such, EPA's determination of how its statute and regulations apply to glider kits and glider vehicles has no bearing on how NHTSA may apply its safety authority with regard to them.
The provisions being finalized are intended to allow a transition to a long-term program in which use of glider kits is permissible consistent with the original reason manufacturers began to offer glider kits—to allow the reuse of relatively new powertrains from damaged vehicles. The long-term program as well as the transitional program are summarized below.
Ultimately all gliders will need to be covered by both vehicle and engine certificates. The vehicle certificate will require compliance with the GHG vehicle standards of 40 CFR part 1037. The engine certificate will require compliance with the GHG engine standards of 40 CFR part 1036, plus the criteria pollutant standards of 40 CFR part 86. Used/rebuilt engines may be installed in the glider vehicles, provided (1) they meet all standards applicable to the year in which the assembly of the glider vehicle is completed; or (2) meet all standards applicable to the year in which the engine was originally manufactured and also meet one of the following criteria:
• The engine is still within its original useful life in terms of both miles and years.
• The engine has less than 100,000 miles of engine operation.
• The engine is less than three years old.
In most of these cases, the glider vehicles will need to have a vehicle certificate demonstrating compliance with the vehicle GHG standards that apply for the year of assembly. However, in the case of engines with less than 100,000 miles, glider vehicles conforming to the vehicle configuration of the donor vehicle do not need to be recertified to current vehicle standards.
For calendar year 2017, each manufacturer's combined production of glider kits and glider vehicles will be capped at the manufacturer's highest annual production of glider kits and glider vehicles for any year from 2010 to 2014. All vehicles within this allowance will remain subject to the existing Phase 1 provisions, including its exemptions. Any glider kits or glider vehicles produced beyond this allowance will be subject to the long-term program.
Other than the 2017 production limit, EPA will continue the Phase 1 approach until January 1, 2018. This allows small businesses to produce glider vehicles up to the allowance without other new constraints before 2018. Large manufacturers producing complete glider vehicles remain subject to the 40 CFR part 1037 GHG vehicle standards, as they have been since the start of Phase 1. However large manufacturers may provide exempted glider kits to small businesses during this time frame. Other than the 2017 production limit, EPA will continue the Phase 1 approach until January 1, 2018. This allows small businesses to produce glider vehicles up to the cap without other new constraints before 2018. Large manufacturers producing complete glider vehicles remain subject to the 40 CFR part 1037 GHG vehicle standards, as they have been since the start of Phase 1. However large manufacturers may provide exempted glider kits to small businesses during this time frame.
Effective January 1, 2018, the permissible number of glider vehicles that may be produced without meeting the long-term program will be limited to two specific exceptions. The exceptions are:
• Small businesses may produce a limited number of glider vehicles without meeting either the engine or vehicle standards of the long-term program. Larger vehicle manufacturers may provide glider kits to these small businesses without meeting the applicable vehicle standards. This number is limited to the small manufacturer's highest annual production volume in 2010 through 2014 or 300, whichever is less.
• Model year 2010 and later engines are not required to meet the Phase 1 GHG engine standards.
These 2018 allowances mostly continue after 2020, but the following change takes effect January 1, 2021:
• All glider kits provided by large manufacturers (including to small manufacturers or for use with 2010 engines) must meet the vehicle standards for the completed vehicle.
EPA is not establishing an end to these transitional provisions at this time. We intend to monitor this industry and will reevaluate the appropriateness of these provisions in the future.
As described above, EPA is applying all the general compliance provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 to heavy-duty engines
Volvo objected to extending the defect-reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 to heavy-duty engines and vehicles. They stated that they have a robust approach to defect-reporting that is largely consistent with what applies under 40 CFR part 1068 (in addition to complying with CARB's warranty-reporting requirements), but argued that it would be cost-prohibitive to comply nationwide with the new federal requirements. They commented that the higher reporting thresholds would lead to fewer reports. We understand and accept that there may be fewer defect reports; in fact, we count this as a positive development since industry and agency efforts toward documenting and addressing defects will be focused on cases that are worthy of greater attention. The defect threshold of 25 units under 40 CFR part 85 is not appropriate for the sales volumes associated with heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
Light-duty automotive manufacturers also objected to the mandatory migration of defect-reporting provisions to 40 CFR part 1068 for heavy-duty vehicles they produce, emphasizing that their light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles should be subject to the same defect-reporting protocol to reduce complexity and risk of error. Although we are not applying the 40 CFR part 1068 defect-reporting requirements to heavy-duty vehicles subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, we are applying them to all other heavy-duty vehicles produced by these manufacturers. As noted below, we plan to eventually migrate the defect-reporting provisions for all light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles to 40 CFR part 1068, and see no harm in doing so in steps. These manufacturers also expressed three more detailed concerns about defect reporting under 40 CFR part 1068: (1) Twice-annual investigation reports may show no defects, which would add a paperwork burden for no benefit, (2) the reporting period covers the full useful life, rather than just the first five years, which is the time when most defects appear, and (3) tying defect reporting to warranty claims may discourage extended warranties. The idea behind the investigation reports is that a high rate of possible defects may or may not be associated with a substantial number of actual defects. The investigation reports are intended to address exactly that question. The burden arises only when the manufacturer has a high enough rate of possible defects to warrant further attention. We see no reason to disregard defect information between five years and the end of the useful life, since manufacturers are responsible for designing their products to last during that entire period. Specifying a shorter period would artificially and arbitrarily reduce the information available to reach a conclusion. If defects don't occur after five years, then there is no additional burden associated with the longer period. EPA does not take a position on the manufacturers' practices regarding extended warranties; however, we feel strongly that a manufacturer's confidence as expressed in an extended warranty should correspond with the same level of confidence in the engines (or components) working to control emissions for that same period.
EPA proposed to also apply the recall provisions from 40 CFR part 1068 for highway motorcycles and for all vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and requested comment on applying the defect reporting from 40 CFR part 1068 for those same vehicles. Manufacturers objected to modifying the recall and defect-reporting provisions in this rulemaking. EPA is accordingly not finalizing these additional provisions; EPA intends rather to pursue these changes in a later rulemaking, which will allow both EPA and manufacturers and other stakeholders additional time to carefully consider the range of issues that may be involved. In particular, EPA anticipates the opportunity to apply some learning from the current focus on defeat devices, recall, and defect reporting in the effort to update the regulations.
Note that EPA is amending 40 CFR 85.1701 to specify that the exemption provisions apply to heavy-duty engines subject to regulation under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A. This is intended to limit the scope of this provision so that it does not apply for Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. This change corrects an inadvertently broad reference to heavy-duty vehicles in 40 CFR 85.1701.
The general compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068 apply broadly too many different types of engines and equipment. This section describes how EPA is amending these procedures to make various corrections and adjustments.
EPA is updating and consolidating its regulations related to formal and informal hearings in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G. This will allow us to rely on a single set of regulations for all the different categories of vehicles, engines, and equipment that are subject to emission standards. EPA also made an effort to write these regulations for improved readability.
The hearing procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068 apply to the various categories of nonroad engines and equipment (along with the other provisions of part 1068). EPA is in these rules applying these hearing procedures also to heavy-duty highway engines, light-duty motor vehicles, and highway motorcycles. EPA believes there is no reason to treat any of these sectors differently regarding hearing procedures. Automotive and engine manufacturers expressed broad concerns about migrating the hearing procedures in this rulemaking; however, the migration makes no substantive changes to established procedures, and addresses various administrative concerns as noted below.
EPA is adding an introductory section that provides an overview of requesting a hearing for all cases where a person or a company objects to an adverse decision by the agency. In certain circumstances, as spelled out in the regulations, a person or a company can request a hearing before a Presiding Officer. Statutory provisions require formal hearing procedures for administrative enforcement actions seeking civil penalties. The Clean Air Act does not require a formal hearing for other agency decisions; EPA is therefore specifying that informal hearing procedures apply for all such decisions.
The introductory section also adds detailed provisions describing the requirements for submitting information to the agency in a timely manner. These provisions accommodate current practices for electronic submission, distinguish between postal and courier delivery and provide separate requirements for shipments made from inside and outside the United States. The specified deadlines are generally based on the traditional approach of a postmark determining whether a submission is timely or not. Fax, email and courier shipments are similarly specified as needing to be sent by close of business on the day of the deadline. A different approach applies for shipments originating from outside the
EPA is replacing the current reference to 40 CFR 86.1853-01 for informal hearings with a full-text approach that captures this same material. EPA attempted to write these regulations in a way that does not change the underlying hearing protocol.
The regulations currently reference the formal hearing procedures in 40 CFR 85.1807, which were originally drafted to apply to light-duty motor vehicles. After we adopted the hearing procedures in 40 CFR 85.1807, EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges finalized a set of regulations defining formal hearing procedures that were intended to apply broadly across the agency for appeals under every applicable statute.
EPA is also making numerous changes across 40 CFR part 1068 to correct errors, to add clarification, and to make adjustments based on lessons learned from implementing these regulatory provisions. This includes the following changes:
• § 1068.1: Clarify applicability of part 1068 with respect to legacy parts (such as 40 CFR parts 89 through 94).
• § 1068.20: Clarify that EPA's inspection activities do not depend on having a warrant or a court order. As noted in the standard-setting parts, EPA may deny certification or suspend or revoke certificates if a manufacturer denies EPA entry for an attempted inspection or other entry.
• § 1068.27: Clarify that EPA confirmatory testing may be performed before issuance of a certificate of conformity. We are also making an addition to state that we may require manufacturers to give us any special components that are needed for EPA testing.
• § 1068.30: Add definitions of “affiliated companies,” “parent company,” and “subsidiaries” to clarify how small-business provisions apply for a range of business relationships.
• § 1068.30: Clarify that in the context of provisions that apply only for certificate holders, a manufacturer can be considered a certificate holder based on the current or previous model year (to avoid problems from having a gap between model years).
• § 1068.30: Spell out contact information for the “Designated Compliance Officer” to clarify how manufacturers should submit information to the agency. This includes email addresses for the various sectors.
• § 1068.32: Add discussion to establish the meaning of various terms and phrases for EPA regulations; for example, we distinguish between standards, requirements, allowances, prohibitions, and provisions. EPA is also clarifying terminology with respect to singular/plural, inclusive lists, notes and examples in the regulatory text, and references to “general” or “typical” circumstances. EPA also describes some of the approach to determining when “unusual circumstances” apply.
• § 1068.45: Allow manufacturers to use coded dates on engine labels; allow EPA to require the manufacturer to share information to read the coded information.
• § 1068.45: Clarify that engine labels are information submissions to EPA.
• §§ 1068.101 and 1068.125: Update penalty amounts to reflect changes to 40 CFR part 19 (81 FR 43094, July 1, 2016).
• § 1068.101: Revise the penalty associated with the tampering prohibition to be an engine-based penalty, as opposed to assessing penalties per day of engine operation. This correction aligns with Clean Air Act section 205.
• § 1068.103: Clarify the process for reinstating certificates after suspending, revoking, or voiding.
• § 1068.103: Clarify that the prohibition against “offering for sale” uncertified engines applies only for engines already produced. It is not a violation to invite customers to buy engines as part of an effort to establish the economic viability of producing engines, as would be expected for market research.
• § 1068.105: Require documentation related to “normal inventory” for stockpiling provision. EPA is also clarifying that there is no specific deadline associated with producing “normal-inventory” engines under this section, but emphasizing that vehicle/equipment manufacturers may not delay engine installation beyond their normal production schedules. EPA is also clarifying that the allowance related to building vehicles/equipment in the early part of a model year, before the start of a new calendar year corresponding to new emission standards, applies only in cases where vehicle/equipment assembly is complete before the start of the new calendar year. This is intended to prevent manufacturers from circumventing new standards by initiating production of large numbers of vehicles/equipment for eventual completion after new standards have started to apply.
• § 1068.210: Remove the requirement for companies getting approval for a testing exemption to send us written confirmation that they meet the terms and conditions of the exemption. We do not believe this submission is necessary for implementing the testing exemption.
• § 1068.220: Add a description of how we might approve engine operation under the display exemption. This is intended to more carefully address circumstances in which engine operation is part of the display function in question. We will want to consider a wide range of factors in considering such a request; for example, we may be more inclined to approve a request for a display exemption if the extent of operation is very limited, or if the engine/equipment has emission rates that are comparable to what would apply absent the exemption. EPA is also removing the specific prohibition against generating revenue with exempted engines/equipment, since this has an unclear meaning and we can take any possible revenue generation into account in considering whether to approve the exemption on its merits.
• § 1068.230: Add a provision allowing for engine operation under the export exemption only as needed to prepare it for export (this has already been in place in part 85, and in part 1068 for engines/equipment imported for eventual export).
• § 1068.235: Clarify that the standard-setting part may set conditions on an exemption for nonroad competition engines/equipment.
• § 1068.240: Clarify that manufacturers may export engines as an alternative to being destroyed if the engine was replaced with an engine covered by the exemption provisions of § 1068.240(b).
• § 1068.240: Describe the logistics for identifying the disposition of engines being replaced under the replacement engine exemption. In particular, manufacturers will need to resolve the disposition of each engine by the due date for the report under § 1068.240(c) to avoid counting them toward the production limit for
• § 1068.240: Clarify the relationship between paragraphs (d) and (e).
• § 1068.250: Simplify the deadline for requesting small-volume hardship.
• § 1068.255: Clarify that hardship provisions for equipment manufacturers are not limited to small businesses, and that a hardship approval is generally limited to a single instance of producing exempt equipment for up to 12 months.
• § 1068.260: State that manufacturers shipping engines without certain emission-related components need to identify the unshipped components either with a performance specification (where applicable) or with specific part numbers. We are also listing exhaust piping before and after aftertreatment devices as not being emission-related components for purposes of shipping engines in a certified configuration.
• §§ 1068.260 and 1068.262: Revise the text to clarify that provisions related to partially complete engines have limited applicability in the case of equipment subject to equipment-based exhaust emission standards (such as recreational vehicles). These provisions are not intended to prevent the sale of partially complete equipment with respect to evaporative emission standards. We intend to address this in the future by changing the regulation in 40 CFR part 1060 to address this more carefully.
• § 1068.262: Revise text to align with the terminology and description adopted for similar circumstances related to shipment of incomplete heavy-duty vehicles under 40 CFR part 1037.
• § 1068.301: Revise text to more broadly describe importers' responsibility to submit information and store records and explicitly allow electronic submission of EPA declaration forms and other importation documents.
• § 1068.305: Remove the provision specifying that individuals may need to submit taxpayer identification numbers as part of a request for an exemption or exclusion for imported engines/equipment. We do not believe this information is necessary for implementing the exemption and exclusion provisions.
• § 1068.315: Allow for destroying engines/equipment instead of exporting them under the exemption for importing engines/equipment for repairs or alterations.
• § 1068.315: Remove the time constraints on approving extensions to a display exemption for imported engines/equipment. EPA will continue to expect the default time frame of one year to be appropriate, and extension of one to three years is sufficient for most cases; however, we are aware that there are occasional circumstances calling for a longer-term exemption. For example, an engine on display in a museum might appropriately be exempted indefinitely once its place in a standing exhibition is well established.
• § 1068.315: Specify that engines under the ancient engine exemption must be
• § 1068.360: Clarify the provisions related to model year for imported products by removing a circularity regarding “new” engines and “new” equipment.
• § 1068.401: Add explicit statement that SEA testing is at manufacturer's expense. This is consistent with current practice and the rest of the regulatory text.
• § 1068.401: Allow for requiring manufacturers other than the certificate holder to perform selective enforcement audits in cases where multiple manufacturers are cooperatively producing certified engines.
• § 1068.401: State that SEA non-cooperation may lead to suspended or revoked certificate (like production-line testing).
• § 1068.415: Set up new criteria for lower SEA testing rate based on engine power to allow for a reduced testing rate of one engine per day only for engines with maximum engine power above 560 kW, but keep the allowance to approve a lower testing rate; that may be needed, for example, if engine break-in (stabilization) and testing are performed on the same dynamometer. EPA believes it is more appropriate to base reduced testing rates on engine characteristics rather than sales volumes, as has been done in the past.
• § 1068.415: Revise the service accumulation requirement to specify a maximum of eight days for stabilizing a test engine. This is necessary to address a situation where an engine operates only six hours per day to achieve stabilization after well over 50 hours. For such cases, we would expect manufacturers to be able to run engines much more than six hours per day. As with testing rates, manufacturers may ask for our approval to use a longer stabilization period if circumstances don't allow them to meet the specified service accumulation targets.
• § 1068.501, and Appendix I: Clarify that “emission-related components” include components whose failure
• § 1068.501: Add “in-use testing” to list of things to consider for investigating potential defects.
• § 1068.505: Clarify that manufacturers subject to a mandatory recall must remedy vehicles with an identified nonconformity without regard to their age or mileage at the time of repair, consistent with provisions that already apply under 40 CFR part 85.
• § 1068.505: Revise the requirement for submitting a remedial report from a 60-day maximum to a 45-day minimum (or 30-day minimum in the event of a hearing). This adjusted approach already applies to motor vehicles under 40 CFR part 85.
• § 1068.515: Clarify an ambiguity to require that manufacturers identify the facility where repairs or inspections are performed, and allow manufacturers to keep records of those facilities rather than including the information on the recall label.
• § 1068.530: Specify that recall records must be kept for five years, rather than three years. This is consistent with longstanding recall policy for motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines under 40 CFR part 85.
In addition, EPA received a comment from Navy on behalf of the Defense Department requesting that we add a provision to allow for an automatic national security exemption in cases where a federal defense agency owns an engine that would need sulfur-sensitive technology to comply with emission standards if it is intended to be used in areas outside the United States where ultra-low sulfur fuel is unavailable. We are adopting this change as part of the final rule. This will reduce the agencies' burden to process what has become a routine process for requesting and approving these exemptions. We are also taking the opportunity to include marine diesel engines in this same section, rather than treating them separately under 40 CFR 1042.635.
We proposed to revise § 1068.201 to describe how someone may sell an engine under a different exemption than was originally intended or used as a result of unforeseen circumstances. However, we have decided to postpone those regulatory amendments to a future rule. This will give us opportunity to more thoroughly explore all relevant factors, such as:
• Statutory authority and requirements.
• Business interests for managing distribution and inventories of exempted engines.
• Environmental impacts.
EPA is making minor changes to correct errors and clarify regulations in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and 40 CFR part 600 relating to EPA's light-duty fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards. This includes the following changes:
• § 86.1818-12: Correct a reference in paragraph (c)(4) and clarify that CO
• § 86.1838-01: Correct references in paragraph (d)(3)(iii).
• § 86.1866-12: Correct a reference in paragraph (b).
• § 86.1868-12: Clarify language in the introductory paragraph explaining the model years of applicability of different provisions for air conditioning efficiency credits. In paragraph (e)(5) clarify that the engine-off specification of 2 minutes is intended to be cumulative time. In paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(1), and (g)(3), clarify language by pointing to the definitions in § 86.1803-01.
• § 86.1869-12: Make corrections to the language for readability in paragraph (b)(2). In paragraph (b)(4)(ii) delete the phrase “backup/reverse lights” because these lights were not intended to be part of the stated eligibility criteria for high-efficiency lighting credits. Correct references in paragraph (f).
• § 86.1870-12: Add language that clarifies that a manufacturer that meets the minimum production volume thresholds with a combination of mild and strong hybrid electric pickup trucks is eligible for credits.
• § 86.1871-12: Clarify that credits from model years 2010-2015 are not limited to a life of 5 model years. A recent rule extended the life of 2010-2015 credits to model year 2021; thus, language referring to a 5-year life for emission credits generated in these model years is being removed or revised.
• § 600.113-12: Correct language in paragraph (m)(1), which relates to vehicles operating on LPG, that erroneously refers to methanol and methanol-fueled.
• § 600.113-12: Correct references in paragraph (n) and add a new paragraph (m) that reinstates language mistakenly dropped by a previous regulation.
• § 600.116-12: Correct description of physical quantity to refer to “energy” rather than “current,” and correct various paragraph references.
• § 600.208-12: Correct a reference in paragraph (a)(2)(iii).
• § 600.210-12: Correct a reference and text in paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(C).
• § 600.311-12: Revise fuel economy label instructions to (1) identify label ratings for model year 2017 and earlier standards certified early to the Tier 3 standards, (2) identify label ratings for Interim Tier 3 vehicles certified to interim bins for model years 2018 through 2024, and (3) clarify that the specified California emission standards determine label ratings only if vehicles are not subject to any EPA standards. All these changes are consistent with current implementation through guidance.
• § 600.510-12: Correct a reference in the equation in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to apply the air conditioning, off-cycle, and pickup truck credits to the appropriate fleet average MPG value. Revise the regulation to accelerate the transition to fuel economy calculations using utility factors for natural gas vehicles, consistent with the methodology that applies for plug-in hybrid vehicles. This amendment was adopted by Congress as part of Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, H.R. 22, 114th Cong. § 24341 (2015).
Manufacturers generally rely on selective catalytic reaction and diesel particulate filters to meet EPA's emission standards for highway and nonroad compression-ignition engines. These emission control devices typically involve infrequent regeneration, which can have a significant effect on emission rates. EPA has addressed that for each engine type by provisions for infrequent regeneration factors; this is a calculation methodology that allows manufacturers to incorporate the effect of infrequent regeneration into reported emission values whether or not that regeneration occurs during an emission test. EPA adopted separate provisions for highway, locomotive, marine, and land-based nonroad compression-ignition engines. As proposed, EPA is harmonizing the common elements of these procedures in 40 CFR part 1065, and adding clarifying specifications in each of the standard-setting parts for sector-specific provisions. Commenters generally supported this revision. See Section II for a discussion of how IRAFs will apply for GHGs in Phase 2.
EPA is revising 40 CFR 1065.510 as it applies to the two-point mapping method for certain constant-speed engines. The regulations previously cited a performance parameter in ISO 8528-5 that does not apply for the design of these engines.
It is common practice for engines that produce electric power to use an isochronous governor for stand-alone generator sets. In some parallel operations of multiple generator sets, droop is added as a method for load sharing. The amount of droop can be tuned by the generator set manufacturer or the site system integrator. Such engines are commonly tested on an engine dynamometer with the isochronous governor.
Mapping with just two points works well for the case of 0 percent droop (
For governors with droop, if we attempt the two-point method, we would have to calculate a target speed for the second point based on a designed amount of droop. Unfortunately, the actual governor may not have the same amount of droop as the design droop, which may cause error in the measured torque versus the maximum test torque associated with a complete torque map. Also, the design droop may be based on a torque value that is different from the intended maximum test torque. Thus, the two-point method is not sufficient to yield a maximum test torque equivalent to the value obtained using a multi-point map. Also the allowed speed error on the second point is 20 percent of the speed droop, which allows an unacceptably large error in the maximum test torque.
Thus, for the reasons listed, we are limiting the two-point mapping method to any isochronous governed engines, not just engines used to generate electric power.
EPA is improving the method for calculating maximum and intermediate test speeds by applying a more robust calculation method. The new calculation method is consistent with the methodology used to determine maximum test torque, which we revised in the light-duty Tier 3 rulemaking. Under the previous regulations, the result was a measured maximum test torque at one of the map points. The new calculation method involves interpolation to determine the measured maximum test torque, yielding a more representative maximum value for test torque.
EPA proposed to allow manufacturers to use NMOG measurements to demonstrate compliance with NMHC standards. This was primarily intended to address concerns about ethane emissions from natural gas engines inappropriately impacting compliance determinations when the engines are tested using fuels that have relatively high ethane content. Commenters shared that the proposed approach would not accomplish the intended purpose. Some commenters also emphasized that ethane is a hydrocarbon and an organic compound that has a low ozone reactivity (
We are adopting an alternative provision that involves reduced test burden by selecting a low-ethane test fuel. In particular, EPA or manufacturers performing measurements with a test fuel containing 1.0 percent ethane or less may measure an engine's NMHC emissions and multiple this value by 0.95 to determine its nonmethane-nonethane hydrocarbon emissions, without separately measuring ethane in the exhaust.
EPA is adopting the following additional changes to test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 and part 1066:
• § 1065.202: Revised to prevent specific data collection errors known as aliasing. More specifically, the revision will ensure that aliasing of data collection signal due to filtering or sampling rate does not happen. We believe that all labs are currently preventing aliasing, but this should be described in the regulations.
• § 1065.266: This new section allows the use of an FTIR for determination of NMHC or NMNEHC from engines fueled solely on LPG or natural gas. The measurement of methane and ethane is also allowed for engine fueled with LPG or natural gas, in combination with a liquid fuel, for determination of NMHC or NMNEHC when subtracting methane and/or ethane from a FID-derived THC value. The intent of the NMNEHC provision is to allow the subtraction of ethane from THC in cases where the certification fuel available to the testing lab is high in ethane content.
• § 1065.275: ASTM D6348 was added as a reference method for interpretation of spectra for N
• § 1065.340 and 1065.341: These sections contain a collection of editorial corrections pertaining to CVSs intended to improve the understanding of the calibration and verification procedures.
• § 1065.366: This new section provides interference verification procedures for FTIR hydrocarbon analyzers allowed under § 1065.266.
• § 1065.640 and 1065.642: These sections contain a collection of editorial corrections pertaining to CVSs intended to improve the understanding of the calculation procedures.
• § 1065.655: Revised to separate out carbon mass fraction of fuel and fuel composition determinations into separate sections to improve readability. This section was also revised to include any fluids injected into the exhaust in the determination of the carbon mass fraction of fuel. This ensures that all fluids in the exhaust are accounted for. Provisions were also added to address how to determine properties when multiple fuel streams (
• § 1065.1001: Added a definition for diesel exhaust fluid.
• § 1066.110: Revised to allow a shortening of the tailpipe for connection to the CVS and to simultaneously conduct PM background sampling with propane recovery checks. This section was also revised to change the limit on filter face velocity from 100 cm/s to 140 cm/s. The purpose of this is to increase filter mass loading. This change is based on results obtained from the CRC E-99 Phase 1 test program, which showed that there was no loss of semi-volatile PM at this higher filter face velocity. Higher filter mass loadings will help to reduce uncertainty and lessen the impact of background variability on the final PM emission value.
• § 1066.210: Revise the dynamometer force equation to incorporate grade, consistent with the coastdown procedures we are adopting for heavy-duty vehicles. For operation at a level grade, the additional parameters cancel out of the calculation.
• § 1066.605: Adding an equation to the regulations to spell out how to calculate emission rates in grams per mile. This calculation is generally assumed, but we want to include the equation to remove any uncertainty about calculating emission rates from mass emission measurements and driving distance. We also added equations to vary sample extraction ratio instead of changing flow over the filter when performing single filter per test sampling for PM measurement.
• § 1066.815: Create an exception to the maximum value for overall residence time for PM sampling methods that involve collecting samples for combined bags over a duty cycle. This is needed to accommodate the
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for locomotives and locomotive engines under the Clean Air Act are identified in 40 CFR part 1033.
EPA is revising the engine mapping provisions in 40 CFR part 1033 for locomotive testing to denote that manufacturers do not have to meet the cycle limit values in 40 CFR 1065.514 when testing complete locomotives. Also, for engine testing with a dynamometer, while the validation criteria of CFR 1065.514 apply, EPA is allowing manufacturers the option to check validation using manufacturer-declared values for maximum torque, power, and speed. This option will allow them to omit engine mapping under 40 CFR 1065.510, which is already not required. These provisions reduce test burden and cost for the manufacturer, while preserving the integrity of the certification requirements.
EPA is also adopting text that describes the alternate ramped-model cycle provisions in 40 CFR part 1033 as some of the notch setting and durations are inconsistent with the description of the duty cycle in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1033.520. EPA has determined that the table is correct as published and the error lies in the text describing how to carry out the ramped-modal test.
We are also clarifying that locomotives operating on a combination of diesel fuel and gaseous fuel are subject to NMHC standards (or NMNEHC standards), which is the same as if the locomotives operated only on gaseous fuel. With respect to in-use fuels, we are adopting a clarification in 40 CFR 1033.815 regarding allowable fuels for certain Tier 4 and later locomotives. Specifically, we note that locomotives certified on ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, but that do not include sulfur-sensitive emission controls, may use low sulfur diesel fuel instead of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, an obvious case where this would be appropriate (but not the only possible case), is if a railroad had emission data showing the locomotive still met the applicable standards/FELs while operating on the higher sulfur fuel.
We also requested comment on whether EPA should consider notch-specific engine/alternator efficiencies to be confidential business information. However commenters did not support making this change in the regulations.
We requested comment on extending the provisions of 40 CFR 1033.101(i) involving a less stringent CO standard in combination with a more stringent PM standard to Tier 4 locomotives. The existing provisions were developed to provide a compliance path for natural gas locomotives that reflected both the technological capabilities of natural gas locomotives and the relative environmental significance of CO and PM emissions. This provision was not applied to Tier 4 locomotives, because the applicable Tier 4 p.m. standard is already very low (0.03 g/hp-hr). Engine manufacturers commented in favor of adopting alternate standards for Tier 3 and Tier 4 locomotives. We are extending the alternate 10.0 g/bhp-hr CO standard to Tier 3 and Tier 4 locomotives; manufacturers would qualify for the less stringent CO standard by meeting a PM standard of 0.01 g/bhp-hr.
EPA is making numerous additional changes across 40 CFR part 1033 to correct errors, to add clarification, and to make adjustments based on lessons learned from implementing these regulatory provisions. This includes the following changes:
• §§ 1033.30, 1033.730, and 1033.925: Consolidate information-collection provisions into a single section.
• § 1033.101: Allow manufacturers to certify Tier 4 and later locomotives using Low Sulfur Diesel fuel instead of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel fuel. Manufacturers may wish to do this to show that their locomotives do not include sulfur-sensitive technology.
• § 1033.120: Reduce extended-warranty requirements to warranties that are actually provided to customers, rather than to any published warranties that are offered. The principle is that the emission-related warranty should not be less effective for emission-related items than for items that are not emission-related.
• § 1033.150: Correct the URL associated with price index information for calculating current costs.
• § 1033.201: Clarify that manufacturers may amend their application for certification after the end of the model year in certain circumstances, but they may not produce locomotives for a given model year after December 31 of the named year.
• § 1033.201: Establish that manufacturers may deliver to EPA for testing a locomotive/engine that is identical to the test locomotive/engine used for certification. This may be necessary if the test locomotive/engine has accumulated too many hours, or if it is unavailable for any reason.
• § 1033.235: Add an explicit allowance for carryover engine families to include the same kind of within-family running changes that are currently allowed over the course of a model year. The original text may have been understood to require that such running changes be made separate from certifying the engine family for the new model year.
• §§ 1033.235, 1033.245, and 1033.601: Describe how to demonstrate compliance with dual-fuel and flexible-fuel locomotives. This generally involves testing with each separate fuel, or with a worst-case fuel blend.
• § 1033.245: Add instructions for calculating deterioration factors for sawtooth deterioration patterns, such as might be expected for periodic maintenance, such as cleaning or replacing diesel particulate filters.
• § 1033.250: Remove references to routine and standard tests, and remove the shorter recordkeeping requirement for routine data (or data from routine tests). All test records must be kept for eight years. With electronic recording of test data, there should be no advantage to keeping the shorter recordkeeping requirement for a subset of test data. EPA also notes that the eight-year period restarts with certification for a new model year if the manufacturer uses carryover data.
• § 1033.255: Clarify that rendering information false or incomplete after submitting it is the same as submitting false or incomplete information. For example, if there is a change to any corporate information or engine parameters described in the manufacturer's application for certification, the manufacturer must amend the application to include the new information.
• § 1033.255: Clarify that voiding certificates for a recordkeeping or reporting violation would be limited to certificates that relate to the particular recordkeeping or reporting failure.
• § 1033.501: Clarify how testing requirements apply differently for locomotive engines and for complete locomotives.
• § 1033.501: Add paragraph (a)(4) to remove proportionality verification for discrete-mode tests if a single batch fuel measurement is used to determine raw exhaust flow rate. This verification involves statistical assessment that is not valid for the single data point. Requiring manufacturers instead to
• § 1033.515: Provide the option to carry out smoke testing separate from criteria pollutant measurement with a reduced time-in-notch of 3 minutes. This change reestablishes a provision that was previously allowed in 40 CFR 92.124(f).
• §§ 1033.515 and 1033.520: Update terminology by referring to “test intervals” instead of “phases.” This allows us to be consistent with terminology used in 40 CFR part 1065.
• § 1033.520: Correct the example given to describe the testing transition after the second test interval.
• §§ 1033.701 and 1033.730: Describe the process for retiring emission credits. This may be referred to as donating credits to the environment.
• § 1033.710: Clarify that it is not permissible to show a proper balance of credits for a given model by using emission credits from a future model year.
• § 1033.730: Clarify terminology for ABT reports.
• § 1033.815: Add consideration of periodic locomotive inspections in 184-day intervals.
• § 1033.901: Update the contact information for the Designated Compliance Officer.
• § 1033.915: Migrate provisions related to confidential information to 40 CFR part 1068.
We proposed to disallow amending certified configurations after the end of the model year. However, manufacturers shared in their comments that this would change the field-fix policy that has long since allowed for making such changes. We have retracted the proposed change and replaced it with a new paragraph that describes how manufacturers may amend the application for certification during and after the model year, consistent with the current policy regarding field fixes.
EPA is adopting two changes to 40 CFR 1039.5 to clarify the scope and applicability of standards under 40 CFR part 1039. First, EPA is stating that engines using the provisions of 40 CFR 1033.625 for non-locomotive-specific engines remain subject to certification requirements as nonroad diesel engines under 40 CFR part 1039. Such engines will need to be certified as both locomotive engines and as nonroad diesel engines. Second, EPA is revising the statement about how manufacturers may certify under 40 CFR part 1051 for engines installed in recreational vehicles (such as all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles). EPA is removing text that might be interpreted to mean that there are circumstances in which certification under neither part is required. The proper understanding of EPA's policy in that regard is that certification under one part is a necessary condition for being exempted from the other part.
In 2008, EPA adopted a requirement in 40 CFR part 1042 for manufacturers to design marine diesel engines using selective catalytic reduction with basic diagnostic functions to ensure that these systems were working as intended (73 FR 37096, June 30, 2008). EPA is applying those same diagnostic control requirements to nonroad diesel engines regulated under 40 CFR part 1039. This addresses the same fundamental concern that engines will not be controlling emissions consistent with the certified configuration if the engine is lacking the appropriate quantity and quality of reductant. While some lead time is needed to make the necessary modifications, we believe it will be straightforward to apply the same designs from marine diesel engines to land-based nonroad diesel engines. EPA is accordingly requiring that manufacturers meet the new diagnostic specifications starting with model year 2018. These diagnostic controls will not affect the current policy related to adjustable parameters and inducements related to selective catalytic reduction.
EPA is making numerous changes across 40 CFR part 1039 to correct errors, to add clarification, and to make adjustments based on lessons learned from implementing these regulatory provisions. This includes the following changes:
• § 1039.2: Add a clarifying note to say that something other than a conventional “manufacturer” may need to certify engines that become new after being placed into service (such as engines converted from highway or stationary use). This is intended to address a possible assumption that only conventional manufacturers can certify engines.
• §§ 1039.30, 1039.730, and 1039.825: Consolidate information-collection provisions into a single section.
• § 1039.107: Remove the reference to deterioration factors for evaporative emissions, since there are no deterioration factors for demonstrating compliance with evaporative emission standards.
• § 1039.104(g): Correct the specified FEL cap for an example scenario illustrating how alternate FEL caps work.
• § 1039.120: Reduce extended-warranty requirements to warranties that are actually provided to the consumer, rather than to any published warranties that are offered. The principle is that the emission-related warranty should not be less effective for emission-related items than for items that are not emission-related.
• § 1039.125: Add crankcase vent filters to the list of maintenance items.
• § 1039.125: Allow for special maintenance procedures that address low-use engines. For example, owners of recreational marine vessels may need to perform engine maintenance after a smaller number of hours than would otherwise apply based on the limited engine operation over time.
• § 1039.125: Establish a minimum maintenance interval of 1500 hours for DEF filters. This reflects the technical capabilities for filter durability and the expected maintenance in the field.
• § 1039.125: Add fuel-water separator cartridges as an example of a maintenance item that is not emission-related.
• § 1039.125: Add a clearer cross reference to clarify that particulate traps are subject to the same maintenance intervals that apply for catalysts, consistent with the originally adopted maintenance provisions for the Tier 4 standards.
• § 1039.135: Allow for including optional label content only if this does not cause the manufacturer to omit other information based on limited availability of space on the label, and identify counterfeit protection as an additional item that manufacturers may include on the label. We modified the proposed amendment in response to comments to allow for including optional labeling content as long as the additional content doesn't cause the space limitations that prevent inclusion of other optional information.
• § 1039.201: Clarify that manufacturers may amend their application for certification after the end of the model year in certain circumstances, but they may not produce engines for a given model year after December 31 of the named year.
• § 1039.201: Establish that manufacturers may deliver to EPA for testing an engine that is identical to the test engine used for certification. This may be necessary if the test engine has accumulated too many hours, or if it is unavailable for any reason.
• § 1039.205: Replace the requirement to submit data from invalid tests with a requirement to simply notify EPA in the application for certification if test was invalidated.
• § 1039.205: Add a requirement for manufacturers to include in their application for certification a description of their practice for
• § 1039.235: Add an explicit allowance for carryover engine families to include the same kind of within-family running changes that are currently allowed over the course of a model year. The original text may have been understood to require that such running changes be made separate from certifying the engine family for the new model year.
• §§ 1039.235, 1039.240, and 1039.601: Describe how to demonstrate compliance with dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines. This generally involves testing with each separate fuel, or with a worst-case fuel blend.
• § 1039.240: Add instructions for calculating deterioration factors for sawtooth deterioration patterns, such as might be expected for periodic maintenance, such as cleaning or replacing diesel particulate filters.
• § 1039.240: Remove the instruction related to calculating NMHC emissions from measured THC results, since this is addressed in 40 CFR part 1065.
• § 1039.250: Remove references to routine and standard tests, and remove the shorter recordkeeping requirement for routine data (or data from routine tests). All test records must be kept for eight years. With electronic recording of test data, there should be no advantage to keeping the shorter recordkeeping requirement for a subset of test data. EPA also notes that the eight-year period restarts with certification for a new model year if the manufacturer uses carryover data.
• § 1039.255: Clarify that rendering information false or incomplete after submitting it is the same as submitting false or incomplete information. For example, if there is a change to any corporate information or engine parameters described in the manufacturer's application for certification, the manufacturer must amend the application to include the new information.
• § 1039.255: Clarify that voiding certificates for a recordkeeping or reporting violation will be limited to certificates that relate to the particular recordkeeping or reporting failure.
• § 1039.505: Correct the reference to the ISO C1 duty cycle for engines below 19 kW.
• § 1039.515: Correct the citation to 40 CFR 86.1370.
• §§ 1039.605 and 1039.610: Revise the reporting requirement to require detailed information about the previous year, rather than requiring a detailed projection for the year ahead. The information required in advance will be limited to a notification of plans to use the provisions of these sections.
• § 1039.640: Migrate engine branding to § 1068.45.
• § 1039.701 1039.730: Describe the process for retiring emission credits. This may be referred to as donating credits to the environment.
• § 1039.705: Change terminology for counting engines from “point of first retail sale” to “U.S.-direction production volume.” This conforms to the usual approach for calculating emission credits for nonroad engines.
• § 1039.710: Clarify that it is not permissible to show a proper balance of credits for a given model by using emission credits from a future model year.
• § 1039.730: Clarify terminology for ABT reports.
• § 1039.740: Clarify that the averaging-set provisions apply for credits generated by Tier 4 engines, not for credits generated from engines subject to earlier standards that are used with Tier 4 engines.
• § 1039.801: Update the contact information for the Designated Compliance Officer.
• § 1039.801: Revise the definition of “model year” to clarify that the calendar year relates to the time that engines are produced under a certificate of conformity.
• § 1039.815: Migrate provisions related to confidential information to 40 CFR part 1068.
We proposed to disallow amending certified configurations after the end of the model year. However, manufacturers shared in their comments that this would change the field-fix policy that has long since allowed for making such changes. We have retracted the proposed change and replaced it with a new paragraph that describes how manufacturers may amend the application for certification during and after the model year, consistent with the current policy regarding field fixes.
We requested comment on removing regulatory provisions for Independent Commercial Importers from 40 CFR part 1039. These provisions, copied from highway regulations many years ago, generally allow for small businesses to modify small numbers of uncertified products to be in a certified configuration using alternative demonstration procedures, but they have not been used for nonroad engines for at least the last 15 years. We consider these to be obsolete. Commenters supported removal of these provisions, so we are including this change in the final rule.
EPA's emission standards and certification requirements for marine diesel engines under the Clean Air Act are identified in 40 CFR part 1042.
Manufacturers may produce certain marine diesel engines with on-off features that disable NO
Engines with on-off NO
It should be noted that the above provisions with respect to on-off controls and continuous emission monitoring do not apply for the 40 CFR part 1042 PM standards. Engines certified to standards under 40 CFR part 1042 must meet the PM limits at all times, except when the operator has applied for and received permission to disable Tier 4 PM controls while operating outside the United States pursuant to any of the provisions of 40 CFR 1042.650(a) through (c).
The regulation at 40 CFR 1042.650(d) exempts auxiliary Category 1 and Category 2 engines installed on U.S.-flag Category 3 vessels from the part 1042 standards if those auxiliary engines meet certain conditions. This provision is intended to facilitate compliance with MARPOL Annex VI by certain qualified Category 3 vessels engaged in international trade and to simplify compliance demonstrations while those vessels are operating in foreign ports and foreign waters. EPA is adopting two revisions to make clear that the engines on the Category 3 vessel must remain in compliance with Annex VI, and EPA is adding clarifying language relating to engines with a power output of 130 kW or less.
First, EPA is revising the regulations to clarify that the urea reporting requirements in § 1042.660(b) (which requires an owner or operator of any vessel equipped with SCR to report to EPA within 30 days of any operation of such vessel without the appropriate reductant) also apply to Category 1 and Category 2 auxiliary engines on Category 3 vessels that are covered by § 1042.650(d). This will extend the urea reporting requirements to engines between 130 and 600 kW if they rely on SCR to meet the Annex VI Tier III NO
Second, EPA is revising 40 CFR 1042.650(d) to clarify that, while these Category 1 and Category 2 auxiliary engines may be designed with on-off NO
EPA has become aware that there is some uncertainty about how the scope of EPA's implementation of Annex VI through 40 CFR part 1043 relates to engines with a power output of 130 kW or less. The existing regulations at § 1043.30 state that an EIAPP certificate is required for engines with a power output above 130 kW, but the standards described in § 1043.60 might be interpreted to apply to engines of all sizes. EPA did not intend to appear to create additional requirements or authority under 40 CFR part 1043 that is not contained in Annex VI or its implementing legislation (the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships). EPA is therefore adding clarifying language to § 1043.60, consistent with Regulation 13 of Annex VI and APPS, to indicate that the international NO
EPA is also expanding provisions that apply for marine engines designed to operate on both diesel fuel and natural gas. Test requirements apply separately for each “fuel type.” EPA generally considers an engine with a single calibration strategy that combines an initial pilot injection of diesel fuel to burn natural gas to be a single fuel type. This applies even if the natural gas portion must be substantially reduced or eliminated to maintain proper engine operation at light-load conditions. If the engine has a different calibration allowing it to run only on diesel fuel, or on continuous mixtures of diesel fuel and natural gas, we would consider it to be a dual-fuel engine or a flexible-fuel engine, respectively. These terms are used consistently across EPA programs for highway and nonroad applications. There is an effort underway to revise the definition of “dual-fuel” in MARPOL Annex VI, which may be different than EPA's definition. It should be noted that the 40 CFR part 1042 certification testing requirement differs from that specified in MARPOL Annex VI and the NO
EPA is making numerous changes across 40 CFR part 1042 to correct errors, to add clarification, and to make adjustments based on lessons learned from implementing these regulatory provisions. This includes the following changes:
• § 1042.1: Correct the tabulated applicability date for engines with per-cylinder displacement between 7 and 15 liters; this should refer to engines “at or above” 7 liters, rather than “above 7 liters.”
• § 1042.1: Replace an incorrect reference to 40 CFR part 89 with a reference to 40 CFR part 94 for marine engines above 37 kW.
• § 1042.2: Add a clarifying note to say that something other than a conventional “manufacturer” may need to certify engines that become new after being placed into service (such as engines converted from highway or stationary use). This is intended to address a possible assumption that only conventional manufacturers can certify engines.
• §§ 1042.30, 1042.730, and 1042.825: Consolidate information-collection provisions into a single section.
• § 1042.101: Revise the text to more carefully identify engine subcategories and better describe the transition between Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards. These changes are intended to clarify which standards apply and are not intended to change the emission standards for any particular size or type of engine.
• § 1042.101 and Appendix III: More precisely define applicability of specific NTE standards for different types of engines and pollutants; correct formulas defining NTE zones and subzones; and add clarifying information to identify subzone points that could otherwise be derived from existing formulas. None of these changes are intended to change the standards, test procedures, or other policies for implementing the NTE standards.
• § 1042.101: Clarify the FEL caps for certain engines above 3700 kW.
• § 1042.101: Add a specification to define “continuous monitor” for parameters requiring repeated discrete measurements, as described above. The rule also includes further clarification on the relationship between on-off NO
• § 1042.110: Remove the requirement to notify operators regarding an unsafe operating condition, since we can more generally rely on the broader provision in § 1042.115 that prohibits manufacturers from incorporating design strategies that introduce an unreasonable safety risk during engine operation.
• § 1042.110: Clarify that using a NO
• § 1042.120: Reduce extended-warranty requirements to warranties that are actually provided to the consumer, rather than to any published warranties that are offered. The principle is that the emission-related warranty should not be less effective for emission-related items than for items that are not emission-related.
• § 1042.125: Add crankcase vent filters to the list of maintenance items.
• § 1042.125: Allow for special maintenance procedures that address low-use engines. For example, owners of recreational marine vessels may need to perform engine maintenance after a smaller number of hours than would otherwise apply based on the limited engine operation over time.
• § 1042.125: Establish a minimum maintenance interval of 1500 hours for DEF filters. This reflects the technical capabilities for filter durability and the expected maintenance in the field.
• § 1042.135: Clarify that ULSD labeling is required only for engines that use sulfur-sensitive technology. If an engine can meet applicable emission standards without depending on the use of ULSD, the manufacturer should not be required to state on the engine that ULSD is required.
• § 1042.135: Allow for including optional label content only if this does not cause the manufacturer to omit other information based on limited availability of space on the label. We modified the proposed amendment in response to comments to allow for including optional labeling content as long as the additional content doesn't cause the space limitations that prevent inclusion of other optional information.
• § 1042.201: Clarify that manufacturers may amend their application for certification after the end of the model year in certain circumstances, but they may not produce engines for a given model year after December 31 of the named year.
• § 1042.201: Establish that manufacturers may deliver to EPA for testing an engine that is identical to the test engine used for certification. This may be necessary if the test engine has accumulated too many hours, or if it is unavailable for any reason.
• §§ 1042.205 and 1042.840: Replace the requirement to submit data from invalid tests with a requirement to simply notify EPA in the application for certification if test was invalidated.
• § 1042.235: Add an explicit allowance for carryover engine families to include the same kind of within-family running changes that are currently allowed over the course of a model year. The original text may have been understood to require that such running changes be made separate from certifying the engine family for the new model year.
• §§ 1042.235, 1042.240, and 1042.601: Describe how to demonstrate compliance with dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines. This generally involves testing with each separate fuel, or with a worst-case fuel blend.
• § 1042.240: Add instructions for calculating deterioration factors for sawtooth deterioration patterns, such as might be expected for periodic maintenance, such as cleaning or replacing diesel particulate filters.
• § 1042.250: Remove references to routine and standard tests, and remove the shorter recordkeeping requirement for routine data (or data from routine tests). All test records must be kept for eight years. With electronic recording of test data, there should be no advantage to keeping the shorter recordkeeping requirement for a subset of test data. EPA also notes that the eight-year period restarts with certification for a new model year if the manufacturer uses carryover data.
• § 1042.255: Clarify that rendering information false or incomplete after submitting it is the same as submitting false or incomplete information. For example, if there is a change to any corporate information or engine parameters described in the manufacturer's application for certification, the manufacturer must amend the application to include the new information.
• § 1042.255: Clarify that voiding certificates for a recordkeeping or reporting violation will be limited to certificates that relate to the particular recordkeeping or reporting failure.
• § 1042.301: Clarify that the requirements to test production engines does not apply for engines that become new and subject to emission standards as remanufactured engines.
• § 1042.302: Clarify that manufacturers may fulfill the requirement to test each Category 3 production engine by performing the test before or after the engine is installed in the vessel. The largest Category 3 engines are assembled in the vessel, but some smaller Category 3 engines are assembled at a manufacturing facility where they can be more easily tested. Manufacturers must perform such testing on fully assembled production engines rather than relying on test results from test bed engines.
• § 1042.501: Provide instruction on how to verify proportional sampling for discrete mode testing where only one batch fuel measurement is made over the operating mode. This requires that manufacturers hold sampling constant over the sampling period. Manufacturers will verify proportionality either over a discrete mode by using average exhaust flow rate paired with each recorded sample flow rate, or over the entire duty cycle.
• § 1042.501: Remove test procedure specifications that are already covered in 40 CFR part 1065.
• § 1042.505: Correct the reference to the ISO C1 duty cycle in 40 CFR part 1039.
• § 1042.515: Remove an incorrect cite.
• §§ 1042.605 and 1042.610: Revise the reporting requirement to require detailed information about the previous
• § 1042.630: Clarify that dockside examinations are not inspections. Vessels subject to Coast Guard inspection are identified in 46 U.S.C. 3301.
• §§ 1042.601 and 1042.635: Migrate the national security exemption to § 1068.225, including the expanded automatic exemption related the standards that would otherwise require sulfur-sensitive technology. See Section XIII.D(2).
• § 1042.640: Migrate engine branding to § 1068.45.
• § 1042.650: Clarify that vessel operators may modify certified engines if they will be operated for an extended period outside the United States where ULSD will be unavailable. This does not preclude the possibility of vessel operators restoring engines to a certified configuration in anticipation of bringing the vessel back to the United States.
• § 1042.660: Identify the contact information for submitting reports related to operation without SCR reductant.
• § 1042.670: Specify that gas turbine engines are presumed to have an equivalent power density below 35 kW per liter of engine displacement; this is needed to identify which Tier 3 standards apply.
• § 1042.701: Clarify that emission credits generated under 40 CFR part 94 may be used for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards in 40 CFR part 1042.
• §§ 1042.701 and 1042.730: Describe the process for retiring emission credits. This may be referred to as donating credits to the environment.
• § 1042.705: Change terminology for counting engines from “point of first retail sale” to “U.S.-direction production volume.” This conforms to the usual approach for calculating emission credits for nonroad engines.
• § 1042.710: Clarify that it is not permissible to show a proper balance of credits for a given model by using emission credits from a future model year.
• § 1042.730: Clarify terminology for ABT reports.
• § 1042.810: Clarify that it is only the remanufacturing standards of subpart I, not the certification standards that are the subject of the applicability determination in § 1042.810.
• § 1042.830: Add a provision to specifically allow voluntary labeling for engines that are not subject to remanufacturing standards, and to clarify that the label is required for engines that are subject to remanufacturing standards.
• § 1042.901: Update the contact information for the Designated Compliance Officer.
• § 1042.901: Revise the definition of “model year” to correct cites and clarify that the calendar year relates to the time that engines are produced under a certificate of conformity.
• §§ 1042.901 and 1042.910: Update the reference documents for Annex VI and NO
• § 1042.915: Migrate provisions related to confidential information to 40 CFR part 1068.
We proposed to disallow amending certified configurations after the end of the model year. However, manufacturers shared in their comments that this would change the field-fix policy that has long since allowed for making such changes. We have retracted the proposed change and replaced it with a new paragraph that describes how manufacturers may amend the application for certification during and after the model year, consistent with the current policy regarding field fixes.
EPA is clarifying that the cold NMHC standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-17 do not apply at high altitude. We intended in recent amendments to state that the cold CO standards apply at both low and high altitude, but inadvertently placed that statement where it also covered cold NMHC standards, which contradicts existing regulatory provisions that clearly describe the cold NMHC standards as applying only for low-altitude testing. The change simply moves the new clarifying language to apply only to cold CO standards. We are also restoring the cold NMHC standards in paragraph (g)(2), which were inadvertently removed as part of the earlier amendments.
EPA is revising the specifications for Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles certifying early to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards under 40 CFR 86.1816-18 to clarify that carryover values apply for formaldehyde. The Preamble to the earlier final rule described these standards properly, but the regulations inadvertently pointed to the Tier 3 values for these vehicles.
EPA is making a minor correction to the In-Use Compliance Program under 40 CFR 86.1846-01. The Light-Duty Tier 3 final rule amended this section by describing how to use SFTP test results in the compliance determination in a way that inadvertently removed a reference to
EPA is revising the instruction for creating road-load coefficients for cold temperature testing in 40 CFR 1066.710 to simply refer back to 40 CFR 1066.305 where this is described more generally. The text originally adopted in 40 CFR 1066.710 incorrectly describes the calculation for determining those coefficients.
EPA is also adopting two minor amendments related to highway motorcycles. First, we are correcting an error related to the small-volume provisions for highway motorcycles. The regulation included an inadvertent reference to a small-volume threshold based on an annual volume of 3,000 motorcycles produced in the United States. As written, this would not consider any foreign motorcycle production for importation into the United States. This error is corrected by simply revising the text to refer to an annual production volume of motorcycles produced “for” the United States. This change properly reflects small-volume production as it relates to compliance with EPA standards. Second, we are clarifying the language describing how to manage the precision of emission results, both for measured values and for calculating values when applying a deterioration factor. This involves a new reference to the rounding procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 to replace the references to outdated ASTM procedures.
The proposal included a clarification related to vehicles used for competition to ensure that the Clean Air Act requirements are followed for vehicles used on public roads. This clarification is not being finalized. EPA supports motorsports and its contributions to the American economy and communities all across the country. EPA's focus is not (nor has it ever been) on vehicles built or used exclusively for racing, but on companies that violate the rules by making and selling products that disable pollution controls on motor vehicles used on public roads. These unlawful defeat devices lead to harmful pollution and adverse health effects. The proposed language was not intended to represent a change in the law or in EPA's policies or practices towards dedicated competition vehicles. Since our attempt to clarify led to confusion, EPA has decided to eliminate the proposed language from the final rule.
EPA will continue to engage with the racing industry and others in its support for racing, while maintaining the Agency's focus where it has always
To improve efficiency and reduce the burden to manufacturers and the agencies, NHTSA proposed to amend 49 CFR part 537 to eliminate the option for manufacturers to submit pre-model, mid-model and supplemental reports on CD-ROMS, and require only one electronic submission (for each report) electronically via a method proscribed by NHTSA. NHTSA planned to introduce a new electronic format to standardize the method for collecting manufacturer's information. NHTSA also proposed modifying 49 CFR part 512 to include and protect submitted CAFE data elements that need to be treated as confidential business information. For the final rule, NHTSA is not finalizing this proposal in this rulemaking but will consider electronic submission for CAFE reports in a future action.
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The agencies prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, the “Regulatory Impact Analysis—Heavy-Duty GHG and Fuel Efficiency Standards,” is available in the docket. The analyses contained in this document are also summarized in Sections VII, VIII, and IX of this Preamble.
This section describes NHTSA's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and NHTSA, 49 CFR part 520. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a(b) and DOT's “Final Guidance on MAP-21 Section 1319 Accelerated Decision making in Environmental Reviews,”
The first subsection below describes the agency's NEPA process to date, including its scoping notice and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The second subsection describes the FEIS, and the third subsection discusses the ROD. The final subsection includes other regulatory notices related to environmental concerns.
Under NEPA, a Federal agency must prepare an EIS on proposals for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
On July 9, 2014, NHTSA published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for this rulemaking and requested scoping comments (79 FR 38842). The notice invited Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, stakeholders, and the public to participate in the scoping process and to help identify the environmental issues and reasonable alternatives to be examined in the EIS. NHTSA considered the comments received on that notice as it prepared its DEIS.
NHTSA released a DEIS for this rulemaking on June 19, 2015, concurrently with its release of the NPRM.
The DEIS analyzed five alternative approaches to regulating HD vehicle fuel consumption, including a “preferred alternative” and a “no action alternative.” The DEIS evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives under NEPA, and analyzed the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of those alternatives in proportion to their significance.
Because of the link between the transportation sector and GHG emissions, NHTSA recognizes the need to consider the possible impacts on climate and global climate change in the analysis of the effects of its fuel consumption standards. NHTSA also recognizes the difficulties and uncertainties involved in such an impact analysis. Accordingly, consistent with CEQ regulations on addressing incomplete or unavailable information in environmental impact analyses, NHTSA reviewed existing credible scientific evidence that was relevant to this analysis and summarized it in the DEIS. NHTSA also employed and summarized the results of research
Although the alternatives have the potential to decrease GHG emissions substantially, the DEIS found they do not prevent climate change, but only result in reductions in the anticipated increases in CO
NHTSA received many written and oral comments to the NPRM and the DEIS. The written comments submitted to NHTSA and the transcripts from the public hearings are part of the administrative record and are available on the Federal Docket, available online at
In developing the Phase 2 fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles adopted in this final rule, NHTSA has been informed by the analyses contained in the
NHTSA will submit the FEIS to EPA, in accordance with CEQ NEPA implementing regulations and EPA guidance.
For Federal actions requiring an EIS, the CEQ regulations instruct the action agency to prepare a concise public “record of decision” at the time of its decision. The ROD must state: (1) The agency's decision; (2) all alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its decision, specifying the alternative or alternatives that were considered to be environmentally preferable; (3) the agency's preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations and agency statutory missions; (4) the factors balanced by the agency in making its decision, including any essential considerations of national policy; (5) how these factors and considerations entered into the agency's decision; and (6) whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not.
In the DEIS and FEIS, NHTSA identified Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 3, as analyzed in the FEIS, is the regulation finalized by NHTSA in this rulemaking. The standards would result in significant improvements in fuel efficiency for heavy-duty engines and vehicles. These final standards are included at the end of this document, described extensively in this Preamble, and analyzed for economic and environmental impacts in the RIA and FEIS.
In sum, after carefully reviewing and analyzing all of the information in the public record, RIA, FEIS, and public and agency comments submitted on the DEIS and NPRM, NHTSA has decided to finalize the Preferred Alternative.
When preparing an EIS, NEPA requires an agency to compare the potential environmental impacts of its proposed action and a reasonable range of alternatives. In the DEIS and FEIS, NHTSA analyzed a No Action Alternative and four action alternatives, which represent a range of potential actions the agency could take. The environmental impacts of these alternatives, in turn, represent a range of potential environmental impacts that could result from NHTSA's chosen action in setting fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
The No Action Alternative in the DEIS and FEIS assumes that NHTSA would not issue a final rule regarding Phase 2 fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Instead, it assumes that NHTSA's Phase 1 standards would continue indefinitely. The No Action Alternative therefore reflects the average fuel efficiency levels and GHG emissions performance that manufacturers would achieve without additional regulation. This alternative provided an analytical baseline against which to compare the environmental impacts of the other alternatives presented in the EIS. NEPA expressly 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 action alternatives in order to demonstrate the environmental effects of the action alternatives.
In the DEIS, in addition to the No Action Alternative, NHTSA analyzed a reasonable range of action alternatives with fuel efficiency standards at various
Alternatives 2 and 5 were intended to provide the lower and upper bounds of a reasonable range of alternatives. In the EIS, the agency provided environmental analyses of these points, as well as intermediate points, to enable decision makers and the public to determine the environmental impacts of other points that fall between Alternatives 2 and 5. The action alternatives evaluated in the EIS therefore provided decision makers with the ability to select from a wide variety of other potential alternatives with stringencies that fall between Alternatives 2 and 5.
According to the FEIS, Alternative 5 is the overall Environmentally Preferable Alternative because it would result in the largest overall reductions in fuel use and emissions of criteria air pollutants, toxic air pollutants, and GHGs among the alternatives considered.
The environmental impacts associated with the alternatives under consideration are described in Chapters 3-7 of the FEIS. NHTSA considered these environmental impacts in making its decision, and incorporates that analysis by reference here.
NHTSA considered various relevant factors in setting Phase 2 fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, including economic, technical, and environmental considerations, as well as safety considerations, consistent with the agency's statutory mission. This Preamble, which constitutes the ROD for NHTSA's final rule, provides a complete discussion of the agency's preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors, the factors balanced by the agency in making its decision, and how the factors and considerations balanced by the agency entered into its decision.
The CEQ regulations specify that a ROD must “state whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were not.”
Although limited harmful impacts of the final standards are projected in some near-term analysis years in the FEIS, the overall environmental impacts of the final standards are anticipated to be overwhelmingly beneficial. NHTSA's authority to promulgate new fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty vehicles and engines does not allow the agency to regulate criteria or toxic air pollutants from vehicles or factors affecting those emissions, such as driving habits. Consequently, NHTSA must set fuel efficiency standards but is unable to take steps to mitigate the limited harmful impacts of those standards. However, EPA has taken additional action in this final rule to control PM emissions resulting from APU use that, for the reasons described
This section includes regulatory determinations related to environmental concerns that are not otherwise included in the FEIS. For example, NHTSA addresses the following in the FEIS: Conformity requirements under the Clean Air Act (Chapter 4.1.1.4), the National Historic Preservation Act (Chapter 7.2), and Environmental Justice (Chapter 7.5).
The Coastal Zone Management Act
NHTSA concludes that the CZMA is not applicable to the agency's decision because it does not involve any activity within, or outside of, the nation's coastal zones as intended by the statute. These standards would mitigate some of the anticipated impacts of global climate change, including potential impacts to coastal zones that would otherwise have occurred in the absence of agency action. However, the agency's action will not directly affect any land or water use or natural resource of a coastal zone.
The agency has conducted a qualitative review of the related direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the alternatives on potentially affected resources, including coastal zones, in the FEIS.
These Orders require Federal agencies to avoid the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11988 also directs agencies to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains through evaluating the potential effects of any actions the agency may take in a floodplain and ensuring that its program planning and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and floodplain management. DOT Order 5650.2 sets forth DOT policies and procedures for implementing Executive Order 11988. The DOT Order requires that the agency determine if a proposed action is within the limits of a base floodplain, meaning it is encroaching on the floodplain, and whether this encroachment is significant. If significant, the agency is required to conduct further analysis of the proposed action and any practicable alternatives. If a practicable alternative avoids floodplain encroachment, then the agency is required to implement it.
In this rulemaking, the agency is not occupying, modifying, or encroaching on floodplains. The agency, therefore, concludes that the Orders are not applicable to NHTSA's decision. The agency has, however, conducted a review of the alternatives on potentially affected resources, including floodplains, in the FEIS.
These Orders require Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the agency head finds that there is no practicable alternative to such construction and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harms to wetlands that may result from such use. Executive Order 11990 also directs agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands in “conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.” DOT Order 5660.1A sets forth DOT policy for interpreting Executive Order 11990 and requires that transportation projects “located in or having an impact on wetlands” should be conducted to assure protection of the Nation's wetlands. If a project does have a significant impact on wetlands, an EIS must be prepared.
The agency is not undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands. In addition, the agency's action will not affect land use in wetlands, nor is it a transportation project “located in or having an impact on wetlands.” Therefore, the agency concludes that these Orders do not apply to NHTSA's decision. The agency has, however, conducted a review of the alternatives on potentially affected resources, including wetlands.
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303), as amended, is designed to preserve publicly owned parklands, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and significant historic sites. Specifically, Section 4(f) provides that DOT agencies cannot approve a transportation program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a significant public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any land from a significant historic site, and results in a greater than
There is no feasible and prudent alternative that completely avoids the use of Section 4(f) property, and
The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property resulting from the transportation use.
This rulemaking is not a transportation program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land. As a result, NHTSA concludes that Section 4(f) is not applicable to NHTSA's decision.
The information collection activities in these final rules will be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2394.05 and OMB Control Number 2060-0678. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for these final rules, and it is briefly summarized here. The burden estimates in this section account for the collective information collection burden imposed
The agencies will collect information to ensure compliance with the provisions in these rules. This includes a variety of testing, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for vehicle and engine manufacturers. Section 208(a) of the CAA requires that manufacturers provide information the Administrator may reasonably require to determine compliance with the regulations; submission of the information is therefore mandatory. We will consider confidential all information meeting the requirements of section 208(c) of the CAA.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small businesses. EPA has determined that less than 20 percent, and fewer than 100 regulated entities in each sector may experience an impact of greater than one percent of their annual revenue. Details of this analysis are presented in Chapter 12 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis located in the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827), and are summarized below.
Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the agencies prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule. Pursuant to section 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from representatives of small entities that would potentially be regulated by the rule. A summary of the IRFA and the SBAR Panel's recommendations is presented in the proposed rule (at 80 FR 40542, July 13, 2015). The Final Panel Report is also available in the rulemaking docket.
The agencies identified four industries that would be potentially affected by this rulemaking: Alternative fuel engine converters, heavy-duty engine manufacturers, vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers, and trailer manufacturers. The agencies proposed and sought comment on the recommendations from the Panel. The flexibilities proposed for the engine manufacturers, engine converters, vocational vehicle manufacturers, and glider manufacturers are adopted in the final rule and fewer than 20 percent of the small entities in those sectors are estimated to incur a burden greater than one percent of their annual revenue. In addition to the flexibilities proposed for the trailer program, the agencies reduced the number of small entities regulated by the final rules by limiting the non-box trailer program to three distinct trailer types. As a result, 73 small business trailer manufacturers have zero burden from this rulemaking. Of the remaining small business trailer manufacturers, only 12 percent are estimated to have an economic impact greater than one percent of their annual revenue. As a result of these findings, EPA believes it can certify that these rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. See Chapter 12.7 and 12.8 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of these rules for a more detailed description of the flexibilities adopted for and economic effects on the small businesses in these sectors.
Heavy-duty vehicles are classified as those with gross vehicle weight ratings
Table XIV-2 provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation. EPA is not aware of any small businesses that manufacture complete heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans or Class 7 and 8 tractors.
EPA used the criteria for small entities developed by the Small Business Administration under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as a guide. Information about these entities comes from sources including EPA's certification data, trade association databases, and previous rulemakings that have affected these industries. EPA then found employment information for these companies using the business information database Hoover's Online (a subsidiary of Dan and Bradstreet). These entities fall under the categories listed in the table.
The agencies believe there are about 178 trailer manufacturers and 147 of these manufacturers qualify as small entities with 1,000 employees or less.
Glider kits and glider vehicles are a subset of tractor and vocational vehicles under the final Phase 2 rulemaking (including for regulation of criteria pollution emissions). Glider vehicle manufacturers traditionally purchase or manufacture new vehicle bodies (vocational vehicles or Class 7 and 8 tractors) for use with older powertrains and/or complete assembly of these vehicles by installing the powertrain. The agencies were aware of four glider vehicle manufacturers (for whom glider vehicle production was a primary business) at the time of the SBAR Panel and we identified three of these manufacturers as small entities. We are not aware of any small businesses that produce glider
For any emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the regulated products will meet the standards. The program that EPA is adopting for manufacturers subject to this rule will include testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Testing requirements for these manufacturers include use of EPA's Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) vehicle simulation tool to obtain the overall CO
The primary federal rule that is related to the Phase 2 rules under consideration is the 2011 Greenhouse
The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel) considered regulatory options and flexibilities to help mitigate potential adverse effects on small businesses as a result of these rules. During the SBREFA Panel process, the Panel sought out and received comments on the regulatory options and flexibilities that were presented to SERs and Panel members. The recommendations of the Panel are described below and are also located in the SBREFA Final Panel Report, which is available in the public docket.
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we also conducted outreach to small entities and convened an SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially will be subject to the rule's requirements. On October 22, 2014, EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened a Panel under section 609(b) of the RFA. In addition to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the Division Director of the Assessment and Standards Division of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget.
As part of the SBAR Panel process, we conducted outreach with representatives of small businesses that will potentially be affected by the final rulemaking. We met with these Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to decrease the impact of the rulemaking on their industries. We distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these materials included background on the rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, and possible rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met with SERs from the industries that will be directly affected by the Phase 2 rules on November 5, 2014 (trailer manufacturers) and November 6, 2014 (engine converters and vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers) to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet. The Panel also met with SERs on July 19, 2014 for an initial, introductory outreach meeting, and held a supplementary outreach meeting with the trailer manufacturer SERs on October 28, 2014. The Panel received written comments from the SERs following each meeting in response to discussions had at the meeting and the questions posed to the SERs by the agency. The SERs were specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the rule's impact on small businesses.
The Panel's findings and discussions were based on the information that was available during the Panel process and issues that were raised by the SERs during the outreach meetings and in their comments. It was agreed that EPA should consider the issues raised by the SERs and discussions had by the Panel itself, and that EPA should consider comments on flexibility alternatives that would help to mitigate negative impacts on small businesses to the extent legally allowable by the Clean Air Act.
Alternatives discussed throughout the Panel process included those offered in previous or current EPA rulemakings, as well as alternatives suggested by SERs and Panel members. A summary of these recommendations is detailed below, and a full discussion of the regulatory alternatives and hardship provisions discussed and recommended by the Panel can be found in the SBREFA Final Panel Report. A complete discussion of the provisions for which we are requesting comment and/or proposing in this action can be found in Sections IV.E and V.D of this Preamble with a summary in Chapter 12 of the RIA. Also, the Panel Report includes all comments received from SERs (Appendix B of the Report) and summaries of the two outreach meetings that were held with the SERs. In accordance with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the aforementioned materials and SER comments on issues related to the IRFA. The Panel's recommendations from the Final Panel Report are discussed below.
Comments from trailer manufacturer SERs indicated that these companies are familiar with most of the technologies presented during our outreach, but have no experience with EPA certification and do not anticipate they could manage the accounting and reporting requirements without additional staff and extensive training. Performance testing, which is a common requirement for many of EPA's regulatory programs, is largely unfamiliar to these small business manufacturers and the SERs believed the cost of testing would be a significant burden on their companies. In light of this feedback, the Panel recommended a combination of streamlined compliance and targeted exemptions for these small businesses based on the specific trailer types that they manufacture. The Panel believed these strategies would achieve many of the benefits for the environment by driving adoption of CO
Box trailer manufacturers have the benefit of relying on the aerodynamic technology development initiated through EPA's voluntary SmartWay program. The Panel was aware that EPA planned to propose a simplified compliance program for all manufacturers, in which aerodynamic device manufacturers have the opportunity to test and certify their devices with EPA as technologies that can be used by trailer manufacturers in their trailer certification. This pre-approved technology strategy was intended to provide all trailer manufacturers a means of complying with the standards without the burden of testing. In the event that this strategy is limited to the early years of the trailer program for all manufacturers, the Panel recommended that small manufacturers continue to be given the option to use pre-approved devices in lieu of testing.
In the event that small trailer manufacturers adopt pre-approved aerodynamic technologies and the appropriate tire technologies for compliance, the Panel recommended an alternative compliance pathway in which small business trailer manufacturers could simply report to EPA that all of their trailers include approved technologies in lieu of collecting all of the required inputs for the GEM vehicle simulation.
The Panel recommended no aerodynamic requirements for non-box trailers. The non-box trailer SERs indicated that they had no experience installing aerodynamic devices and had
Some non-box trailer manufacturers had experience with LRR tires and ATI systems. However, the non-box trailer manufacturer SERs indicated that LRR tires are not currently available for some of their trailer types. The SERs noted that tire manufacturers are currently focused on box trailer applications and there are only a few LRR tire models that meet the needs of their customers. The Panel recommended EPA ensure appropriate availability of these tires in order for it to be deemed a feasible means of achieving these standards and recommended a streamlined compliance process based on the availability of technologies. The Panel suggested the best compliance option from a small business perspective would be for EPA to pre-approve tires, similar to the approach being proposed for aerodynamic technologies, and to maintain a list that could be used to exempt small businesses when no suitable tires are available. However, the Panel recognized the difficulties of maintaining an up-to-date list of certified technologies. The Panel recommended that, if EPA did not adopt the list-based approach, the agency consider a simplified letter-based compliance option that allows manufacturers to petition EPA for an exemption if they are unable to identify tires that meet the LRR performance requirements on a trailer family basis.
The Panel recommended excluding all trailers that spend a significant amount of time in off-road applications. These trailers may not spend much time at highway speeds and aerodynamic devices may interfere with the vehicle's intended purpose. Additionally, tires with lower rolling resistance may not provide the type of traction needed in off-road applications.
Due to the potential for reducing a small business's competitiveness compared to the larger manufacturers, as well as the ABT recordkeeping burden, the Panel recommended that EPA consider small business flexibilities to allow small entities to opt out of ABT without placing themselves at a competitive disadvantage to larger firms that adopt ABT, such as a low volume exemption or requiring only LRR where appropriate. EPA was asked to consider flexibilities for small businesses that would ease and incentivize their participation in ABT, such as streamlined the tracking requirements for small businesses. In addition, the Panel recommended that EPA request comment on the feasibility and consequences of ABT for the trailer program and additional flexibilities that will promote small business participation.
For all trailer types that will be included in the rule, the Panel recommended a 1-year delay in implementation for small trailer manufacturers at the start of the program to allow them additional lead time to make the proper staffing adjustments and process changes and possibly add new infrastructure to meet these requirements. In the event that EPA is unable to provide pre-approved technologies for manufacturers to choose for compliance, the Panel recommended that EPA provide small business trailer manufacturers an additional 1-year delay for each subsequent increase in stringency. This additional lead time will allow these small businesses to research and market the technologies required by the new standards.
To reduce the compliance burden of small business engine converters who convert engines in previously-certified complete vehicles, the Panel recommended allowing engine compliance to be sufficient for certification—meaning that the converted vehicle would not need to be recertified
The Panel did not recommend separate standards for small business natural gas engine manufacturers. The Panel stated that it believes this would discourage entrance for small manufacturers into this emerging market by adding unnecessary costs to a technology that has the potential to reduce CO
Finally, the Panel recommended that small engine converters receive a one-year delay in implementation for each increase in stringency throughout the program. This flexibility will provide small converters additional lead time to obtain the necessary equipment and perform calibration testing if needed.
Fire trucks, and many other emergency vehicles, are built for high level of performance and reliability in severe-duty applications. Some of the CO
At the time of the Panel process, EPA's intent was to continue the exemptions in Phase 1 for off-road and low-speed vocational vehicles (see generally 76 FR 57175). These provisions currently apply for vehicles that are defined as “motor vehicles” per 40 CFR 85.1703, but may conduct most of their operations off-road. Vehicles qualifying under these provisions must comply with the applicable engine standard, but need not comply with a
The Panel concluded that chassis designed for specialty operations often have limited ability to adopt CO
The Panel was aware that EPA would like to reduce the production of glider vehicles that have higher emissions of criteria pollutants like NO
This action contains a federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, the agencies have prepared a statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included in the docket for this action and briefly summarized here.
The agencies have prepared a statement of the cost-benefit analysis as required by section 202 of the UMRA; this discussion can be found in this Preamble, and in the RIA. The agencies believe that this action represents the least costly, most cost-effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the rules. Section IX explains why the agencies believe that the fuel savings that will result from this action will lead to lower prices economy wide, improving U.S. international competitiveness. The costs and benefits associated with this action are discussed in more detail above in Section IX and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, as required by the UMRA.
This action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment from State and local officials on the proposed rules.
NHTSA notes that EPCA contains a provision (49 U.S.C. 32919(a)) that expressly preempts any State or local government from adopting or enforcing a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329. However, commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks are not “automobiles,” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). In Phase 1 NHTSA concluded that EPCA's express preemption provision will not reach the fuel efficiency standards to be established in this rulemaking. NHTSA is reiterating that conclusion here for the Phase 2 standards.
NHTSA also considered the issue of implied or conflict preemption. The possibility of such preemption is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between a standard established by NHTSA in this rulemaking and a State or local law or regulation. See
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. These rules will be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs only on vehicle and engine manufacturers. Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, EPA and NHTSA specifically solicited additional comment from tribal officials in developing this action.
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the agencies believe that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of these risks on children. The results of this evaluation are discussed below.
A synthesis of the science and research regarding how climate change may affect children and other vulnerable subpopulations is contained in the Technical Support Document for Endangerment or Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, which can be found in the public docket for this action. In making those findings, EPA Administrator placed weight on the fact that certain groups, including children, are particularly vulnerable to climate-related health effects. In those findings, EPA Administrator also determined that the health effects of climate change linked to observed and projected elevated concentrations of GHGs include the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in ozone concentrations over broad areas of the country, an increase of the severity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes and floods, and increasing severity of coastal storms due to rising sea levels. These effects can all increase
The agencies have estimated reductions in projected global mean surface temperature and sea level rise as a result of reductions in GHG emissions associated with the standards finalized in this action (Section VII and NHTSA's FEIS). Due to their vulnerability, children may receive disproportionate benefits from these reductions in temperature and the subsequent reduction of increased ozone and severity of weather events.
Children are also more susceptible than adults to many air pollutants because of differences in physiology, higher per body weight breathing rates and consumption, rapid development of the brain and bodily systems, and behaviors that increase chances for exposure. Even before birth, the developing fetus may be exposed to air pollutants through the mother that affect development and permanently harm the individual.
Infants and children breathe at much higher rates per body weight than adults, with infants under one year of age having a breathing rate up to five times that of adults.
Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to children as well. Early life stages (
The adverse effects of individual air pollutants may be more severe for children, particularly the youngest age groups, than adults. The Integrated Science Assessments and Criteria Documents for a number of pollutants affected by these rules, including those for NO
There is substantial evidence that people who live or attend school near major roadways are more likely to be of a minority race, Hispanic ethnicity, and/or low SES. Within these highly exposed groups, children's exposure and susceptibility to health effects is greater than adults due to school-related and seasonal activities, behavior, and physiological factors.
Section VIII.C and NHTSA's FEIS describe the expected emissions reductions for non-GHG co-pollutants resulting from these standards. These emissions reductions will lead to reductions in ambient concentrations of PM
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. In fact, these rules have a positive effect on energy supply and use. Because the combination of the fuel economy standards and the GHG emission standards will result in significant fuel savings, this action encourages more efficient use of fuels. Therefore, we have concluded that this action is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. Our energy effects analysis is described above in Section IX and NHTSA's FEIS.
This action involves technical standards.
The agencies are using the following voluntary consensus standards from SAE International:
• SAE J1025 (August 2012) is a voluntary consensus standard describing how to determine a tire's characteristic value for revolutions per mile. This replaces the proposed approach in which we instructed manufacturers to determine and use tire diameter as an input for modeling vehicle emissions.
• SAE J1252 (July 2012) is a voluntary consensus standards that describes aerodynamic measurement procedures for wind tunnels. Heavy-duty vehicle testing already relies on these reference standards under 40 CFR part 1066.
• SAE J1263 (March 2010) and SAE J2263 (December 2008) are voluntary consensus standards that together establish a test protocol to determine road-load coefficients for properly testing vehicles on a chassis dynamometer to simulate in-use operating conditions. Heavy-duty vehicle testing already relies on these reference standards under 40 CFR part 1066.
• SAE J1594 (July 2010) is a voluntary consensus standards that describes vehicle aerodynamics terminology. Heavy-duty vehicle testing already relies on these reference standards under 40 CFR part 1066.
• SAE J1930 (October 2008) is a voluntary consensus standards that describes terms and abbreviations for engine and vehicle technologies. We are adopting an updated standard to reflect the current version.
• SAE J2071 (Revised June 1994) is a voluntary consensus standards that describes specifications for wind tunnels.
• SAE J2343 (July 2008). This voluntary consensus standard establishes a minimum hold time for LNG-fueled vehicles following a refueling event before the tank vents to relieve pressure. This is described further in Section XIII.A.3.
• SAE J2452 (June 1999) is a voluntary consensus standards that describes a procedure for measuring tire rolling resistance as part of a coastdown procedure.
• SAE J2966 (September 2013) is a voluntary consensus standards that
The regulations for the Phase 1 standards included a reference to SAE J1526 as a test procedure for measuring in-use fuel consumption. An updated version of SAE J1526 was adopted in September 2015. As noted in the proposed rule, we are revising the regulations to reference the updated version of SAE J1526. All SAE documents are available from the publisher's Web site at
We are adopting a standard to facilitate measurement with fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzers—ASTM D6348 (February 2012). We are also adopting an updated version of ASTM D4809-13, which specifies test methods for determining the heat of combustion of liquid hydrocarbon fuels for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards.
We are referencing a new supplement to ANSI NGV1, which we already use for defining system requirements for compressed natural gas vehicles. The supplement from the same publisher is known as CSA IR-1-15, “Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) High Flow Fueling Connection Devices.” This documents is available from the ANSI Web site at
This action also involves technical standards for which there is no available voluntary consensus standard. First, the agencies are adopting greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles that depend on computer modeling to predict an emission rate based on various engine and vehicle characteristics. Such a model is not available from other sources, so EPA has developed the Greenhouse Gas Emission Model as a simulation tool for demonstrating compliance with emission standards. See Section II for a detailed description of the model. A working version of this software is available for download at
Second, 40 CFR part 1037 includes several test procedures involving calculation with numerous physical quantities. We are incorporating by reference NIST Special Publication 811 to allow for standardization and consistency of units and nomenclature. This standard, which already applies for 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066, is published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Department of Commerce) and is available at no charge at
Third, the amendments for marine diesel engines involve technical standards related to the requirements that apply internationally. There are no voluntary consensus documents that address these technical standards. In earlier rulemakings, EPA has adopted an incorporation by reference for MARPOL Annex VI and the NO
The agencies believe the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are discussed below.
With respect to GHG emissions, the agencies have determined that these final rules will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because they increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low-income or indigenous population. The reductions in CO
For non-GHG co-pollutants such as ozone, PM
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). Under relevant implementing regulations, section 7(a)(2) applies only to actions where there is discretionary federal involvement or control. 50 CFR 402.03. Further, consultation is required only for actions that “may affect” listed species or critical habitat. 50 CFR 402.14. Consultation is not required where the action has no effect on such species or habitat. Under this standard, it is the federal agency taking the action that evaluates the action and determines whether consultation is required.
As discussed in this Preamble and the FEIS, the agencies note that the projected environmental effects of this rule are highly positive. However, the fact that the rule will have overall positive effects on the environment does not mean that the rule “may affect” any listed species or designated critical
With respect to the projected GHG emission reductions, we are mindful of significant legal and technical analysis undertaken by FWS and the U.S. Department of the Interior in the context of listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the ESA. In that context, in 2008, FWS and DOI expressed the view that the best scientific data available were insufficient to draw a causal connection between GHG emissions and effects on the species in its habitat.
The agencies have also previously considered issues relating to GHG emissions in connection with the requirements of ESA section 7(a)(2). Although the GHG emission reductions projected for this rule are large, EPA evaluated comparable or larger reductions in assessing this same issue in the context of the light duty vehicle GHG emission standards for model years 2012-2016 and 2017-2025. There the agency projected emission reductions comparable to, or greater than those projected here over the lifetimes of the model years in question and, based on air quality modeling of potential environmental effects, concluded that “EPA knows of no modeling tool which can link these small, time-attenuated changes in global metrics to particular effects on listed species in particular areas. Extrapolating from global metric to local effect with such small numbers, and accounting for further links in a causative chain, remain beyond current modeling capabilities.” EPA,
This action is subject to the CRA, and the agencies will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
As described below, the regulations being adopted are authorized separately for EPA and NHTSA under the agencies' respective statutory authorities. See Section I for a discussion of these authorities.
Statutory authority for the vehicle controls is found in CAA section 202(a) (which authorizes standards for emissions of pollutants from new motor vehicles that emissions cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare), and CAA sections 202(d), 203-209, 216, and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7521(a), 7521(d), 7522-7543, 7550, and 7601).
EPA makes certain proposed rules available to the Science Advisory Board (SAB), including rules subject to 42 U.S.C. 4365 and rules which are not, but which EPA believes should be made available to the SAB. EPA provided information to the SAB about
Statutory authority for the fuel consumption standards is found in section 103 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 49 U.S.C. 32902(k). EISA authorizes a fuel efficiency improvement program, designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement to be created for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks, to implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective and technologically feasible. To the extent motor vehicle safety is implicated, NHTSA's authority to regulate it is also derived from the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Penalties, Pesticides and pests, Poison prevention, Water pollution control.
Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel economy, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Warranties.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.
Fuel economy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fuel economy, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the Preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.
7 U.S.C. 135
The additions read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 136(l); 15 U.S.C. 2615; 33 U.S.C. 1319, 1342, 1361, 1415 and 1418; 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(g), 6912, 6925, 6928, 6991e and 6992d; 42 U.S.C. 7413(d), 7524(c), 7545(d), 7547, 7601 and 7607(a), 9609, and 11045.
(a) * * *
(2) The assessment of any administrative civil penalty under sections 113(d), 205(c), 211(d) and 213(d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7413(d), 7524(c), 7545(d) and 7547(d)), and a determination of nonconforming engines, vehicles or equipment under sections 207(c) and
(a)
(b)
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
To qualify for an exemption from the tampering prohibition, vehicles/engines that have been converted to operate on a different fuel must meet emission standards and related requirements as described in this section. The modified vehicle/engine must meet the requirements that applied for the OEM vehicle/engine, or the most stringent OEM vehicle/engine standards in any allowable grouping. Fleet average standards do not apply unless clean alternative fuel conversions are specifically listed as subject to the standards.
(a) If the vehicle/engine was certified with a Family Emission Limit for NO
(b) Compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards is demonstrated as follows:
(1) Subject to the following exceptions and special provisions, compliance with light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards is demonstrated by complying with the N
(i) If the OEM complied with the light-duty greenhouse gas standards using the fleet averaging option for N
(ii) If the OEM complied with alternate standards for N
(iii) If the OEM complied with the nitrous oxide (N
(iv) Optionally, compliance with greenhouse gas emission requirements may be demonstrated by comparing emissions from the vehicle prior to the fuel conversion to the emissions after the fuel conversion. This comparison must be based on FTP test results from the emission data vehicle (EDV) representing the pre-conversion test group. The sum of CO
(2) Compliance with heavy-duty engine greenhouse gas emission standards is demonstrated by complying with the CO
(i) If the fuel conversion CO
(ii) Small volume conversion manufacturers may demonstrate compliance with N
(iii) For conversions of engines installed in vocational vehicles subject to Phase 2 standards under 40 CFR 1037.105 or in tractors subject to Phase 2 standards under 40 CFR 1037.106, conversion manufacturers may omit a demonstration related to the vehicle-based standards, as long as they have a reasonable technical basis for believing that the modified vehicle continues to meet those standards.
(3) Subject to the following exceptions and special provisions, compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles subject to 40 CFR 86.1819 is demonstrated by complying with the N
(i) If the OEM complied with alternate standards for N
(ii) If you are unable to meet either the N
(iii) You may alternatively comply with the greenhouse gas emission requirements by comparing emissions from the vehicle before and after the fuel conversion. This comparison must be based on FTP test results from the emission data vehicle (EDV) representing the pre-conversion test group. The sum of CO
(c) Conversion systems for engines that would have qualified for chassis certification at the time of OEM certification may use those procedures, even if the OEM did not. Conversion manufacturers choosing this option must designate test groups using the appropriate criteria as described in this subpart and meet all vehicle chassis certification requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(f) * * *
(2) If the equipment certifier disagrees with such determination of nonconformity and so advises the Agency, the Administrator shall afford the equipment certifier and other interested persons an opportunity to present their views and evidence in support thereof at a public hearing conducted in accordance with procedures found in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
(c) A certificate holder will be notified whenever the Administrator has determined that a substantial number of a class or category of the certificate holder's vehicles or engines, although properly maintained and used, do not conform to the regulations prescribed under section 202 when in actual use throughout their useful lives (as determined under section 202(d)). After such notification, the Recall Regulations at 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, shall govern the certificate holder's responsibilities and references to a manufacturer in the Recall Regulations shall apply to the certificate holder.
(e) * * *
(4) Hearings on suspensions and revocations of certificates of conformity or of eligibility to perform modification/testing under § 85.1509 shall be held in accordance with 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
(a) * * *
(1) Beginning January 1, 2014, the exemption provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, apply instead of the provisions of this subpart for heavy-duty motor vehicle engines regulated under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, except that the nonroad competition exemption of 40 CFR 1068.235 and the nonroad hardship exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.245, 1068.250, and 1068.255 do not apply for motor vehicle engines.
(b) Note that, in applying the criterion in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, vehicles that are clearly intended for operation on highways are motor vehicles. Absence of a particular safety feature is relevant only when absence of that feature would prevent operation on highways.
(b) Any manufacturer that desires a pre-certification exemption and is in the business of importing, modifying or testing uncertified vehicles for resale under the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1501 through 85.1515, must send the request to the Designated Compliance Officer as specified in 40 CFR 1068.30. The Designated Compliance Officer may require such manufacturers to submit information regarding the general nature of the fleet activities, the number of vehicles involved, and a demonstration that adequate record-keeping procedures for control purposes will be employed.
Requests for exemption or further information concerning exemptions and/or the exemption request review procedure should be addressed to the Designated Compliance Officer as specified at 40 CFR 1068.30.
(a) The requirements of this subpart shall be applicable to all 1972 and later model year motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, except that the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.501 apply
(b) The requirement to report emission-related defects affecting a given class or category of vehicles or engines shall remain applicable for five years from the end of the model year in which such vehicles or engines were manufactured.
For the purposes of this subpart and unless otherwise noted:
(a)
(b)
(1) A defect in design, materials, or workmanship in a device, system, or assembly described in the approved Application for Certification that affects any parameter or specification enumerated in appendix VIII of this part; or
(2) A defect in the design, materials, or workmanship in one or more emission-related parts, components, systems, software or elements of design which must function properly to ensure continued compliance with emission standards.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a) The reports required by §§ 85.1903 and 85.1904 shall be sent to the Designated Compliance Officer as specified at 40 CFR 1068.30.
(a) * * *
(6) An explanation that an owner may obtain further information concerning the emission performance warranty or that an owner may report violations of the terms of the Emission Performance Warranty by contacting the Designated Compliance Officer as specified at 40 CFR 1068.30 (Attention: Warranty Claim).
(b) All materials described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be sent to the Designated Compliance Officer as specified at 40 CFR 1068.30 (Attention: Warranty Booklet).
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
The addition and revision read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) CSA IR-1-15, Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) High Flow Fueling Connection Devices—Supplement to NGV 1-2006, ANSI approved August 26, 2015, IBR approved for § 86.1813-17(f),
(g) * * *
(4) SAE J1877, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle Identification Number Label, July 1994, IBR approved for § 86.1807-01(f).
(5) [Reserved]
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Section 86.004-25 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from § 86.094-25. Where a paragraph in § 86.094-25 is applicable to § 86.004-25, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094-25.”.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) Crankcase ventilation valves and filters.
(4) * * *
(i) For diesel-cycle heavy-duty engines, the adjustment, cleaning, repair, or replacement of the following items shall occur at 50,000 miles (or 1,500 hours) of use and at 50,000-mile (or 1,500-hour) intervals thereafter:
(A) Exhaust gas recirculation system related filters and coolers.
(B) Crankcase ventilation valves and filters.
(C) Fuel injector tips (cleaning only).
(D) DEF filters.
(iii) * * *
(D) Particulate trap or trap oxidizer systems including related components (adjustment and cleaning only for filter element, replacement of the filter element is not allowed during the useful life).
(F) Catalytic converter (adjustment and cleaning only for catalyst beds,
(6)(i) * * *
(E) Crankcase ventilation valves and filters.
(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(4) and (6) of this section, manufacturers may schedule replacement or repair of particulate trap (or trap oxidizer) systems or catalytic converters (including NO
(i) This paragraph (i) describes how to adjust emission results from model year 2020 and earlier heavy-duty engines equipped with exhaust aftertreatment to account for regeneration events. This provision only applies for engines equipped with emission controls that are regenerated on an infrequent basis. For the purpose of this paragraph (i), the term “regeneration” means an event during which emission levels change while the aftertreatment performance is being restored by design. Examples of regenerations are increasing exhaust gas temperature to remove sulfur from an adsorber or increasing exhaust gas temperature to oxidize PM in a trap. For the purpose of this paragraph (i), the term “infrequent” means having an expected frequency of less than once per transient test cycle. Calculation and use of adjustment factors are described in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section. If your engine family includes engines with one or more AECDs for emergency vehicle applications approved under paragraph (4) of the definition of defeat device in § 86.004-2, do not consider additional regenerations resulting from those AECDs when calculating emission factors or frequencies under this paragraph (i).
(j) For model year 2021 and later engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events that may occur during testing, take one of the following approaches to account for the emission impact of regeneration:
(1) You may use the calculation methodology described in 40 CFR 1065.680 to adjust measured emission results. Do this by developing an upward adjustment factor and a downward adjustment factor for each pollutant based on measured emission data and observed regeneration frequency as follows:
(i) Adjustment factors should generally apply to an entire engine family, but you may develop separate adjustment factors for different configurations within an engine family. Use the adjustment factors from this section for all testing for the engine family.
(ii) You may use carryover or carry-across data to establish adjustment factors for an engine family as described in § 86.001-24(f), consistent with good engineering judgment.
(iii) Identify the value of
(2) You may ask us to approve an alternate methodology to account for regeneration events. We will generally limit approval to cases where your engines use aftertreatment technology with extremely infrequent regeneration and you are unable to apply the provisions of this section.
(3) You may choose to make no adjustments to measured emission results if you determine that regeneration does not significantly affect emission levels for an engine family (or configuration) or if it is not practical to identify when regeneration occurs. If you choose not to make adjustments under paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this section, your engines must meet emission standards for all testing, without regard to regeneration.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
This section applies to new 2007 and later model year diesel heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Starting in model year 2021, this section also applies to all heavy HDE, regardless of fuel or combustion cycle (see 40 CFR 1036.140(a) and 1036.150(c)). Section 86.007-11 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from § 86.004-11. Where a paragraph in § 86.004-11 is identical and applicable to § 86.007-11, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.004-11.”
(a)(1) * * *
(ii)(A)
(B)
(C)
(iii)
(2) * * *
(ii) Shut down the engine after completing the test interval and allow 20±1 minutes to elapse. This is the hot soak.
(g) Model year 2018 and later engines at or above 56 kW that will be installed in specialty vehicles as allowed by 40 CFR 1037.605 may meet alternate emission standards as follows:
(1) The engines must be of a configuration that is identical to one that is certified under 40 CFR part 1039, and meet the following additional standards using the same duty cycles that apply under 40 CFR part 1039:
(i) The engines must be certified with a Family Emission Limit for PM of 0.020 g/kW-hr.
(ii) Diesel-fueled engines using selective catalytic reduction must meet an emission standard of 0.1 g/kW-hr for N
(2) Except as specified in this paragraph (g), engines certified under this paragraph (g) must meet all the requirements that apply under 40 CFR part 1039 instead of the comparable provisions in this subpart A. Before shipping engines under this section, you must have written assurance from the vehicle manufacturers that they need a certain number of exempted engines under this section. In your annual production report under 40 CFR 1039.250, count these engines separately and identify the vehicle manufacturers that will be installing them. Treat these engines as part of the corresponding engine family under 40
(3) The engines must be labeled as described in § 86.095-35, with the following statement instead of the one specified in § 86.095-35(a)(3)(iii)(H): “This engine conforms to alternate standards for specialty vehicles under 40 CFR 86.007-11(g)”. Engines certified under this paragraph (g) may not have the label specified for nonroad engines in 40 CFR part 1039 or any other label identifying them as nonroad engines.
(4) In a separate application for a certificate of conformity, identify the corresponding nonroad engine family, describe the label required under this paragraph (g), state that you meet applicable diagnostic requirements under 40 CFR part 1039, and identify your projected U.S.-directed production volume.
(5) No additional certification fee applies for engines certified under this paragraph (g).
(6) Engines certified under this paragraph (g) may not generate or use emission credits under this part or under 40 CFR part 1039. The vehicles in which these engines are installed may generate or use emission credits as described in 40 CFR part 1037.
(7) Engines may instead meet standards for heavy-duty highway engines in California, as demonstrated by an Executive Order issued by the California Air Resources Board.
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Engines installed in new glider vehicles are subject to the standards of this section as specified in 40 CFR part 1037.
The revisions read as follows:
This section applies to new 2008 and later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Starting in model year 2021, this section applies to light HDE and medium HDE, but it no longer applies to heavy HDE (see 40 CFR 1036.140(a) and 1036.150(c)).
(a)(1) * * *
(ii)(A)
(B)
(C)
(D) A manufacturer may elect to include any or all of its Otto-cycle HDE families in any or all of the hydrocarbon emission ABT programs for HDEs, within the restrictions described in § 86.007-15 or § 86.004-15. If the manufacturer elects to include engine families in any of these programs, the hydrocarbon FEL may not exceed 0.30 grams per brake horsepower-hour. This ceiling value applies whether credits for the family are derived from averaging, banking, or trading programs. The hydrocarbon FEL cap is 0.40 for model years before 2011 for manufacturers choosing to certify to the 1.5 g/bhp-hr NO
(iii) Carbon monoxide. 14.4 grams per brake horsepower-hour (5.36 grams per megajoule).
(f) [Reserved]
(g) Model year 2018 and later engines that will be installed in specialty vehicles as allowed by 40 CFR 1037.605 may meet alternate emission standards as follows:
(1) The engines must be of a configuration that is identical to one that is certified under 40 CFR part 1048 to the Blue Sky standards under 40 CFR 1048.140.
(2) Except as specified in this paragraph (g), engines certified under this paragraph (g) must meet all the requirements that apply under 40 CFR part 1048 instead of the comparable provisions in this subpart A. Before shipping engines under this section, you must have written assurance from the vehicle manufacturers that they need a certain number of exempted engines under this section. In your annual production report under 40 CFR 1048.250, count these engines separately and identify the vehicle manufacturers that will be installing them. Treat these engines as part of the corresponding engine family under 40 CFR part 1048 for compliance purposes such as testing production engines, in-use testing, defect reporting, and recall.
(3) The engines must be labeled as described in § 86.095-35, with the following statement instead of the one specified in § 86.095-35(a)(3)(iii)(H): “This engine conforms to alternate standards for specialty vehicles under 40 CFR 86.008-10(g)”. Engines certified under this paragraph (g) may not have the label specified for nonroad engines in 40 CFR part 1048 or any other label identifying them as nonroad engines.
(4) In a separate application for a certificate of conformity, identify the corresponding nonroad engine family, describe the label required under this paragraph (g), state that you meet applicable diagnostic requirements under 40 CFR part 1048, and identify your projected U.S.-directed production volume.
(5) No additional certification fee applies for engines certified under this paragraph (g).
(6) Engines certified under this paragraph (g) may not generate or use emission credits under this part. The vehicles in which these engines are installed may generate or use emission credits as described in 40 CFR part 1037.
(7) Engines may instead meet standards for heavy-duty highway engines in California, as demonstrated by an Executive Order issued by the California Air Resources Board.
(a) * * *
(1) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission standards apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR; however, these vehicles may instead be certified under subpart S of this part in certain circumstances as specified in § 86.1801.
(2) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission standards apply for engines that will be installed in incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR; however, these vehicles may instead be certified under subpart S of this part as specified in § 86.1801.
If a manufacturer's request for a hearing is approved, EPA will follow the hearing procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
(a) The model year of initial applicability is indicated by the last two digits of the 5-digit group. A section remains in effect for subsequent model years until it is superseded. The number following the hyphen designates what previous section is replaced by a future regulation. For example, § 86.005-1 applies to model year 2005 and later vehicles and engines until it is superseded. Section 86.016-1 takes effect with model year 2016 and continues to apply until it is superseded; § 86.005-1 no longer applies starting with model year 2016, except as specified by § 86.016-1.
(b) If a regulation in this subpart references a section that has been superseded or no longer exists, this should be understood as a reference to the same section for the appropriate model year. For example, if a regulation in this subpart refers to § 86.001-30, it should be taken as a reference to § 86.007-30 or any later version of that section that applies for the appropriate model year. However, this does not apply if the reference to a superseded section specifically states that the older provision applies instead of any updated provisions from the section in effect for the current model year; this occurs most often as part of the transition to new emission standards.
(c) Except where indicated, the language in this subpart applies to both vehicles and engines. In many instances, language referring to engines is enclosed in parentheses and immediately follows the language discussing vehicles.
(a)(1) The small-volume manufacturer certification procedures described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are optional. Small-volume manufacturers may use these optional procedures to demonstrate compliance with the general standards and specific emission requirements contained in this subpart.
(2) To satisfy the durability data requirements of the small-volume manufacturer certification procedures, manufacturers of vehicles (or engines) as described in paragraph (b) of this section may use assigned deterioration factors that the Administrator determines by methods described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section. However, if no deterioration factor data (either the manufacturer's or industry-wide deterioration factor data) are available from previously completed durability data vehicles or engines used for certification, manufacturers of vehicles (or engines) as described in paragraph (b) of this section or with new technology not previously certified may use assigned deterioration factors that the Administrator determines by alternative methods, based on good engineering judgment. The factors that the Administrator determines by alternative methods will be published in an advisory letter or advisory circular.
(b)(1) The optional small-volume manufacturer certification procedures apply to heavy-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty engines produced by manufacturers with U.S. sales, including all vehicles and engines imported under the provisions of §§ 85.1505 and 85.1509 of this chapter (for the model year in which certification is sought) of fewer than 10,000 units (Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Heavy-Duty Engines combined).
(2) For the purpose of determining the applicability of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the sales the Administrator shall use shall be the aggregate of the projected or actual sales of those vehicles and/or engines in any of these groupings:
(i) Vehicles and/or engines produced by two or more firms, one of which is 10 percent or greater part owned by another;
(ii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by any two or more firms if a third party has equity ownership of 10 percent or more in each of the firms;
(iii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by two or more firms having a common corporate officer(s) who is (are) responsible for the overall direction of the companies;
(iv) Vehicles and/or engines imported or distributed by all firms where the vehicles and/or engines are manufactured by the same entity and the importer or distributor is an authorized agent of the entity.
(3) If the aggregated sales, as determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are less than 301 units, the manufacturers in the aggregated relationship may certify under the provisions in this section that apply to manufacturers with sales of less than 301 units.
(4) If the aggregated sales, as determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are greater than 300 but fewer than 10,000 units, the manufacturers in the aggregated relationship may certify under the provisions in this section that apply to manufacturers with sales from and including 301 through 9,999 motor vehicles and motor vehicles engines per year.
(5) If the aggregated sales, as determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are equal to or greater than 10,000 units, then the manufacturers involved in the aggregated relationship will be allowed to certify a number of units under the small-volume engine family certification procedures (reference § 86.001-24(e)) in accordance with the following criteria:
(i) If a manufacturer purchases less than 50 percent of another manufacturer, each manufacturer retains its right to certify 9,999 units using the small-volume engine family certification procedures.
(ii) If a manufacturer purchases 50 percent or more of another manufacturer, the manufacturer with the over 50 percent interest must share, with the manufacturer it purchased, its 9,999 units under the small-volume engine family certification procedures.
(iii) In a joint venture arrangement (50/50 ownership) between two manufacturers, each manufacturer retains its eligibility for 9,999 units under the small-volume engine family certification procedures, but the joint venture must draw its maximum 9,999 units from the units allocated to its parent manufacturers.
(c) All the provisions of this subpart apply to small-volume manufacturers, except as described in this paragraph (c). The appropriate model year of specific sections shall be determined in accordance with § 86.084-4.
(1) Section 86.080-12 is not applicable.
(2) Small-volume manufacturers shall include in their records all the information that EPA requires in § 86.007-21. This information will be considered part of the manufacturer's application for certification. However, the manufacturer is not required to submit the information to the Administrator unless the Administrator requests it.
(3) Small-volume manufacturers may satisfy the requirements of § 86.001-24(b) and (c) as follows:
(i)
(A)
(B)
(ii)
(A) Manufacturers with aggregated sales of less than 301 motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines per year may use assigned deterioration factors that the Administrator determines and prescribes. The factors will be the Administrator's estimate, periodically updated and published in an advisory letter or advisory circular, of the 70th percentile deterioration factors calculated using the industry-wide data base of previously completed durability data vehicles or engines used for certification. However, the manufacturer may, at its option, accumulate miles (hours) on a durability data vehicle (engine) and complete emission tests for the purpose of establishing its own deterioration factors.
(B)(
(
(C) Manufacturers with aggregated sales from 301 through 9,999 motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines and certifying light-duty vehicle exhaust emissions from vehicles equipped with unproven emission control systems shall use deterioration factors that the manufacturer determines from official certification durability data generated by vehicles from engine families representing a minimum of 25 percent of the manufacturer's sales equipped with unproven emission control systems. The sales projections are to be based on total sales projected for each engine/system combination. The durability programs applicable to such manufacturers for this purpose shall be the Standard AMA, the Production AMA and the Alternative Service Accumulation Durability Programs of § 86.094-13. The durability data vehicle (engine) mileage accumulation and emission tests are to be conducted in accordance with § 86.094-13. The manufacturer must develop deterioration factors by generating durability data in accordance with § 86.094-13 on a minimum of 25 percent of the manufacturer's projected sales (by engine/system combination) that is equipped with unproven emission control systems. The manufacturer must complete the 25 percent durability requirement before the remainder of the manufacturer's sales equipped with unproven emission control systems is certified using manufacturer-determined assigned deterioration factors. Alternatively, any of these manufacturers may, at their option, accumulate miles on durability data vehicles and complete emission tests for the purpose of establishing their own deterioration factors on the remaining sales.
(4) Section 86.001-24(d) and (e) are not applicable.
(5) Small-volume manufacturers shall comply with the following provisions instead of § 86.007-30(a)(2) and (b):
(i) Small-volume manufacturers shall submit an application for certification containing the following elements:
(A) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the persons the manufacturer authorizes to communicate with us.
(B) A brief description of the vehicles (or engines) covered by the certificate (the manufacturers' sales data book or advertising, including specifications, may satisfy this requirement for most manufacturers). The description shall include, as a minimum, the following items:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(C) The results of all emission tests the manufacturer performs to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards.
(D)(
(
(
(
(
(
(E) Manufacturers utilizing deterioration factors determined by the manufacturer based on its good engineering judgment (reference paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section) shall provide a description of the method(s) used by the manufacturer to determine the deterioration factors.
(ii) If the manufacturer meets the requirements of this subpart, the Administrator will issue a certificate of conformity for the vehicles or engines described in the application for certification.
(iii) The certificate will be issued for such a period not to exceed one model year as the Administrator may determine and upon such terms as he may deem necessary to assure that any vehicle or engine covered by the certificate will meet the requirements of the Act and of this subpart.
(iv) If, after a review of the statements and descriptions submitted by the manufacturer, the Administrator determines that the manufacturer has not met the applicable requirements, the Administrator shall notify the manufacturer in writing of his intention to deny certification, setting forth the basis for his determination. The manufacturer may request a hearing on the Administrator's determination. If the manufacturer does not request a hearing or present the required information, the Administrator will deny certification.
(6) Sections 86.079-31 and 86.079-32 are not applicable.
(7) The following provisions apply for small-volume manufacturers instead of the provisions specified in § 86.079-33:
(i) Small-volume manufacturers may make production changes (running changes) without receiving the Administrator's prior approval. The manufacturer shall assure (by conducting emission tests as it deems necessary) that the affected vehicles (engines) remain in compliance with the requirements of this part.
(ii) The manufacturer shall notify the Administrator within seven days after implementing any production related change (running change) that would affect vehicle emissions. This notification shall include any changes to the information required under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. The manufacturer shall also amend as necessary its records required under paragraph (c)(2) of this section to confirm the production design change.
(8) Section 86.082-34 is not applicable.
(b) * * *
(2) Any emission-related maintenance which is performed on vehicles, engines, subsystems, or components must be technologically necessary to assure in-use compliance with the emission standards. The manufacturer must submit data which demonstrate to the Administrator that all of the emission-related scheduled maintenance which is to be performed is technologically necessary. Scheduled maintenance must be approved by the Administrator prior to being performed or being included in the maintenance instructions provided to purchasers under § 86.010-38.
(7) * * *
(iii) Any manufacturer may request a hearing on the Administrator's determinations in this paragraph (b)(7). The request shall be in writing and shall include a statement specifying the manufacturer's objections to the Administrator's determinations, and data in support of such objections. If, after review of the request and supporting data, the Administrator finds that the request raises a substantial factual issue, he shall provide the manufacturer a hearing as described in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a) The manufacturer of any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) subject to the applicable emission standards (and family emission limits, as appropriate) of this subpart, shall, at the time of manufacture, affix a permanent legible label, of the type and in the manner described below, containing the information hereinafter provided, to all production models of such vehicles (or engines) available for sale to the public and covered by a Certificate of Conformity under § 86.007-30(a).
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) The full corporate name and trademark of the manufacturer; though the label may identify another company and use its trademark instead of the manufacturer's as long as the manufacturer complies with the branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(H) The prominent statement: “This engine conforms to U.S. EPA regulations applicable to XXXX Model Year New Heavy-Duty Engines.”;
(I) If the manufacturer has an alternate useful life period under the provisions of § 86.094-21(f), the prominent statement: “This engine has been certified to meet U.S. EPA standards for a useful-life period of XXX miles or XXX hours of operation, whichever occurs first. This engine's actual life may vary depending on its service application.” The manufacturer may alter this statement only to express the assigned alternate useful life in terms other than miles or hours (
(J) For diesel engines, the prominent statement: “This engine has a primary intended service application as a XXX heavy-duty engine.” (The primary intended service applications are light, medium, and heavy, as defined in § 86.090-2.);
(K) For engines certified under the alternative standards specified in § 86.007-11(g) or § 86.008-10(g), the following statement: “This engine is certified for only in specialty vehicles as specified in [40 CFR 86.007-11 or 40 CFR 86.008-10]”;
(c) Vehicles powered by model year 2007 through 2013 diesel-fueled engines must include permanent, readily visible labels on the dashboard (or instrument panel) and near all fuel inlets that state “Use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only”; or “Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only”.
(i) The Administrator may approve in advance other label content and formats, provided the alternative label contains information consistent with this section.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(a) * * *
(e) Manufacturers with fewer than 500 employees worldwide and producing fewer than 3,000 motorcycles per year for the United States are considered small-volume manufacturers for the purposes of this section. The following provisions apply for these small-volume manufacturers:
(a)(1) Engine displacement shall be calculated using nominal engine values and rounded to the nearest whole cubic centimeter.
(d) An exhaust emission deterioration factor will be calculated by dividing the predicted emissions at the useful life distance by the predicted emissions at the total test distance. Predicted emissions are obtained from the correlation developed in paragraph (c) of this section. Factor = Predicted total distance emissions ÷ Predicted total test distance emissions.
These interpolated and extrapolated values shall be carried out to four places to the right of the decimal point before dividing one by the other to determine the deterioration factor. The results shall be rounded to three places to the right of the decimal point.
The manufacturer may request a hearing on the Administrator's determination as described in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
If a manufacturer's request for a hearing is approved, EPA will follow the hearing procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
This section describes how to calculate exhaust emissions. Determine emission results for each pollutant to at least one more decimal place than the applicable standard. Apply the deterioration factor, then round the adjusted figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each emission data vehicle. In the case of NO
(a) Calculate a composite FTP emission result using the following equation:
The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, apply if a manufacturer requests a hearing regarding suspension, revocation or voiding of certificates of conformity.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider confidential.
(a)
(b)
(1) There is a new or revised emission standard is more stringent than the previous standard for the pollutant, or an existing standard for that pollutant has become more difficult to achieve because of a new or revised standard. When evaluating this criterion, EPA will consider a new or revised standard to be “new” or “revised” until the point at which all manufacturers already producing U.S.-directed engines or vehicles within the subclass have achieved full compliance with the standard. For purposes of this criterion, EPA will generally not consider compliance using banked emission credits to be “full compliance”.
(2) Substantial work is required to meet the standard for which the NCP is offered, as evaluated from the point at which the standard was adopted or revised (or the point at which the standard became more difficult meet because another standard was adopted or revised). Substantial work, as used in this paragraph (b)(2), means the application of technology not previously used in an engine or vehicle class or subclass, or the significant modification of existing technology or design parameters, needed to bring the vehicle or engine into compliance with either the more stringent new or revised standard or an existing standard which becomes more difficult to achieve because of a new or revised standard. Note that where this criterion is evaluated after any of the work has been completed, the criterion would be interpreted as whether or not substantial work was required to meet the standard.
(3) There is or is likely to be a technological laggard for the subclass. Note that a technological laggard is a manufacturer that is unable to meet the standard for one or more products within the subclass for technological reasons.
(c)
(2) We may consider any available information in making our findings.
(3) Where we are uncertain whether the first and/or second criteria have been met, we may presume that they have been met and make our decision based solely on whether or not the third criterion has been met.
(4) Where we find that a manufacturer will fail to meet a standard but are uncertain whether the failure is a technological failure, we may presume that the manufacturer is a technological laggard.
EPA shall set a separate upper limit for each phase of NCPs and for each service class.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, the upper limit shall be set as follows:
(1) The upper limit applicable to a pollutant emission standard for a subclass of heavy-duty engines or heavy-duty vehicles for which an NCP is established in accordance with § 86.1103-87, shall be the previous pollutant emission standard for that subclass.
(2) If a manufacturer participates in any of the emissions averaging, trading, or banking programs, and carries over certification of an engine family from the prior model year, the upper limit for that engine family shall be the family emission limit of the prior model year, unless the family emission limit is less than the upper limit determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) If no previous standard existed for the pollutant under paragraph (a) of this section, the upper limit will be developed by EPA during rulemaking.
(c) EPA may set the upper limit during rulemaking at a level below the level specified in paragraph (a) of this section if we determine that a lower level is achievable by all engines or vehicles in that subclass.
(d) EPA may set the upper limit at a level above the level specified in paragraph (a) of this section if we determine that such level will not be achievable by all engines or vehicles in that subclass.
The revision reads as follows:
(e) The values of COC
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The compliance level for the pollutant is the result of the following equation, using the test results obtained in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and all SEA test results for that pollutant if the PCA follows an SEA failure:
(3) * * *
(iii) The compliance level for the pollutant is the result of the following equation, using the test results obtained in (a)(3)(ii) and all SEA test results for that pollutant if the PCA follows an SEA failure:
Round the compliance level to the same number of significant figures contained in the applicable standard.
(d) Final test results are calculated by summing the initial test results derived in paragraph (c) of this section for each test engine or vehicle, dividing by the number of tests conducted on the engine or vehicle, and rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable standard expressed to one additional significant figure.
(e) * * *
(2) Round the final deteriorated test results to the same number of significant figures contained in the applicable standard.
(a) * * *
(6) In calculating the NCP, appropriate values of the following predefined terms should be used: CL, S, UL, F, and A
(f) A manufacturer may request a hearing under 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, as to whether the compliance level (including a compliance level in excess of the upper limit) was determined properly.
(g) * * *
(3) A manufacturer making payment under paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section shall submit the following information by each quarterly due date to the Designated Compliance Officer (
The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, apply if a manufacturer requests a hearing regarding penalties under this subpart.
This subpart specifies gaseous emission test procedures for Otto-cycle and diesel heavy-duty engines, and particulate emission test procedures for diesel heavy-duty engines.
(a) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with the following ramped-modal duty cycle to determine whether it meets the applicable steady-state emission standards:
(g) You may exclude emission data based on catalytic aftertreatment temperatures as follows:
(1) For an engine equipped with a catalytic NO
(2) For an engine equipped with an oxidizing catalytic aftertreatment system, exclude NMHC and CO emission data that is collected if the exhaust temperature is less than 250 °C at any time during the NTE event.
(3) Using good engineering judgment, measure exhaust temperature within 30 cm downstream of the last applicable catalytic aftertreatment device. Where there are parallel paths, use good engineering judgment to measure the temperature within 30 cm downstream of the last applicable catalytic aftertreatment device in the path with the greatest exhaust flow.
(h) Any emission measurements corresponding to engine operating conditions that do not qualify as a valid NTE sampling event may be excluded from the determination of the vehicle-pass ratio specified in § 86.1912 for the specific pollutant.
(i) Start emission sampling at the beginning of each valid NTE sampling event, except as needed to allow for zeroing or conditioning the PEMS. For gaseous emissions, PEMS preparation must be complete for all analyzers before starting emission sampling.
(j) Emergency vehicle AECDs. If your engine family includes engines with one or more approved AECDs for emergency vehicle applications under paragraph (4) of the definition of “defeat device” in § 86.1803, the NTE emission limits do not apply when any of these AECDs are active.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Heavy duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR may be optionally certified to the exhaust emission standards in this subpart, including the greenhouse gas emission standards, if they are properly included in test group with similar vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Emission standards apply to these vehicles as if they were Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles. The work factor for these vehicles may not be greater than the largest work factor that applies for vehicles in the test group that are at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR (see § 86.1819-14).
(ii) Incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may be optionally certified to the exhaust emission standards in this subpart that apply for heavy-duty vehicles.
(a)
(b) A section reference without a model year suffix refers to the section applicable for the appropriate model year.
(c) If a regulation in this subpart references a section that has been superseded or no longer exists, this should be understood as a reference to the same section for the appropriate model year. For example, if a regulation in this subpart refers to § 86.1845-01, it should be taken as a reference to § 86.1845-04 or any later version of § 86.1845 that applies for the appropriate model year. However, this does not apply if the reference to a superseded section specifically states that the older provision applies instead of any updated provisions from the section in effect for the current model year; this occurs most often as part of the transition to new emission standards.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
*
(1) For LDV, LDT, and MDPV,
(2) For HDV,
(1) For the greenhouse gas emission standards in § 86.1818,
(1) For LDV, LDT, and MDPV,
(2) For HDV,
(1) For LDV, LDT, and MDPV,
(2) For HDV,
(b)
(b) * * *
(8) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) Vehicles must comply with the Tier 2 SFTP emission standards for NMHC + NO
(g)
(1)
(i) For LDV and LDT1, the standard is 10.0 g/mile CO.
(ii) For LDT2, LDT3 and LDT4, the standard is 12.5 grams per mile CO.
(2)
(i) The standards are shown in the following table:
(ii) The manufacturer must calculate its fleet average cold temperature NMHC emission level(s) as described in § 86.1864-10(m).
(iii) The standards specified in this paragraph (g)(2) apply only for testing at low-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches are utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation from low altitude emission control practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD specific to high altitude must require engineering emission data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and validity of the AECD.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Measure diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emissions as shown in § 86.130. This includes separate measurements for the two-diurnal test sequence and the three-diurnal test sequence; however, gaseous-fueled vehicles are not subject to any evaporative emission standards using the two-diurnal test sequence.
(2) * * *
(iii) Hydrocarbon emissions must not exceed 0.020 g for LDV and LDT and 0.030 g for HDV when tested using the Bleed Emission Test Procedure adopted by the California Air Resources Board as part of the LEV III program. This procedure quantifies diurnal emissions using the two-diurnal test sequence without measuring hot soak emissions. The standards in this paragraph (a)(2)(iii) do not apply for testing at high-altitude conditions. For vehicles with non-integrated refueling canisters, the bleed emission test and standard do not apply to the refueling canister. You may perform the Bleed Emission Test Procedure using the analogous test temperatures and the E10 test fuel specified in subpart B of this part.
(f) * * *
(1) Compressed natural gas vehicles must meet the requirements for fueling connection devices as specified in ANSI NGV1-2006 or CSA IR-1-15 (incorporated by reference in § 86.1).
(a)
(b) * * *
(7) * * *
(i) The fleet-average FTP emission standard for NMOG + NO
(9) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(8) of this section, you may not use credits generated from vehicles certified under § 86.1816-08 for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards.
(c)
(a) * * *
(2) The standards specified in this section apply for testing at both low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches are utilized at high altitude instead of performing testing for certification, consistent with § 86.1829. Any deviation from low altitude emission control practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD specific to high altitude requires engineering emission data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and determine the validity of the AECD.
(c) * * *
(4)
(f) * * *
(4)
This section describes exhaust emission standards for CO
(a)
(1) Calculate a work factor,
(2) Using the appropriate work factor, calculate a target value for each vehicle subconfiguration (or group of subconfigurations as allowed under paragraph (a)(4) of this section) you produce using one of the following equations, or the phase-in provisions in paragraph (k)(4) of this section, rounding to the nearest whole g/mile:
(i) For model year 2027 and later vehicles with spark-ignition engines:
(ii) For model year 2027 and later vehicles with compression-ignition engines or with no engines (such as electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles):
(3) Calculate a production-weighted average of the target values and round it to the nearest whole g/mile. This is your fleet-average standard. All vehicles subject to the standards of this section form a single averaging set. Use the following equation to calculate your fleet-average standard from the target value for each vehicle subconfiguration (
(4) You may group subconfigurations within a configuration together for purposes of calculating your fleet-average standard as follows:
(i) You may group together subconfigurations that have the same
(ii) You may group together other subconfigurations if you use the lowest target value calculated for any of the subconfigurations.
(5) The standards specified in this section apply for testing at both low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches are utilized at high altitude instead of performing testing for certification, consistent with § 86.1829. Any deviation from low altitude emission control practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD specific to high altitude requires engineering emission data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and determine the validity of the AECD.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) The CO
(2) The following general credit provisions apply:
(i) Credits you generate under this section may be used only to offset credit deficits under this section. You may bank credits for use in a future model year in which your average CO
(ii) Vehicles subject to the standards of this section are included in a single greenhouse gas averaging set separate from any averaging set otherwise included in this subpart S.
(iii) Banked CO
(3) Special credit and incentive provisions related to air conditioning in §§ 86.1867 and 86.1868 do not apply for vehicles subject to the standards of this section.
(4) Measure emissions using the procedures of subpart B of this part and 40 CFR part 1066. Determine separate emission results for the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) described in 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(1) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) described in 40 CFR 1066.801(c)(3). Calculate composite emission results from these two test cycles for demonstrating compliance with the CO
(5) Apply an additive deterioration factor of zero to measured CO
(6) Credits are calculated using the useful life value (in miles) in place of “vehicle lifetime miles” as specified in § 86.1865. Calculate a total credit or debit balance in a model year by adding credits and debits from § 86.1865-12(k)(4), subtracting any CO
(i) Off-cycle technology credits according to paragraph (d)(13) of this section.
(ii) Early credits from vehicles certified under paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(iii) Advanced-technology credits according to paragraph (k)(7) of this section.
(7) [Reserved]
(8) The provisions of § 86.1818 do not apply.
(9) Calculate your fleet-average emission rate consistent with good engineering judgment and the provisions of § 86.1865. The following additional provisions apply:
(i) Unless we approve a lower number, you must test at least ten subconfigurations. If you produce more than 100 subconfigurations in a given model year, you must test at least ten percent of your subconfigurations. For purposes of this paragraph (d)(9)(i), count carryover tests, but do not include analytically derived CO
(ii) The provisions of paragraph (g) of this section specify how you may use analytically derived CO
(iii) At least 90 percent of final production volume at the configuration level must be represented by test data (real, data substituted, or analytical).
(iv) Perform fleet-average CO
(A) Use CO
(B) Perform intermediate CO
(C) Perform intermediate CO
(D) Do not perform intermediate CO
(E) Determine fleet average CO
(10) For dual-fuel, multi-fuel, and flexible-fuel vehicles, perform exhaust testing on each fuel type (for example, gasoline and E85).
(i) For your fleet-average calculations in model year 2016 and later, use either the conventional-fueled CO
(ii) If you certify to an alternate standard for N
(11) Test your vehicles with an equivalent test weight based on its Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight (ALVW). Determine equivalent test weight from the ALVW as specified in 40 CFR 1066.805; round ALVW values above 14,000 pounds to the nearest 500 pound increment.
(12) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section:
(i)
(ii)
(13) This paragraph (d)(13) applies for CO
(14) You must submit pre-model year reports before you submit your applications for certification for a given model year. Unless we specify otherwise, include the information specified for pre-model year reports in 49 CFR 535.8.
(15) You must submit a final report within 90 days after the end of the model year. Unless we specify otherwise, include applicable information identified in § 86.1865-12(l), 40 CFR 600.512, and 49 CFR 535.8(e). The final report must include at least the following information:
(i) Model year.
(ii) Applicable fleet-average CO
(iii) Calculated fleet-average CO
(iv) Number of credits or debits incurred and all values required to calculate those values.
(v) Resulting balance of credits or debits.
(vi) N
(vii) CH
(viii) Total and percent leakage rates under paragraph (h) of this section.
(16) You may apply the provisions for delegated assembly as described in 40 CFR 1037.621.
(17) You may calculate emission rates for weight increments less than the 500 pound increment specified for test weight. This does not change the applicable test weights.
(i) Use the ADC equation in paragraph (g) of this section to adjust your emission rates for vehicles in increments of 50, 100, or 250 pounds instead of the 500 test-weight increments. Adjust emissions to the midpoint of each increment. This is the equivalent emission weight. For example, vehicles with a test weight basis of 11,751 to 12,250 pounds (which have an equivalent test weight of 12,000 pounds) could be regrouped into 100 pound increments as follows:
(ii) You must use the same increment for all equivalent test weight classes across your whole product line in a given model year. You must also specify curb weight for calculating the work factor in a way that is consistent with your approach for determining test weight for calculating ADCs under this paragraph (d)(17).
(e)
(f) [Reserved]
(g)
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, use the following equation to calculate the ADC of a new vehicle from road load force coefficients (
(2) The purpose of this section is to accurately estimate CO
(i) You must apply the provisions of this section consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, do not use the equation in paragraph (g)(1) of this section where good engineering judgment indicates that it will not accurately estimate emissions. You may ask us to approve alternate equations that allow you to estimate emissions more accurately.
(ii) The analytically derived CO
(3) You may select baseline test data without our advance approval if they meet all the following criteria:
(i) Vehicles considered for the baseline test must comply with all applicable emission standards in the model year associated with the ADC.
(ii) You must include in the pool of tests considered for baseline selection all official tests of the same or equivalent basic engine, transmission class, engine code, transmission code, engine horsepower, dynamometer drive wheels, and compression ratio as the ADC subconfiguration. Do not include tests in which emissions exceed any applicable standard.
(iii) Where necessary to minimize the CO
(iv) Tests previously used during the subject model year as baseline tests in ten other ADC subconfigurations must be eliminated from the pool.
(v) Select the tested subconfiguration with the smallest absolute difference between the ADC and the test CO
(4) You may ask us to allow you to use baseline test data not fully meeting the provisions of paragraph (g)(3) of this section.
(5) Calculate the ADC rounded to the nearest whole g/mile. Except with our advance approval, the downward adjustment of ADC from the baseline is limited to ADC values 20 percent below the baseline emission rate. The upward adjustment is not limited.
(6) You may not submit an ADC if an actual test has been run on the target subconfiguration during the certification process or on a development vehicle that is eligible to be declared as an emission-data vehicle.
(7) No more than 40 percent of the subconfigurations tested in your final CO
(8) Keep the following records for at least five years, and show them to us if we ask to see them:
(i) The pool of tests.
(ii) The vehicle description and tests chosen as the baseline and the basis for the selection.
(iii) The target ADC subconfiguration.
(iv) The calculated emission rates.
(9) We may perform or order a confirmatory test of any subconfiguration covered by an ADC.
(10) Where we determine that you did not fully comply with the provisions of this paragraph (g), we may require that you comply based on actual test data and that you recalculate your fleet-average emission rate.
(h)
(i) [Reserved]
(j)
(1) For GHG compliance, you may certify any complete or cab-complete spark-ignition vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 26,000 pounds GVWR to the GHG standards of this section even though this section otherwise specifies that you may certify vehicles to the GHG standards of this section only if they are chassis-certified for criteria pollutants.
(2) You may apply the provisions of this section to cab-complete vehicles based on a complete sister vehicle. In unusual circumstances, you may ask us to apply these provisions to Class 2b or Class 3 incomplete vehicles that do not meet the definition of cab-complete.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section, for purposes of this section, a complete sister vehicle is a complete vehicle of the same vehicle configuration as the cab-complete vehicle. You may not apply the provisions of this paragraph (j) to any vehicle configuration that has a four-wheel rear axle if the complete sister vehicle has a two-wheel rear axle.
(ii) Calculate the target value for fleet-average CO
(iii) Test these cab-complete vehicles using the same equivalent test weight
(iv) You are not required to produce the complete sister vehicle for sale to use the provisions of this paragraph (j)(2). This means the complete sister vehicle may be a carryover vehicle from a prior model year or a vehicle created solely for the purpose of testing.
(3) For GHG purposes, if a cab-complete vehicle is not of the same vehicle configuration as a complete sister vehicle due only to certain factors unrelated to coastdown performance, you may use the road-load coefficients from the complete sister vehicle for certification testing of the cab-complete vehicle, but you may not use emission data from the complete sister vehicle for certifying the cab-complete vehicle.
(k)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i) Engines certified under this paragraph (k)(8) are deemed to be certified to the standards of 40 CFR 1036.108 as specified in 40 CFR 1036.150(j).
(ii) For 2020 and earlier model years, the maximum allowable U.S.-directed production volume of engines you sell under this paragraph (k)(8) in any given model year is ten percent of the total U.S-directed production volume of engines of that design that you produce for heavy-duty applications for that model year, including engines you produce for complete vehicles, cab-complete vehicles, and other incomplete vehicles. The total number of engines you may certify under this paragraph (k)(8), of all engine designs, may not exceed 15,000 in any model year. Engines produced in excess of either of these limits are not covered by your certificate. For example, if you produce 80,000 complete model year 2017 Class 2b pickup trucks with a certain engine and 10,000 incomplete model year 2017 Class 3 vehicles with that same engine, and you do not apply the provisions of this paragraph (k)(8) to any other engine designs, you may produce up to 10,000 engines of that design for sale as loose engines under this paragraph (k)(8). If you produced 11,000 engines of that design for sale as loose engines, the last 1,000 of them that you produced in that model year 2017 would be considered uncertified.
(iii) For model years 2021 through 2023, the U.S.-directed production volume of engines you sell under this paragraph (k)(8) in any given model year may not exceed 10,000 units.
(iv) This paragraph (k)(8) does not apply for engines certified to the standards of 40 CFR 1036.108.
(v) Label the engines as specified in 40 CFR 1036.135 including the following compliance statement: “THIS ENGINE WAS CERTIFIED TO THE ALTERNATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION STANDARDS OF 40 CFR 1036.150(j).” List the test group name instead of an engine family name.
(vi) Vehicles using engines certified under this paragraph (k)(8) are subject to the emission standards of 40 CFR 1037.105.
(vii) For certification purposes, your engines are deemed to have a CO
(A) If one or more of the CO
(B) If none of the CO
(viii) Production and in-use CO
(ix) N
(x) State in your applications for certification that your test group and engine family will include engines certified under this paragraph (k)(8). This applies for your greenhouse gas vehicle test group and your criteria pollutant engine family. List in each application the name of the corresponding test group/engine family.
(9)
(10)
(b) * * *
(7) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Vehicles are grouped based upon the value of the grouping statistic determined using the following equation:
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
R = Catalyst thermal reactivity coefficient. You may use a default value of 17,500 for the SBC.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) No small-volume sales threshold applies for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas standards; alternative small-volume criteria apply as described in § 86.1819-14(k)(5).
(C) 15,000 units for all other requirements. See § 86.1845 for separate provisions that apply for in-use testing.
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, an applicant may satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (d)(3) if the requirements of this paragraph (d)(3) are completed by an auditor who is an employee of the applicant, provided that such employee:
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) The equivalency factor required to be calculated in § 86.1823-08(e)(1)(iii)(B), when applicable.
(7) * * *
(iv) For heavy-duty vehicles subject to air conditioning standards under § 86.1819, include the refrigerant leakage rates (leak scores), describe the type of refrigerant, and identify the refrigerant capacity of the air conditioning systems. If another company will install the air conditioning system, also identify the corporate name of the final installer.
(f)(1) A manufacturer must conduct in-use testing on a test group by determining NMOG exhaust emissions using the same methodology used for certification, as described in § 86.1810-01(o) or 40 CFR 1066.635.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Additional testing is not required under this paragraph (b)(1) based on evaporative/refueling testing or based on low-mileage Supplemental FTP testing conducted under § 86.1845-04(b)(5)(i). Testing conducted at high altitude under the requirements of § 86.1845-04(c) will be included in determining if a test group meets the criteria triggering the testing required under this section.
(c) * * *
(9) For 2012 and later model year LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, all certificates of conformity issued are conditional upon compliance with all provisions of §§ 86.1818 and 86.1865 both during and after model year production. Similarly, for 2014 and later model year HDV, and other HDV subject to standards under § 86.1819, all certificates of conformity issued are conditional upon compliance with all provisions of §§ 86.1819 and 86.1865 both during and after model year production. The manufacturer bears the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the terms and conditions upon which the certificate(s) was (were) issued were satisfied. For recall and warranty purposes, vehicles not covered by a certificate of conformity will continue to be held to the standards stated or referenced in the certificate that
(i) Failure to meet the fleet average CO
(ii) Failure to comply fully with the prohibition against selling credits that are not generated or that are not available, as specified in § 86.1865-12, will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate(s) was (were) issued and the vehicles sold in violation of this prohibition will not be covered by the certificate(s).
(iii) For manufacturers using the conditional exemption under § 86.1801-12(k), failure to fully comply with the fleet production thresholds that determine eligibility for the exemption will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate(s) was (were) issued and the vehicles sold in violation of the stated sales and/or production thresholds will not be covered by the certificate(s).
(iv) For manufacturers that are determined to be operationally independent under § 86.1838-01(d), failure to report a material change in their status within 60 days as required by § 86.1838-01(d)(2) will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate(s) was (were) issued and the vehicles sold in violation of the operationally independent criteria will not be covered by the certificate(s).
(v) For manufacturers subject to an alternative fleet average greenhouse gas emission standard approved under § 86.1818-12(g), failure to comply with the annual sales thresholds that are required to maintain use of those standards, including the thresholds required for new entrants into the U.S. market, will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate(s) was (were) issued and the vehicles sold in violation of stated sales and/or production thresholds will not be covered by the certificate(s).
If a manufacturer's request for a hearing is approved, EPA will follow the hearing procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
(d)
(a)
(i) 2012 and later model year passenger automobiles and light trucks.
(ii) Heavy-duty vehicles subject to standards under § 86.1819.
(iii) Vehicles imported by ICIs as defined in 40 CFR 85.1502.
(2) The terms “passenger automobile” and “light truck” as used in this section have the meanings given in § 86.1818-12.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(2) Testing to determine compliance with CO
(3) Testing for the purpose of providing certification data is required only at low-altitude conditions. If hardware and software emission control strategies used during low-altitude condition testing are not used similarly across all altitudes for in-use operation, the manufacturer must include a statement in the application for certification, in accordance with § 86.1844-01(d)(11), stating what the different strategies are and why they are used.
(i)
(2) Manufacturers must separately calculate production-weighted fleet average carbon-related exhaust emissions levels for the following averaging sets according to the provisions of 40 CFR part 600, subpart F:
(i) Passenger automobiles subject to the fleet average CO
(ii) Light trucks subject to the fleet average CO
(iii) Passenger automobiles subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards specified in § 86.1818-12(e), if applicable; and
(iv) Light trucks subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards specified in § 86.1818-12(e), if applicable.
(j)
(1) Compliance and enforcement requirements are provided in this section and § 86.1848-10(c)(9).
(2) The certificate issued for each test group requires all model types within that test group to meet the in-use emission standards to which each model type is certified. The in-use standards for passenger automobiles and light duty trucks (including MDPV) are described in § 86.1818-12(d). The in-use standards for non-MDPV heavy-duty vehicles are described in § 86.1819-14(b).
(3) Each manufacturer must comply with the applicable CO
(4) Each manufacturer must comply on an annual basis with the fleet average standards as follows:
(i) Manufacturers must report in their annual reports to the Agency that they met the relevant corporate average standard by showing that the applicable production-weighted average CO
(ii) If the production-weighted average is above the applicable fleet average standard, manufacturers must obtain and apply sufficient CO
(iii) If a manufacturer fails to meet the corporate average CO
(iv) EPA will review each manufacturer's production to designate the vehicles that caused the exceedance of the corporate average standard. EPA will designate as nonconforming those vehicles in test groups with the highest certification emission values first, continuing until reaching a number of vehicles equal to the calculated number of noncomplying vehicles as determined in paragraph (k)(8) of this section. In a group where only a portion of vehicles would be deemed nonconforming, EPA will determine the actual nonconforming vehicles by counting backwards from the last vehicle produced in that test group. Manufacturers will be liable for penalties for each vehicle sold that is not covered by a certificate.
(k)
(2) There are no property rights associated with CO
(3) Each manufacturer must comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of paragraph (l) of this section for CO
(4) Credits are earned on the last day of the model year. Manufacturers must calculate, for a given model year and separately for passenger automobiles, light trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles, the number of credits or debits it has generated according to the following equation rounded to the nearest megagram:
(5) Determine total HDV debits and credits for a model year as described in § 86.1819-14(d)(6). Determine total passenger car and light truck debits and credits for a model year as described in this paragraph (k)(5). Total credits or debits generated in a model year, maintained and reported separately for passenger automobiles and light trucks, shall be the sum of the credits or debits calculated in paragraph (k)(4) of this section and any of the following credits, if applicable, minus any CO
(i) Air conditioning leakage credits earned according to the provisions of § 86.1867-12(b).
(ii) Air conditioning efficiency credits earned according to the provisions of § 86.1868-12(c).
(iii) Off-cycle technology credits earned according to the provisions of § 86.1869-12(d).
(iv) Full size pickup truck credits earned according to the provisions of § 86.1870-12(c).
(v) CO
(6) Unused CO
(i) Unused CO
(ii) Unused CO
(7) Credits may be used as follows:
(i) Credits generated and calculated according to the method in paragraphs (k)(4) and (5) of this section may not be used to offset deficits other than those deficits accrued within the respective averaging set, except that credits may be transferred between the passenger automobile and light truck fleets of a given manufacturer. Credits may be banked and used in a future model year in which a manufacturer's average CO
(ii) The use of credits shall not change Selective Enforcement Auditing or in-use testing failures from a failure to a non-failure. The enforcement of the averaging standard occurs through the vehicle's certificate of conformity as described in paragraph (k)(8) of this section. A manufacturer's certificate of conformity is conditioned upon compliance with the averaging provisions. The certificate will be void ab initio if a manufacturer fails to meet the corporate average standard and does not obtain appropriate credits to cover its shortfalls in that model year or subsequent model years (see deficit carry-forward provisions in paragraph (k)(8) of this section).
(iii) The following provisions apply for passenger automobiles and light trucks under the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards:
(A) Credits generated by vehicles subject to the fleet average CO
(B) Credits generated by a passenger automobile or light truck averaging set subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards specified in § 86.1818-12(e)(4)(i) or (ii) may be used to offset a deficit generated by an averaging set subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards through the 2015 model year, except that manufacturers qualifying under the provisions of § 86.1818-12(e)(3) may use such credits to offset a deficit generated by an averaging set subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards through the 2016 model year.
(C) Credits generated by an averaging set subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards specified in § 86.1818-12(e)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section may not be used to offset a deficit generated by an averaging set subject to the fleet average CO
(D) Credits generated by vehicles subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards specified in § 86.1818-12(e)(4)(i) or (ii) may be banked for use in a future model year (to offset a deficit generated by an averaging set subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards). All such credits may not be used to demonstrate compliance for model year 2016 and later vehicles, except that manufacturers qualifying under the provisions of § 86.1818-12(e)(3) may use such credits to offset a deficit generated by an averaging set subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards through the 2016 model year.
(E) A manufacturer with any vehicles subject to the Temporary Leadtime Allowance Alternative Standards specified in § 86.1818-12(e)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section in a model year in which that manufacturer also generates credits with vehicles subject to the fleet average CO
(iv) Credits generated in the 2017 through 2020 model years under the provisions of § 86.1818-12(e)(3)(ii) may not be traded or otherwise provided to another manufacturer.
(v) Credits generated under any alternative fleet average standards approved under § 86.1818-12(g) may not be traded or otherwise provided to another manufacturer.
(8) The following provisions apply if a manufacturer calculates that it has negative credits (also called “debits” or a “credit deficit”) for a given model year:
(i) The manufacturer may carry the credit deficit forward into the next three model years. Such a carry-forward may only occur after the manufacturer exhausts any supply of banked credits. The deficit must be covered with an appropriate number of credits that the manufacturer generates or purchases by the end of the third model year. Any remaining deficit is subject to a voiding of the certificate ab initio, as described in this paragraph (k)(8). Manufacturers are not permitted to have a credit deficit for four consecutive years.
(ii) If the credit deficit is not offset within the specified time period, the number of vehicles not meeting the fleet average CO
(A) Determine the negative credits for the noncompliant vehicle category by multiplying the total megagram deficit by 1,000,000 and then dividing by the mileage specified in paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
(B) Divide the result by the fleet average standard applicable to the model year in which the debits were first incurred and round to the nearest whole number to determine the number of vehicles not meeting the fleet average CO
(iii) EPA will determine the vehicles not covered by a certificate because the condition on the certificate was not satisfied by designating vehicles in those test groups with the highest carbon-related exhaust emission values first and continuing until reaching a number of vehicles equal to the calculated number of non-complying vehicles as determined in this paragraph (k)(8). The same approach applies for HDV, except that EPA will make these designations by ranking test groups based on CO
(iv)(A) If a manufacturer ceases production of passenger automobiles, light trucks, or heavy-duty vehicles, the manufacturer continues to be responsible for offsetting any debits
(B) If a manufacturer is purchased by, merges with, or otherwise combines with another manufacturer, the controlling entity is responsible for offsetting any debits outstanding within the required time period. Any failure to offset the debits will be considered a violation of paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section and may subject the manufacturer to an enforcement action for sale of vehicles not covered by a certificate, pursuant to paragraphs (k)(8)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(v) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, a violation of the requirements of paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section, a failure to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate(s) was issued and hence a sale of vehicles not covered by the certificate, all occur upon the expiration of the deadline for offsetting debits specified in paragraph (k)(8)(i) of this section.
(9) The following provisions apply to CO
(i) EPA may reject CO
(ii) A manufacturer may not sell credits that are no longer valid for demonstrating compliance based on the model years of the subject vehicles, as specified in paragraph (k)(6) of this section.
(iii) In the event of a negative credit balance resulting from a transaction, both the buyer and seller are liable for the credit shortfall. EPA may void ab initio the certificates of conformity of all test groups that generate or use credits in such a trade.
(iv)(A) If a manufacturer trades a credit that it has not generated pursuant to this paragraph (k) or acquired from another party, the manufacturer will be considered to have generated a debit in the model year that the manufacturer traded the credit. The manufacturer must offset such debits by the deadline for the annual report for that same model year.
(B) Failure to offset the debits within the required time period will be considered a failure to satisfy the conditions upon which the certificate(s) was issued and will be addressed pursuant to paragraph (k)(8) of this section.
(v) A manufacturer may only trade credits that it has generated pursuant to paragraphs (k)(4) and (5) of this section or acquired from another party.
(l)
(A) Model year.
(B) Applicable fleet average CO
(C) The calculated fleet average CO
(D) All values used in calculating the fleet average CO
(ii) Manufacturers must establish, maintain, and retain all the following information in adequately organized records for each vehicle produced that is subject to the provisions in this subpart:
(A) Model year.
(B) Applicable fleet average CO
(C) EPA test group.
(D) Assembly plant.
(E) Vehicle identification number.
(F) Carbon-related exhaust emission standard (automobile and light truck only), N
(G) In-use carbon-related exhaust emission standard for passenger automobiles and light truck, and in-use CO
(H) Information on the point of first sale, including the purchaser, city, and state.
(iii) Manufacturers must retain all required records for a period of eight years from the due date for the annual report. Records may be stored in any format and on any media, as long as manufacturers can promptly send EPA organized written records in English if requested by the Administrator. Manufacturers must keep records readily available as EPA may review them at any time.
(iv) The Administrator may require the manufacturer to retain additional records or submit information not specifically required by this section.
(v) Pursuant to a request made by the Administrator, the manufacturer must submit to the Administrator the information that the manufacturer is required to retain.
(vi) EPA may void ab initio a certificate of conformity for vehicles certified to emission standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in this subpart for which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon request, or to submit the reports required in this section in the specified time period.
(2)
(ii) For each applicable fleet average CO
(A) Name of credit provider.
(B) Name of credit recipient.
(C) Date the trade occurred.
(D) Quantity of credits traded in megagrams.
(E) Model year in which the credits were earned.
(iii) Manufacturers calculating air conditioning leakage and/or efficiency credits under paragraph § 86.1871-12(b) shall include the following information for each model year and separately for passenger automobiles and light trucks and for each air conditioning system used to generate credits:
(A) A description of the air conditioning system.
(B) The leakage credit value and all the information required to determine this value.
(C) The total credits earned for each averaging set, model year, and region, as applicable.
(iv) Manufacturers calculating advanced technology vehicle credits under paragraph § 86.1871-12(c) shall include the following information for each model year and separately for passenger automobiles and light trucks:
(A) The number of each model type of eligible vehicle sold.
(B) The cumulative model year production of eligible vehicles starting with the 2009 model year.
(C) The carbon-related exhaust emission value by model type and model year.
(v) Manufacturers calculating off-cycle technology credits under paragraph § 86.1871-12(d) shall include, for each model year and separately for passenger automobiles and light trucks, all test results and data required for calculating such credits.
(vi) Unless a manufacturer reports the data required by this section in the annual production report required under § 86.1844-01(e) or the annual report required under § 600.512-12 of this chapter, a manufacturer must submit an annual report for each model year after production ends for all affected vehicles produced by the manufacturer subject to the provisions of this subpart and no later than May 1 of the calendar year following the given model year. Annual reports must be submitted to: Director, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
(vii) Failure by a manufacturer to submit the annual report in the specified time period for all vehicles subject to the provisions in this section is a violation of section 203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522 (a)(1)) for each applicable vehicle produced by that manufacturer.
(viii) If EPA or the manufacturer determines that a reporting error occurred on an annual report previously submitted to EPA, the manufacturer's credit or debit calculations will be recalculated. EPA may void erroneous credits, unless traded, and will adjust erroneous debits. In the case of traded erroneous credits, EPA must adjust the selling manufacturer's credit balance to reflect the sale of such credits and any resulting credit deficit.
(3)
This section describes how to apply CO
(b) For electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, dedicated natural gas vehicles, and dual-fuel natural gas vehicles as those terms are defined in § 86.1803-01, that are certified and produced for U.S. sale in the 2017 through 2021 model years and that meet the additional specifications in this section, the manufacturer may use the production multipliers in this paragraph (b) when determining the manufacturer's fleet average carbon-related exhaust emissions under § 600.510-12 of this chapter. Full size pickup trucks eligible for and using a production multiplier are not eligible for the performance-based credits described in § 86.1870-12(b).
Manufacturers may generate credits applicable to the CO
Manufacturers may generate credits applicable to the CO
(e) * * *
(5) Air conditioning systems with compressors that are solely powered by electricity shall submit Air Conditioning Idle Test Procedure data to be eligible to generate credits in the 2014 and later model years, but such systems are not required to meet a specific threshold to be eligible to generate such credits, as long as the engine remains off for a period of at least 2 cumulative minutes during the air conditioning on portion of the Idle Test Procedure in § 86.165-12(d).
(f) * * *
(1) The manufacturer shall perform the AC17 test specified in 40 CFR 1066.845 on each unique air conditioning system design and vehicle platform combination (as those terms are defined in § 86.1803) for which the manufacturer intends to accrue air conditioning efficiency credits. The manufacturer must test at least one unique air conditioning system within each vehicle platform in a model year, unless all unique air conditioning systems within a vehicle platform have been previously tested. A unique air conditioning system design is a system with unique or substantially different component designs or types and/or system control strategies (
(g) * * *
(1) For each air conditioning system (as defined in § 86.1803) selected by the manufacturer to generate air conditioning efficiency credits, the manufacturer shall perform the AC17 Air Conditioning Efficiency Test Procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.845, according to the requirements of this paragraph (g).
(3) For the first model year for which an air conditioning system is expected to generate credits, the manufacturer must select for testing the projected highest-selling configuration within each combination of vehicle platform and air conditioning system (as those terms are defined in § 86.1803). The manufacturer must test at least one unique air conditioning system within each vehicle platform in a model year, unless all unique air conditioning systems within a vehicle platform have been previously tested. A unique air conditioning system design is a system with unique or substantially different component designs or types and/or system control strategies (
This section describes how manufacturers may generate credits for off-cycle CO
(b) * * *
(2) The maximum allowable decrease in the manufacturer's combined passenger automobile and light truck fleet average CO
(4) * * *
(ii)
(f)
Full-size pickup trucks may be eligible for additional credits based on the implementation of hybrid technologies or on exhaust emission
(a)
(3) If you produce both mild and strong hybrid electric full size pickup trucks but do not qualify for credits under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, your hybrid electric full size pickup trucks may be eligible for a credit of 10 grams/mile. To receive this credit in a given model year, you must produce a quantity of hybrid electric full size pickup trucks such that the proportion of combined mild and strong full size hybrid electric pickup trucks produced in a model year, when compared to your total production of full size pickup trucks, is not less than the required minimum percentages specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Manufacturers may optionally generate CO
(a)
(b)
(d)
(i) You may count a vehicle as meeting the vehicle-pass criteria described in § 86.1912 if a shift day of testing or two-shift days of testing (with the requisite non-idle/idle operation time as in paragraph (g) of this section), or if the extended testing you elected under paragraph (h) of this section does not generate a single valid NTE sampling event, as described in § 86.1912(b). Count the vehicle towards meeting your testing requirements under this subpart.
In general, the average emissions for each regulated pollutant must remain at or below the NTE threshold in paragraph (a) of this section for at least 90 percent of the valid NTE sampling events, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section. For 2007 through 2009 model year engines, the average emissions from every NTE sampling event must also remain below the NTE thresholds in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. Perform the following steps to determine whether an engine meets the vehicle-pass criteria:
(a) Determine the NTE threshold for each pollutant subject to an NTE standard by adding all three of the following terms and rounding the result to the same number of decimal places as the applicable NTE standard:
(1) The applicable NTE standard.
(2) The in-use compliance testing margin specified in § 86.007-11(h), if any.
(3) An accuracy margin for portable in-use equipment when testing is performed under the special provisions of § 86.1930, depending on the pollutant, as follows:
(i) NMHC: 0.17 g/hp·hr.
(ii) CO: 0.60 g/hp·hr.
(iii) NO
(iv) PM: 0.10 g/hp·hr.
(v) NO
(4) Accuracy margins for portable in-use equipment when testing is not performed under the special provisions of § 86.1930 for 2007 through 2009 model year engine families that are selected for testing in any calendar year as follows:
(i) NMHC using the emission calculation method specified in 40 CFR 1065.650(a)(1): 0.02 g/hp·hr.
(ii) NMHC using the emission calculation method specified in 40 CFR 1065.650(a)(3): 0.01 g/hp·hr.
(iii) NMHC using an alternative emission calculation method we approve under 40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5)(iv): 0.01 g/hp·hr.
(iv) CO using the emission calculation method specified in 40 CFR 1065.650(a)(1): 0.5 g/hp·hr.
(v) CO using the emission calculation method specified in 40 CFR 1065.650(a)(3): 0.25 g/hp·hr.
(vi) CO using an alternative emission calculation method we approve under 40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5)(iv): 0.25 g/hp·hr.
(vii) NO
(viii) NO
(ix) NO
(x) NO
(xi) NO
(xii) NO
(xiii) PM: 0.006 g/hp·hr.
(5) Accuracy margins for portable in-use equipment when testing is not performed under the special provisions of § 86.1930 for 2010 or later model year engines families that are selected for testing in any calendar year as follows:
(i) NMHC using any emission calculation method specified in 40 CFR 1065.650(a) or an alternative emission calculation method we approve under 40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5)(iv): 0.01 g/hp·hr.
(ii) CO using any emission calculation method specified in 40 CFR 1065.650(a) or an alternative emission calculation method we approve under 40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5)(iv): 0.25 g/hp·hr.
(iii) NO
(iv) PM: 0.006 g/hp·hr.
(b) For the purposes of this subpart, a valid NTE sampling event consists of at least 30 seconds of continuous operation in the NTE control area. An NTE event begins when the engine starts to operate in the NTE control area and continues as long as engine operation remains in this area (see § 86.1370). When determining a valid NTE sampling event, exclude all engine operation in approved NTE limited testing regions under § 86.1370-2007(b)(6) and any approved NTE deficiencies under § 86.007-11(a)(4)(iv). Engine operation in the NTE control area of less than 30 contiguous seconds does not count as a valid NTE sampling event; operating periods of less than 30 seconds in the NTE control area, but outside of any allowed deficiency area or limited testing region, will not be added together to make a 30 second or longer event. Exclude any portion of a sampling event that would otherwise exceed the 5.0 percent limit for the time-weighted carve-out defined in § 86.1370-2007(b)(7). For EGR-equipped engines, exclude any operation that occurs during the cold-temperature operation defined by the equations in § 86.1370-2007(f)(1).
(c) Calculate the average emission level for each pollutant over each valid NTE sampling event as specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G, using each NTE event as an individual test interval. This should include valid NTE events from all days of testing.
(d) If the engine has an open crankcase, account for these emissions by adding 0.00042 g/hp·hr to the PM emission result for every NTE event.
(e) Calculate a time-weighted vehicle-pass ratio (
(1) Calculate the time-weighted vehicle-pass ratio for each pollutant as follows:
(2) For both the numerator and the denominator of the vehicle-pass ratio, use the smallest of the following values for determining the duration,
(i) The measured time in the NTE zone that is valid for an NTE sampling event.
(ii) 600 seconds.
(iii) 10 times the length of the shortest valid NTE sampling event for all testing with that engine.
(f) The following example illustrates how to select the duration of NTE sampling events for calculations, as described in paragraph (f) of this section:
(g) Engines meet the vehicle-pass criteria under this section if they meet both of the following criteria:
(1) The vehicle-pass ratio calculated according to paragraph (e) of this section must be at least 0.90 for each pollutant.
(2) For model year 2007 through 2009 engines, emission levels from every valid NTE sampling event must be less than 2.0 times the NTE thresholds calculated according to paragraph (a) of this section for all pollutants, except that engines certified to a NO
(b) Within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, send us reports containing the test data from each engine for which testing was completed during the calendar quarter. Alternatively, you may separately send us the test data within 30 days after you complete testing for an engine. If you request it, we may allow additional time to send us this information. Once you
49 U.S.C. 32901-23919q, Pub. L. 109-58.
(a) The provisions of this part apply to 2008 and later model year automobiles that are not medium duty passenger vehicles, and to 2011 and later model year automobiles including medium-duty passenger vehicles. The test procedures in subpart B of this part also apply to 2014 and later heavy-duty vehicles subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(1) For LDV, LDT, and MDPV,
(2) For HDV,
(1) For LDV, LDT, and MDPV,
(2) For HDV,
(1) For LDV, LDT, and MDPV,
(2) For HDV,
(m)(1) For automobiles fueled with liquefied petroleum gas and automobiles designed to operate on gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas, the fuel economy in miles per gallon of liquefied petroleum gas is to be calculated using the following equation:
(2)(i) For automobiles fueled with liquefied petroleum gas and automobiles designed to operate on gasoline and liquefied petroleum gas, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile while operating on liquefied petroleum gas is to be calculated for 2012 and later model year vehicles using the following equation and rounded to the nearest 1 gram per mile:
(ii) For manufacturers complying with the fleet averaging option for N
(n) Manufacturers shall determine CO
(2) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile is to be calculated according to the provisions of § 600.116, except that the CREE for charge-depleting operation shall be the sum of the CREE associated with gasoline consumption and the net upstream CREE determined according to paragraph (n)(1) of this section, rounded to the nearest one gram per mile.
(3) For 2012 and later model year fuel cell vehicles, the carbon-related exhaust emissions in grams per mile shall be calculated using the method specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this section, except that CREE
(o) Equations for fuels other than those specified in this section may be used with advance EPA approval. Alternate calculation methods for fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust emissions may be used in lieu of the methods described in this section if shown to yield equivalent or superior results and if approved in advance by the Administrator.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) To determine CREE values to demonstrate compliance with GHG standards, calculate composite values representing combined operation during charge-depleting and charge-sustaining operation using the following utility factors except as specified in this paragraph (c):
(2) Determine fuel economy values to demonstrate compliance with CAFE standards as follows:
(i) For vehicles that are not dual fueled automobiles, determine fuel economy using the utility factors described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Do not use the petroleum-equivalence factors described in 10 CFR 474.3.
(ii) Except as described in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, determine fuel economy for dual fueled automobiles from the following equation, separately for city and highway driving:
(iii) For 2016 and later model year dual fueled automobiles, you may determine fuel economy based on the following equation, separately for city and highway driving:
(4) You may calculate performance values under paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section by combining phases during FTP testing. For example, you may treat the first 7.45 miles as a single phase by adding the individual utility factors for that portion of driving and assigning emission levels to the combined phase. Do this consistently throughout a test run.
(5) Instead of the utility factors specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, calculate utility factors using the following equation for vehicles whose maximum speed is less than the maximum speed specified in the driving schedule, where the vehicle's maximum speed is determined, to the nearest 0.1 mph, from observing the highest speed over the first duty cycle (FTP, HFET, etc.):
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Determine braking power in kilowatts using the following equation. Note that during braking events,
(ii) The total maximum braking energy (
(2) * * *
(ii) At each sampling point where current is flowing into the battery, calculate the energy flowing into the battery, in Watt-hours, as follows:
(3) The percent of braking energy recovered by a hybrid system relative to the total available energy is determined by the following equation, rounded to the nearest one percent:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) All subconfigurations within the new base level are represented by test data in accordance with § 600.010(c)(1)(iii).
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) * * *
(C) Calculate a composite city CO
(g)
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
MPG = the average fuel economy for a category of vehicles determined according to paragraph (h) of this section;
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years 1993 through 2016, the harmonic average of the following two terms; the result rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
(vii)(A) For natural gas dual fuel model types, for model years after 2016, the combined model type fuel economy determined according to the following formula and rounded to the nearest 0.1 mpg:
(h) The increase in average fuel economy determined in paragraph (c) of this section attributable to dual fueled automobiles is subject to a maximum value that applies separately to each category of automobile specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The increase in average fuel economy attributable to vehicles fueled by electricity or, for model years 2016 and later, by compressed natural gas, is not subject to a maximum value. The following maximum values apply under this paragraph (h):
(1) The Administrator shall calculate the increase in average fuel economy to determine if the maximum increase provided in this paragraph (h) has been reached. The Administrator shall calculate the increase in average fuel economy for each category of automobiles specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section by subtracting the average fuel economy values calculated in accordance with this section, assuming all alcohol dual fueled automobiles are operated exclusively on gasoline (or diesel fuel), from the average fuel economy values determined in paragraph (c) of this section. The difference is limited to the maximum increase specified in this paragraph (h).
(2) [Reserved]
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(e) The provisions of this part apply as specified for locomotives manufactured or remanufactured on or after July 7, 2008. See § 1033.102 to determine whether the standards of this part or the standards specified in Appendix I of this part apply for model years 2008 through 2012. For example, for a locomotive that was originally manufactured in 2007 and remanufactured on April 10, 2014, the provisions of this part begin to apply on April 10, 2014.
Unless we specify otherwise, send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1033.901). See § 1033.925 for additional reporting and recordkeeping provisions.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Gaseous-fueled locomotives: Nonmethane-nonethane emissions (NMNEHC). This includes dual-fuel and flexible-fuel locomotives that use a combination of a gaseous fuel and a nongaseous fuel.
(2) * * *
(i) Certify your Tier 4 and later diesel-fueled locomotives for operation with only Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel. Use ULSD as the test fuel for these locomotives. You may alternatively certify Tier 4 and later locomotives using Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (LSD).
(iii) Certify your Tier 3 and earlier diesel-fueled locomotives for operation with either ULSD fuel or LSD fuel if they do not include sulfur-sensitive technology or if you demonstrate compliance using an LSD test fuel (including commercial LSD fuel).
(i)
(1) The alternate PM standard for Tier 0, Tier 1, and Tier 2 locomotives is one-half of the otherwise applicable PM standard. For example, a manufacturer certifying Tier 2 switch locomotives to a 0.065 g/bhp-hr PM standard may certify those locomotives to the alternate CO standard of 10.0 g/bhp-hr.
(2) The alternate PM standard for Tier 3 and Tier 4 locomotives is 0.01 g/bhp-hr.
(a) The Tier 0 and Tier 1 standards of § 1033.101 apply for new locomotives beginning January 1, 2010, except as specified in § 1033.150(a). The Tier 0 and Tier 1 standards specified in Appendix I of this part apply for earlier model years.
(b) Except as specified in § 1033.150(a), the Tier 2 standards of § 1033.101 apply for new locomotives beginning January 1, 2013. The Tier 2 standards specified in Appendix I of this part apply for earlier model years.
(c) The Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards of § 1033.101 apply for the model years specified in that section.
(b)
(b) * * *
(3) Label diesel-fueled locomotives near the fuel inlet to identify the allowable fuels, consistent with § 1033.101. For example, Tier 4 locomotives with sulfur-sensitive technology (or that otherwise require ULSD for compliance) should be labeled “ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL ONLY”. You do not need to label Tier 3 and earlier locomotives certified for use with both LSD and ULSD.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Calculate all costs in current dollars (for the month prior to the date
(g)
(a) You must send us a separate application for a certificate of conformity for each engine family. A certificate of conformity is valid for new production from the indicated effective date, until the end of the model year for which it is issued, which may not extend beyond December 31 of that year. No certificate will be issued after December 31 of the model year. You may amend your application for certification after the end of the model year in certain circumstances as described in §§ 1033.220 and 1033.225. You must renew your certification annually for any locomotives you continue to produce.
(g) We may require you to deliver your test locomotives (including test engines, as applicable) to a facility we designate for our testing (see § 1033.235(c)). Alternatively, you may choose to deliver another engine/locomotive that is identical in all material respects to the test locomotive, or another engine/locomotive that we determine can appropriately serve as an emission-data locomotive for the engine family.
(b) * * *
(4) Include any other information needed to make your application correct and complete.
(g) You may produce engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine configuration during the model year under paragraph (d) of this section. Similarly, you may modify in-use engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine configuration at any time under paragraph (d) of this section. Modifying a new or in-use engine to be in a certified configuration does not violate the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1), as long as this does not involve changing to a certified configuration with a higher family emission limit.
(b) Test your emission-data locomotives using the procedures and equipment specified in subpart F of this part. In the case of dual-fuel locomotives, measure emissions when operating with each type of fuel for which you intend to certify the locomotive. In the case of flexible-fuel locomotives, measure emissions when operating with the fuel mixture that best represents in-use operation or is most likely to have the highest NO
(c) We may perform confirmatory testing by measuring emissions from any of your emission-data locomotives or other locomotives from the engine family.
(4) Before we test one of your locomotives, we may calibrate it within normal production tolerances for anything we do not consider an adjustable parameter. For example, this would apply for a parameter that is subject to production variability because it is adjustable during production, but is not considered an adjustable parameter (as defined in § 1033.901) because it is permanently sealed.
(d) * * *
(1) The engine family from the previous model year differs from the current engine family only with respect to model year, items identified in § 1033.225(a), or other factors not related to emissions. We may waive this criterion for differences we determine not to be relevant.
Establish deterioration factors for each pollutant to determine whether your locomotives will meet emission standards for each pollutant throughout the useful life, as described in § 1033.240. Determine deterioration factors as described in this section, either with an engineering analysis, with pre-existing test data, or with new emission measurements. The deterioration factors are intended to reflect the deterioration expected to result during the useful life of a locomotive maintained as specified in § 1033.125. If you perform durability testing, the maintenance that you may perform on your emission-data locomotive is limited to the maintenance described in § 1033.125. You may carry across a deterioration factor from one engine family to another consistent with good engineering judgment.
(b) Apply deterioration factors as follows:
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) All your emission tests (valid and invalid), including the date and purpose of each test and documentation of test parameters as specified in part 40 CFR part 1065, and the date and purpose of each test.
(c) Keep required data from emission tests and all other information specified in this section for eight years after we issue your certificate. If you use the same emission data or other information for a later model year, the eight-year period restarts with each year that you continue to rely on the information.
(c) * * *
(2) Submit false or incomplete information (paragraph (e) of this section applies if this is fraudulent). This includes doing anything after submission of your application to render any of the submitted information false or incomplete.
(4) Deny us from completing authorized activities (see 40 CFR 1068.20). This includes a failure to provide reasonable assistance.
(d) We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information as required under this part or the Act. Note that these are also violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally submitted false or incomplete information. This includes rendering submitted information false or incomplete after submission.
(a) The requirements of §§ 1033.310, 1033.315, 1033.320, and 1033.330 apply only to manufacturers of freshly manufactured locomotives or locomotive engines (including those used for repowering). We may also apply these requirements to remanufacturers of any locomotives for which there is reason to believe production problems exist that could affect emission performance. When we make a determination that production problems may exist that could affect emission performance, we will notify the remanufacturer(s). The requirements of §§ 1033.310, 1033.315, 1033.320, and 1033.330 will apply as specified in the notice.
(a) * * *
(3) The following provisions apply for engine mapping, duty-cycle generation, and cycle validation to account for the fact that locomotive operation and locomotive duty cycles are based on operator demand from locomotive notch settings, not on target values for engine speed and load:
(i) The provisions related to engine mapping, duty-cycle generation, and cycle validation in 40 CFR 1065.510, 1065.512, and 1065.514 do not apply for testing complete locomotives.
(ii) The provisions related to engine mapping and duty-cycle generation in 40 CFR 1065.510 and 1065.512 are not required for testing with an engine dynamometer; however, the cycle validation criteria of 40 CFR 1065.514 apply for such testing. Demonstrate compliance with cycle validation criteria based on manufacturer-declared values for maximum torque, maximum power, and maximum test speed, or determine these values from an engine map generated according to 40 CFR 1065.510. If you test using a ramped-modal cycle, you may perform cycle validation over all the test intervals together.
(4) If you perform discrete-mode testing and use only one batch fuel measurement to determine your mean raw exhaust flow rate, you must target a constant sample flow rate over the mode. Verify proportional sampling as described in 40 CFR 1065.545 using the mean raw exhaust molar flow rate paired with each recorded sample flow rate.
(5) If you perform discrete-mode testing by grouping the modes in the same manner as the test intervals of the ramped modal cycle using three different dilution settings for the groups, as allowed in § 1033.515(c)(5)(ii), you may verify proportional sampling over each group instead of each discrete mode.
(j) The following provisions apply for locomotives using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events that may occur during testing:
(1) Adjust measured emissions to account for aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration as described in § 1033.535.
(2) Invalidate a smoke test if active regeneration starts to occur during the test.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The sample period is 300 seconds for all test modes except mode 8. The sample period for test mode 8 is 600 seconds.
(4) If applicable, begin the smoke test at the start of the test mode A. Continue collecting smoke data until the completion of test mode 8. You may perform smoke measurements independent of criteria pollutant measurements by repeating the test over the duty cycle. If you choose this option, the minimum time-in-notch is 3.0 minutes for duty cycles in which only smoke is measured. Refer to § 1033.101 to determine applicability of smoke testing and § 1033.525 for details on how to conduct a smoke test.
(5) * * *
(ii) Group the modes in the same manner as the test intervals of the ramped modal cycle and use three different dilution settings for the groups. Use one setting for both idle modes, one for dynamic brake through Notch 5, and one for Notch 6 through Notch 8. For each group, ensure that the mode with the highest exhaust flow (typically normal idle, Notch 5, and Notch 8) meets the criteria for minimum dilution ratio in 40 CFR part 1065.
(a) Locomotive testing over a ramped modal cycle is intended to improve measurement accuracy at low emission levels by allowing the use of batch sampling of PM and gaseous emissions over multiple locomotive notch settings. Ramped modal cycles combine multiple test modes of a discrete-mode steady-state into a single sample period. Time in notch is varied to be proportional to weighting factors. The ramped modal cycle for line-haul locomotives is shown in Table 1 to this section. The ramped modal cycle for switch locomotives is shown in Table 2 to this section. Both ramped modal cycles consist of a warm-up followed by three test intervals that are each weighted in a manner that maintains the duty-cycle weighting of the line-haul and switch locomotive duty cycles in § 1033.530. You may use ramped modal cycle testing for any locomotives certified under this part.
(b) Ramped modal testing requires continuous gaseous analyzers and three separate PM filters (one for each test interval). You may collect a single batch sample for each test interval, but you must also measure gaseous emissions continuously to allow calculation of notch caps as required under § 1033.101.
(c) You may operate the engine in any way you choose to warm it up. Then follow the provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart F for general pre-test procedures (including engine and sampling system pre-conditioning).
(d) Begin the test by operating the locomotive over the pre-test portion of the cycle. For locomotives not equipped with catalysts, you may begin the test as soon as the engine reaches its lowest idle setting. For catalyst-equipped locomotives, you may begin the test in normal idle mode if the engine does not reach its lowest idle setting within 15 minutes. If you do start in normal idle, run the low idle mode after normal idle, then resume the specified mode sequence (without repeating the normal idle mode).
(e) Start the test according to 40 CFR 1065.530.
(1) Each test interval begins when operator demand is set to the first operator demand setting of each test interval of the ramped modal cycle. Each test interval ends when the time in mode is reached for the last mode in the test interval.
(2) For PM emissions (and other batch sampling), the sample period over which emissions for the test interval are averaged generally begins within 10 seconds after the operator demand is changed to start the test interval and ends within 5 seconds of the sampling time for the test mode is reached (see Table 1 to this section). You may ask to delay the start of the sample period to account for sample system residence times longer than 10 seconds.
(3) Use good engineering judgment when transitioning between test intervals.
(i) You should come as close as possible to simultaneously:
(A) Ending batch sampling of the previous test interval.
(B) Starting batch sampling of the next test interval.
(C) Changing the operator demand to the notch setting for the first mode in the next test interval.
(ii) Avoid the following:
(A) Overlapping batch sampling of the two test intervals.
(B) An unnecessarily long delay before starting the next test interval.
(iii) For example, the following sequence would generally be appropriate:
(A) End batch sampling for Interval 2 after 304 seconds in Notch 5.
(B) Switch the operator demand to Notch 6 one second later.
(C) Begin batch sampling for Interval 3 one second after switching to Notch 6.
(4) If applicable, begin the smoke test at the start of the first test interval of the applicable ramped modal cycle. Continue collecting smoke data until the completion of final test interval. You may perform smoke measurements independent of criteria pollutant measurements by rerunning the test over the duty cycle. If you choose this option, the minimum time-in-notch is 3.0 minutes for duty cycles in which only smoke is measured. Refer to § 1033.101 to determine applicability of the smoke standards and § 1033.525 for details on how to conduct a smoke test.
(5) Proceed through each test interval of the applicable ramped modal cycle in the order specified until the test is completed.
(6) If you must void a test interval, you may repeat it. To do so, begin with a warm engine operating at the notch setting for the last mode in the previous test interval. You do not need to repeat later test intervals if they were valid. (
(7) Following the completion of the third test interval of the applicable ramped modal cycle, conduct the post-test sampling procedures specified in 40 CFR 1065.530.
(f) Calculate your cycle-weighted brake-specific emission rates as follows:
(1) For each test interval j:
(i) Calculate emission rates (E
(ii) Calculate average power (P
(2) For each pollutant, calculate your cycle-weighted brake-specific emission rate using the following equation, where w
(g) The following tables define applicable ramped modal cycles for line-haul and switch locomotives:
For locomotives using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events that may occur during testing, take one of the following approaches to account for the emission impact of regeneration:
(a) You may use the calculation methodology described in 40 CFR 1065.680 to adjust measured emission results. Do this by developing an upward adjustment factor and a downward adjustment factor for each pollutant based on measured emission data and observed regeneration frequency as follows:
(1) Adjustment factors should generally apply to an entire engine family, but you may develop separate adjustment factors for different configurations within an engine family. Use the adjustment factors from this section for all testing for the engine family.
(2) You may use carryover or carry-across data to establish adjustment factors for an engine family as described in § 1033.235, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(3) Determine the frequency of regeneration,
(4) Identify the value of
(5) Apply the provisions for ramped-modal testing based on measurements for each test interval rather than the whole ramped-modal test.
(b) You may ask us to approve an alternate methodology to account for regeneration events. We will generally limit approval to cases where your engines use aftertreatment technology with extremely infrequent regeneration and you are unable to apply the provisions of this section.
(c) You may choose to make no adjustments to measured emission results if you determine that regeneration does not significantly affect emission levels for an engine family (or configuration) or if it is not practical to identify when regeneration occurs. If you choose not to make adjustments under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, your locomotives must meet emission standards for all testing, without regard to regeneration.
(f)
(k) You may use either of the following approaches to retire or forego emission credits:
(1) You may retire emission credits generated from any number of your locomotives. This may be considered donating emission credits to the environment. Identify any such credits in the reports described in § 1033.730. Locomotives must comply with the applicable FELs even if you donate or sell the corresponding emission credits under this paragraph (e). Those credits may no longer be used by anyone to demonstrate compliance with any EPA emission standards.
(2) You may certify a family using an FEL below the emission standard as described in this part and choose not to generate emission credits for that family. If you do this, you do not need to calculate emission credits for those families and you do not need to submit or keep the associated records described in this subpart for that family.
(c) If you certify an engine family to an FEL that exceeds the otherwise applicable emission standard, you must obtain enough emission credits to offset the engine family's deficit by the due date for the final report required in § 1033.730. The emission credits used to address the deficit may come from your other engine families that generate emission credits in the same model year, from emission credits you have banked from previous model years, or from emission credits generated in the same or previous model years that you obtained through trading or by transfer.
(b) * * *
(2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (positive or negative) based on projected production volumes. We may require you to include similar calculations from your other engine families to demonstrate that you will be able to avoid negative credit balances for the model year. If you project negative emission credits for a family, state the source of positive emission credits you expect to use to offset the negative emission credits.
(b) * * *
(1) Engine family designation and averaging sets (whether switch, line-haul, or both).
(4) The projected and actual U.S.-directed production volumes for the model year as described in § 1033.705. If you changed an FEL during the model year, identify the actual U.S.-directed production volume associated with each FEL.
(c) * * *
(2) State whether you will retain any emission credits for banking. If you choose to retire emission credits that would otherwise be eligible for banking, identify the engine families that generated the emission credits, including the number of emission credits from each family.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you must send us a report within 90 days after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) The averaging set corresponding to the engine families that generated emission credits for the trade, including the number of emission credits from each averaging set.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the emission credits, including the number of emission credits you intend to apply for each averaging set.
(a) You must organize and maintain your records as described in this section.
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight years after the due date for the end-of-year report. You may not use emission credits for any engines if you do not keep all the records required under this section. You must therefore keep these records to continue to bank valid credits.
(b) Perform unscheduled maintenance in a timely manner. This includes malfunctions identified through the locomotive's emission control diagnostics system and malfunctions discovered in components of the diagnostics system itself. For most repairs, this paragraph (b) requires that the maintenance be performed no later than the locomotive's next periodic (92-day or 184-day) inspection. See paragraph (e) of this section, for reductant replenishment requirements in a locomotive equipped with an SCR system.
(e) For locomotives equipped with emission controls requiring the use of specific fuels, lubricants, or other fluids, proper maintenance includes complying with the manufacturer/remanufacturer's specifications for such fluids when operating the locomotives. This requirement applies without regard to whether misfueling permanently disables the emission controls. For locomotives certified on ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, but that do not include sulfur-sensitive emission controls, you may use low-sulfur diesel fuel instead of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, consistent with good engineering judgment. The following additional provisions apply for locomotives equipped with SCR systems requiring the use of urea or other reductants:
The revisions and addition read as follows:
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider confidential.
(a) This part includes various requirements to submit and record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store required records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available for eight years after you send an associated application for certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do not support an application for certification. You are expected to keep your own copy of required records rather than relying on someone else to keep records on your behalf. We may review these records at any time. You must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may require you to submit written records in an electronic format.
(b) The regulations in § 1033.255, 40 CFR 1068.25, and 40 CFR 1068.101 describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information. This includes information not related to certification. Failing to properly report information and keep the records we specify violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may involve civil or criminal penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1033.801).
(d) Any written information we require you to send to or receive from another company is deemed to be a required record under this section. Such records are also deemed to be submissions to EPA. We may require you to send us these records whether or not you are a certificate holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) We specify the following requirements related to locomotive certification in this part 1033:
(i) In § 1033.150 we include various reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to interim provisions.
(ii) In subpart C of this part we identify a wide range of information required to certify engines.
(iii) In § 1033.325 we specify certain records related to production-line testing.
(iv) In subpart G of this part we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various special compliance provisions.
(v) In §§ 1033.725, 1033.730, and 1033.735 we specify certain records related to averaging, banking, and trading.
(vi) In subpart I of this part we specify certain records related to meeting requirements for remanufactured engines.
(2) We specify the following requirements related to testing in 40 CFR part 1065:
(i) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an overview of principles for reporting information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we specify information needs for establishing various changes to published test procedures.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish basic guidelines for storing test information.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify the specific information and data items to record when measuring emissions.
(3) We specify the following requirements related to the general compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068:
(i) In 40 CFR 1068.5 we establish a process for evaluating good engineering judgment related to testing and certification.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1068.25 we describe general provisions related to sending and keeping information.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1068.27 we require manufacturers to make locomotives available for our testing or inspection if we make such a request.
(iv) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various exemptions.
(v) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart D, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to importing locomotives and engines.
(vi) In 40 CFR 1068.450 and 1068.455 we specify certain records related to testing production-line locomotives in a selective enforcement audit.
(vii) In 40 CFR 1068.501 we specify certain records related to investigating and reporting emission-related defects.
(viii) In 40 CFR 1068.525 and 1068.530 we specify certain records related to recalling nonconforming locomotives.
(ix) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, we specify certain records for requesting a hearing.
(a) The following emission standards applied for new locomotives not yet subject to this part 1033:
(b) The original Tier 0, Tier 1, and Tier 2 standards for HC and CO emissions and smoke are the same standards identified in § 1033.101.
42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.
(a) Except as specified in § 1036.5, the provisions of this part apply for engines that will be installed in heavy-duty vehicles (including glider vehicles) above 14,000 pounds GVWR for propulsion. These provisions also apply for engines that will be installed in incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR unless the engine is installed in a vehicle that is covered by a certificate of conformity under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
(b) This part does not apply with respect to exhaust emission standards for HC, CO, NO
(1) The provisions of § 1036.601 apply.
(2) 40 CFR parts 85 and/or 86 may specify that certain provisions apply.
(c) The provisions of this part also apply for fuel conversions of all engines described in paragraph (a) of this section as described in 40 CFR 85.502.
(d) Gas turbine heavy-duty engines and other heavy-duty engines not meeting the definition
The regulations in this part 1036 contain provisions that affect both engine manufacturers and others. However, the requirements of this part are generally addressed to the engine manufacturer(s). The term “you” generally means the engine manufacturer(s), especially for issues related to certification. Additional requirements and prohibitions apply to other persons as specified in subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068.
(a) The provisions of this part do not apply to engines used in medium-duty passenger vehicles or other heavy-duty vehicles that are subject to regulation under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, except as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and § 1036.150(j). For example, this exclusion applies for engines used in vehicles certified to the standards of 40 CFR 86.1819.
(b) An engine installed in a heavy-duty vehicle that is not used to propel the vehicle is not a heavy-duty engine. The provisions of this part therefore do not apply to these engines. Note that engines used to indirectly propel the vehicle (such as electrical generator engines that provide power to batteries for propulsion) are subject to this part. See 40 CFR part 1039, 1048, or 1054 for other requirements that apply for these auxiliary engines. See 40 CFR part 1037 for requirements that may apply for vehicles using these engines, such as the evaporative emission requirements of 40 CFR 1037.103.
(c) The provisions of this part do not apply to aircraft or aircraft engines. Standards apply separately to certain aircraft engines, as described in 40 CFR part 87.
(d) The provisions of this part do not apply to engines that are not internal combustion engines. For example, the provisions of this part do not apply to fuel cells. Note that gas turbine engines are internal combustion engines.
(e) The provisions of this part do not apply for model year 2013 and earlier heavy-duty engines unless they were:
(1) Voluntarily certified to this part.
(2) Installed in a glider vehicle subject to 40 CFR part 1037.
This part 1036 is divided into the following subparts:
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the applicability of this part 1036 and gives an overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the emission standards and other requirements that must be met to certify engines under this part. Note that § 1036.150 describes certain interim requirements and compliance provisions that apply only for a limited time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes how to apply for a certificate of conformity.
(d) Subpart D of this part addresses testing of production engines.
(e) Subpart E of this part describes provisions for testing in-use engines.
(f) Subpart F of this part describes how to test your engines (including references to other parts of the Code of Federal Regulations).
(g) Subpart G of this part describes requirements, prohibitions, and other provisions that apply to engine manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, owners, operators, rebuilders, and all others.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes how you may generate and use emission credits to certify your engines.
(i) Subpart I of this part contains definitions and other reference information.
(a) Part 86 of this chapter describes additional requirements that apply to engines that are subject to this part 1036. This part extensively references portions of 40 CFR part 86. For example, the regulations of part 86 specify emission standards and certification procedures related to criteria pollutants.
(b) Part 1037 of this chapter describes requirements for controlling evaporative emissions and greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, whether or not they use engines certified under this part. It also includes standards and requirements that apply instead of the standards and requirements of this part in some cases.
(c) Part 1065 of this chapter describes procedures and equipment specifications for testing engines to measure exhaust emissions. Subpart F of this part 1036 describes how to apply the provisions of part 1065 of this chapter to determine whether engines meet the exhaust emission standards in this part.
(d) Certain provisions of part 1068 of this chapter apply as specified in § 1036.601 to everyone, including anyone who manufactures, imports, installs, owns, operates, or rebuilds any of the engines subject to this part 1036, or vehicles containing these engines. Part 1068 of this chapter describes general provisions that apply broadly, but do not necessarily apply for all engines or all persons. See § 1036.601 to
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for engine manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for certain engines.
(4) Importing engines.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of your production.
(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(e) Other parts of this chapter apply if referenced in this part.
Unless we specify otherwise, send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1036.801). See § 1036.825 for additional reporting and recordkeeping provisions.
Engines used in vehicles certified to the applicable chassis standards for greenhouse gases described in 40 CFR 86.1819 are not subject to the standards specified in this part. All other engines subject to this part must meet the greenhouse gas standards in § 1036.108 in addition to the criteria pollutant standards of 40 CFR part 86.
This section contains standards and other regulations applicable to the emission of the air pollutant defined as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This section describes the applicable CO
(a)
(1) CO
(i) The CO
(ii) The following CO
(iii) The following CO
(iv) You may certify spark-ignition engines to the compression-ignition standards for the appropriate model year under this paragraph (a). If you do this, those engines are treated as compression-ignition engines for all the provisions of this part.
(2) The CH
(3) The N
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) This paragraph (f)(1) applies where you demonstrate the relative amount of each fuel type that your engines consume in actual use. Based on your demonstration, we will specify a weighting factor and allow you to submit the weighted average of your emission results. For example, if you certify an E85 flexible-fuel engine and we determine the engine will produce one-half of its work from E85 and one-half of its work from gasoline, you may apply a 50 percent weighting factor to each of your E85 and gasoline emission results.
(2) If you certify your engine family to N
(a) The warranty and maintenance requirements, adjustable parameter provisions, and defeat device prohibition of 40 CFR part 86 apply with respect to the standards of this part.
(b) You must perform fuel mapping for your engine as described in § 1036.510(b).
(c) You must design and produce your engines to comply with evaporative emission standards as follows:
(1) For complete heavy-duty vehicles you produce, you must certify the vehicles to emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103.
(2) For incomplete heavy-duty vehicles, and for engines used in vehicles you do not produce, you do not need to certify your engines to evaporative emission standards or otherwise meet those standards. However, vehicle manufacturers certifying their vehicles with your engines may depend on you to produce your engines according to their specifications. Also, your engines must meet applicable exhaust emission standards in the installed configuration.
(a) If you sell an engine for someone else to install in a vehicle, give the engine installer instructions for installing it consistent with the requirements of this part. Include all information necessary to ensure that an engine will be installed in its certified configuration.
(b) Make sure these instructions have the following information:
(1) Include the heading: “Emission-related installation instructions”.
(2) State: “Failing to follow these instructions when installing a certified engine in a heavy-duty motor vehicle violates federal law, subject to fines or other penalties as described in the Clean Air Act.”
(3) Provide all instructions needed to properly install the exhaust system and any other components.
(4) Describe any necessary steps for installing any diagnostic system required under 40 CFR part 86.
(5) Describe how your certification is limited for any type of application. For example, if you certify heavy heavy-duty engines to the CO
(6) Describe any other instructions to make sure the installed engine will operate according to design specifications in your application for certification. This may include, for example, instructions for installing aftertreatment devices when installing the engines.
(7) State: “If you install the engine in a way that makes the engine's emission control information label hard to read during normal engine maintenance, you must place a duplicate label on the vehicle, as described in 40 CFR 1068.105.”
(c) Give the vehicle manufacturer fuel map results as described in § 1036.510(b).
(d) You do not need installation instructions for engines that you install in your own vehicles.
(e) Provide instructions in writing or in an equivalent format. For example, you may post instructions on a publicly available Web site for downloading or printing. If you do not provide the instructions in writing, explain in your application for certification how you will ensure that each installer is informed of the installation requirements.
Label your engines as described in 40 CFR 86.007-35(a)(3), with the following additional information:
(a) [Reserved]
(b) Identify the emission control system. Use terms and abbreviations as described in 40 CFR 1068.45 or other applicable conventions.
(c) Identify any limitations on your certification. For example, if you certify heavy heavy-duty engines to the CO
(d) You may ask us to approve modified labeling requirements in this part 1036 if you show that it is necessary or appropriate. We will approve your request if your alternate label is consistent with the requirements of this part. We may also specify modified labeling requirement to be consistent with the intent of 40 CFR part 1037.
You must identify a single primary intended service class for each engine family that best describes vehicles for which you design and market the engine, as follows:
(a) Divide compression-ignition engines into primary intended service classes based on the following engine and vehicle characteristics:
(1) Light heavy-duty engines usually are not designed for rebuild and do not have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in this group might include any heavy-duty vehicle built from a light-duty truck chassis, van trucks, multi-stop vans, and some straight trucks with a single rear axle. Typical applications would include personal transportation, light-load commercial delivery, passenger service, agriculture, and construction. The GVWR of these vehicles is normally at or below 19,500 pounds.
(2) Medium heavy-duty engines may be designed for rebuild and may have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in this group would typically include school buses, straight trucks with single rear axles, city tractors, and a variety of special purpose vehicles such as small dump trucks, and refuse trucks. Typical applications would include commercial short haul and intra-city delivery and pickup. Engines in this group are normally used in vehicles whose GVWR ranges from 19,501 to 33,000 pounds.
(3) Heavy heavy-duty engines are designed for multiple rebuilds and have cylinder liners. Vehicles in this group are normally tractors, trucks, straight trucks with dual rear axles, and buses used in inter-city, long-haul applications. These vehicles normally exceed 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(b) Divide spark-ignition engines into primary intended service classes as follows:
(1) Spark-ignition engines that are best characterized by paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section are in a separate “spark-ignition” primary intended service class.
(2) Spark-ignition engines that are best characterized by paragraph (a)(3) of this section share a primary intended service class with compression-ignition heavy heavy-duty engines. Gasoline-fueled engines are presumed not to be characterized by paragraph (a)(3) of this section; for example, vehicle manufacturers may install some number of gasoline-fueled engines in Class 8 trucks without causing the engine manufacturer to consider those to be heavy heavy-duty engines.
(c) References to “spark-ignition standards” in this part relate only to the spark-ignition engines identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. References to “compression-ignition standards” in this part relate to compression-ignition engines, to spark-ignition engines optionally certified to standards that apply to compression-ignition engines, and to all engines identified under paragraph (b)(2) of this section as heavy heavy-duty engines.
The provisions in this section apply instead of other provisions in this part.
(a)
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to generate early credits, you must certify your entire U.S.-directed production volume within that averaging set to these standards. This means that you may not generate early credits while you produce engines in the averaging set that are certified to the criteria pollutant standards but not to the greenhouse gas standards. Calculate emission credits as described in subpart H of this part relative to the standard that would apply for model year 2014 (2016 for spark-ignition engines).
(2) You may generate early credits for an individual compression-ignition engine family where you demonstrate that you have improved a model year 2013 engine model's CO
(3) You may bank credits equal to the surplus credits you generate under this paragraph (a) multiplied by 1.50. For example, if you have 10 Mg of surplus credits for model year 2013, you may bank 15 Mg of credits. Credit deficits for an averaging set prior to model year 2014 (2016 for spark-ignition engines) do not carry over to model year 2014 (2016 for spark-ignition engines). We recommend that you notify us of your intent to use this provision before submitting your applications.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) This paragraph (f) applies only where the two families are identical in all respects except for the engine ratings offered and the inclusion of OBD.
(2) For purposes of this part and 40 CFR part 86, the two families remain two separate families except for the following:
(i) Specify the testable configurations of the non-OBD engine family as the testable configurations for the OBD family.
(ii) Submit the same CO
(g)
(1) You may use an assigned additive DF of 0.0 g/hp-hr for CO
(2) You may use an assigned additive DF of 0.020 g/hp-hr for N
(3) You may use an assigned additive DF of 0.020 g/hp-hr for CH
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k) [Reserved]
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(1) GHG emission credits you generate with model year 2018 through 2024 engines may be used through model year 2030, instead of being limited to a five-year credit life as specified in § 1036.740(d).
(2) You may certify your model year 2024 through 2026 engines to the following alternative standards:
Submit an application for certification as described in 40 CFR 86.007-21, with the following additional information:
(a) Describe the engine family's specifications and other basic parameters of the engine's design and emission controls with respect to compliance with the requirements of this part. Describe in detail all system components for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, including all auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) and all fuel-system components you will install on any production or test engine. Identify the part number of each component you describe. For this paragraph (a), treat as separate AECDs any devices that modulate or activate differently from each other.
(b) Describe any test equipment and procedures that you used if you performed any tests that did not also involve measurement of criteria pollutants. Describe any special or alternate test procedures you used (see 40 CFR 1065.10(c)).
(c) Include the emission-related installation instructions you will provide if someone else installs your engines in their vehicles (see § 1036.130).
(d) Describe the label information specified in § 1036.135. We may require you to include a copy of the label.
(e) Identify the CO
(f) Identify the engine family's deterioration factors and describe how you developed them (see § 1036.241). Present any test data you used for this.
(g) Present emission data to show that you meet emission standards, as follows:
(1) Present exhaust emission data for CO
(2) [Reserved]
(h) State whether your certification is limited for certain engines. For example, if you certify heavy heavy-duty engines to the CO
(i) Unconditionally certify that all the engines in the engine family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced parts of the CFR, and the Clean Air Act. Note that § 1036.235 specifies which engines to test to show that engines in the entire family comply with the requirements of this part.
(j) Include the information required by other subparts of this part. For example, include the information required by § 1036.725 if you participate in the ABT program.
(k) Include the warranty statement and maintenance instructions if we request them.
(l) Include other applicable information, such as information specified in this part or 40 CFR part 1068 related to requests for exemptions.
(m) For imported engines or equipment, identify the following:
(1) Describe your normal practice for importing engines. For example, this may include identifying the names and addresses of any agents you have authorized to import your engines. Engines imported by nonauthorized agents are not covered by your certificate.
(2) The location of a test facility in the United States where you can test your engines if we select them for testing under a selective enforcement audit, as specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E.
(n) Include information needed to certify vehicles to GHG standards under 40 CFR part 1037 as described in § 1036.510.
If you send us information before you finish the application, we may review it and make any appropriate determinations, especially for questions related to engine family definitions, auxiliary emission control devices, adjustable parameters, deterioration factors, testing for service accumulation, and maintenance. Decisions made under this section are considered to be preliminary approval, subject to final review and approval. We will generally not reverse a decision where we have given you preliminary approval, unless we find new information supporting a different decision. If you request preliminary approval related to the upcoming model year or the model year after that, we will make best-efforts to make the appropriate determinations as soon as practicable. We will generally not provide preliminary approval related to a future model year more than two years ahead of time.
Before we issue you a certificate of conformity, you may amend your application to include new or modified engine configurations, subject to the provisions of this section. After we have issued your certificate of conformity, you may send us an amended application requesting that we include new or modified engine configurations within the scope of the certificate, subject to the provisions of this section. You must also amend your application if any changes occur with respect to any information that is included or should be included in your application.
(a) You must amend your application before you take any of the following actions:
(1) Add an engine configuration to an engine family. In this case, the engine
(2) Change an engine configuration already included in an engine family in a way that may affect emissions, or change any of the components you described in your application for certification. This includes production and design changes that may affect emissions any time during the engine's lifetime.
(3) Modify an FEL and FCL for an engine family as described in paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) To amend your application for certification, send the relevant information to the Designated Compliance Officer.
(1) Describe in detail the addition or change in the engine model or configuration you intend to make.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or data showing that the amended engine family complies with all applicable requirements. You may do this by showing that the original emission-data engine is still appropriate for showing that the amended family complies with all applicable requirements.
(3) If the original emission-data engine for the engine family is not appropriate to show compliance for the new or modified engine configuration, include new test data showing that the new or modified engine configuration meets the requirements of this part.
(4) Include any other information needed to make your application correct and complete.
(c) We may ask for more test data or engineering evaluations. You must give us these within 30 days after we request them.
(d) For engine families already covered by a certificate of conformity, we will determine whether the existing certificate of conformity covers your newly added or modified engine. You may ask for a hearing if we deny your request (see § 1036.820).
(e) For engine families already covered by a certificate of conformity, you may start producing the new or modified engine configuration any time after you send us your amended application and before we make a decision under paragraph (d) of this section. However, if we determine that the affected engines do not meet applicable requirements, we will notify you to cease production of the engines and may require you to recall the engines at no expense to the owner. Choosing to produce engines under this paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to recall all engines that we determine do not meet applicable emission standards or other requirements and to remedy the nonconformity at no expense to the owner. If you do not provide information required under paragraph (c) of this section within 30 days after we request it, you must stop producing the new or modified engines.
(f) You may ask us to approve a change to your FEL in certain cases after the start of production, but before the end of the model year. If you change an FEL for CO
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for your engine family at any time. In your request, you must show that you will still be able to meet the emission standards as specified in subparts B and H of this part. Use the appropriate FELs/FCLs with corresponding production volumes to calculate emission credits for the model year, as described in subpart H of this part.
(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for your engine family only if you have test data from production engines showing that emissions are below the proposed lower FEL (or below the proposed FCL for CO
(g) You may produce engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine configuration during the model year under paragraph (d) of this section. Similarly, you may modify in-use engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine configuration at any time under paragraph (d) of this section. Modifying a new or in-use engine to be in a certified configuration does not violate the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1), as long as this does not involve changing to a certified configuration with a higher family emission limit.
See 40 CFR 86.001-24 for instructions on how to divide your product line into families of engines that are expected to have similar emission characteristics throughout the useful life. You must certify your engines to the standards of § 1036.108 using the same engine families you use for criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86. The following provisions also apply:
(a) Engines certified as hybrid engines may not be included in an engine family with engines with conventional powertrains. Note that this does not prevent you from including engines in a conventional family if they are used in hybrid vehicles, as long as you certify them conventionally.
(b) If you certify engines in the family for use as both vocational and tractor engines, you must split your family into two separate subfamilies. Indicate in the application for certification that the engine family is to be split.
(1) Calculate emission credits relative to the vocational engine standard for the number of engines sold into vocational applications and relative to the tractor engine standard for the number of engines sold into non-vocational tractor applications. You may assign the numbers and configurations of engines within the respective subfamilies at any time before submitting the end-of-year report required by § 1036.730. If the family participates in averaging, banking, or trading, you must identify the type of vehicle in which each engine is installed; we may alternatively allow you to use statistical methods to determine this for a fraction of your engines. Keep records to document this determination.
(2) If you restrict use of the test configuration for your split family to only tractors, or only vocational vehicles, you must identify a second testable configuration for the other type of vehicle (or an unrestricted configuration). Identify this configuration in your application for certification. The FCL for the engine family applies for this configuration as well as the primary test configuration.
(c) If you certify in separate engine families engines that could have been certified in vocational and tractor engine subfamilies in the same engine family, count the two families as one family for purposes of determining your obligations with respect to the OBD requirements and in-use testing requirements of 40 CFR part 86. Indicate in the applications for certification that the two engine families are covered by this paragraph (c).
(d) Engine configurations within an engine family must use equivalent greenhouse gas emission controls. Unless we approve it, you may not produce nontested configurations without the same emission control hardware included on the tested
(e) If you certify both engine fuel maps and powertrain fuel maps for an engine family, you may split the engine family into two separate subfamilies. Indicate this in your application for certification, and identify whether one or both of these sets of fuel maps applies for each group of engines. If you do not split your family, all engines within the family must conform to the engine fuel maps, including any engines for with the powertrain maps also apply.
This section describes the emission testing you must perform to show compliance with the greenhouse gas emission standards in § 1036.108.
(a) Select a single emission-data engine from each engine family as specified in 40 CFR part 86. The standards of this part apply only with respect to emissions measured from this tested configuration and other configurations identified in § 1036.205(e). Note that configurations identified in § 1036.205(e) are considered to be “tested configurations”. Whether or not you actually tested them for certification. However, you must apply the same (or equivalent) emission controls to all other engine configurations in the engine family. In other contexts, the tested configuration is sometimes referred to as the “parent configuration”, although the terms are not synonymous.
(b) Test your emission-data engines using the procedures and equipment specified in subpart F of this part. In the case of dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines, measure emissions when operating with each type of fuel for which you intend to certify the engine. (Note: measurement of criteria emissions from flexible-fuel engines generally involves operation with the fuel mixture that best represents in-use operation, or with the fuel mixture with the highest emissions.) Measure CO
(1) If you are certifying the engine for use in tractors, you must measure CO
(2) If you are certifying the engine for use in vocational applications, you must measure CO
(3) You may certify your engine family for both tractor and vocational use by submitting CO
(4) Some of your engines certified for use in tractors may also be used in vocational vehicles, and some of your engines certified for use in vocational may be used in tractors. However, you may not knowingly circumvent the intent of this part (to reduce in-use emissions of CO
(c) We may perform confirmatory testing by measuring emissions from any of your emission-data engines. If your certification includes powertrain testing as specified in 40 CFR 1036.630, this paragraph (c) also applies for the powertrain test results.
(1) We may decide to do the testing at your plant or any other facility. If we do this, you must deliver the engine to a test facility we designate. The engine you provide must include appropriate manifolds, aftertreatment devices, electronic control units, and other emission-related components not normally attached directly to the engine block. If we do the testing at your plant, you must schedule it as soon as possible and make available the instruments, personnel, and equipment we need.
(2) If we measure emissions on your engine, the results of that testing become the official emission results for the engine as specified in this paragraph (c). Unless we later invalidate these data, we may decide not to consider your data in determining if your engine family meets applicable requirements.
(3) Before we test one of your engines, we may set its adjustable parameters to any point within the physically adjustable ranges.
(4) Before we test one of your engines, we may calibrate it within normal production tolerances for anything we do not consider an adjustable parameter. For example, this would apply for an engine parameter that is subject to production variability because it is adjustable during production, but is not considered an adjustable parameter (as defined in § 1036.801) because it is permanently sealed. For parameters that relate to a level of performance that is itself subject to a specified range (such as maximum power output), we will generally perform any calibration under this paragraph (c)(4) in a way that keeps performance within the specified range.
(5) We may use our emission test results for steady-state, idle, cycle-average and powertrain fuel maps, as long as we perform at least three valid tests. We will use mean values for each point to specify our fuel maps and may use the resulting fuel maps as the official emission results. We may also consider how the different fuel maps affect GEM emission results as part of our decision. We will not replace individual points from your fuel map, but we may make separate determinations for steady-state, idle, cycle-average and powertrain fuel maps.
(6) If you supply cycle-average engine fuel maps for the highway cruise cycles instead of generating a steady-state fuel map for these cycles, we may perform a confirmatory test of your engine fuel maps for the highway cruise cycles by either of the following methods:
(i) Directly measuring the highway cruise cycle-average fuel maps.
(ii) Measuring a steady-state fuel map as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this section and using it in GEM to create our own cycle-average engine fuel maps for the highway cruise cycles.
(d) You may ask to use carryover emission data from a previous model year instead of doing new tests, but only if all the following are true:
(1) The engine family from the previous model year differs from the current engine family only with respect to model year, items identified in § 1036.225(a), or other characteristics unrelated to emissions. We may waive this criterion for differences we determine not to be relevant.
(2) The emission-data engine from the previous model year remains the appropriate emission-data engine under paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) The data show that the emission-data engine would meet all the requirements that apply to the engine family covered by the application for certification.
(e) We may require you to test a second engine of the same configuration in addition to the engine tested under paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) If you use an alternate test procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and later testing shows that such testing does not produce results that are equivalent to the procedures specified
(a) For purposes of certification, your engine family is considered in compliance with the emission standards in § 1036.108 if all emission-data engines representing the tested configuration of that engine family have test results showing official emission results and deteriorated emission levels at or below the standards. Note that your FCLs are considered to be the applicable emission standards with which you must comply for certification.
(b) Your engine family is deemed not to comply if any emission-data engine representing the tested configuration of that engine family has test results showing an official emission result or a deteriorated emission level for any pollutant that is above an applicable emission standard (generally the FCL). Note that you may increase your FCL if any certification test results exceed your initial FCL.
(c) Apply deterioration factors to the measured emission levels for each pollutant to show compliance with the applicable emission standards. Your deterioration factors must take into account any available data from in-use testing with similar engines. Apply deterioration factors as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) [Reserved]
(5)
(d) Calculate emission data using measurements to at least one more decimal place than the applicable standard. Apply the deterioration factor to the official emission result, as described in paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each emission-data engine.
(e) If you identify more than one configuration in § 1036.205(e), we may test (or require you to test) any of the identified configurations. We may also require you to provide an engineering analysis that demonstrates that untested configurations listed in § 1036.205(e) comply with their FCL.
(a) Within 90 days after the end of the model year, send the Designated Compliance Officer a report including the total U.S.-directed production volume of engines you produced in each engine family during the model year (based on information available at the time of the report). Report the production by serial number and engine configuration. Small manufacturers may omit this requirement. You may combine this report with reports required under subpart H of this part.
(b) Organize and maintain the following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any summary information you send us.
(2) Any of the information we specify in § 1036.205 that you were not required to include in your application.
(c) Keep routine data from emission tests required by this part (such as test cell temperatures and relative humidity readings) for one year after we issue the associated certificate of conformity. Keep all other information specified in this section for eight years after we issue your certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. You must keep these records readily available. We may review them at any time.
(a) If we determine your application is complete and shows that the engine family meets all the requirements of this part and the Act, we will issue a certificate of conformity for your engine family for that model year. We may make the approval subject to additional conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for certification if we determine that your engine family fails to comply with emission standards or other requirements of this part or the Clean Air Act. We will base our decision on all available information. If we deny your application, we will explain why in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your application or suspend or revoke your certificate if you do any of the following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete information (paragraph (e) of this section applies if this is fraudulent). This includes doing anything after submission of your application to
(3) Render inaccurate any test data.
(4) Deny us from completing authorized activities (see 40 CFR 1068.20). This includes a failure to provide reasonable assistance.
(5) Produce engines for importation into the United States at a location where local law prohibits us from carrying out authorized activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested information or amend your application to include all engines being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise circumvents the intent of the Act or this part, with respect to your engine family.
(d) We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information as required under this part or the Act. Note that these are also violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally submitted false or incomplete information. This includes rendering submitted information false or incomplete after submission.
(f) If we deny your application or suspend, revoke, or void your certificate, you may ask for a hearing (see § 1036.820).
(a) Selective enforcement audits apply for engines as specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E. This section describes how this applies uniquely in certain circumstances.
(b) Selective enforcement audit provisions apply with respect to your fuel maps as follows:
(1) A selective enforcement audit for an engine with respect to fuel maps would consist of performing measurements with production engines to determine fuel-consumption rates as declared for GEM simulations, and running GEM for the vehicle configurations specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section based on those measured values. The engine is considered passing for a given configuration if the new modeled emission result for each applicable duty cycle is at or below the modeled emission result corresponding to the declared GEM inputs. The engine is considered failing for a given configuration if the new modeled emission result for any applicable duty cycle is above the modeled emission result corresponding to the declared GEM inputs.
(2) Evaluate cycle-average fuel maps by running GEM based on simulated vehicle configurations representing the interpolated center of every group of four test points that define a boundary of cycle work and average engine speed divided by average vehicle speed. These simulated vehicle configurations are defined from the four surrounding points based on averaging values for vehicle mass, drag area (if applicable), tire rolling resistance, tire size, and axle ratio. The regulatory subcategory is defined by the regulatory subcategory of the vehicle configuration with the greatest mass from those four test points. Figure 1 of this section illustrates a determination of vehicle configurations for engines used in tractors and Vocational HDV using a fixed tire size (see § 1036.540(c)(3)(iii)). The vehicle configuration from the upper-left quadrant is defined by values for Tests 1, 2, 4, and 5 from Table 3 of § 1036.540. Calculate vehicle mass as the average of the values from the four tests. Determine the weight reduction needed for GEM to simulate this calculated vehicle mass by comparing the average vehicle mass to the default vehicle mass for the vehicle subcategory from the four points that has the greatest mass, with the understanding that two-thirds of weight reduction for tractors is applied to vehicle weight and one-third is understood to represent increased payload. This is expressed mathematically as
(3) This paragraph (b)(3) provides an example to illustrate how to determine GEM input values for the four vehicle configurations identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. If axle ratio is 2.5 for Tests 1 and 2, and 3.5 for Tests 4 and 5, the average value is 3.0. A tire size of 500 revolutions per mile would apply for all four tests, so the average tire size would be that same value. Similarly,
(4) Because your cycle-average map may have more or fewer test points, you may have more than or fewer than the number of audit points shown in Figure 1 of this section. If the audit includes fuel-map testing in conjunction with engine testing relative to exhaust emission standards, the fuel-map simulations for the whole set of vehicles and duty cycles counts as a single test result for purposes of evaluating whether the engine family meets the pass-fail criteria under 40 CFR 1068.420. If the audit includes only fuel-map testing, determine emission results from at least three different engine configurations simulated with each applicable vehicle configuration identified in § 1036.540; the fuel-map simulation for each vehicle configuration counts as a separate test for the engine.
(c) If your certification includes powertrain testing as specified in 40 CFR 1036.630, these selective enforcement audit provisions apply with respect to powertrain test results as specified in 40 CFR part 1037, subpart D, and 40 CFR 1037.550. We may allow manufacturers to instead perform the engine-based testing to simulate the powertrain test as specified in 40 CFR 1037.551.
(d) We may suspend or revoke certificates for any appropriate configurations within one or more engine families based on the outcome of a selective enforcement audit.
We may perform in-use testing of any engine family subject to the standards of this part, consistent with the Clean Air Act and the provisions of § 1036.235. Note that this provision does not affect your obligation to test your in-use engines as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart T.
(a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in this subpart and 40 CFR 86.1305 to determine whether engines meet the emission standards in § 1036.108.
(b) You may use special or alternate procedures to the extent we allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(c) This subpart is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we perform testing to determine if your engines meet emission standards.
(d) For engines that use aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events, apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as described in § 1036.530.
(e) Test hybrid engines as described in § 1036.525 and 40 CFR part 1065.
(f) Determine engine fuel maps as described in § 1036.510(b).
(g) The following additional provisions apply for testing to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards in § 1036.108 for model year 2021 and later engines:
(1) If your engine is intended for installation in a vehicle equipped with stop-start technology, you may use good engineering judgment to turn the engine off during the idle portions of the duty cycle to represent in-use operation, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(2) Use one of the following methods to measure CO
(i) Use the ramped-modal cycle specified in § 1036.505 using either continuous or batch sampling.
(ii) Measure CO
(3) Measure or calculate emissions of criteria pollutants corresponding to your measurements to demonstrate compliance with CO
(a) Starting in model year 2021, you must measure CO
(b) Measure emissions using the ramped-modal duty cycle shown in the following table to determine whether engines meet the steady-state compression-ignition standards specified in subpart B of this part:
You must give vehicle manufacturers information as follows so they can certify model year 2021 and later vehicles:
(a) Identify engine make, model, fuel type, engine family name, calibration identification, and engine displacement. Also identify which standards the engines meet.
(b) This paragraph (b) describes three different methods to generate engine fuel maps. Manufacturers may generally rely on any of the three mapping methods. However, manufacturers must generate fuel maps using either cycle-average or powertrain testing as described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section for hybrid engines and hybrid vehicles. Also, vehicle manufacturers must use the powertrain method for any vehicle with a transmission that is not automatic, automated manual, manual, or dual-clutch.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d) Provide the following information if you generate engine fuel maps using either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section:
(1) Full-load torque curve for installed engines, and the full-load torque curve of the engine with the highest fueling rate that shares the same engine hardware, including the turbocharger, as described in 40 CFR 1065.510. You may use 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(5)(i) for engines subject to spark-ignition standards. Measure the torque curve for hybrid engines as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(g) with the hybrid system active.
(2) Motoring torque map as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(c)(2) and (4) for conventional and hybrid engines, respectively.
(3) Declared engine idle speed. For vehicles with manual transmissions, this is the engine speed with the transmission in neutral. For all other vehicles, this is the engine's idle speed when the transmission is in drive.
(a) If your engine system includes features that recover and store energy during engine motoring operation, test the engine as described in paragraph (d) of this section. For purposes of this section, features that recover energy between the engine and transmission are considered related to engine motoring.
(b) If you produce a hybrid engine designed with power take-off capability and sell the engine coupled with a
(c) For engines that include electric hybrid systems, test the engine with the hybrid electric motor, the rechargeable energy storage system (RESS), and the power electronics between the hybrid electric motor and the RESS. You may ask us to modify the provisions of this section for testing engines with other kinds of hybrid systems.
(d) Measure emissions using the same procedures that apply for testing non-hybrid engines under this part, except as specified in this part and 40 CFR part 1065. For ramped-modal testing, deactivate the hybrid features unless we specify otherwise. The following provisions apply for testing hybrid engines:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Calculate
(ii) Convert from g/kW-hr to g/hp-hr as the final step in calculating emission results.
(5)
This section describes how to calculate official emission results for CO
(a) Calculate brake-specific emission rates for each applicable duty cycle as specified in 40 CFR 1065.650. Apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors to your cycle-average results as described in 40 CFR 86.004-28 for CO
(b) Adjust CO
(1) Determine mass-specific net energy content,
(i) For liquid fuels, determine
(ii) For gaseous fuels, determine
(2) Determine your test fuel's carbon mass fraction,
(3) If, over a period of time, you receive multiple fuel deliveries from a single stock batch of test fuel, you may use constant values for mass-specific energy content and carbon mass fraction, consistent with good engineering judgment. To use this provision, you must demonstrate that every subsequent delivery comes from the same stock batch and that the fuel has not been contaminated.
(4) Correct measured CO
(c) Your official emission result for each pollutant equals your calculated brake-specific emission rate multiplied by all applicable adjustment factors, other than the deterioration factor.
This section describes how to determine an engine's steady-state fuel map and fuel consumption at idle for model year 2021 and later vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers may need these values to demonstrate compliance with emission standards under 40 CFR part 1037 as described in § 1036.510.
(a)
(1) Map the engine as described in § 1036.510(a)(2) and (3), and perform emission measurements as described in 40 CFR 1065.501 and 1065.530 for discrete-mode steady-state testing. This section uses engine parameters and variables that are consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(2) Measure NO
(b)
(1) Select ten speed points that include warm idle speed,
(2) Select ten torque values, including
(3) You may need to adjust dynamometer settings any time the engine is operating on the low-speed or high-speed governor to maintain stable engine operation. You may change the dynamometer's speed setpoint as needed to avoid activating the engine's governor. You may alternatively set the dynamometer mode to torque-control, in which case speed can fall outside of ±1% of
(4) Precondition the engine as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(2).
(5) Within 60 seconds after concluding the preconditioning procedure, operate the engine at
(6) After the engine operates at the set speed and torque for 60 seconds, start recording measurements using one of the following methods:
(i)
(ii)
(7) After completing the sampling period described in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, linearly ramp the engine over 15 seconds to the next lowest torque value while holding speed constant. Perform the measurements described at the new torque setting and
(8) Continue testing to complete fuel mapping as follows:
(i) At
(ii) If an infrequent regeneration event occurs during fuel mapping, invalidate all the measurements made at that engine speed. Allow the regeneration event to finish, then restart engine stabilization at
(9) If you determine fuel-consumption rates using emission measurements from the raw or diluted exhaust, calculate the mean fuel mass flow rate,
(10) If you determine fuel-consumption rates using emission measurements with engines that utilize diesel exhaust fluid for NO
(11) Correct the measured or calculated mean fuel mass flow rate,
(c)
(1) Precondition the engine as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(2).
(2) Within 60 seconds after concluding the preconditioning procedure, operate the engine at its minimum declared warm idle speed,
Manufacturers may instead measure fuel consumption with a fuel flow meter and determine the corresponding mean values for the sampling period.
(3) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section with the engine set to operate at a torque setting of 100 N·m.
(4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section with the engine operated at its declared maximum warm idle speed,
(5) If an infrequent regeneration event occurs during this procedure, invalidate any measurements made at that idle condition. Allow the regeneration event to finish, then repeat the measurement and continue with the test sequence.
(6) Correct the measured or calculated mean fuel mass flow rate,
(d)
(1) Determine idle torque,
(2) Precondition the engine as described in 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(2).
(3) Within 60 seconds after concluding the preconditioning procedure, operate the engine at its maximum declared warm idle speed,
(4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section with the engine set to operate at zero torque.
(5) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section with the engine operated at its declared minimum warm idle speed,
(6) If an infrequent regeneration event occurs during this procedure, invalidate any measurements made at that idle condition. Allow the regeneration event to finish, then repeat the measurement and continue with the test sequence.
(7) Correct the measured or calculated mean fuel mass flow rate,
(e)
(a)
(1) Determine the engine's torque maps as described in § 1036.510(a).
(2) Determine the engine's steady-state fuel map and fuel consumption at idle as described in § 1036.535.
(3) Simulate several different vehicle configurations using GEM (see 40 CFR 1037.520) to create new engine duty cycles, as described in paragraph (c) of this section. The transient vehicle duty cycles for this simulation are in 40 CFR part 1037, Appendix I; the highway cruise cycles with grade are in 40 CFR part 1037, Appendix IV. Note that GEM simulation relies on vehicle service classes as described in 40 CFR 1037.140.
(4) Test the engines using the new duty cycles to determine fuel consumption, cycle work, and average vehicle speed as described in paragraph (d) of this section and establish GEM inputs for those parameters for further vehicle simulations as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
(b)
(1) To perform fuel mapping under this section for hybrid engines, make sure the engine and its hybrid features are appropriately configured to represent the hybrid features in your testing.
(2) Measure NO
(3) This section uses engine parameters and variables that are consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(c)
(1) Set up GEM to simulate vehicle operation based on your engine's torque maps, steady-state fuel maps, and fuel consumption at idle as described in paragraph (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(2) Set up GEM with transmission gear ratios for different vehicle service classes and vehicle duty cycles as described in Table 1 of this section. These values are based on automatic or automated manual transmissions, but they apply for all transmission types.
(3) Run GEM for each simulated vehicle configuration as follows:
This example is for a vocational Light HDV or vocational Medium HDV with a 6-speed automatic transmission at B speed (Test 3 or 4 in Table 2 of this section).
(ii) Test at least eight different vehicle configurations for engines that will be installed in vocational Light HDV or vocational Medium HDV. If the engine will also be installed in vocational Heavy HDV, use good engineering judgment to select at least nine test configurations that best represent the range of vehicles. For example, if your engines will be installed in vocational Medium HDV and vocational Heavy HDV, you might select Tests 1 through 6 of Table 2 of this section to represent Class 7 vehicles and Tests 3, 6, and 9 of Table 3 of this section to represent Class 8 vehicles. You may test your engine using additional vehicle configurations with different
(iii) Test nine different vehicle configurations for engines that will be installed in vocational Heavy HDV and for tractors that are not heavy-haul tractors. Test over six different test configurations for heavy-haul tractors. You may test your engines for additional configurations with different
(iv) Use the defined values in Tables 1 through 4 of this section to set up GEM with the correct regulatory subcategory and vehicle weight reduction, if applicable, to achieve the target vehicle mass,
(4) Use the GEM output of instantaneous engine speed and engine flywheel torque for each of the vehicle configurations to generate a 10 Hz transient duty cycle corresponding to each vehicle configuration operating over each vehicle duty cycle.
(d)
(1) Precondition the engine either as described in 40 CFR 1037.510(a)(2)(i) for the transient duty-cycle and 40 CFR 1037.510(a)(2)(ii) for the highway cruise duty cycles using the Test 1 vehicle configuration, and then continue testing the different configurations in the order presented in this section. Measure emissions as described in 40 CFR part 1065; perform cycle validation according to 40 CFR part 1065, subpart F, except as noted in this paragraph (d)(1). If the range of reference speeds is less than 10 percent of the mean reference speed, you need to meet only the standard error of estimate in Table 2 of 40 CFR 1065.514. For purposes of cycle validation, treat points as being at idle if reference speed is at or below declared idle speed. For plug-in hybrid engines, precondition the battery and then complete all back-to-back tests for each test configuration according to 40 CFR 1066.501 before moving to the next test configuration. You may send signals to the engine controller during the test, such as current transmission gear and vehicle speed, if that allows engine operation during the test to better represent in-use operation.
(2) If an infrequent regeneration event occurs during a mapping test interval, invalidate that test interval. Continue operating the vehicle to allow the regeneration event to finish, then repeat engine preconditioning and resume testing at the start of the invalidated test cycle.
(3) For each test, record measurements needed to determine fuel mass using carbon mass balance. Record speed and torque and measure emissions and other inputs as described in 40 CFR 1065.655(c). Manufacturers may instead measure fuel consumption with a fuel flow meter. For hybrid powertrains with no plug-in capability, correct for the net energy change of the energy storage device as described in 40 CFR 1066.501. For plug-in hybrid engines, follow 40 CFR 1066.501 to
(4) Calculate the fuel mass flow rate,
(i) Determine fuel-consumption rates using emission measurements from the raw or diluted exhaust, calculate the mass of fuel for each duty cycle,
(A) For calculations that use continuous measurement of emissions and continuous CO
(B) If you measure batch emissions and continuous CO
(C) If you measure continuous emissions and batch CO
(D) If you measure batch emissions and batch CO
(ii) Manufacturers may choose to measure fuel mass flow rate. Calculate the mass of fuel for each duty cycle,
(5) Correct the measured or calculated fuel mass flow rate,
(6) For engines designed for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the mass of fuel for each cycle,
(e)
(1) Your declared fuel mass consumption,
(2) Engine output speed per unit vehicle speed,
(3) Positive work determined accordering to 40 CFR 1065,
(4) The following table illustrates the GEM data inputs corresponding to the different vehicle configurations:
(a) Engine and vehicle manufacturers, as well as owners, operators, and rebuilders of engines subject to the requirements of this part, and all other persons, must observe the provisions of this part, the provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, and the provisions of the Clean Air Act. The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 apply for heavy-duty highway engines as specified in that part, subject to the following provisions:
(1) The exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.201 through 1068.230, 1068.240, and 1068.260 through 265 apply for heavy-duty motor vehicle engines. The other exemption provisions, which are specific to nonroad engines, do not apply for heavy-duty vehicles or heavy-duty engines.
(2) The tampering prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) applies for alternative fuel conversions as specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart F.
(3) The warranty-related prohibitions in section 203(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(4)) apply to manufacturers of new heavy-duty highway engines in addition to the prohibitions described in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(6). We may assess a civil penalty up to $44,539 for each engine or vehicle in violation.
(b) Engines exempted from the applicable standards of 40 CFR part 86 under the provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 are exempt from the standards of this part without request.
(c) The emergency vehicle field modification provisions of 40 CFR 85.1716 apply with respect to the standards of this part.
(d) Subpart C of this part describes how to test and certify dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines. Some multi-fuel engines may not fit either of those defined terms. For such engines, we will determine whether it is most appropriate to treat them as single-fuel engines, dual-fuel engines, or flexible-fuel engines based on the range of possible and expected fuel mixtures. For example, an engine might burn natural gas but initiate combustion with a pilot injection of diesel fuel. If the engine is designed to operate with a single fueling algorithm (
Engines certified to the alternative standards specified in 40 CFR 86.007-11 and 86.008-10 for use in specialty vehicles as described in 40 CFR 1037.605 are exempt from the standards of this part. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply to the vehicle.
(a) You may ask us to apply the provisions of this section for CO
(b) The provisions of this section may be applied as either an improvement factor (used to adjust emission results) or as a separate credit, consistent with good engineering judgment. Note that the term “credit” in this section describes an additive adjustment to emission rates and is not equivalent to an emission credit in the ABT program of subpart H of this part. We recommend that you base your credit/adjustment on A to B testing of pairs of engines/vehicles differing only with respect to the technology in question.
(1) Calculate improvement factors as the ratio of in-use emissions with the technology divided by the in-use emissions without the technology. Adjust the emission results by multiplying by the improvement factor. Use the improvement-factor approach where good engineering judgment indicates that the actual benefit will be proportional to emissions measured over the test procedures specified in this part. For example, the benefits from technologies that reduce engine operation would generally be proportional to the engine's emission rate.
(2) Calculate separate credits based on the difference between the in-use emission rate (g/ton-mile) with the technology and the in-use emission rate without the technology. Subtract this value from your measured emission result and use this adjusted value to determine your FEL. We may also allow you to calculate the credits based on g/hp-hr emission rates. Use the separate-credit approach where good engineering judgment indicates that the actual benefit will not be proportional to emissions measured over the test procedures specified in this part.
(3) We may require you to discount or otherwise adjust your improvement factor or credit to account for uncertainty or other relevant factors.
(c) Send your request to the Designated Compliance Officer. We recommend that you do not begin collecting test data (for submission to EPA) before contacting us. For technologies for which the vehicle manufacturer could also claim credits (such as transmissions in certain circumstances), we may require you to include a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that it will not seek credits for the same technology. Your request must contain the following items:
(1) A detailed description of the off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO
(2) A list of the engine configurations that will be equipped with the technology.
(3) A detailed description and justification of the selected test engines.
(4) All testing and simulation data required under this section, plus any other data you have considered in your analysis. You may ask for our preliminary approval of your test plan under § 1036.210.
(5) A complete description of the methodology used to estimate the off-cycle benefit of the technology and all supporting data, including engine testing and in-use activity data. Also include a statement regarding your recommendation for applying the provisions of this section for the given technology as an improvement factor or a credit.
(6) An estimate of the off-cycle benefit by engine model, and the fleetwide benefit based on projected sales of engine models equipped with the technology.
(7) A demonstration of the in-use durability of the off-cycle technology, based on any available engineering analysis or durability testing data (either by testing components or whole engines).
(d) We may seek public comment on your request, consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d). However, we will generally not seek public comment on credits/adjustments based on A to B engine dynamometer testing, chassis testing, or in-use testing.
(e) We may approve an improvement factor or credit for any configuration that is properly represented by your testing.
(1) For model years before 2021, you may continue to use an approved improvement factor or credit for any appropriate engine families in future model years through 2020.
(2) For model years 2021 and later, you may not rely on an approval for model years before 2021. You must separately request our approval before applying an improvement factor or credit under this section for 2021 and later engines, even if we approved an improvement factor or credit for similar engine models before model year 2021. Note that approvals for model year 2021 and later may carry over for multiple years.
This section specifies how to generate advanced-technology emission credits for hybrid powertrains that include energy storage systems and regenerative braking (including regenerative engine braking) and for engines that include Rankine-cycle (or other bottoming cycle) exhaust energy recovery systems. This section applies only for model year 2020 and earlier engines.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
For model years 2014 through 2016, you may certify your compression-ignition engines to the CO
(a) The standards of this section are determined from the measured emission rate of the test engine of the applicable baseline 2011 engine family or families as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Calculate the CO
(b) This paragraph (b) applies if you do not certify all your engine families in the averaging set to the alternate standards of this section. Identify separate baseline engine families for each engine family that you are certifying to the alternate standards of this section. For an engine family to be considered the baseline engine family, it must meet the following criteria:
(1) It must have been certified to all applicable emission standards in model year 2011. If the baseline engine was certified to a NO
(i) Use the following equation to relate model year 2009-2011 NO
(ii) For model year 2014-2016 engines certified to NO
(iii) Calculate separate adjustments for emissions over the ramped-modal cycle and the transient cycle.
(2) The baseline configuration tested for certification must have the same engine displacement as the engines in the engine family being certified to the alternate standards, and its rated power must be within five percent of the highest rated power in the engine family being certified to the alternate standards.
(3) The model year 2011 U.S.-directed production volume of the configuration tested must be at least one percent of the total 2011 U.S.-directed production volume for the engine family.
(4) The tested configuration must have cycle-weighted BSFC equivalent to or better than all other configurations in the engine family.
(c) This paragraph (c) applies if you certify all your engine families in the primary intended service class to the alternate standards of this section. For purposes of this section, you may combine light heavy-duty and medium heavy-duty engines into a single averaging set. Determine your baseline CO
(d) Include the following statement on the emission control information label: “THIS ENGINE WAS CERTIFIED TO AN ALTERNATE CO
(e) You may not bank CO
(f) You need our approval before you may certify engines under this section, especially with respect to the numerical value of the alternate standards. We will not approve your request if we determine that you manipulated your engine families or test engine configurations to certify to less stringent standards, or that you otherwise have not acted in good faith. You must keep and provide to us any information we need to determine that your engine families meet the requirements of this section. Keep these records for at least five years after you stop producing engines certified under this section.
Section 1036.225 describes how to change the FEL for an engine family during the model year. This section, which describes how you may ask us to increase an engine family's FEL after the end of the model year, is intended to address circumstances in which it is in the public interest to apply a higher in-use FEL based on forfeiting an appropriate number of emission credits. For example, this may be appropriate where we determine that recalling vehicles would not significantly reduce in-use emissions. We will generally not allow this option where we determine the credits being forfeited would likely have expired.
(a) You may ask us to increase an engine family's FEL after the end of the model year if you believe some of your in-use engines exceed the CO
(b) If we approve your request under this section, you must apply emission credits to cover the increased FEL for all affected engines. Apply the emission credits as part of your credit demonstration for the current production year. Include the appropriate calculations in your final report under § 1036.730.
(c) Submit your request to the Designated Compliance Officer. Include the following in your request:
(1) Identify the names of each engine family that is the subject of your request. Include separate family names for different model years.
(2) Describe why your request does not apply for similar engine models or additional model years, as applicable.
(3) Identify the FEL(s) that applied during the model year and recommend a replacement FEL for in-use engines; include a supporting rationale to describe how you determined the recommended replacement FEL.
(4) Describe whether the needed emission credits will come from averaging, banking, or trading.
(d) If we approve your request, we will identify the replacement FEL. The value we select will reflect our best judgment to accurately reflect the actual in-use performance of your engines, consistent with the testing provisions specified in this part. We may apply the higher FELs to other engine families from the same or different model years to the extent they used equivalent emission controls. We may include any
(e) If we order a recall for an engine family under 40 CFR 1068.505, we will no longer approve a replacement FEL under this section for any of your engines from that engine family, or from any other engine family that relies on equivalent emission controls.
For engines included in powertrain families under 40 CFR part 1037, you may choose to include the corresponding engine emissions in your engine families under this part 1036 instead of (or in addition to) the otherwise applicable engine fuel maps.
(a) If you choose to certify powertrain fuel maps in an engine family, the declared powertrain emission levels become standards that apply for selective enforcement audits and in-use testing. We may require that you provide to us the engine test cycle (not normalized) corresponding to a given powertrain for each of the specified duty cycles.
(b) If you choose to certify only fuel map emissions for an engine family and to not certify emissions over powertrain test cycles under 40 CFR 1037.550, we will not presume you are responsible for emissions over the powertrain cycles. However, where we determine that you are responsible in whole or in part for the emission exceedance in such cases, we may require that you participate in any recall of the affected vehicles. Note that this provision to limit your responsibility does not apply if you also hold the certificate of conformity for the vehicle.
(c) If you split an engine family into subfamilies based on different fuel-mapping procedures as described in § 1036.230(e), the fuel-mapping procedures you identify for certifying each subfamily also apply for selective enforcement audits and in-use testing.
(a) You may average, bank, and trade (ABT) emission credits for purposes of certification as described in this subpart and in subpart B of this part to show compliance with the standards of § 1036.108. Participation in this program is voluntary. (Note: As described in subpart B of this part, you must assign an FCL to all engine families, whether or not they participate in the ABT provisions of this subpart.)
(b) The definitions of subpart I of this part apply to this subpart in addition to the following definitions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(c) Emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set, except as specified in § 1036.740.
(d) You may not use emission credits generated under this subpart to offset any emissions that exceed an FCL or standard. This applies for all testing, including certification testing, in-use testing, selective enforcement audits, and other production-line testing. However, if emissions from an engine exceed an FCL or standard (for example, during a selective enforcement audit), you may use emission credits to recertify the engine family with a higher FCL that applies only to future production.
(e) You may use either of the following approaches to retire or forego emission credits:
(1) You may retire emission credits generated from any number of your engines. This may be considered donating emission credits to the environment. Identify any such credits in the reports described in § 1036.730. Engines must comply with the applicable FELs even if you donate or sell the corresponding emission credits under this paragraph (h). Those credits may no longer be used by anyone to demonstrate compliance with any EPA emission standards.
(2) You may certify an engine family using an FEL (FCL for CO
(f) Emission credits may be used in the model year they are generated. Surplus emission credits may be banked for future model years. Surplus emission credits may sometimes be used for past model years, as described in § 1036.745.
(g) You may increase or decrease an FCL during the model year by amending your application for certification under § 1036.225. The new FCL may apply only to engines you have not already introduced into commerce.
(h) See § 1036.740 for special credit provisions that apply for greenhouse gas credits generated under 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(7) or § 1036.615 or 40 CFR 1037.615.
(i) Unless the regulations explicitly allow it, you may not calculate credits more than once for any emission reduction. For example, if you generate CO
(j) Credits you generate with compression-ignition engines in 2020 and earlier model years may be used in model year 2021 and later only if the credit-generating engines were certified to the tractor engine standards in § 1036.108 and credits were calculated relative to the tractor engine standards. You may otherwise use emission credits generated in one model year without adjustment for certifying vehicles in a later model year, even if emission standards are different.
(k) Engine families you certify with a nonconformance penalty under 40 CFR part 86, subpart L, may not generate emission credits.
(a) The provisions of this section apply separately for calculating emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family, calculate positive or negative emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable emission standard based on the engine family's FCL for greenhouse gases. If your engine family is certified to both the vocational and tractor engine standards, calculate credits separately for the vocational engines and the tractor engines (as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section). Calculate positive emission credits for a family that has an FCL below the standard. Calculate negative emission credits for a family that has an FCL above the standard. Sum your positive
(1) For vocational engines:
(2) For tractor engines:
(3) For engine families certified to both the vocational and tractor engine standards, we may allow you to use statistical methods to estimate the total production volumes where a small fraction of the engines cannot be tracked precisely.
(4) You may not generate emission credits for tractor engines (
(5) You may generate CO
(c) As described in § 1036.730, compliance with the requirements of this subpart is determined at the end of the model year based on actual U.S.-directed production volumes. Keep appropriate records to document these production volumes. Do not include any of the following engines to calculate emission credits:
(1) Engines that you do not certify to the CO
(2) Exported engines.
(3) Engines not subject to the requirements of this part, such as those excluded under § 1036.5. For example, do not include engines used in vehicles certified to the greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR 86.1819.
(4) Any other engines if we indicate elsewhere in this part 1036 that they are not to be included in the calculations of this subpart.
(d) You may use CO
(a) Averaging is the exchange of emission credits among your engine families. You may average emission credits only within the same averaging set, except as specified in § 1036.740.
(b) You may certify one or more engine families to an FCL above the applicable standard, subject to any applicable FEL caps and other the provisions in subpart B of this part, if you show in your application for certification that your projected balance of all emission-credit transactions in that model year is greater than or equal to zero, or that a negative balance is allowed under § 1036.745.
(c) If you certify an engine family to an FCL that exceeds the otherwise applicable standard, you must obtain enough emission credits to offset the engine family's deficit by the due date for the final report required in § 1036.730. The emission credits used to address the deficit may come from your other engine families that generate emission credits in the same model year (or from later model years as specified in § 1036.745), from emission credits you have banked, or from emission credits you obtain through trading.
(a) Banking is the retention of surplus emission credits by the manufacturer generating the emission credits for use in future model years for averaging or trading.
(b) You may designate any emission credits you plan to bank in the reports you submit under § 1036.730 as reserved credits. During the model year and before the due date for the final report, you may designate your reserved emission credits for averaging or trading.
(c) Reserved credits become actual emission credits when you submit your final report. However, we may revoke these emission credits if we are unable to verify them after reviewing your reports or auditing your records.
(d) Banked credits retain the designation of the averaging set in which they were generated.
(a) Trading is the exchange of emission credits between manufacturers. You may use traded emission credits for averaging, banking, or further trading transactions. Traded emission credits remain subject to the averaging-set restrictions based on the averaging set in which they were generated.
(b) You may trade actual emission credits as described in this subpart. You may also trade reserved emission credits, but we may revoke these emission credits based on our review of your records or reports or those of the company with which you traded emission credits. You may trade banked credits within an averaging set to any certifying manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit balance results from a transaction, both the buyer and seller are liable, except in cases we deem to involve fraud. See § 1036.255(e) for cases involving fraud. We may void the certificates of all engine families participating in a trade that results in a manufacturer having a negative balance of emission credits. See § 1036.745.
(a) You must declare in your application for certification your intent to use the provisions of this subpart for each engine family that will be certified using the ABT program. You must also declare the FELs/FCL you select for the engine family for each pollutant for which you are using the ABT program. Your FELs must comply with the specifications of subpart B of this part, including the FEL caps. FELs/FCLs must be expressed to the same number of decimal places as the applicable standards.
(b) Include the following in your application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have a negative balance of emission credits for any averaging set when all emission credits are calculated at the end of the year; or a statement that you will have a negative balance of emission credits for one or more averaging sets, but that it is allowed under § 1036.745.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (positive or negative) based on projected U.S.-directed production volumes. We may require you to include similar calculations from your other engine families to project your net credit balances for the model year. If you project negative emission credits for a family, state the source of positive emission credits you expect to use to offset the negative emission credits.
(a) If any of your engine families are certified using the ABT provisions of this subpart, you must send an end-of-year report by March 31 following the end of the model year and a final report by September 30 following the end of the model year. We may waive the requirement to send an end-of-year report.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following information for each engine family participating in the ABT program:
(1) Engine-family designation and averaging set.
(2) The emission standards that would otherwise apply to the engine family.
(3) The FCL for each pollutant. If you change the FCL after the start of production, identify the date that you started using the new FCL and/or give the engine identification number for the first engine covered by the new FCL. In this case, identify each applicable FCL and calculate the positive or negative emission credits as specified in § 1036.225.
(4) The projected and actual U.S.-directed production volumes for the model year. If you changed an FCL during the model year, identify the actual production volume associated with each FCL.
(5) The transient cycle conversion factor for each engine configuration as described in § 1036.705.
(6) Useful life.
(7) Calculated positive or negative emission credits for the whole engine family. Identify any emission credits that you traded, as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(c) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following additional information:
(1) Show that your net balance of emission credits from all your participating engine families in each averaging set in the applicable model year is not negative, except as allowed under § 1036.745. Your credit tracking must account for the limitation on credit life under § 1036.740(d).
(2) State whether you will reserve any emission credits for banking.
(3) State that the report's contents are accurate.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you must send us a report within 90 days after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) The averaging set corresponding to the engine families that generated emission credits for the trade, including the number of emission credits from each averaging set.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the emission credits, including the number of emission credits you intend to apply for each averaging set.
(e) Send your reports electronically to the Designated Compliance Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a different format, send us a written request with justification for a waiver.
(f) Correct errors in your end-of-year or final report as follows:
(1) You may correct any errors in your end-of-year report when you prepare the final report, as long as you send us the final report by the time it is due.
(2) If you or we determine within 270 days after the end of the model year that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission credits, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of emission credits. You may not make these corrections for errors that are determined more than 270 days after the end of the model year. If you report a negative balance of emission credits, we may disallow corrections under this paragraph (f)(2).
(3) If you or we determine any time that errors mistakenly increased your balance of emission credits, you must correct the errors and recalculate the balance of emission credits.
(a) You must organize and maintain your records as described in this section. We may review your records at any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight years after the due date for the end-of-year report. You may not use emission credits for any engines if you do not keep all the records required under this section. You must therefore keep these records to continue to bank valid credits. Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. You must keep these records readily available. We may review them at any time.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we require in §§ 1036.725 and 1036.730.
(d) Keep records of the engine identification number (usually the serial number) for each engine you produce that generates or uses emission credits under the ABT program. You may identify these numbers as a range. If you change the FEL after the start of production, identify the date you started using each FCL and the range of engine identification numbers associated with each FCL. You must also identify the purchaser and destination for each engine you produce to the extent this information is available.
(e) We may require you to keep additional records or to send us relevant information not required by this section in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
The following restrictions apply for using emission credits:
(a)
(1) Engines subject to spark-ignition standards.
(2) Light heavy-duty engines subject to compression-ignition standards.
(3) Medium heavy-duty engines subject to compression-ignition standards.
(4) Heavy heavy-duty engines.
(b)
(c)
(1) The maximum amount of CO
(i) Engines subject to spark-ignition standards, light heavy-duty compression-ignition engines, and light heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section and the averaging set listed in 40 CFR 1037.740(a)(1).
(ii) Medium heavy-duty engines subject to compression-ignition standards and medium heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 40 CFR 1037.740(a)(2).
(iii) Heavy heavy-duty engines subject to compression-ignition standards and heavy heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and 40 CFR 1037.740(a)(3).
(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not limit the advanced-technology credits that can be used within a service class group if they were generated in that same service class group.
(d)
(e)
Except as allowed by this section, we may void the certificate of any engine family certified to an FCL above the applicable standard for which you do not have sufficient credits by the deadline for submitting the final report.
(a) Your certificate for an engine family for which you do not have sufficient CO
(b) You may not bank or trade away CO
(c) You may apply only surplus credits to your deficit. You may not apply credits to a deficit from an earlier model year if they were generated in a model year for which any of your engine families for that averaging set had an end-of-year credit deficit.
(d) You must notify us in writing how you plan to eliminate the credit deficit within the specified time frame. If we determine that your plan is unreasonable or unrealistic, we may deny an application for certification for a vehicle family if its FEL would increase your credit deficit. We may determine that your plan is unreasonable or unrealistic based on a consideration of past and projected use of specific technologies, the historical sales mix of your vehicle models, your commitment to limit production of higher-emission vehicles, and expected access to traded credits. We may also consider your plan unreasonable if your credit deficit increases from one model year to the next. We may require that you send us interim reports describing your progress toward resolving your credit deficit over the course of a model year.
(e) If you do not remedy the deficit with surplus credits within three model years, we may void your certificate for that engine family. We may void the certificate based on your end-of-year report. Note that voiding a certificate applies
(f) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, the following actions are all considered to occur at the expiration of the deadline for offsetting a deficit as specified in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Failing to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate was issued relative to offsetting a deficit.
(3) Selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering into U.S. commerce, or importing vehicles that are found not to be covered by a certificate as a result of failing to offset a deficit.
(a) For each engine family participating in the ABT program, the certificate of conformity is conditioned upon full compliance with the provisions of this subpart during and after the model year. You are responsible to establish to our satisfaction that you fully comply with applicable requirements. We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family if you fail to comply with any provisions of this subpart.
(b) You may certify your engine family to an FCL above an applicable standard based on a projection that you
(c) We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information we request. Note that failing to keep records, send reports, or give us information we request is also a violation of 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2).
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we void your certificate under this section (see § 1036.820).
After receipt of each manufacturer's final report as specified in § 1036.730 and completion of any verification testing required to validate the manufacturer's submitted final data, we will issue a report to the Department of Transportation with CO
The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow:
(1) For engines subject to compression-ignition standards,
(2) For engines subject to spark-ignition standards,
(1) For multiplicative deterioration factors, the ratio of emissions at the end of useful life (or point of highest emissions) to emissions at the low-hour test point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors, the difference between emissions at the end of useful life (or point of highest emissions) and emissions at the low-hour test point.
(1) An engine that has been determined not to be a heavy-duty engine is excluded from this part.
(2) Certain heavy-duty engines are excluded from the requirements of this part under § 1036.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of this part may exclude a heavy-duty engine generally subject to this part from one or more specific standards or requirements of this part.
(1) A motor vehicle engine for which the ultimate purchaser has never received the equitable or legal title is a n
(2) An imported motor vehicle engine is a
(3) Any motor vehicle engine installed in a new motor vehicle.
The procedures in this part generally follow either the International System of Units (SI) or the United States customary units, as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811 (incorporated by reference in § 1036.810). See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific provisions related to these conventions. This section summarizes the way we use symbols, units of measure, and other abbreviations.
(a)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must publish a document in the
(b) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, (877) 909-2786,
(1) ASTM D4809-13 Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method), approved May 1, 2013, (“ASTM D4809”), IBR approved for § 1036.530(b).
(2) [Reserved]
(c) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, (301) 975-6478, or
(1) NIST Special Publication 811, Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), 2008 Edition, March 2008, IBR approved for § 1036.805.
(2) [Reserved]
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider confidential.
(a) You may request a hearing under certain circumstances, as described elsewhere in this part. To do this, you must file a written request, including a description of your objection and any supporting data, within 30 days after we make a decision.
(b) For a hearing you request under the provisions of this part, we will approve your request if we find that your request raises a substantial factual issue.
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we will use the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
(a) This part includes various requirements to submit and record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store required records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available for eight years after you send an associated application for certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do not support an application for certification. You are expected to keep your own copy of required records rather than relying on someone else to keep records on your behalf. We may review these records at any time. You must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may require you to submit written records in an electronic format.
(b) The regulations in § 1036.255 and 40 CFR 1068.25 and 1068.101 describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information. This includes information not related to certification. Failing to properly report information and keep the records we specify violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may involve civil or criminal penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1036.801).
(d) Any written information we require you to send to or receive from another company is deemed to be a required record under this section. Such records are also deemed to be submissions to EPA. Keep these records for eight years unless the regulations specify a different period. We may require you to send us these records whether or not you are a certificate holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) We specify the following requirements related to engine certification in this part 1036:
(i) In § 1036.135 we require engine manufacturers to keep certain records related to duplicate labels sent to vehicle manufacturers.
(ii) In § 1036.150 we include various reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to interim provisions.
(iii) In subpart C of this part we identify a wide range of information required to certify engines.
(iv) In subpart G of this part we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various special compliance provisions.
(v) In §§ 1036.725, 1036.730, and 1036.735 we specify certain records related to averaging, banking, and trading.
(2) We specify the following requirements related to testing in 40 CFR part 1065:
(i) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an overview of principles for reporting information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we specify information needs for establishing various changes to published test procedures.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish basic guidelines for storing test information.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify the specific information and data items to record when measuring emissions.
(3) We specify the following requirements related to the general
(i) In 40 CFR 1068.5 we establish a process for evaluating good engineering judgment related to testing and certification.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1068.25 we describe general provisions related to sending and keeping information
(iii) In 40 CFR 1068.27 we require manufacturers to make engines available for our testing or inspection if we make such a request.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1068.105 we require vehicle manufacturers to keep certain records related to duplicate labels from engine manufacturers.
(v) In 40 CFR 1068.120 we specify recordkeeping related to rebuilding engines.
(vi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various exemptions.
(vii) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart D, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to importing engines.
(viii) In 40 CFR 1068.450 and 1068.455 we specify certain records related to testing production-line engines in a selective enforcement audit.
(ix) In 40 CFR 1068.501 we specify certain records related to investigating and reporting emission-related defects.
(x) In 40 CFR 1068.525 and 1068.530 we specify certain records related to recalling nonconforming engines.
(xi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, we specify certain records for requesting a hearing.
This appendix includes default steady-state fuel maps for performing cycle-average engine fuel mapping as described in §§ 1036.535 and 1036.540.
(a) Use the following default fuel map for compression-ignition engines that will be installed in Tractors and Vocational Heavy HDV:
(b) Use the following default fuel map for compression-ignition engines that will be installed in Vocational Light HDV and Medium HDV:
(c) Use the following default fuel map for all spark-ignition engines:
Appendix I to Part 1037—Heavy-duty Transient Test Cycle
Appendix II to Part 1037—Power Take-Off Test Cycle
Appendix III to Part 1037—Emission Control Identifiers
Appendix IV to Part 1037—Heavy-duty Grade Profile for Phase 2 Steady-State Test Cycles
Appendix V to Part 1037—Power Take-Off Utility Factors
42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.
(a) This part contains standards and other regulations applicable to the emission of the air pollutant defined as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The regulations in this part 1037 apply for all new heavy-duty vehicles, except as provided in §§ 1037.5 and 1037.104. This includes electric vehicles and vehicles fueled by conventional and alternative fuels. This also includes certain trailers as described in §§ 1037.5, 1037.150, and 1037.801.
(b) The provisions of this part apply for alternative fuel conversions as specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart F.
The regulations in this part 1037 contain provisions that affect both vehicle manufacturers and others. However, the requirements of this part are generally addressed to the vehicle manufacturer(s). The term “you” generally means the vehicle manufacturer(s), especially for issues related to certification. See § 1037.801 for the definition of “manufacturer” and § 1037.620 for provisions related to compliance when there are multiple entities meeting the definition of “manufacturer.” Additional requirements and prohibitions apply to other persons as specified in subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068.
Except for the definitions specified in § 1037.801, this part does not apply to the following vehicles:
(a) Vehicles not meeting the definition of “motor vehicle” in § 1037.801.
(b) Vehicles excluded from the definition of “heavy-duty vehicle” in § 1037.801 because of vehicle weight, weight rating, and frontal area (such as light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks).
(c) Vehicles produced in model years before 2014, unless they were certified under § 1037.150.
(d) Medium-duty passenger vehicles and other vehicles subject to the light-duty greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR part 86. See 40 CFR 86.1818 for greenhouse gas standards that apply for these vehicles. An example of such a vehicle would be a vehicle meeting the definition of “heavy-duty vehicle” in § 1037.801 and 40 CFR 86.1803, but also meeting the definition of “light truck” in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(b)(2).
(e) Vehicles subject to the heavy-duty greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR part 86. See 40 CFR 86.1819 for greenhouse gas standards that apply for these vehicles. This generally applies for complete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
(f) Aircraft meeting the definition of “motor vehicle”. For example, this would include certain convertible aircraft that can be adjusted to operate on public roads. Standards apply separately to certain aircraft engines, as described in 40 CFR part 87.
(g) Non-box trailers other than flatbed trailers, tank trailers, and container chassis.
(h) Trailers meeting one or more of the following characteristics:
(1) Trailers with four or more axles and trailers less than 35 feet long with three axles (
(2) Trailers intended for temporary or permanent residence, office space, or other work space, such as campers, mobile homes, and carnival trailers.
(3) Trailers with a gap of at least 120 inches between adjacent axle centerlines. In the case of adjustable axle spacing, this refers to the closest possible axle positioning.
(4) Trailers built before January 1, 2018.
(5) Note that the definition of “trailer” in § 1037.801 excludes equipment that serves similar purposes but are not intended to be pulled by a tractor. This exclusion applies to such equipment whether or not they are known commercially as trailers. For example, any equipment pulled by a heavy-duty vehicle with a pintle hook or hitch instead of a fifth wheel does not qualify as a trailer under this part.
(i) Where it is unclear, you may ask us to make a determination regarding the exclusions identified in this section. We recommend that you make your request before you produce the vehicle.
This part 1037 is divided into the following subparts:
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the applicability of part 1037 and gives an overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the emission standards and other requirements that must be met to certify vehicles under this part. Note that § 1037.150 discusses certain interim requirements and compliance provisions that apply only for a limited time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes how to apply for a certificate of conformity for vehicles subject to the standards of § 1037.105 or § 1037.106.
(d) Subpart D of this part addresses testing of production vehicles.
(e) Subpart E of this part addresses testing of in-use vehicles.
(f) Subpart F of this part describes how to test your vehicles and perform emission modeling (including references to other parts of the Code of Federal Regulations) for vehicles subject to the standards of § 1037.105 or § 1037.106.
(g) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR part 1068 describe requirements, prohibitions, and other provisions that apply to manufacturers, owners, operators, rebuilders, and all others. Section 1037.601 describes how 40 CFR part 1068 applies for heavy-duty vehicles.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes how you may generate and use emission credits to certify vehicles.
(i) Subpart I of this part contains definitions and other reference information.
(a) Parts 1065 and 1066 of this chapter describe procedures and equipment specifications for testing engines and vehicles to measure exhaust emissions. Subpart F of this part 1037 describes how to apply the provisions of part 1065 and part 1066 of this chapter to determine whether vehicles meet the exhaust emission standards in this part.
(b) As described in § 1037.601, certain requirements and prohibitions of part 1068 of this chapter apply to everyone, including anyone who manufactures, imports, installs, owns, operates, or rebuilds any of the vehicles subject to this part 1037. Part 1068 of this chapter describes general provisions that apply broadly, but do not necessarily apply for all vehicles or all persons. The issues addressed by these provisions include these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for manufacturers and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for certain vehicles.
(4) Importing vehicles.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of your production.
(6) Recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Other parts of this chapter apply if referenced in this part.
Unless we specify otherwise, send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1037.801). See § 1037.825 for additional reporting and recordkeeping provisions.
(a) This part specifies emission standards for certain vehicles and for certain pollutants. This part contains standards and other regulations applicable to the emission of the air pollutant defined as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
(b) The regulated emissions are addressed in four groups:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c) The regulated heavy-duty vehicles are addressed in different groups as follows:
(1) For criteria pollutants, vocational vehicles and tractors are regulated based on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), whether they are considered “spark-ignition” or “compression-ignition,” and whether they are first sold as complete or incomplete vehicles.
(2) For greenhouse gas pollutants, vehicles are regulated in the following groups:
(i) Tractors above 26,000 pounds GVWR.
(ii) Trailers.
(iii) Vocational vehicles.
(3) The greenhouse gas emission standards apply differently depending on the vehicle service class as described in § 1037.140. In addition, standards apply differently for vehicles with spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines. References in this part 1037 to “spark-ignition” or “compression-ignition” generally relate to the application of standards under 40 CFR 1036.140. For example, a vehicle with an engine certified to spark-ignition standards under 40 CFR part 1036 is generally subject to requirements under this part 1037 that apply for spark-ignition vehicles. However, note that emission standards for heavy heavy-duty engines are considered to be compression-ignition standards for purposes of applying vehicle emission standards under this part. Also, for spark-ignition engines voluntarily certified as compression-ignition engines under 40 CFR part 1036, you must choose at certification whether your vehicles are subject to spark-ignition standards or compression-ignition standards.
(4) For evaporative and refueling emissions, vehicles are regulated based on the type of fuel they use. Vehicles fueled with volatile liquid fuels or gaseous fuels are subject to evaporative emission standards. Vehicles up to a certain size that are fueled with gasoline, diesel fuel, ethanol, methanol, or LPG are subject to refueling emission standards.
See 40 CFR part 86 for the exhaust emission standards for NO
(a)
(1) Complete and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, instead of the requirements specified in this section.
(2) Heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR that run on volatile liquid fuel (such as gasoline or ethanol) or gaseous fuel (such as natural gas or LPG) must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as specified in this section.
(b)
(1) The refueling standards in 40 CFR 86.1813-17(b) apply to complete vehicles starting in model year 2022; they are optional for incomplete vehicles.
(2) The leak standard in 40 CFR 86.1813-17(a)(4) does not apply.
(3) The FEL cap relative to the diurnal plus hot soak standard for low-altitude testing is 1.9 grams per test.
(4) The diurnal plus hot soak standard for high-altitude testing is 2.3 grams per test.
(5) Testing does not require measurement of exhaust emissions. Disregard references in subpart B of this part to procedures, equipment specifications, and recordkeeping related to measuring exhaust emissions. All references to the exhaust test under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, are considered the “dynamometer run” as part of the evaporative testing sequence under this subpart.
(6) Vehicles not yet subject to the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR 86.1813 must meet evaporative emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 86.008-10(b)(1) and (2) for Otto-cycle applications and 40 CFR 86.007-11(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii) for diesel-cycle applications.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Hold time must be at least 120 hours. Use the following procedure to determine hold time for an LNG fuel tank that will be installed on a heavy-duty vehicle:
(i) Prepare the stored (offboard) fuel and the vehicle such that tank pressure after the refueling event stabilizes below 690 kPa.
(ii) Fill the tank to the point of automatic shutoff using a conventional refueling system. This is intended to achieve a net full condition.
(iii) The hold time starts when tank pressure increases to 690 kPa, and ends when the tank first vents for pressure relief. Use good engineering judgment to document the point at which the pressure-relief valve opens.
(iv) Keep the tank at rest away from direct sun with ambient temperatures between (10 and 30) °C throughout the measurement procedure.
(2) Following a complete refueling event as described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section and a short drive, installed tanks may not increase in pressure by more than 9 kPa per hour over a minimum 12 hour interval when parked away from direct sun with ambient temperatures at or below 30 °C. Calculate the allowable pressure gain by multiplying the park time in hours by 9 and rounding to the nearest whole number. Do not include the first hour after engine shutdown, and start the test only when tank pressure is between 345 and 900 kPa.
(3) The standards described in this paragraph (e) apply over the vehicle's useful life as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. The warranty requirements of § 1037.120 also apply for these standards.
(4) You may specify any amount of inspection and maintenance, consistent with good engineering judgment, to ensure that tanks meet the standards in this paragraph (e) during and after the useful life.
(f)
(g)
(1) Auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components must be installed when testing complete vehicles. If the auxiliary engine draws fuel from a separate fuel tank, you must fill the extra fuel tank before the start of diurnal testing as described for the vehicle's main fuel tank. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that any nonmetal portions of the fuel system related to the auxiliary engine have reached stabilized levels of permeation emissions. The auxiliary engine must not operate during the running loss test or any other portion of testing under this section.
(2) For testing with incomplete vehicles, you may omit installation of auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components as long as those components installed in the final configuration are certified to meet the applicable emission standards for Small SI equipment described in 40 CFR 1054.112 or for Large SI engines in 40 CFR 1048.105. For any fuel-system components that you do not install, your installation instructions must describe this certification requirement.
Heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR are not subject to the provisions of this part 1037 if they are subject to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, including all vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. See especially 40 CFR 86.1819 and 86.1865 for emission standards and compliance provisions that apply for these vehicles.
(a) The standards of this section apply for the following vehicles:
(1) Heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are excluded from the standards in 40 CFR 86.1819 or that use engines certified under § 1037.150(m).
(2) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 26,000 pounds GVWR, but not certified to the vehicle standards in 40 CFR 86.1819.
(3) Vehicles above 26,000 pounds GVWR that are not tractors.
(4) Vocational tractors.
(b) CO
(1) Model year 2027 and later vehicles are subject to CO
(2) Model year 2024 through 2026 vehicles are subject to CO
(3) Model year 2021 Through 2023 vehicles are subject to CO
(4) Model year 2014 through 2020 vehicles are subject to Phase 1 CO
(c) No CH
(d) You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading to demonstrate compliance with the standards in paragraph (b) of this section as described in subpart H of this part. This requires that you specify a Family Emission Limit (FEL) for CO
(e) The exhaust emission standards of this section apply for the full useful life, expressed in service miles or calendar years, whichever comes first. The following useful life values apply for the standards of this section:
(1) 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever comes first, for Light HDV.
(2) 185,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for Medium HDV.
(3) 435,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for Heavy HDV.
(f) See § 1037.631 for provisions that exempt certain vehicles used in off-road operation from the standards of this section.
(g) You may optionally certify a vocational vehicle to the standards and useful life applicable to a heavier vehicle service class (such as Medium HDV instead of Light HDV). Provisions related to generating emission credits apply as follows:
(1) If you certify all your vehicles from a given vehicle service class in a given model year to the standards and useful life that applies for a heavier vehicle service class, you may generate credits as appropriate for the heavier service class.
(2) Class 8 hybrid vehicles with light or medium heavy-duty engines may be certified to compression-ignition standards for the Heavy HDV service class. You may generate and use credits as allowed for the Heavy HDV service class.
(3) Except as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section, you may not generate credits with the vehicle. If you include lighter vehicles in a subfamily of heavier vehicles with an FEL below the standard, exclude the production volume of lighter vehicles from the credit calculation. Conversely, if you include lighter vehicles in a subfamily with an FEL above the standard, you must include the production volume of lighter vehicles in the credit calculation.
(h) You may optionally certify certain vocational vehicles to alternative Phase 2 standards as specified in this paragraph (h) instead of the standards specified in paragraph (b) of this section. You may apply these provisions to any qualifying vehicles even though these standards were established for custom chassis. For example, large diversified vehicle manufacturers may certify vehicles to the refuse hauler standards of this section as long as the manufacturer ensures that those vehicles qualify as refuse haulers when placed into service. GEM simulates vehicle operation for each type of vehicle based on an assigned vehicle service class, independent of the vehicle's actual characteristics, as shown in Table 5 of this section; however, standards apply for the vehicle's useful life based on its actual characteristics as specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Vehicles certified to these standards must include the following statement on the emission control label: “THIS VEHICLE WAS CERTIFIED AS A [
(1) The following alternative emission standards apply by vehicle type and model year as follows:
(2) You may generate or use emission credits for averaging to demonstrate compliance with the alternative standards as described in subpart H of this part. This requires that you specify a Family Emission Limit (FEL) for CO
(3) [Reserved]
(4) For purposes of emission modeling under § 1037.520, consider motor homes and coach buses to be subject to the Regional duty cycle, and consider all other vehicles to be subject to the Urban duty cycle.
(5) Emergency vehicles are deemed to comply with the standards of this paragraph (h) if they use tires with TRRL at or below 8.4 kg/tonne (8.7 g/tonne for model years 2021 through 2026).
(6) Concrete mixers and mixed-use vehicles are deemed to comply with the standards of this paragraph (h) if they use tires with TRRL at or below 7.1 kg/tonne (7.6 g/tonne for model years 2021 through 2026).
(7) Motor homes are deemed to comply with the standards of this paragraph (h) if they have tires with TRRL at or below 6.0 kg/tonne (6.7 g/tonne for model years 2021 through 2026) and automatic tire inflation systems or tire pressure monitoring systems with wheels on all axles.
(8) Vehicles certified to standards under this paragraph (h) must use engines certified under 40 CFR part 1036 for the appropriate model year,
(a) The CO
(b) The CO
(c) No CH
(d) You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading as described in subpart H of this part. This requires that you calculate a credit quantity if you specify a Family Emission Limit (FEL) that is different than the standard specified in this section for a given pollutant. The FEL may not be less than the result of emission modeling from § 1037.520. These FELs serve as the emission standards for the specific vehicle subfamily instead of the standards specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(e) The exhaust emission standards of this section apply for the full useful life, expressed in service miles or calendar years, whichever comes first. The following useful life values apply for the standards of this section:
(1) 185,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(2) 435,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(f) You may optionally certify Class 7 tractors to Class 8 standards as follows:
(1) You may optionally certify 4×2 tractors with heavy heavy-duty engines to the standards and useful life for Class 8 tractors, with no restriction on generating or using emission credits within the Class 8 averaging set.
(2) You may optionally certify Class 7 tractors not covered by paragraph (f)(1) of this section to the standards and useful life for Class 8 tractors. Credit provisions apply as follows:
(i) If you certify all your Class 7 tractors to Class 8 standards, you may use these Heavy HDV credits without restriction.
(ii) This paragraph (f)(2)(ii) applies if you certify some Class 7 tractors to Class 8 standards under this paragraph (f)(2) but not all of them. If you include Class 7 tractors in a subfamily of Class 8 tractors with an FEL below the standard, exclude the production volume of Class 7 tractors from the credit calculation. Conversely, if you include Class 7 tractors in a subfamily of Class 8 tractors with an FEL above the standard, you must include the production volume of Class 7 tractors in the credit calculation.
(g) Diesel auxiliary power units installed on tractors subject to standards under this section must meet PM standards as follows:
(1) For model years 2021 through 2023, the APU engine must be certified under 40 CFR part 1039 with a deteriorated emission level for PM at or below 0.15 g/kW-hr.
(2) Starting in model year 2024, auxiliary power units installed on tractors subject to standards under this section must be certified to the PM emission standard specified in 40 CFR 1039.699. Selling, offering for sale, or introducing or delivering into commerce in the United States or importing into the United States a new tractor subject to this standard is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) unless the auxiliary power unit has a valid certificate of conformity and the required label showing that it meets the PM standard of this paragraph (g)(2).
(3) See § 1037.660(e) for requirements that apply for diesel APUs in model year 2020 and earlier tractors.
The exhaust emission standards specified in this section apply to trailers based on the effect of trailer designs on the performance of the trailer in conjunction with a tractor; this accounts for the effect of the trailer on the tractor's exhaust emissions, even though trailers themselves have no exhaust emissions.
(a) Standards apply for trailers based on modeling and testing as described in subpart F of this part, as follows:
(1) Different levels of stringency apply for box vans depending on features that may affect aerodynamic performance. You may optionally meet less stringent standards for different trailer types, which we characterize as follows:
(i) For trailers 35 feet or longer, you may designate as “non-aero box vans” those box vans that have a rear lift gate or rear hinged ramp, and at least one of the following side features: Side lift gate, side-mounted pull-out platform, steps for side-door access, a drop-deck design, or belly boxes that occupy at least half the length of both sides of the trailer between the centerline of the landing gear and the leading edge of the
(ii) You may designate as “partial-aero box vans” those box vans that have at least one of the side features identified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. Long box vans may also qualify as partial-aero box vans if they have a rear lift gate or rear hinged ramp. Note that this paragraph (a)(1)(ii) does not apply for box vans designated as “non-aero box vans” under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) “Full-aero box vans” are box vans that are not designated as non-aero box vans or partial-aero box vans under this paragraph (a)(1).
(2) CO
(3) CO
(4) Non-box trailers and non-aero box vans must meet standards as follows:
(i) Trailers must use automatic tire inflation systems or tire pressure monitoring systems with wheels on all axles.
(ii) Non-box trailers must use tires with a TRRL at or below 5.1 kg/tonne. Through model year 2020, non-box trailers may instead use tires with a TRRL at or below 6.0 kg/tonne.
(iii) Non-aero box vans must use tires with a TRRL at or below 4.7 kg/tonne. Through model year 2020, non-aero box vans may instead use tires with a TRRL at or below 5.1 kg/tonne.
(5) Starting in model year 2027, you may generate or use emission credits for averaging to demonstrate compliance with the standards specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section as described in subpart H of this part. This requires that you specify a Family Emission Limit (FEL) for CO
(6) The provisions of § 1037.241 specify how to comply with the standards of this section.
(b) No CH
(c) The emission standards of this section apply for a useful life of 10 years.
Vehicles required to meet the emission standards of this part must meet the following additional requirements, except as noted elsewhere in this part:
(a)
(b)
(c) [Reserved]
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) It is designed, built, and equipped so it conforms at the time of sale to the ultimate purchaser with the requirements of this part.
(2) It is free from defects in materials and workmanship that cause the vehicle to fail to conform to the requirements of this part during the applicable warranty period.
(b)
(i) 5 years or 50,000 miles for Light HDV.
(ii) 5 years or 100,000 miles for Medium HDV (except tires).
(iii) 5 years for trailers (except tires).
(iv) 1 year for tires installed on trailers, and 2 years or 24,000 miles for all other tires.
(2) You may offer an emission-related warranty more generous than we require. The emission-related warranty for the vehicle may not be shorter than any basic mechanical warranty you provide to that owner without charge for the vehicle. Similarly, the emission-related warranty for any component may not be shorter than any warranty you provide to that owner without charge for that component. This means that your warranty for a given vehicle may not treat emission-related and nonemission-related defects differently for any component. The warranty period begins when the vehicle is placed into service.
(c)
(d)
(e)
Give the ultimate purchaser of each new vehicle written instructions for properly maintaining and using the vehicle, including the emission control system. The maintenance instructions also apply to service accumulation on any of your emission-data vehicles. See paragraph (i) of this section for requirements related to tire replacement.
(a)
(1) You present data showing that, if a lack of maintenance increases emissions, it also unacceptably degrades the vehicle's performance.
(2) You present survey data showing that at least 80 percent of vehicles in the field get the maintenance you specify at the recommended intervals.
(3) You provide the maintenance free of charge and clearly say so in your maintenance instructions.
(4) You otherwise show us that the maintenance is reasonably likely to be done at the recommended intervals.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Provide a component or service without charge under the purchase agreement.
(2) Get us to waive this prohibition in the public's interest by convincing us the vehicle will work properly only with the identified component or service.
(g) [Reserved]
(h)
(i)
(a) If you sell a certified incomplete vehicle to a secondary vehicle manufacturer, give the secondary vehicle manufacturer instructions for completing vehicle assembly consistent with the requirements of this part. Include all information necessary to ensure that the final vehicle assembly (including the engine for vehicles other than trailers) will be in its certified configuration.
(b) Make sure these instructions have the following information:
(1) Include the heading: “Emission-related installation instructions”.
(2) State: “Failing to follow these instructions when completing assembly of a heavy-duty motor vehicle violates federal law, subject to fines or other penalties as described in the Clean Air Act.”
(3) Describe the necessary steps for installing any diagnostic system required under 40 CFR part 86.
(4) Describe how your certification is limited for any type of application, as illustrated in the following examples:
(i) If the incomplete vehicle is at or below 8,500 pounds GVWR, state that the vehicle's certification is valid under this part 1037 only if the final configuration has a vehicle curb weight above 6,000 pounds or basic vehicle frontal area above 45 square feet.
(ii) If your engine will be installed in a vehicle that you certify to meet diurnal emission standards using an evaporative canister, but you do not install the fuel tank, identify the maximum permissible fuel tank capacity.
(5) Describe any other instructions to make sure the vehicle will operate according to design specifications in your application for certification.
(c) Provide instructions in writing or in an equivalent format. You may include this information with the incomplete vehicle document required by DOT. If you do not provide the instructions in writing, explain in your application for certification how you will ensure that each installer is informed of the installation requirements.
(a) Assign each vehicle a unique identification number and permanently affix, engrave, or stamp it on the vehicle in a legible way. The vehicle identification number (VIN) serves this purpose.
(b) At the time of manufacture, affix a permanent and legible label identifying each vehicle. The label must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(c) The label must—
(1) Include the heading “VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION”.
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. You may identify another company and use its trademark instead of yours if you comply with the branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(3) Include EPA's standardized designation for the vehicle family.
(4) State the regulatory subcategory that determines the applicable emission standards for the vehicle family (see definition in § 1037.801).
(5) State the date of manufacture [DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR]. You may omit this from the label if you stamp, engrave, or otherwise permanently identify it elsewhere on the vehicle, in which case you must also describe in your application for certification where you will identify the date on the vehicle.
(6) Identify the emission control system. Use terms and abbreviations as described in Appendix III to this part or other applicable conventions. Phase 2 tractors and Phase 2 vocational vehicles may omit this information.
(7) Identify any requirements for fuel and lubricants that do not involve fuel-sulfur levels.
(8) State: “THIS VEHICLE COMPLIES WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR [MODEL YEAR] HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES.”
(9) If you rely on another company to design and install fuel tanks in incomplete vehicles that use an evaporative canister for controlling diurnal emissions, include the following statement: “THIS VEHICLE IS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS WITH UP TO x GALLONS OF FUEL TANK CAPACITY.” Complete this statement by identifying the maximum specified fuel tank capacity associated with your certification.
(d) You may add information to the emission control information label as follows:
(1) You may identify other emission standards that the vehicle meets or does not meet (such as European standards).
(2) You may add other information to ensure that the vehicle will be properly maintained and used.
(3) You may add appropriate features to prevent counterfeit labels. For example, you may include the vehicle's unique identification number on the label.
(e) You may ask us to approve modified labeling requirements in this part 1037 if you show that it is necessary or appropriate. We will approve your request if your alternate label is consistent with the requirements of this part.
(a) Where applicable, a vehicle's roof height and a trailer's length are determined from nominal design specifications, as provided in this section. Specify design values for roof height and trailer length to the nearest inch.
(b) Base roof height on fully inflated tires having a static loaded radius equal to the arithmetic mean of the largest and smallest static loaded radius of tires you offer or a standard tire we approve.
(c) Base trailer length on the outer dimensions of the load-carrying structure. Do not include aerodynamic devices or HVAC units.
(d) The nominal design specifications must be within the range of the actual values from production vehicles considering normal production variability. In the case of roof height, use the mean tire radius specified in paragraph (b) of this section. If after production begins it is determined that your nominal design specifications do not represent production vehicles, we may require you to amend your application for certification under § 1037.225.
(e) If your vehicle is equipped with an adjustable roof fairing, measure the roof height with the fairing in its lowest setting.
(f) For any provisions in this part that depend on the number of axles on a vehicle, include lift axles or any other installed axles that can be used to carry the vehicle's weight while in motion.
(g) The standards and other provisions of this part apply to specific vehicle service classes for tractors and vocational vehicles as follows:
(1) Phase 1 and Phase 2 tractors are divided based on GVWR into Class 7 tractors and Class 8 tractors. Where provisions apply to both tractors and vocational vehicles, Class 7 tractors are considered “Medium HDV” and Class 8 tractors are considered “Heavy HDV”.
(2) Phase 1 vocational vehicles are divided based on GVWR. “Light HDV” includes Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles; “Medium HDV includes Class 6 and Class 7 vehicles; and “Heavy HDV includes Class 8 vehicles.
(3) Phase 2 vocational vehicles with spark-ignition engines are divided based on GVWR. “Light HDV” includes Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles, and “Medium HDV includes Class 6 through Class 8 vehicles.
(4) Phase 2 vocational vehicles with compression-ignition engines are divided as follows:
(i) Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles are considered “Light HDV”.
(ii) Class 6 through 8 vehicles are considered “Heavy HDV” if the installed engine's primary intended service class is heavy heavy-duty (see 40 CFR 1036.140). All other Class 6 through Class 8 vehicles are considered “Medium HDV”.
(5) In certain circumstances, you may certify vehicles to standards that apply for a different vehicle service class. For example, see §§ 1037.105(g) and 1037.106(f). If you optionally certify vehicles to different standards, those vehicles are subject to all the regulatory requirements as if the standards were mandatory.
(h) Use good engineering judgment to identify the intended duty cycle (Urban, Multi-Purpose, or Regional) for each of your vocational vehicle configurations based on the expected use of the vehicles.
The provisions in this section apply instead of other provisions in this part.
(a)
(1) This paragraph (a)(1) applies for regulatory subcategories subject to the standards of § 1037.105 or § 1037.106. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, to generate early credits under this paragraph for any vehicles other than electric vehicles, you must certify your entire U.S.-directed production volume within the regulatory subcategory to these standards. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, if some vehicle families within a regulatory subcategory are certified after the start of the model year, you may generate credits only for production that occurs after all families are certified. For example, if you produce three vehicle families in an averaging set and you receive your certificates for those families on January 4, 2013, March 15, 2013, and April 24, 2013, you may not generate credits for model year 2013 production in any of the families that occurs before April 24, 2013. Calculate credits relative to the standard that would apply in model year 2014 using the equations in subpart H of this part. You may bank credits equal to the surplus credits you generate under this paragraph (a) multiplied by 1.50. For example, if you have 1.0 Mg of surplus credits for model year 2013, you may bank 1.5 Mg of credits. Credit deficits for an averaging set prior to model year 2014 do not carry over to model year 2014. These credits may be used to show compliance with the standards of this part for 2014 and later model years. We recommend that you notify EPA of your intent to use this provision before submitting your applications.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) You may generate emission credits for the number of additional SmartWay designated tractors (relative to your 2012 production), provided you do not generate credits for those vehicles under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Calculate credits for each regulatory subcategory relative to the standard that would apply in model year 2014 using the equations in subpart H of this part. Use a production volume equal to the number of designated model year 2013 SmartWay tractors minus the number of designated model year 2012 SmartWay tractors. You may bank credits equal to the surplus credits you generate under this paragraph (a)(3) multiplied by 1.50. Your 2012 and 2013 model years must be equivalent in length.
(4) This paragraph (a)(4) applies where you do not receive your final certificate in a regulatory subcategory within 30 days of submitting your final application for that subcategory. Calculate your credits for all production that occurs 30 days or more after you submit your final application for the subcategory.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(2) In unusual circumstances, vehicle manufacturers may ask us to exempt vehicles under § 1037.631 based on other criteria that are equivalent to those specified in § 1037.631(a); however, we will normally not grant relief in cases where the vehicle manufacturer has credits or can otherwise comply with applicable standards. Request approval for an exemption under this paragraph (h) before you produce the subject vehicles. Send your request with supporting information to the Designated Compliance Officer; we will coordinate with NHTSA in making a determination under § 1037.210. If you introduce into U.S. commerce vehicles that depend on our approval under this paragraph (h) before we inform you of our approval, those vehicles violate 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(1) If you install model year 2020 or earlier engines in your vehicles in calendar year 2020, include all those Phase 1 vehicles in your production and ABT reports related to model year 2020 compliance, although we may require you identify these separately from vehicles produced in calendar year 2019.
(2) If you install model year 2020 engines in your vehicles in calendar year 2021, submit production and ABT reports for those Phase 1 vehicles separate from the reports you submit for Phase 2 vehicles with model year 2021 engines.
(o)
(p)
(q)
(1) For vocational vehicles and tractors subject to Phase 1 standards, create separate vehicle families for vehicles that contain advanced or off-
(2) For vocational vehicles and tractors subject to Phase 2 standards, create separate vehicle families if there is a credit multiplier for advanced technology; group those vehicles together in a vehicle family if they use the same multiplier.
(r)
(1) The original low- or mid-roof tractor must be covered by a valid certificate of conformity.
(2) The modifications may not increase the frontal area of the tractor beyond the frontal area of the equivalent mid- or high-roof tractor with the corresponding standard trailer. Note that these dimensions have a tolerance of ±2 inches. Use good engineering judgment to achieve aerodynamic performance similar to or better than the certifying manufacturer's corresponding mid- or high-roof tractor.
(3) Add a permanent supplemental label to the vehicle near the original manufacturer's emission control information label. On the label identify your full corporate name and include the following statement: “THIS VEHICLE WAS MODIFIED AS ALLOWED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150.”
(4) We may require that you submit annual production reports as described in § 1037.250.
(5) Modifications made under this paragraph (r) do not violate 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1).
(s)
(t)
(i) You are eligible for this exemption if you are a small manufacturer and you sold one or more glider vehicles in 2014 under the provisions of § 1037.150(c). You do not qualify if you only produced glider vehicles for your own use. You must notify us of your plans to use this exemption before you introduce exempt vehicles into U.S. commerce. In your notification, you must identify your annual U.S.-directed production volume (and sales, if different) of such vehicles for calendar years 2010 through 2014. Vehicles you produce before notifying us are not exempt under this section.
(ii) In a given calendar year, you may produce up to 300 exempt vehicles under this section, or up to the highest annual production volume you identify in paragraph (t)(1) of this section, whichever is less.
(iii) Identify the number of exempt vehicles you produced under this exemption for the preceding calendar year in your annual report under § 1037.250.
(iv) Include the appropriate statement on the label required under § 1037.135, as follows:
(A) For Phase 1 vehicles, “THIS VEHICLE AND ITS ENGINE ARE EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(t)(1).”
(B) For Phase 2 vehicles, “THE ENGINE IN THIS VEHICLE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(t)(1).”
(v) If you produce your glider vehicle by installing remanufactured or previously used components in a glider kit produced by another manufacturer, you must provide the following to the glider kit manufacturer prior to obtaining the glider kit:
(A) Your name, the name of your company, and contact information.
(B) A signed statement that you are a qualifying small manufacturer and that your production will not exceed the production limits of this paragraph (t)(1). This statement is deemed to be a submission to EPA, and we may require the glider kit manufacturer to provide a copy to us at any time.
(vi) This exemption is valid for a given vehicle and engine only if you meet all the requirements and conditions of this paragraph (t)(1) that apply with respect to that vehicle and engine. Introducing such a vehicle into U.S. commerce without meeting all applicable requirements and conditions violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
(vii) Companies that are not small manufacturers may sell uncertified incomplete vehicles without engines to small manufacturers for the purpose of producing exempt vehicles under this paragraph (t)(1), subject to the provisions of § 1037.622. However, such companies must take reasonable steps to ensure that their incomplete vehicles will be used in conformance with the requirements of this part 1037.
(2) Glider vehicles produced using engines certified to model year 2010 or later standards for all pollutants are subject to the same provisions that apply to vehicles using engines within their useful life in § 1037.635.
(3) For calendar year 2017, you may produce a limited number of glider kits and/or glider vehicles subject to the requirements applicable to model year 2016 glider vehicles, instead of the requirements of § 1037.635. The limit applies to your combined 2017 production of glider kits and glider vehicles and is equal to your highest annual production of glider kits and glider vehicles for any year from 2010 to 2014. Any glider kits or glider vehicles produced beyond this cap are subject to the provisions of § 1037.635. Count any glider kits and glider vehicles you produce under paragraph (t)(1) of this section as part of your production with respect to this paragraph (t)(3).
(u)
(v)
(w)
(x)
(1) You may presume that CFD measurements at a yaw angle of 4.5° are equal to measurements made using the primary method, and you may use them without adjustment.
(2) You may presume that coastdown measurements at yaw angles smaller than ± 4.5° are equal to measurements made using the primary method, and you may use them without adjustment. This applies equally for device manufacturers, but it does not apply for EPA testing.
(3) You may use testing or analytical methods to adjust coastdown measurements to account for aerodynamic effects at a yaw angle of ±4.5°. This applies for rear fairings and other devices whose performance is affected by yaw angle.
(y)
(1) For vocational Light HDV and vocational Medium HDV, emission credits you generate in model years 2018 through 2021 may be used through model year 2027, instead of being limited to a five-year credit life as specified in § 1037.740(c). For Class 8 vocational vehicles with medium heavy-duty engines, we will approve your request to generate these credits in and use these credits for the Medium HDV averaging set if you show that these vehicles would qualify as Medium HDV under the Phase 2 program as described in § 1037.140(g)(4).
(2) You may use the off-cycle provisions of § 1037.610 to apply technologies to Phase 1 vehicles as follows:
(i) You may apply an improvement factor of 0.988 for tractors and vocational vehicles with automatic tire inflation systems on all axles.
(ii) For vocational vehicles with automatic engine shutdown systems that conform with § 1037.660, you may apply an improvement factor of 0.95.
(iii) For vocational vehicles with stop-start systems that conform with § 1037.660, you may apply an improvement factor of 0.92.
(iv) For vocational vehicles with neutral-idle systems conforming with § 1037.660, you may apply an improvement factor of 0.98. You may adjust this improvement factor if we approve a partial reduction under § 1037.660(a)(2); for example, if your design reduces fuel consumption by half as much as shifting to neutral, you may apply an improvement factor of 0.99.
(3) Small manufacturers may generate emission credits for natural gas-fueled vocational vehicles as follows:
(i) Small manufacturers may certify their vehicles instead of relying on the exemption of paragraph (c) of this section. The provisions of this part apply for such vehicles, except as specified in this paragraph (y)(3).
(ii) Use Phase 1 GEM to determine a CO
(z)
(1) The Regional duty cycle applies if the engine was certified based on testing only with the ramped-modal cycle.
(2) The Regional duty cycle applies for coach buses and motor homes you certify under § 1037.105(b).
(3) You may not select the Urban duty cycle for any vehicle with a manual or single-clutch automated manual transmission.
(4) Starting in model year 2024, you must select the Regional duty cycle for any vehicle with a manual transmission.
(5) You may select the Urban duty cycle for a hybrid vehicle equipped with regenerative braking, unless it is equipped with a manual transmission.
(6) You may select the Urban duty cycle for any vehicle with a hydrokinetic torque converter paired with an automatic transmission, or a continuously variable automatic transmission, or a dual-clutch transmission with no more than two consecutive forward gears between which it is normal for both clutches to be momentarily disengaged.
(aa)
(1) You may use emission credits generated under § 1037.105(d), including banked or traded credits from any averaging set. Such credits remain subject to other limitations that apply under subpart H of this part.
(2) You may produce up to 200 drayage tractors in a given model year to the standards described in § 1037.105(h) for “other buses”. Treat these drayage tractors as being in their own averaging set.
(a) You must send us a separate application for a certificate of conformity for each vehicle family. A certificate of conformity is valid from the indicated effective date until the end of the model year for which it is issued. You must renew your certification annually for any vehicles you continue to produce.
(b) The application must contain all the information required by this part and must not include false or incomplete statements or information (see § 1037.255).
(c) We may ask you to include less information than we specify in this subpart, as long as you maintain all the information required by § 1037.250.
(d) You must use good engineering judgment for all decisions related to your application (see 40 CFR 1068.5).
(e) An authorized representative of your company must approve and sign the application.
(f) See § 1037.255 for provisions describing how we will process your application.
(g) We may perform confirmatory testing on your vehicles or components; for example, we may test vehicles to verify drag areas or other GEM inputs. This includes tractors used to determine
(h) The certification and testing provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, apply instead of the provisions of this subpart relative to the evaporative and refueling emission standards specified in § 1037.103, except that § 1037.245 describes how to demonstrate compliance with evaporative emission standards. For vehicles that do not use an evaporative canister for controlling diurnal emissions, you may certify with respect to exhaust emissions and use the provisions of § 1037.622 to let a different company certify with respect to evaporative emissions.
(i) Vehicles and installed engines must meet exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emission standards and certification requirements in 40 CFR part 86 or 40 CFR part 1036, as applicable. Include the information described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, or 40 CFR 1036.205 in your application for certification in addition to what we specify in § 1037.205 so we can issue a single certificate of conformity for all the requirements that apply for your vehicle and the installed engine.
This section specifies the information that must be in your application, unless we ask you to include less information under § 1037.201(c). We may require you to provide additional information to evaluate your application. References to testing and emission-data vehicles refer to testing vehicles or components to measure any quantity that serves as an input value for modeling emission rates under § 1037.515 or 1037.520.
(a) Describe the vehicle family's specifications and other basic parameters of the vehicle's design and emission controls. List the fuel type on which your vocational vehicles and tractors are designed to operate (for example, ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel).
(b) Explain how the emission control system operates. As applicable, describe in detail all system components for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, including all auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs) and all fuel-system components you will install on any production vehicle. Identify the part number of each component you describe. For this paragraph (b), treat as separate AECDs any devices that modulate or activate differently from each other. Also describe your modeling inputs as described in §§ 1037.515 and 1037.520, with the following additional information if it applies for your vehicles:
(1) Describe your design for vehicle speed limiters, consistent with § 1037.640.
(2) Describe your design for predictive cruise control.
(3) Describe your design for automatic engine shutdown systems, consistent with § 1037.660.
(4) Describe your engineering analysis demonstrating that your air conditioning compressor qualifies as a high-efficiency model as described in 40 CFR 86.1868-12(h)(5).
(5) Describe your design for idle-reduction technology, including the logic for engine shutdown and the maximum duration of engine operation after the onset of any vehicle conditions described in § 1037.660.
(6) If you perform powertrain testing under § 1037.550, report both CO
(7) Describe the configuration and basic design of hybrid systems. Include measurements for vehicles with hybrid power take-off systems.
(8) If you install auxiliary power units in tractors under § 1037.106(g), identify the family name associated with the engine's certification under 40 CFR part 1039. Starting in model year 2024, also identify the family name associated with the auxiliary power unit's certification to the standards of 40 CFR 1039.699.
(9) Describe how you meet any applicable criteria in § 1037.631(a)(1) and (2).
(c) For vehicles subject to air conditioning standards, include:
(1) The refrigerant leakage rates (leak scores).
(2) The type of refrigerant and the refrigerant capacity of the air conditioning systems.
(3) The corporate name of the final installer of the air conditioning system.
(d) Describe any vehicles or components you selected for testing and the reasons for selecting them.
(e) Describe any test equipment and procedures that you used, including any special or alternate test procedures you used (see § 1037.501). Include information describing the procedures you used to determine
(f) Describe how you operated any emission-data vehicle before testing, including the duty cycle and the number of vehicle operating miles used to stabilize emission-related performance. Explain why you selected the method of service accumulation. Describe any scheduled maintenance you did.
(g) Where applicable, list the specifications of any test fuel to show that it falls within the required ranges we specify in 40 CFR part 1065.
(h) Identify the vehicle family's useful life.
(i) Include the maintenance instructions and warranty statement you will give to the ultimate purchaser of each new vehicle (see §§ 1037.120 and 1037.125).
(j) Describe your emission control information label (see § 1037.135).
(k) Identify the emission standards or FELs to which you are certifying vehicles in the vehicle family. For families containing multiple subfamilies, this means that you must identify the highest and lowest FELs to which any of your subfamilies will be certified.
(l) Where applicable, identify the vehicle family's deterioration factors and describe how you developed them. Present any emission test data you used for this (see § 1037.241(c)).
(m) Where applicable, state that you operated your emission-data vehicles as described in the application (including the test procedures, test parameters, and test fuels) to show you meet the requirements of this part.
(n) [Reserved]
(o) Report calculated and modeled emission results as follows:
(1) For vocational vehicles and tractors, report modeling results for ten configurations. Include modeling inputs and detailed descriptions of how they were derived. Unless we specify otherwise, include the configuration with the highest modeling result, the lowest modeling result, and the configurations with the highest projected sales.
(2) For trailers that demonstrate compliance with g/ton-mile emission standards as described in § 1037.515, report the CO
(p) Where applicable, describe all adjustable operating parameters (see § 1037.115), including production tolerances. You do not need to include parameters that do not affect emissions covered by your application. Include the following in your description of each parameter:
(1) The nominal or recommended setting.
(2) The intended physically adjustable range.
(3) The limits or stops used to establish adjustable ranges.
(4) Information showing why the limits, stops, or other means of inhibiting adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of parameters on in-use vehicles to settings outside your intended physically adjustable ranges.
(q) [Reserved]
(r) Unconditionally certify that all the vehicles in the vehicle family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced parts of the CFR, and the Clean Air Act.
(s) Include good-faith estimates of U.S.-directed production volumes by subfamily. We may require you to describe the basis of your estimates.
(t) Include the information required by other subparts of this part. For example, include the information required by § 1037.725 if you plan to generate or use emission credits.
(u) Include other applicable information, such as information specified in this part or 40 CFR part 1068 related to requests for exemptions.
(v) Name an agent for service located in the United States. Service on this agent constitutes service on you or any of your officers or employees for any action by EPA or otherwise by the United States related to the requirements of this part.
If you send us information before you finish the application, we may review it and make any appropriate determinations. Decisions made under this section are considered to be preliminary approval, subject to final review and approval. We will generally not reverse a decision where we have given you preliminary approval, unless we find new information supporting a different decision. If you request preliminary approval related to the upcoming model year or the model year after that, we will make best-efforts to make the appropriate determinations as soon as practicable. We will generally not provide preliminary approval related to a future model year more than two years ahead of time.
(a) If you design or manufacture aerodynamic devices for trailers, you may ask us to provide preliminary approval for the measured performance of your devices. While decisions made under this section are considered to be preliminary approval, we will not reverse a decision where we have given you preliminary approval, unless we find new information supporting a different decision. For example, where we measure the performance of your device after giving you preliminary approval and its measured performance is less than your data indicated, we may rescind the preliminary approval of your test results.
(b) To request this, you must provide test data for
You may amend your emission-related maintenance instructions after you submit your application for certification as long as the amended instructions remain consistent with the provisions of § 1037.125. You must send the Designated Compliance Officer a written request to amend your application for certification for a vehicle family if you want to change the emission-related maintenance instructions in a way that could affect emissions. In your request, describe the proposed changes to the maintenance instructions. If operators follow the original maintenance instructions rather than the newly specified maintenance, this does not allow you to disqualify those vehicles from in-use testing or deny a warranty claim.
(a) If you are decreasing or eliminating any specified maintenance, you may distribute the new maintenance instructions to your customers 30 days after we receive your request, unless we disapprove your request. This would generally include replacing one maintenance step with another. We may approve a shorter time or waive this requirement.
(b) If your requested change would not decrease the specified maintenance, you may distribute the new maintenance instructions any time after you send your request. For example, this paragraph (b) would cover adding instructions to increase the frequency of filter changes for vehicles in severe-duty applications.
(c) You need not request approval if you are making only minor corrections (such as correcting typographical mistakes), clarifying your maintenance instructions, or changing instructions for maintenance unrelated to emission control. We may ask you to send us copies of maintenance instructions revised under this paragraph (c).
Before we issue you a certificate of conformity, you may amend your application to include new or modified vehicle configurations, subject to the provisions of this section. After we have issued your certificate of conformity, you may send us an amended application requesting that we include new or modified vehicle configurations within the scope of the certificate, subject to the provisions of this section. You must amend your application if any changes occur with respect to any information that is included or should be included in your application.
(a) You must amend your application before you take any of the following actions:
(1) Add any vehicle configurations to a vehicle family that are not already covered by your application. For example, if your application identifies three possible engine models, and you plan to produce vehicles using an additional engine model, then you must amend your application before producing vehicles with the fourth engine model. The added vehicle configurations must be consistent with other vehicle configurations in the vehicle family with respect to the criteria listed in § 1037.230.
(2) Change a vehicle configuration already included in a vehicle family in a way that may change any of the components you described in your application for certification, or make any other changes that would make the emissions inconsistent with the information in your application. This includes production and design changes that may affect emissions any time during the vehicle's lifetime.
(3) Modify an FEL for a vehicle family as described in paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) To amend your application for certification, send the relevant information to the Designated Compliance Officer.
(1) Describe in detail the addition or change in the vehicle model or configuration you intend to make.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or data showing that the amended vehicle family complies with all applicable requirements. You may do this by
(3) If the original emission-data vehicle or emission modeling for the vehicle family is not appropriate to show compliance for the new or modified vehicle configuration, include new test data or emission modeling showing that the new or modified vehicle configuration meets the requirements of this part.
(4) Include any other information needed to make your application correct and complete.
(c) We may ask for more test data or engineering evaluations. You must give us these within 30 days after we request them.
(d) For vehicle families already covered by a certificate of conformity, we will determine whether the existing certificate of conformity covers your newly added or modified vehicle. You may ask for a hearing if we deny your request (see § 1037.820).
(e) For vehicle families already covered by a certificate of conformity, you may start producing the new or modified vehicle configuration any time after you send us your amended application and before we make a decision under paragraph (d) of this section. However, if we determine that the affected vehicles do not meet applicable requirements, we will notify you to cease production of the vehicles and may require you to recall the vehicles at no expense to the owner. Choosing to produce vehicles under this paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to recall all vehicles that we determine do not meet applicable emission standards or other requirements and to remedy the nonconformity at no expense to the owner. If you do not provide information required under paragraph (c) of this section within 30 days after we request it, you must stop producing the new or modified vehicles.
(f) You may ask us to approve a change to your FEL in certain cases after the start of production. The changed FEL may not apply to vehicles you have already introduced into U.S. commerce, except as described in this paragraph (f). You may ask us to approve a change to your FEL in the following cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for your vehicle subfamily at any time. In your request, you must show that you will still be able to meet the emission standards as specified in subparts B and H of this part. Use the appropriate FELs with corresponding production volumes to calculate emission credits for the model year, as described in subpart H of this part.
(2) Where testing applies, you may ask to lower the FEL for your vehicle subfamily only if you have test data from production vehicles showing that emissions are below the proposed lower FEL. Otherwise, you may ask to lower your FEL for your vehicle subfamily at any time. The lower FEL applies only to vehicles you produce after we approve the new FEL. Use the appropriate FELs with corresponding production volumes to calculate emission credits for the model year, as described in subpart H of this part.
(3) You may ask to add an FEL for your vehicle family at any time.
(g) You may produce vehicles as described in your amended application for certification and consider those vehicles to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified vehicle configuration during the model year under paragraph (d) of this section. Similarly, you may modify in-use vehicles as described in your amended application for certification and consider those vehicles to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified vehicle configuration at any time under paragraph (d) of this section. Modifying a new or in-use vehicle to be in a certified configuration does not violate the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1), as long as this does not involve changing to a certified configuration with a higher family emission limit. See § 1037.621(g) for special provisions that apply for changing to a different certified configuration in certain circumstances.
(a) For purposes of certifying your vehicles to greenhouse gas standards, divide your product line into families of vehicles based on regulatory subcategories as specified in this section. Subcategories are specified using terms defined in § 1037.801. Your vehicle family is limited to a single model year.
(1) Apply subcategories for vocational vehicles and vocational tractors as shown in Table 1 of this section. This involves 15 separate subcategories for Phase 2 vehicles to account for engine characteristics, GVWR, and the selection of duty cycle for vocational vehicles as specified in § 1037.510; vehicles may additionally fall into one of the subcategories defined by the custom-chassis standards in § 1037.105(h). Divide Phase 1 vehicles into three GVWR-based vehicle service classes as shown in Table 1 of this section, disregarding additional specified characteristics. Table 1 follows:
(2) Apply subcategories for tractors (other than vocational tractors) as shown in Table 2 of this section. Vehicles may additionally fall into one of the subcategories defined by the optional tractor standards in § 1037.670.
(3) Apply subcategories for trailers as shown in the following table:
(b) If the vehicles in your family are being certified to more than one FEL, subdivide your greenhouse gas vehicle families into subfamilies that include vehicles with identical FELs. Note that you may add subfamilies at any time during the model year.
(c) Group vehicles into configurations consistent with the definition of “vehicle configuration” in § 1037.801. Note that vehicles with hardware or software differences that are related to measured or modeled emissions are considered to be different vehicle configurations even if they have the same modeling inputs and FEL. Note also, that you are not required to separately identify all configurations for certification. Note that you are not required to identify all possible configurations for certification; also, you are required to include in your end-of-year report only those configurations you produced.
(d) You may combine dissimilar vehicles into a single vehicle family in special circumstances as follows:
(1) For a Phase 1 vehicle model that straddles a roof-height, cab type, or GVWR division, you may include all the vehicles in the same vehicle family if you certify the vehicle family to the more stringent standard. For roof height, this means you must certify to the taller roof standards. For cab-type and GVWR, this means you must certify to the numerically lower standards.
(2) For a Phase 2 vehicle model that includes a range of GVWR values that straddle weight classes, you may include all the vehicles in the same vehicle family if you certify the vehicle family to the numerically lower CO
(i) You may certify mid-roof tractors as high-roof tractors, but you may not certify high-roof tractors as mid-roof tractors.
(ii) For tractor families straddling the low-roof/mid-roof division, you may certify the family based on the primary roof-height as long as no more than 10 percent of the tractors are certified to the otherwise inapplicable subcategory. For example, if 95 percent of the tractors in the family are less than 120 inches tall, and the other 5 percent are 122 inches tall, you may certify the tractors as a single family in the low-roof subcategory.
(iii) Determine the appropriate aerodynamic bin number based on the actual roof height if you measure a
(3) You may include refrigerated box vans in a vehicle family with dry box vans by treating them all as dry box vans for demonstrating compliance with emission standards. You may include certain other types of trailers in a vehicle family with a different type of trailer, such that the combined set of trailers are all subject to the more stringent standards, as follows:
(i) Standards for long trailers are more stringent than standards for short trailers.
(ii) Standards for long dry box vans are more stringent than standards for short refrigerated box vans.
(iii) Standards for non-aero box vans are more stringent than standards for non-box trailers.
(e) You may divide your families into more families than specified in this section.
(f) You may ask us to allow you to group into the same configuration vehicles that have very small body hardware differences that do not significantly affect drag areas.
(a) If you choose to perform powertrain testing as specified in § 1037.550, use good engineering judgment to divide your product line into powertrain families that are expected to have similar fuel consumptions and CO
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, group powertrains in the same powertrain family if they share all the following attributes:
(1) Engine family.
(2) Shared vehicle service class grouping, as follows:
(i) Light HDV or Medium HDV.
(ii) Heavy HDV other than heavy-haul tractors.
(iii) Heavy-haul tractors.
(3) Number of clutches.
(4) Type of clutch (
(5) Presence and location of a fluid coupling such as a torque converter.
(6) Gear configuration, as follows:
(i) Planetary (
(ii) Countershaft (
(iii) Continuously variable (
(7) Number of available forward gears, and transmission gear ratio for each available forward gear, if applicable.
(8) Transmission oil sump configuration (
(9) The power transfer configuration of any hybrid technology (
(10) The energy storage device and capacity of any hybrid technology (
(11) The rated output of any hybrid mechanical power technology (
(c) For powertrains that share all the attributes described in paragraph (b) of this section, divide them further into separate powertrain families based on common calibration attributes. Group powertrains in the same powertrain
(d) You may subdivide a group of powertrains with shared attributes under paragraph (b) of this section into different powertrain families.
(e) In unusual circumstances, you may group powertrains into the same powertrain family even if they do not have shared attributes under in paragraph (b) of this section if you show that their emission characteristics throughout the useful life will be similar.
(f) If you include the axle when performing powertrain testing for the family, you must limit the family to include only those axles represented by the test results. You may include multiple axle ratios in the family if you test with the axle expected to produce the highest emission results.
(a) If you choose to perform axle testing as specified in § 1037.560 or transmission testing as specified in § 1037.565, use good engineering judgment to divide your product line into axle or transmission families that are expected to have similar hardware, noting that efficiencies can differ across the members of a family. Note that, while there is no certification for axle and transmission families under this part, vehicle manufacturers may rely on axle and transmission test data to certify their vehicles.
(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, group axles in the same axle family if they have the same number of drive axles and the same load rating.
(c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, group transmissions in the same transmission family if they share all the following attributes:
(1) Number and type of clutches (wet or dry).
(2) Presence and location of a fluid coupling such as a torque converter.
(3) Gear configuration, as follows:
(i) Planetary (
(ii) Countershaft (
(iii) Continuously variable (
(4) Transmission oil sump configuration (conventional or dry).
(d) You may subdivide a group of axles or powertrains with shared attributes under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section into different families.
This section describes the emission testing you must perform to show compliance with respect to the greenhouse gas emission standards in subpart B of this part, and to determine any input values from §§ 1037.515 and 1037.520 that involve measured quantities.
(a) Select emission-data vehicles that represent production vehicles and components for the vehicle family consistent with the specifications in §§ 1037.205(o), 1037.515, and 1037.520. Where the test results will represent multiple vehicles or components with different emission performance, use good engineering judgment to select worst-case emission data vehicles or components. In the case of powertrain testing under § 1037.550, select a test engine and test transmission by considering the whole range of vehicle models covered by the powertrain family and the mix of duty cycles specified in § 1037.510.
(b) Test your emission-data vehicles (including emission-data components) using the procedures and equipment specified in subpart F of this part. Measure emissions (or other parameters, as applicable) using the specified procedures.
(c) We may perform confirmatory testing by measuring emissions (or other parameters, as applicable) from any of your emission-data vehicles.
(1) We may decide to do the testing at your plant or any other facility. If we do this, you must deliver the vehicle or component to a test facility we designate. The vehicle or component you provide must be in a configuration that is suitable for testing. For example, vehicles must have the tires you used for testing, and tractors must be set up with the trailer you used for testing. If we do the testing at your plant, you must schedule it as soon as possible and make available the instruments, personnel, and equipment we need (see paragraph (g) of this section for provisions that apply specifically for testing a tractor's aerodynamic performance).
(2) If we measure emissions (or other parameters, as applicable) from your vehicle or component, the results of that testing become the official emission results for the vehicle or component. Note that changing the official emission result does not necessarily require a change in the declared modeling input value. Unless we later invalidate these data, we may decide not to consider your data in determining if your vehicle family meets applicable requirements.
(3) Before we test one of your vehicles or components, we may set its adjustable parameters to any point within the physically adjustable ranges, if applicable.
(4) Before we test one of your vehicles or components, we may calibrate it within normal production tolerances for anything we do not consider an adjustable parameter. For example, this would apply for a vehicle parameter that is subject to production variability because it is adjustable during production, but is not considered an adjustable parameter (as defined in § 1037.801) because it is permanently sealed. For parameters that relate to a level of performance that is itself subject to a specified range (such as maximum power output), we will generally perform any calibration under this paragraph (c)(4) in a way that keeps performance within the specified range. Note that this paragraph (c)(4) does not allow us to test your vehicles in a condition that would be unrepresentative of production vehicles.
(d) You may ask to use carryover data for a vehicle or component from a previous model year instead of doing new tests if the applicable emission-data vehicle from the previous model year remains the appropriate emission-data vehicle under paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) We may require you to test a second vehicle or component of the same configuration in addition to the vehicle or component tested under paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) If you use an alternate test procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and later testing shows that such testing does not produce results that are equivalent to the procedures specified in subpart F of this part, we may reject data you generated using the alternate procedure.
(g) We may perform testing to verify your aerodynamic drag area values using any method specified in subpart F of this part. The following additional provisions apply:
(1) We intend to use the same aerodynamic test facility you used, and if you provide any instruments you used, we intend to use those instruments to perform our testing.
(2) We may perform coastdown testing to verify your tractor drag area for any certified configuration. If you use an alternate method for determining aerodynamic drag area for tractors, we may perform testing to verify
(3) We may test trailers (and devices receiving preliminary approval) using the wind-tunnel method described in § 1037.530. We may also test using an
(h) You may ask us to use analytically derived GEM inputs for untested configurations as identified in subpart F of this part based on interpolation of all relevant measured values for related configurations, consistent with good engineering judgment. We may establish specific approval criteria base on prevailing industry practice. If we allow this, we may test any configurations. We may also require you to test any configurations as part of a selective enforcement audit.
(a) Compliance determinations for purposes of certification depend on whether or not you participate in the ABT program in subpart H of this part.
(1) If none of your vehicle families generate or use emission credits in a given model year,, each of your vehicle families is considered in compliance with the CO
(2) If you generate or use emission credits with one or more vehicle families in a given model year, your vehicle families within an averaging set are considered in compliance with the CO
(b) For non-box trailers and non-aero box vans, your vehicle family is considered in compliance with the emission standards if all vehicle configurations in that family meet specified design standards and have TRRL values at or below the specified standard. Your family is deemed not to comply for certification if any trailer does not meet specified design standards or if any vehicle configuration in that family has a measured TRRL value above the specified standard.
(c) We may require you to provide an engineering analysis showing that the performance of your emission controls will not deteriorate during the useful life with proper maintenance. If we determine that your emission controls are likely to deteriorate during the useful life, we may require you to develop and apply deterioration factors consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, you may need to apply a deterioration factor to address deterioration of battery performance for a hybrid electric vehicle. Where the highest useful life emissions occur between the end of useful life and at the low-hour test point, base deterioration factors for the vehicles on the difference between (or ratio of) the point at which the highest emissions occur and the low-hour test point.
(a) For purposes of certification, your vehicle family is considered in compliance with the evaporative emission standards in subpart B of this part if you prepare an engineering analysis showing that your vehicles in the family will comply with applicable standards throughout the useful life, and there are no test results from an emission-data vehicle representing the family that exceed an emission standard.
(b) Your evaporative emission family is deemed not to comply if your engineering analysis is not adequate to show that all the vehicles in the family will comply with applicable emission standards throughout the useful life, or if a test result from an emission-data vehicle representing the family exceeds an emission standard.
(c) To compare emission levels with emission standards, apply deterioration factors to the measured emission levels. Establish an additive deterioration factor based on an engineering analysis that takes into account the expected aging from in-use vehicles.
(d) Apply the deterioration factor to the official emission result, as described in paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each emission-data vehicle.
(e) Your analysis to demonstrate compliance with emission standards must take into account your design strategy for vehicles that require testing. Specifically, vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR are presumed to need the same technologies that are required for heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Similarly, your analysis to establish a deterioration factor must take into account your testing to establish deterioration factors for smaller vehicles.
(a) Within 90 days after the end of the model year, send the Designated Compliance Officer a report including the total U.S.-directed production volume of vehicles you produced in each vehicle family during the model year (based on information available at the time of the report). Report by vehicle identification number and vehicle configuration and identify the subfamily identifier. Report uncertified vehicles sold to secondary vehicle manufacturers. We may waive the reporting requirements of this paragraph (a) for small manufacturers.
(b) Organize and maintain the following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any summary information you send us.
(2) Any of the information we specify in § 1037.205 that you were not required to include in your application.
(3) A detailed history of each emission-data vehicle (including emission-related components), if applicable.
(4) Production figures for each vehicle family divided by assembly plant.
(5) Keep a list of vehicle identification numbers for all the vehicles you produce under each certificate of conformity. Also identify the technologies that make up the certified configuration for each vehicle you produce.
(c) Keep required data from emission tests and all other information specified in this section for eight years after we issue your certificate. If you use the same emission data or other information for a later model year, the eight-year period restarts with each year that you continue to rely on the information.
(d) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. You must keep these records readily available. We may review them at any time.
(e) If you fail to properly keep records or to promptly send us information as required under this part, we may require that you submit the information specified in this section after each calendar quarter, and we may require that you routinely send us information that the regulation requires you to submit only if we request it. If we find that you are fraudulent or grossly negligent or otherwise act in bad faith regarding information reporting and recordkeeping, we may require that you
(a) If we determine your application is complete and shows that the vehicle family meets all the requirements of this part and the Act, we will issue a certificate of conformity for your vehicle family for that model year. We may make the approval subject to additional conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for certification if we determine that your vehicle family fails to comply with emission standards or other requirements of this part or the Clean Air Act. We will base our decision on all available information. If we deny your application, we will explain why in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your application or suspend or revoke your certificate if you do any of the following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete information (paragraph (e) of this section applies if this is fraudulent). This includes doing anything after submission of your application to render any of the submitted information false or incomplete.
(3) Render any test data inaccurate.
(4) Deny us from completing authorized activities (see 40 CFR 1068.20). This includes a failure to provide reasonable assistance.
(5) Produce vehicles for importation into the United States at a location where local law prohibits us from carrying out authorized activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested information or amend your application to include all vehicles being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise circumvents the intent of the Act or this part, with respect to your vehicle family.
(d) We may void the certificate of conformity for a vehicle family if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information as required under this part or the Act. Note that these are also violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally submitted false or incomplete information. This includes rendering submitted information false or incomplete after submission.
(f) If we deny your application or suspend, revoke, or void your certificate, you may ask for a hearing (see § 1037.820).
(a) We may require you to perform selective enforcement audits under 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E, with respect to any GEM inputs in your application for certification. Sections 1037.305 through 1037.315 describe how this applies uniquely in certain circumstances.
(b) A selective enforcement audit for this part 1037 consists of performing measurements with production vehicles relative to one or more declared values for GEM inputs, and using those measured values in place of your declared values to run GEM. Except as specified in this subpart, the vehicle is considered passing if the new modeled emission result is at or below the modeled emission result corresponding to the declared GEM inputs. If you report an FEL for the vehicle configuration before the audit, we will instead consider the vehicle passing if the new cycle-weighted emission result matches or exceeds the efficiency improvement is at or below the FEL.
(c) We may audit your production components and your records to confirm that physical parameters are correct, such as dimensional accuracy and material selection. We may also audit your records to confirm that you are properly documenting the certified configurations of production vehicles.
(d) Selective enforcement audit provisions for fuel maps apply to engine manufacturers as specified in 40 CFR 1036.301. See § 1037.315 for selective enforcement audit provisions applicable to powertrain fuel maps.
(e) We may suspend or revoke certificates based on the outcome of a selective enforcement audit for any appropriate configurations within one or more vehicle families.
(f) We may apply selective enforcement audit provisions with respect to off-cycle technologies, with any necessary modifications, consistent with good engineering judgment.
To perform a selective enforcement audit with respect to drag area for tractors, use the reference method specified in § 1037.525; we may instead require you to use the same method you used for certification. The following provisions apply instead of 40 CFR 1068.420 for a selective enforcement audit with respect to drag area:
(a) Determine whether or not a tractor fails to meet standards as follows:
(1) We will select a vehicle configuration for testing. Perform a coastdown measurement with the vehicle in its production configuration according to § 1037.528. Instead of the process described in § 1037.528(h)(12), determine your test result as described in this paragraph (a). You must have an equal number of runs in each direction.
(2) Measure a yaw curve for your test vehicle using your alternate method according to § 1037.525(b)(3). You do not need to test at the coastdown effective. You may use a previously established yaw curve from your certification testing if it is available.
(3) Using this yaw curve, perform a regression using values of drag area,
(4) Adjust the drag area value from each coastdown run,
(5) Perform additional coastdown measurements until you reach a pass or fail decision under this paragraph (a).
(6) Calculate statistical values to characterize cumulative test results at least once per day based on an equal number of coastdown runs in each direction. Determine the wind-averaged drag area value for the test
(7) Compliance is determined based on the values of
(i) The vehicle passes if
(ii) The vehicle fails if
(iii) The vehicle passes if you perform 100 coastdown runs and
(iv) The vehicle fails if you choose to stop testing before reaching a final determination under this paragraph (a)(7).
(b) If you reach a pass decision on the first test vehicle, the emission family passes the SEA and you may stop testing. If you reach a fail decision on the first test vehicle, repeat the testing described in paragraph (a) of this section for two additional vehicles of the same configuration, or of a different configuration that we specify. Continue testing two additional vehicles for each failing vehicle until you reach a pass or fail decision for the family based on one of the following criteria:
(1) The emission family passes if at any point more than 50 percent of the vehicles have reached a pass decision.
(2) The emission family fails if six vehicles reach a fail decision.
(3) The emission family passes if you test 11 vehicles with five or fewer vehicles reaching a fail decision.
(4) The emission family fails if you choose to stop testing before reaching a final determination under this paragraph (b).
(c) We may suspend a certificate of conformity as described in 40 CFR 1068.430 if your emission family fails an SEA, subject to the following provisions:
(1) We may reinstate a suspended certificate if you revise
(2) We may require you to apply any adjustments and corrections determined under paragraph (c)(1) of this section to your other emission families in any future application for certification.
(d) If we test some of your vehicles in addition to your testing, we may decide not to include your test results as official data for those vehicles if there is substantial disagreement between your testing and our testing. We will reinstate your data as valid if you show us that we made an error and your data are correct. If we perform testing, we may choose to stop testing after any number of tests and not determine a failure.
(e) If we rely on our test data instead of yours, we will notify you in writing of our decision and the reasons we believe your facility is not appropriate for doing the tests we require under this paragraph (b). You may request in writing that we consider your test results from the same facility for future testing if you show us that you have made changes to resolve the problem.
(f) We may allow you to perform additional replicate tests with a given vehicle or to test additional vehicles, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(g) You must assign the appropriate
(a) We may audit trailer manufacturers to ensure that trailers are being produced to conform with the certificate of conformity. If this involves aerodynamic measurements, we will specify how to adapt the protocol described in § 1037.305 to appropriately evaluate trailer performance.
(b) We may require device manufacturers that obtain preliminary approval under § 1037.211 to perform aerodynamic testing of production samples of approved devices to ensure that the devices conform to the approved configuration.
(a) For vehicles certified based on powertrain testing as specified in § 1037.550, we may apply the selective enforcement audit requirements to the powertrain. If engine manufacturers
(b) The following provisions apply for a selective enforcement audit with respect to powertrain testing:
(1) A selective enforcement audit for powertrains would generally consist of performing a test with the complete powertrain (engine and transmission together). We may alternatively allow you to test the engine on a dynamometer with no installed transmission as described in § 1037.551.
(2) Recreate a set of test results for each of three separate powertrains. Generate GEM results for each of the configurations that are defined as the centers of each group of four points that define a boundary of cycle work and average powertrain speed divided by average vehicle speed, for each of the three selected powertrains. See 40 CFR 1036.301(b)(2) for an example on how these points are defined. Each unique map for a given configuration with a particular powertrain constitutes a separate test for purposes of evaluating whether the vehicle family meets the pass-fail criteria under 40 CFR 1068.420. The test result for a single test run in the audit is considered passing if it is at or below the value selected as an input for GEM. Perform testing with the same GEM configurations for additional powertrains as needed to reach a pass-fail decision under 40 CFR 1068.240.
Selective enforcement audit provisions apply for axles and transmissions relative to the efficiency demonstrations of §§ 1037.560 and 1037.565 as follows:
(a) A selective enforcement audit for axles or transmissions would consist of performing measurements with a production axle or transmission to determine mean power loss values as declared for GEM simulations, and running GEM over one or more applicable duty cycles based on those measured values. The engine is considered passing for a given configuration if the new modeled emission result for every applicable duty cycle is at or below the modeled emission result corresponding to the declared GEM inputs.
(b) Run GEM for each applicable vehicle configuration identified in 40 CFR 1036.540. For axle testing, this may require omitting several vehicle configurations based on selecting axle ratios that correspond to the tested axle. The GEM result for each vehicle configuration counts as a separate test for determining whether the family passes or fails the audit. Select additional production axles or transmissions to perform additional tests as needed.
(a) We may perform in-use testing of any vehicle subject to the standards of this part. For example, we may test vehicles to verify drag areas or other GEM inputs as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) We may measure the drag area of a vehicle you produced after it has been placed into service. We may use any of the procedures as specified in §§ 1037.525 through 1037.527 for measuring drag area. Your vehicle conforms to the regulations of this part with respect to aerodynamic performance if we measure its drag area to be at or below the maximum drag area allowed for the bin to which that configuration was certified.
This subpart specifies how to perform emission testing and emission modeling required elsewhere in this part.
(a) Except as specified in subpart B of this part, you must demonstrate that you meet emission standards using emission modeling as described in §§ 1037.515 and 1037.520. This modeling depends on several measured values as described in this subpart F. You may use fuel-mapping information from the engine manufacturer as described in 40 CFR 1036.535 and 1036.540, or you may use powertrain testing as described in § 1037.550.
(b) Where exhaust emission testing is required, use equipment and procedures as described in 40 CFR part 1065 and part 1066. Measure emissions of all the exhaust constituents subject to emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 1065 and part 1066. Use the applicable duty cycles specified in § 1037.510.
(c) See 40 CFR 86.101 and 86.1813 for measurement procedures that apply for evaporative and refueling emissions.
(d) Use the applicable fuels specified 40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid tests.
(1) For service accumulation, use the test fuel or any commercially available fuel that is representative of the fuel that in-use vehicles will use.
(2) For diesel-fueled vehicles, use the appropriate diesel fuel specified for emission testing. Unless we specify otherwise, the appropriate diesel test fuel is ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.
(3) For gasoline-fueled vehicles, use the gasoline for “general testing” as specified in 40 CFR 86.1305.
(e) You may use special or alternate procedures as specified in 40 CFR 1065.10.
(f) This subpart is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we perform testing to determine if your vehicles meet emission standards.
(g) Apply this paragraph (g) whenever we specify the use of standard trailers. Unless otherwise specified, a tolerance of ± 2 inches applies for all nominal trailer dimensions.
(1) The standard trailer for high-roof tractors must meet the following criteria:
(i) It is an unloaded two-axle dry van 53.0 feet long, 102 inches wide, and 162 inches high (measured from the ground with the trailer level).
(ii) It has a king pin located with its center 36 ± 0.5 inches from the front of the trailer and a minimized trailer gap (no greater than 45 inches).
(iii) It has a simple orthogonal shape with smooth surfaces and nominally flush rivets. Except as specified in paragraph (g)(1)(v) of this section, the standard trailer does not include any aerodynamic features such as side fairings, rear fairings, or gap reducers. It may have a scuff band no more than 0.13 inches thick.
(iv) It includes dual 22.5 inch wheels, standard tandem axle, standard mudflaps, and standard landing gear. The centerline of the tandem axle assembly must be 145 ± 5 inches from the rear of the trailer. The landing gear must be installed in a conventional configuration.
(v) For the Phase 2 standards, include side skirts meeting the specifications of this paragraph (g)(1)(v). The side skirts must be mounted flush with both sides of the trailer. The skirts must be an isosceles trapezoidal shape. Each skirt must have a height of 36 ± 2 inches. The top edge of the skirt must be straight with a length of 341 ± 2 inches. The bottom edge of the skirt must be straight with a length of 268 ± 2 inches and have a ground clearance of 8 ± 2 inches through that full length. The sides of the skirts must be straight. The rearmost point of the skirts must be mounted 32 ± 2 inches in front of the centerline of the trailer tandem axle assembly. We may approve your request to use a skirt with different dimensions if these
(2) The standard trailer for mid-roof tractors is an empty two-axle tank trailer 42 ± 1 feet long by 140 inches high and 102 inches wide.
(i) It has a 40 ± 1 feet long cylindrical tank with a 7000 ± 7 gallon capacity, smooth surface, and rounded ends.
(ii) The standard tank trailer does not include any aerodynamic features such as side fairings, but does include a centered 20 inch manhole, side-centered ladder, and lengthwise walkway. It includes dual 24.5 inch wheels.
(3) The standard trailer for low-roof tractors is an unloaded two-axle flatbed trailer 53 ± 1 feet long and 102 inches wide.
(i) The deck height is 60.0 ± 0.5 inches in the front and 55.0 ± 0.5 inches in the rear. The standard trailer does not include any aerodynamic features such as side fairings.
(ii) It includes an air suspension and dual 22.5 inch wheels on tandem axles.
(h) Use a standard tractor for measuring aerodynamic drag of trailers. Standard tractors must be certified at Bin III (or more aerodynamic if a Bin III tractor is unavailable) for Phase 1 or Phase 2 under § 1037.520(b)(1) or (3). The standard tractor for long trailers is a Class 8 high-roof sleeper cab. The standard tractor for short trailers is a Class 7 or Class 8 high-roof day cab with a 4 × 2 drive-axle configuration.
This section applies for powertrain testing, cycle-average engine fuel mapping, certain off-cycle testing under § 1037.610, and the advanced-technology provisions of § 1037.615.
(a) Measure emissions by testing the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer or the powertrain on a powertrain dynamometer with the applicable duty cycles. Each duty cycle consists of a series of speed commands over time—variable speeds for the transient test and constant speeds for the highway cruise tests. None of these cycles include vehicle starting or warmup.
(1) Perform testing for Phase 1 vehicles as follows to generate credits or adjustment factors for off-cycle or advanced technologies:
(i)
(ii)
(2) For cycle-average engine fuel mapping under 40 CFR 1036.540 or powertrain testing under §§ 1037.550 or 1037.555, perform testing as described in this paragraph (a)(2) to generate GEM inputs for each simulated vehicle configuration, and for each of the four test runs representing different idle speed settings. You may perform any number of these test runs directly in succession once the engine or powertrain is warmed up. If you interrupt the test sequence with a break of up to 30 minutes, such as to perform analyzer calibration, repeat operation over the previous duty cycle to precondition the vehicle before restarting the test sequence. Perform testing as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3) Where applicable, perform testing on a chassis dynamometer as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(b) Calculate the official emission result from the following equation:
Class 7 vocational vehicle meeting the Phase 2 standards based on the Regional duty cycle.
(c) Weighting factors apply for each type of vehicle and for each duty cycle as follows:
(1) GEM applies weighting factors for specific types of tractors as shown in Table 1 of this section.
(2) GEM applies weighting factors for vocational vehicles as shown in Table 1 of this section. Modeling for Phase 2 vocational vehicles depends on characterizing vehicles by duty cycle to apply proper weighting factors and average speed values. Select either Urban, Regional, or Multi-Purpose as the most appropriate duty cycle for modeling emission results with each vehicle configuration, as specified in §§ 1037.140 and 1037.150.
(3) Table 1 follows:
(d) For transient testing, compare actual second-by-second vehicle speed with the speed specified in the test cycle and ensure any differences are consistent with the criteria as specified in 40 CFR 1066.425. If the speeds do not
(e) Run test cycles as specified in 40 CFR part 1066. For testing vehicles equipped with cruise control over the highway cruise cycles, use the vehicle's cruise control to control the vehicle speed. For vehicles equipped with adjustable vehicle speed limiters, test the vehicle with the vehicle speed limiter at its highest setting.
(f) For Phase 1, test the vehicle using its adjusted loaded vehicle weight, unless we determine this would be unrepresentative of in-use operation as specified in 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1).
(g) For hybrid vehicles, correct for the net energy change of the energy storage device as described in 40 CFR 1066.501.
This section describes a compliance approach for trailers that is consistent with the modeling for vocational vehicles and tractors described in § 1037.520, but is simplified consistent with the smaller number of trailer parameters that affect CO
(a)
(1) Use the following equation:
(2) The following is an example for calculating the mass of CO
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Determine weight reduction for using lightweight materials for wheels as described in § 1037.520(e).
(2) Apply weight reductions for other components made with light-weight materials as shown in the following table:
(e)
(1) You may account for weight reduction based on measured values instead of using paragraph (d) of this section. Quantify the weight reduction by measuring the weight of a trailer in a certified configuration and comparing it to the weight of an equivalent trailer without weight-reduction technologies. This qualifies as A to B testing under § 1037.610. Use good engineering judgment to select an equivalent trailer representing a baseline configuration. Use the calculated weight reduction in Eq. 1037.515-1 to calculate the trailer's CO
(2) If your off-cycle technology reduces emissions in a way that is proportional to measured emissions as described in § 1037.610(b)(1), multiply the trailer's CO
(3) If your off-cycle technology does not yield emission reductions that are proportional to measured emissions, as described in § 1037.610(b)(2), calculate an adjusted CO
(4) Note that these off-cycle provisions do not apply for trailers subject to design standards.
This section describes how to use the Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810) to show compliance with the CO
(a)
(1) GEM inputs apply for Phase 1 standards as follows:
(i) Model year and regulatory subcategory (see § 1037.230).
(ii) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag or drag area, as described in paragraph (b) of this section (tractors only).
(iii) Steer and drive tire rolling resistance, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(iv) Vehicle speed limit, as described in paragraph (d) of this section (tractors only).
(v) Vehicle weight reduction, as described in paragraph (e) of this section (tractors only for Phase 1).
(vi) Automatic engine shutdown systems, as described in § 1037.660 (only for Class 8 sleeper cabs). Enter a GEM input value of 5.0 g/ton-mile, or an adjusted value as specified in § 1037.660.
(2) For Phase 2 vehicles, the GEM inputs described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v) of this section continue to apply. Note that the provisions related to vehicle speed limiters and automatic engine shutdown systems are available for vocational vehicles in Phase 2. The
(i) You may use default engine fuel maps for glider kits as described in § 1037.635.
(ii) If you certify vehicles to the custom-chassis standards specified in § 1037.105(h), run GEM by identifying the vehicle type and entering “NA” instead of what would otherwise apply for, tire revolutions per mile, engine information, transmission information, drive axle ratio, axle efficiency, and aerodynamic improvement as specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (f), (g)(1), (g)(3), (i), and (m) of this section, respectively. Incorporate other GEM inputs as specified in this section.
(b)
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, determine the Phase 1 bin level for your vehicle based on measured
(2) For Phase 1 low- and mid-roof tractors, you may instead determine your drag area bin based on the drag area bin of an equivalent high-roof tractor. If the high-roof tractor is in Bin I or Bin II, then you may assume your equivalent low- and mid-roof tractors are in Bin I. If the high-roof tractor is in Bin III, Bin IV, or Bin V, then you may assume your equivalent low- and mid-roof tractors are in Bin II.
(3) For Phase 2 tractors other than heavy-haul tractors, determine bin levels and
(i) Determine bin levels for high-roof tractors based on aerodynamic test results as described in the following table:
(ii) For low- and mid-roof tractors, you may either use the same bin level that applies for an equivalent high-roof tractor as shown in Table 3 of this section, or you may determine your bin level based on aerodynamic test results as described in Table 4 of this section.
(iii) Determine the
(4) Note that, starting in model year 2027, GEM internally reduces
(c)
(1) Use good engineering judgment to determine a tire's revolutions per mile to the nearest whole number as specified in SAE J1025 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810). Note that for tire sizes that you do not test, we will treat your analytically derived revolutions per mile the same as test results, and we may perform our own testing to verify your values. We may require you to test a sample of additional tire sizes that we select.
(2) Measure tire rolling resistance in kg per metric ton as specified in ISO 28580 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810), except as specified in this paragraph (c). Use good engineering judgment to ensure that your test results are not biased low. You may ask us to identify a reference test laboratory to which you may correlate your test results. Prior to beginning the test procedure in Section 7 of ISO 28580 for a new bias-ply tire, perform a break-in procedure by running the tire at the specified test speed, load, and pressure for 60 ± 2 minutes.
(3) For each tire design tested, measure rolling resistance of at least three different tires of that specific design and size. Perform the test at least once for each tire. Calculate the arithmetic mean of these results to the nearest 0.1 kg/tonne and use this value or any higher value as your GEM input for TRRL. You must test at least one tire size for each tire model, and may use engineering analysis to determine the rolling resistance of other tire sizes of that model. Note that for tire sizes that you do not test, we will treat your analytically derived rolling resistances the same as test results, and we may perform our own testing to verify your values. We may require you to test a small sub-sample of untested tire sizes that we select.
(4) If you obtain your test results from the tire manufacturer or another third party, you must obtain a signed statement from the party supplying those test results to verify that tests were conducted according to the requirements of this part. Such statements are deemed to be submissions to EPA.
(5) For tires marketed as light truck tires that have load ranges C, D, or E, use as the GEM input TRRL multiplied by 0.87.
(6) For vehicles with at least three drive axles or for vehicles with more than three axles total, use good engineering judgment to combine tire rolling resistance into three values (steer, drive 1, and drive 2) for use in GEM. This may require performing a weighted average of tire rolling resistance from multiple axles based on the typical load on each axle.
(7) For vehicles with a single rear axle, enter “NA” as the TRRL value for drive axle 2.
(d)
(e)
(1) Vehicle weight reduction inputs for wheels are specified relative to dual-wide tires with conventional steel wheels. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(1), an aluminum alloy qualifies as light-weight if a dual-wide drive wheel made from this material weighs at least 21 pounds less than a comparable conventional steel wheel. The inputs are listed in Table 6 of this section. For example, a tractor or vocational vehicle with aluminum steer wheels and eight (4 × 2) dual-wide aluminum drive wheels would have an input of 210 pounds (2 × 21 + 8 × 21).
(2) Weight reduction inputs for tractor components other than wheels are specified in the following table:
(3) Weight-reduction inputs for vocational-vehicle components other than wheels are specified in the following table:
(4) Apply vehicle weight inputs for changing technology configurations as follows:
(i) For Class 8 tractors or for Class 8 vocational vehicles with a permanent 6 × 2 axle configuration, apply a weight reduction input of 300 pounds. This does not apply for coach buses certified to custom-chassis standards under § 1037.105(h).
(ii) For Class 8 tractors with 4 × 2 axle configuration, apply a weight reduction input of 400 pounds.
(iii) For tractors with installed engines with displacement below 14.0 liters, apply a weight reduction of 300 pounds.
(iv) For tractors with single-piece driveshafts with a total length greater than 86 inches, apply a weight reduction of 43 pounds for steel driveshafts and 63 pounds for aluminum driveshafts.
(5) You may ask to apply the off-cycle technology provisions of § 1037.610 for weight reductions not covered by this paragraph (e).
(f)
(g)
(1) Transmission make, model, and type. Also identify the gear ratio for every available forward gear to two decimal places, and identify the lowest gear involving a locked torque converter, if applicable. For vehicles with a manual transmission, GEM applies a 2% emission increase relative to automated manual transmissions. If your vehicle has a dual-clutch transmission, use good engineering judgment to determine if it can be accurately represented in GEM as an automated manual transmission. We may require you to perform a powertrain test with dual-clutch transmissions to show that they can be properly simulated as an automated manual transmission.
(2) Drive axle configuration. Select a drive axle configuration to represent your vehicle for modeling.
(i) 4 × 2: One drive axle and one non-drive axle.
(ii) 6 × 2: One drive axle and two non-drive axles.
(iii) 6 × 4: Two or more drive axles, or more than three total axles. Note that this includes, for example, a vehicle with two drive axles out of four total axles (otherwise known as an 8×4 configuration).
(iv) 6 × 4D: An axle that can automatically switch between 6 × 2 and 6 × 4 configuration. When the axle is in the 6 × 2 configuration the input and output of the disconnectable axle must be mechanically disconnected from the drive shaft and the wheels to qualify.
(3) Drive axle ratio,
(4) GEM inputs associated with powertrain testing include powertrain family, transmission calibration identifier, test data from § 1037.550, and the powertrain test configuration (dynamometer connected to transmission output or wheel hub). You do not need to identify or provide inputs for transmission gear ratios, fuel map data, or engine torque curves, which would otherwise be required under paragraph (f) of this section.
(h)
(1) Stop-start technology and automatic engine shutdown systems
(2) Neutral idle applies for tractors and vocational vehicles.
(i)
(j)
(1)
(2)
(i) If vocational vehicles have electrically powered pumps for steering, enter 0.5 for vocational vehicles certified with the Regional duty cycle, and enter 1 for tractors and other vocational vehicles.
(ii) If tractors have electrically powered pumps for both steering and engine cooling, enter 1.
(iii) If vehicles have a high-efficiency air conditioning compressor, enter 0.5 for tractors and vocational Heavy HDV, and enter 1 for other vocational vehicles. This includes mechanically powered compressors meeting the specifications described in 40 CFR 86.1868-12(h)(5), and all electrically powered compressors.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(i) Enter 1.7 and 0.9, respectively, for school buses and coach buses that have at least seven available forward gears.
(ii) If we approve off-cycle technology under § 1037.610 in the form of an improvement factor, enter the improvement factor expressed as a percentage reduction in CO
(k)
(l) [Reserved]
(m)
(1) Enter 0.2 for vocational vehicles with an installed rear fairing if the vehicle is at least 7 m long with a minimum frontal area of 8 m
(2) For vehicles at least 11 m long with a minimum frontal area of 9 m
(3) You may determine input values for these or other technologies based on aerodynamic measurements as described in § 1037.527.
(n)
This section describes a methodology for quantifying aerodynamic drag for use in determining input values for tractors as described in § 1037.520.
(a)
(1) Aerodynamic measurements may involve any of several different procedures. Measuring with different procedures introduces variability, so we identify the coastdown method in § 1037.528 as the primary (or reference) procedure. You may use other procedures with our advance approval as described in paragraph (d) of this section, but we require that you adjust your test results from other test methods to correlate with coastdown test results. All adjustments must be consistent with good engineering judgment. Submit information describing how you quantify aerodynamic drag from coastdown testing, whether or not you use an alternate method.
(2) Test high-roof tractors with a standard trailer as described in § 1037.501(g)(1). Note that the standard
(b)
(1) Determine the functional relationship between your alternate method and coastdown testing. Unless good engineering judgment dictates otherwise, assume that coastdown drag is proportional to drag measured using alternate methods. This means you may apply a constant adjustment factor,
(2) Determine
(3) Measure the drag area using your alternate method for a Phase 2 tractor used to determine
(4) For Phase 2 testing, determine separate values of
(5) Determine
(6) If a tractor and trailer cannot be configured to meet the gap requirements, test with the trailer positioned as close as possible to the specified gap dimension and use good engineering judgment to correct the results to be equivalent to a test configuration meeting the specified gap dimension.
(c)
(1) For Phase 2 testing with an alternate method, apply the following method using your alternate method for aerodynamic testing:
(i) For all testing, calculate the wind-averaged drag area from the alternate method,
(ii) Determine your wind-averaged drag area,
(2) For Phase 2 coastdown test results, apply the following method:
(i) For all coastdown testing, determine your effective yaw angle from coastdown,
(ii) Use an alternate method to calculate the ratio of the wind-averaged drag area (using an average of measurements at −4.5 and +4.5 degrees,
(iii) Determine your wind-averaged drag area,
(3) Different approximations apply for Phase 1. For Phase 1 testing, you may correct your zero-yaw drag area as follows if the ratio of the zero-yaw drag area divided by yaw-sweep drag area for your vehicle is greater than 0.8065 (which represents the ratio expected for a typical Class 8 high-roof sleeper cab):
(i) Determine the zero-yaw drag area,
(ii) Calculate your yaw-sweep correction factor,
(iii) Calculate your corrected drag area for determining the aerodynamic bin by multiplying the measured zero-yaw drag area by
(iv) You may ask us to apply
(v) As an alternative, you may calculate the wind-averaged drag area according to SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810) and substitute this value into Eq. 1037.525-4 for the ±6° drag area.
(d)
(1) Official name/title of the procedure.
(2) Description of the procedure.
(3) Cited sources for any standardized procedures that the method is based on.
(4) Description and rationale for any modifications/deviations from the standardized procedures.
(5) Data comparing the procedure to the coastdown reference procedure.
(6) Additional information specified for the alternate methods described in §§ 1037.530 through 1037.534 as applicable to this method (
This section describes a methodology for determining aerodynamic drag area,
(a) A trailer's aerodynamic performance for demonstrating compliance with standards is based on a
(1) Determine a baseline
(2) Use good engineering judgment to perform paired tests that accurately demonstrate the reduction in aerodynamic drag associated with the improved design. For example, the gap dimension should be the same for all paired tests, and effective yaw angle
(3) Measure
(b) The default method for measuring is the wind-tunnel procedure as specified in § 1037.530. You may test using alternate methods as follows:
(1) If we approve it in advance, you may instead use one of the alternate methods specified in §§ 1037.528 through 1037.532, consistent with good engineering judgment, which may require that you adjust your test results from the alternate test method to correlate with the primary method. If you request our approval to determine
(2) The principles of 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1) apply for aerodynamic test methods. Specifically, we may require that you use coastdown measurements if we determine that certain technologies are not suited to evaluation with wind-tunnel testing or CFD, such as nonrigid materials whose physical characteristics change in scaled-model testing. You may similarly reference 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1) in your request to use coastdown testing as an alternate method.
(c) The following provisions apply for combining multiple devices under this section for the purpose of certifying trailers:
(1) If the device manufacturer establishes a
(2) Trailer manufacturers may combine
(d) You must send us a description of your plan to perform testing under this section before you start testing. We will evaluate whether plans for wind-tunnel testing meet the specifications of § 1037.530, and will tell you if you may or must use any other method to determine drag coefficients. We will approve your request to use an alternate method if you show that your procedures produce data that are the same as or better than wind-tunnel testing with respect to repeatability and unbiased correlation. Note that the correlation is not considered to be biased if there is a bias before correction, but you apply a correction to remove the bias. Send your testing plan to the Designated Compliance Officer. Keep records of the information specified in this paragraph (d). Unless we specify otherwise, include this information with your request. You must provide any information we require to evaluate whether you may apply the provisions of this section. Include additional information related to your alternate method as described in §§ 1037.528 through 1037.534.
This section describes a methodology for determining aerodynamic drag area,
(a) Determine
(b) [Reserved]
The coastdown procedures in this section describe how to calculate drag area,
(a) The terms and variables identified in this section have the meaning given in SAE J1263 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810) and J2263 unless specified otherwise.
(b) To determine
(1) Install instrumentation for performing the specified measurements.
(2) After adding vehicle instrumentation, verify that there is no brake drag or other condition that prevents the wheels from rotating freely. Do not apply the parking brake at any point between this inspection and the end of the measurement procedure.
(3) Install tires mounted on steel rims in a dual configuration (except for steer tires). The tires must—
(i) Be SmartWay-Verified or have a coefficient of rolling resistance at or below 5.1 kg/metric ton.
(ii) Have accumulated at least 2,000 miles but have no less than 50 percent of their original tread depth, as specified for truck cabs in SAE J1263.
(iii) Not be retreads or have any apparent signs of chunking or uneven wear.
(iv) Be size 295/75R22.5 or 275/80R22.5.
(v) Be inflated to the proper tire pressure as specified in Sections 6.6 and 8.1 of SAE J2263.
(vi) Be of the same tire model for a given axle.
(4) Perform an inspection or wheel alignment for both the tractor and the trailer to ensure that wheel position is within the manufacturer's specifications.
(c) The test condition specifications described in Sections 7.1 through 7.4 of SAE J1263 apply, with the following exceptions and additional provisions:
(1) We recommend that you not perform coastdown testing if winds are expected to exceed 6.0 mi/hr.
(2) The average of the component of the wind speed parallel to the road must not exceed 6.0 mi/hr. This constraint is in addition to those in Section 7.3 of SAE J1263.
(3) If road grade is greater than 0.02% over the length of the test surface, you must determine elevation as a function of distance along the length of the test surface and incorporate this into the analysis.
(4) Road grade may exceed 0.5% for limited portions of the test surface as long as it does not affect coastdown results, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(5) The road surface temperature must be at or below 50 °C. Use good engineering judgment to measure road surface temperature.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(e) Measure wind speed, wind direction, air temperature, and air pressure at a recording frequency of 10 Hz, in conjunction with time-of-day data. Use at least one stationary electro-mechanical anemometer and suitable data loggers meeting SAE J1263 specifications, subject to the following additional specifications for the anemometer placed along the test surface:
(1) You must start a coastdown measurement within 24 hours after completing zero-wind and zero-angle calibrations.
(2) Place the anemometer at least 50 feet from the nearest tree and at least 25 feet from the nearest bush (or equivalent features). Position the anemometer adjacent to the test surface, near the midpoint of the length of the track, between 2.5 and 3.0 body widths from the expected location of the test vehicle's centerline as it passes the anemometer. Record the location of the anemometer along the test track, to the nearest 10 feet.
(3) Mount the anemometer at a height that is within 6 inches of half the test vehicle's body height.
(4) The height of vegetation surrounding the anemometer may not exceed 10% of the anemometer's mounted height, within a radius equal to the anemometer's mounted height.
(f) Measure air speed and relative wind direction (yaw angle) onboard the vehicle at a minimum recording frequency of 10 Hz, in conjunction with time-of-day data, using an anemometer and suitable data loggers that meet the requirements of Sections 5.4 of SAE J2263. The yaw angle must be measured to a resolution and accuracy of ±0.5°. Mount the anemometer such that it measures air speed at 1.5 meters above the top of the leading edge of the trailer. If obstructions at the test site do not allow for this mounting height, then mount the anemometer such that it measures air speed at least 0.85 meters above the top of the leading edge of the trailer.
(g) Perform the following calculations to filter and correct measured data:
(1) For any measured values not identified as outliers, use those measured values directly in the calculations specified in this section. Filter air speed, yaw angle, wind speed, wind direction, and vehicle speed measurements to replace outliers for every measured value as follows:
(i) Determine a median measured value to represent the measurement point and the measurements 3 seconds before and after that point. In the first and last three seconds of the coastdown run, use all available data to determine the median measured value. The measurement window for determining the median value will accordingly include 61 measurements in most cases, and will always include at least 31 measurements (for 10 Hz recording frequency).
(ii) Determine the median absolute deviation corresponding to each measurement window from paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section. This generally results from calculating 61 absolute deviations from the median measured value and determining the median from those 61 deviations. Calculate the standard deviation for each measurement window by multiplying the median absolute deviation by 1.4826; calculate three standard deviations by multiplying the median absolute deviation by 4.4478. Note that the factor 1.4826 is a statistical constant that relates median absolute deviations to standard deviations.
(iii) A measured value is an outlier if the measured value at a given point differs from the median measured value by more than three standard deviations. Replace each outlier with the median measured value from paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section. This technique for filtering outliers is known as the Hampel method.
(2) For each high-speed and each low-speed segment, correct measured air speed using the wind speed and wind direction measurements described in paragraph (e) of this section as follows:
(i) Calculate the theoretical air speed,
(ii) Perform a linear regression using paired values of
(iii) Correct each measured value of air speed using the following equation:
(3) Correct measured air direction using the wind speed and wind direction measurements described in paragraph (e) of this section as follows:
(i) Calculate the theoretical air direction,
(ii) Perform a linear regression using paired values of
(iii) Correct each measured value of air direction using the following equation:
(h) Determine drag area,
(1) Calculate the vehicle's effective mass,
(2) Operate the vehicle and collect data over the high-speed range and low-speed range as specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. If the vehicle has a speed limiter that prevents it from exceeding 72 mi/hr, you must disable the speed limiter for testing.
(3) Calculate mean vehicle speed at each speed start point (70 and 20 mi/hr) and end point (60 and 10 mi/hr) as follows:
(i) Calculate the mean vehicle speed to represent the start point of each speed range as the arithmetic average of measured speeds throughout the speed interval defined as 2.00 mi/hr above the nominal starting speed point to 2.00 mi/hr below the nominal starting speed point, expressed to at least two decimal places. Determine the timestamp corresponding to the starting point of each speed range as the time midpoint of the ±2.00 mi/hr speed interval.
(ii) Repeat the calculations described in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section corresponding to the end point speed (60 or 10 mi/hr) to determine the time at which the vehicle reaches the end speed, and the mean vehicle speed representing the end point of each speed range.
(iii) If you incorporate grade into your calculations, use the average values for the elevation and distance traveled over each interval.
(4) Calculate the road-load force,
(5) For tractor testing, calculate the drive-axle spin loss force at high and low speeds,
(i) Use the results from the axle efficiency test described in § 1037.560 for the drive axle model installed in the tractor being tested for this coastdown procedure.
(ii) Perform a second-order regression of axle power loss in W from only the zero-torque test points with wheel speed,
(iii) Calculate
(iv) Calculate
(6) For tractor testing, calculate the tire rolling resistance force at high and low speeds for steer, drive, and trailer axle positions,
(i) Conduct a stepwise coastdown tire rolling resistance test with three tires for each tire model installed on the vehicle using SAE J2452 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810) for the following test points (which replace the test points in Table 3 of SAE J2452):
(ii) Calculate
(iii) Calculate
(iv) Adjust
(v) Determine
(7) For trailer testing, determine
(8) Square the air speed measurements and calculate average squared air speed during each speed range for each run,
(9) Average the
(10) Calculate average air temperature
(11) Calculate drag area,
(12) Calculate your final
(i) Eliminate all points where there were known equipment problems or other measurement problems.
(ii) Of the remaining points, calculate the median of the absolute value of the yaw angles,
(iii) Of the remaining points, calculate the mean and standard deviation of
(iv) There must be at least 24 points remaining. Of the remaining points, recalculate the mean yaw angle. Round the mean yaw angle to the nearest 0.1°. This final result is the effective yaw angle, ψ
(v) For the same set of points, recalculate the mean
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Include the following information in your application for certification:
(1) The name, location, and description of your test facilities, including background/history, equipment and capability, and track and facility elevation, along with the grade and size/length of the track.
(2) Test conditions for each test result, including date and time, wind speed and direction, ambient temperature and humidity, vehicle speed, driving distance, manufacturer name, test vehicle/model type, model year, applicable family, tire type and rolling resistance, weight of tractor-trailer (as tested), and driver identifier(s).
(3) Average
The wind-tunnel procedure specified in this section is considered to be the primary procedure for trailers, but is an alternate procedure for tractors.
(a) You may measure drag areas consistent with published SAE procedures as described in this section using any wind tunnel recognized by the Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing Association, subject to the provisions of §§ 1037.525 through 1037.527. If your wind tunnel does not meet the specifications described in this section, you may ask us to approve it as an alternate method under § 1037.525(d) or § 1037.526(d). All wind tunnels and wind tunnel tests must meet the specifications described in SAE J1252 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810), with the following exceptions and additional provisions:
(1) The Overall Vehicle Reynolds number,
(2) For full-scale wind tunnel tractor testing, use good engineering judgment to select a trailer that is a reasonable representation of the trailer used for reference coastdown testing. For example, where your wind tunnel is not long enough to test the tractor with a standard 53 foot box van, it may be appropriate to use a shorter box van. In such a case, the correlation developed using the shorter trailer would only be valid for testing with the shorter trailer.
(3) For reduced-scale wind tunnel testing, use a one-eighth or larger scale model of a tractor and trailer that is sufficient to simulate airflow through the radiator inlet grill and across an engine geometry that represents engines commonly used in your test vehicle.
(b) Open-throat wind tunnels must also meet the specifications of SAE J2071 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810).
(c) To determine
(d) In your request to use wind-tunnel testing for tractors, or in your application for certification for trailers, describe how you meet all the specifications that apply under this section, using terminology consistent with SAE J1594 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810). If you request our approval to use wind-tunnel testing even though you do not meet all the specifications of this section, describe how your method nevertheless qualifies
(1) Identify the name and location of the test facility for your wind-tunnel method.
(2) Background and history of the wind tunnel.
(3) The wind tunnel's layout (with diagram), type, and construction (structural and material).
(4) The wind tunnel's design details: The type and material for corner turning vanes, air settling specification, mesh screen specification, air straightening method, tunnel volume, surface area, average duct area, and circuit length.
(5) Specifications related to the wind tunnel's flow quality: Temperature control and uniformity, airflow quality, minimum airflow velocity, flow uniformity, angularity and stability, static pressure variation, turbulence intensity, airflow acceleration and deceleration times, test duration flow quality, and overall airflow quality achievement.
(6) Test/working section information: Test section type (
(7) Fan section description: Fan type, diameter, power, maximum rotational speed, maximum speed, support type, mechanical drive, and sectional total weight.
(8) Data acquisition and control (where applicable): Acquisition type, motor control, tunnel control, model balance, model pressure measurement, wheel drag balances, wing/body panel balances, and model exhaust simulation.
(9) Moving ground plane or rolling road (if applicable): Construction and material, yaw table and range, moving ground length and width, belt type, maximum belt speed, belt suction mechanism, platen instrumentation, temperature control, and steering.
(10) Facility correction factors and purpose.
This section describes how to use commercially available computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software to determine
(a) For Phase 2 vehicles, use SAE J2966 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810), with the following clarifications and exceptions:
(1) Vehicles are subject to the requirement to meet standards based on the average of testing at yaw angles of +4.5° or −4.5°; however, you may submit your application for certification with CFD results based on only one of those yaw angles.
(2) For CFD code with a Navier-Stokes based solver, follow the additional steps in paragraph (d) of this section. For Lattice-Boltzmann based CFD code, follow the additional steps in paragraph (e) of this section.
(3) Simulate a Reynolds number of 5.1 million and an air speed of 65 mi/hr.
(4) Perform the General On-Road Simulation (not the Wind Tunnel Simulation).
(5) Use a free stream turbulence intensity of 0.0%.
(6) Choose time steps that can accurately resolve intrinsic flow instabilities, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(7) The result must be drag area (
(8) Submit information as described in paragraph (g) of this section.
(b) For Phase 1 tractors, apply the procedures as specified in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section. Paragraphs (c) through (f) of section apply for Phase 2 vehicles only as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) To determine
(1) Specify a blockage ratio at or below 0.2% to simulate open-road conditions.
(2) Assume zero yaw angle.
(3) Model the tractor with an open grill and representative back pressures based on available data describing the tractor's pressure characteristics.
(4) Enable the turbulence model and mesh deformation.
(5) Model tires and ground plane in motion to simulate a vehicle moving forward in the direction of travel.
(6) Apply the smallest cell size to local regions on the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller-geometry features (
(7) Simulate a vehicle speed of 55 mi/hr.
(d) Take the following steps for CFD code with a Navier-Stokes formula solver:
(1) Perform an unstructured, time-accurate analysis using a mesh grid size with a total volume element count of at least 50 million cells of hexahedral and/or polyhedral mesh cell shape, surface elements representing the geometry consisting of no less than 6 million elements, and a near-wall cell size corresponding to a y+ value of less than 300.
(2) Perform the analysis with a turbulence model and mesh deformation enabled (if applicable) with boundary layer resolution of ±95%. Once the results reach this resolution, demonstrate the convergence by supplying multiple, successive convergence values for the analysis. The turbulence model may use k-epsilon (k-ε), shear stress transport k-omega (SST k-ω), or other commercially accepted methods.
(e) For Lattice-Boltzmann based CFD code, perform an unstructured, time-accurate analysis using a mesh grid size with total surface elements of at least 50 million cells using cubic volume elements and triangular and/or quadrilateral surface elements with a near-wall cell size of no greater than 6 mm on local regions of the tractor and trailer in areas of high flow gradients and smaller geometry features, with cell sizes in other areas of the mesh grid starting at twelve millimeters and increasing in size from this value as the distance from the tractor and trailer increases.
(f) You may ask us to allow you to perform CFD analysis using parameters and criteria other than those specified in this section, consistent with good engineering judgment. In your request, you must demonstrate that you are unable to perform modeling based on the specified conditions (for example, you may have insufficient computing power, or the computations may require inordinate time), or you must demonstrate that different criteria (such as a different mesh cell shape and size) will yield better results. In your request, you must also describe your recommended alternative parameters and criteria, and describe how this approach will produce results that adequately represent a vehicle's in-use performance. We may require that you supply data demonstrating that your selected parameters and criteria will
(g) Include the following information in your request to determine
(1) The name of the software.
(2) The date and version number of the software.
(3) The name of the company producing the software and the corresponding address, phone number, and Web site.
(4) Identify whether the software uses Navier-Stokes or Lattice-Boltzmann equations.
(5) Describe the input values you will use to simulate the vehicle's aerodynamic performance for comparing to coastdown results.
This section describes how to use constant-speed aerodynamic drag testing to determine
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Measure torque at each of the drive wheels using a hub torque meter or a rim torque meter. If testing a tractor with two drive axles, you may disconnect one of the drive axles from receiving torque from the driveshaft, in which case you would measure torque at only the wheels that receive torque from the driveshaft. Set up instruments to read engine rpm for calculating rotational speed at the point of the torque measurements, or install instruments for measuring the rotational speed of the wheels directly.
(2) Install instrumentation to measure vehicle speed at 10 Hz, with an accuracy and resolution of 0.1 mi/hr. Also install instrumentation for reading engine rpm from the engine's onboard computer.
(3) Mount an anemometer on the trailer as described in § 1037.528(f).
(4) Fill the vehicle's fuel tanks so they are at maximum capacity at the start of the measurement procedure.
(5) Measure the weight over each axle to the nearest 20 kg, with a full fuel tank, including the driver and any passengers that will be in the vehicle during the test.
(d)
(1) Precondition the vehicle and zero the torque meters as follows:
(i) If you are using rim torque meters, zero the torque meters by lifting each instrumented axle and recording torque signals for at least 30 seconds, and then drive the vehicle at 50 mi/hr for at least 30 minutes.
(ii) If you are using any other kind of torque meter, drive the vehicle at 50 mi/hr for at least 30 minutes, and then allow the vehicle to coast down from full speed to a complete standstill while the clutch is disengaged or the transmission is in neutral, without braking. Zero the torque meters within 60 seconds after the vehicle stops moving by recording the torque signals for at least 30 seconds, and directly resume vehicle preconditioning at 50 mi/hr for at least 1.25 mi.
(iii) You may calibrate instruments during the preconditioning drive.
(2) Perform testing as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section over a sequence of test segments at constant vehicle speed as follows:
(i) 300±30 seconds in each direction at 10 mi/hr.
(ii) 450±30 seconds in each direction at 70 mi/hr.
(iii) 450±30 seconds in each direction at 50 mi/hr.
(iv) 450±30 seconds in each direction at 70 mi/hr.
(v) 450±30 seconds in each direction at 50 mi/hr.
(vi) 300±30 seconds in each direction at 10 mi/hr.
(3) When the vehicle preconditioning described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is complete, stabilize the vehicle at the specified speed for at least 200 meters and start taking measurements. The test segment starts when you start taking measurements for all parameters.
(4) During the test segment, continue to operate the vehicle at the speed setpoint, maintaining constant speed and torque within the ranges specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Drive the vehicle straight with minimal steering; do not change gears. Perform measurements as follows during the test segment:
(i) Measure the rotational speed of the driveshaft, axle, or wheel where the torque is measured, or calculate it from engine rpm in conjunction with gear and axle ratios, as applicable.
(ii) Measure vehicle speed in conjunction with time-of-day data.
(iii) Measure ambient conditions, air speed, and air direction as described in § 1037.528(e) and (f). Correct air speed and air direction as described in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(5) You may divide a test segment into multiple passes by suspending and resuming measurements. Stabilize vehicle speed before resuming measurements for each pass as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. Analyze the data from multiple passes by combining them into a single sequence of measurements for each test segment.
(6) Divide measured values into even 10 second increments. If the last increment for each test segment is less than 10 seconds, disregard measured values from that increment for all calculations under this section.
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(i) Calculate arithmetic mean values for vehicle speed,
(ii) Calculate the theoretical air direction,
(iii) Perform a linear regression using paired values of
(iv) For all 50 mi/hr and 70 mi/hr test segments, correct each measured value of air direction using the following equation:
(3)
(ii) Calculate a mean road load force,
(4)
(i) Calculate the mean road load force from all 10 second increments from the 10 mi/hr test segments from the test that was within the wind limits specified in § 1037.528(c),
(ii) Calculate the mean aerodynamic force for each 10 second increment,
(iii) Average the corrected air speed and corrected yaw angle over every 10 second segment from the 50 mi/hr and 70 mi/hr test segments to determine
(iv) Calculate
(v) Plot all
(vi) Determine
(g)
(1) The measurement data for calculating
(2) A general description and pictures of the vehicle tested.
(3) The vehicle's maximum height and width.
(4) The measured vehicle mass.
(5) Mileage at the start of the first test segment and at the end of the last test segment.
(6) The date of the test, the starting time for the first test segment, and the ending time for the last test segment.
(7) The transmission gear used for each test segment.
(8) The data describing how the test was valid relative to the specifications and criteria described in paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section.
(9) A description of any unusual events, such as a vehicle passing the test vehicle, or any technical or human errors that may have affected the
This section describes optional procedures for quantifying the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles as a result of running power take-off (PTO) devices with a hybrid energy delivery system. See § 1037.550 for powertrain testing requirements that apply for drivetrain hybrid systems. The procedures are written to test the PTO by ensuring that the engine produces all of the energy with no net change in stored energy (charge-sustaining), and for plug-in hybrid vehicles, also allowing for drawing down the stored energy (charge-depleting). The full charge-sustaining test for the hybrid vehicle is from a fully charged renewable energy storage system (RESS) to a depleted RESS and then back to a fully charged RESS. You must include all hardware for the PTO system. You may ask us to modify the provisions of this section to allow testing hybrid vehicles other than electric-battery hybrids, consistent with good engineering judgment. For plug-in hybrids, use a utility factor to properly weight charge-sustaining and charge-depleting operation as described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(a) Select two vehicles for testing as follows:
(1) Select a vehicle with a hybrid energy delivery system to represent the range of PTO configurations that will be covered by the test data. If your test data will represent more than one PTO configuration, use good engineering judgment to select the configuration with the maximum number of PTO circuits that has the smallest potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
(2) Select an equivalent conventional vehicle as specified in § 1037.615.
(b) Measure PTO emissions from the fully warmed-up conventional vehicle as follows:
(1) Without adding a restriction, instrument the vehicle with pressure transducers at the outlet of the hydraulic pump for each circuit. Perform pressure measurements with a frequency of at least 1 Hz.
(2) Operate the PTO system with no load for at least 15 seconds. Measure gauge pressure and record the average value over the last 10 seconds (
(3) Denormalize the PTO duty cycle in Appendix II of this part using the following equation:
(4) If the PTO system has two circuits, repeat paragraph (b)(2) and (3) of this section for the second PTO circuit.
(5) Install a system to control pressures in the PTO system during the cycle.
(6) Start the engine.
(7) Depending on the number of circuits the PTO system has, operate the vehicle over one or concurrently over both of the denormalized PTO duty cycles in Appendix II of this part. Measure emissions during operation over each duty cycle using the provisions of 40 CFR part 1066.
(8) Measured pressures must meet the cycle-validation specifications in the following table for each test run over the duty cycle:
(c) Measure PTO emissions from the fully warmed-up hybrid vehicle as follows:
(1) Perform the steps in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(2) Prepare the vehicle for testing by operating it as needed to stabilize the RESS at a full state of charge (or equivalent for non-electric RESS).
(i) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, we recommend charging the battery with an external electrical source.
(ii) For other vehicles, we recommend running back-to-back PTO tests until engine operation is initiated to charge the RESS. The RESS should be fully charged once engine operation stops. The ignition should remain in the “on” position.
(3) Turn the vehicle and PTO system off while the sampling system is being prepared.
(4) Turn the vehicle and PTO system on such that the PTO system is
(5) Operate the vehicle over one or both of the denormalized PTO duty cycles without turning the vehicle off, until the engine starts and then shuts down. This may require running multiple repeats of the PTO duty cycles. For non-PHEV systems the test cycle is completed once the engine shuts down. For plug-in hybrid systems, continue running until the PTO hybrid is running in a charge-sustaining mode such that the “End of Test” requirements defined in 40 CFR 1066.501 are met. Measure emissions as described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section. Use good engineering judgment to minimize the variability in testing between the two types of vehicles.
(6) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, follow 40 CFR 1066.501 to divide the test into charge-depleting and charge-sustaining operation.
(7) Apply cycle-validation criteria as described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to both charge-sustaining and charge-depleting operation.
(d) Calculate the equivalent distance driven based on operating time for each section of the PTO portion of the test as applicable by determining the time of the test and applying the conversion factor in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. For testing where fractions of a cycle were run (for example, where three cycles are completed and the halfway point of a fourth PTO cycle is reached before the engine starts and shuts down again), calculate the time of the test,
(1) Add up the time run for all complete tests.
(2) For fractions of a test, use the following equation to calculate the time:
(3) Sum the time from the complete cycles and from the partial cycle.
(4) Divide the total PTO operating time from paragraph (d)(3) of this section by a conversion factor of 0.0144 hr/mi for Phase 1 and 0.0217 hr/mi for Phase 2 to determine the equivalent distance driven. The conversion factors are based on estimates of average vehicle speed and PTO operating time as a percentage of total engine operating time; the Phase 2 conversion factor is calculated from an average speed of 27.1 mi/hr and PTO operation 37% of engine operating time, as follows:
(e) For Phase 1, calculate combined cycle-weighted emissions of the four duty cycles for vocational vehicles, for both the conventional and hybrid PTO vehicle tests, as follows:
(1) Calculate the CO
(2) Divide the CO
(3) Calculate the g/ton-mile emission rate for the driving portion of the test specified in § 1037.510 and add this to the CO
(4) Follow the provisions of § 1037.615 to calculate improvement factors and benefits for advanced technologies.
(f) For Phase 2, calculate the delta PTO fuel results for input into GEM during vehicle certification as follows:
(1) Calculate fuel consumption in grams per test,
(2) Divide the fuel mass by the applicable distance determined in paragraph (d)(4) of this section and the appropriate standard payload to determine the fuel rate in g/ton-mile.
(3) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles calculate the utility factor weighted fuel consumption in g/ton-mile, as follows:
(i) Determine the utility factor fraction for the PTO system from the table in Appendix V of this part using interpolation based on the total time of the charge-depleting portion of the test as determined in paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)(3) of this section.
(ii) Weight the emissions from the charge-sustaining and charge-depleting portions of the test using the following equation:
(4) Calculate the difference between the conventional PTO emissions result and the hybrid PTO emissions result for input into GEM.
(g) If the PTO system has more than two circuits, apply the provisions of this section using good engineering judgment.
(a) This section describes how to determine engine fuel maps using a measurement procedure that involves testing an engine coupled with a powertrain to simulate vehicle operation. Engine fuel maps are part of demonstrating compliance with Phase 2 vehicle standards under this part 1037; this fuel-mapping information may come from different types of testing as described in 40 CFR 1036.510.
(b) Perform powertrain testing to establish measured fuel-consumption rates over applicable duty cycles for several different vehicle configurations. The following general provisions apply:
(1) Measure NO
(2) This section uses engine parameters and variables that are consistent with 40 CFR part 1065.
(3) While this section includes the detailed equations, you need to develop your own driver model and vehicle model; we recommend that you use the MATLAB/Simulink code provided at
(c) Select an engine and powertrain for testing as described in § 1037.231.
(d) Set up the engine according to 40 CFR 1065.110. The default test configuration involves connecting the powertrain's transmission output shaft directly to the dynamometer. You may instead set up the dynamometer to connect at the wheel hubs if your powertrain configuration requires it, such as for hybrid powertrains, or if you want to represent the axle performance with powertrain test results. If you connect at the wheel hubs, input your test results into GEM to reflect this.
(e) Cool the powertrain during testing so temperatures for intake-air, oil, coolant, block, head, transmission, battery, and power electronics are within their expected ranges for normal operation. You may use auxiliary coolers and fans.
(f) Set the dynamometer to operate in speed-control mode. Record data as described in 40 CFR 1065.202. Command and control dynamometer speed at a minimum of 5 Hz. If you choose to command the dynamometer at a slower rate than the calculated dynamometer speed setpoint, use good engineering judgment to subsample the calculated setpoints for use in commanding the dynamomemter speed setpoint. Design a vehicle model to use the measured torque and calculate the dynamometer speed setpoint at a rate of at least 100 Hz, as follows:
(1) Calculate the dynamometer's angular speed target,
This example is for a vocational Light HDV or vocational Medium HDV with 6 speed automatic transmission at B speed (Test 4 in Table 2 of 40 CFR 1036.540).
(2) For testing with the dynamometer connected at the wheel hubs, calculate
(g) Design a driver model to simulate a human driver modulating the throttle and brake pedals to follow the test cycle as closely as possible. The driver model must meet the speed requirements for operation over the highway cruise cycles as described in § 1037.510 and for operation over the transient cycle as described in 40 CFR 1066.425(b). The exceptions in 40 CFR 1066.425(b)(4) apply to the transient cycle and the highway cruise cycles. Design the driver model to meet the following specifications:
(1) Send a brake signal when throttle position is zero and vehicle speed is greater than the reference vehicle speed from the test cycle. Include a delay before changing the brake signal to prevent dithering, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(2) Allow braking only if throttle position is zero.
(3) Compensate for the distance driven over the duty cycle over the course of the test. Use the following equation to perform the compensation in real time to determine your time in the cycle:
(h) Configure the vehicle model in the test cell to test the powertrain using at least three equally spaced axle ratios or tire sizes and three different road loads (nine configurations), or at least four equally spaced axle ratios or tire sizes and two different road loads (eight configurations) to cover the range of intended vehicle applications. Select axle ratios to represent the full range of expected vehicle installations. Determine the vehicle model inputs for vehicle mass,
(i) Operate the powertrain over each of the duty cycles specified in § 1037.510(a)(2), and for each applicable test configuration identified in 40 CFR 1036.540(c). For each duty cycle, precondition the powertrain using the Test 1 vehicle configuration and test the different configurations in numerical order starting with Test 1. If an infrequent regeneration event occurs during testing, void the test, but continue operating the vehicle to allow the regeneration event to finish, then precondition the engine to the same condition as would apply for normal testing and restart testing at the start of the same duty cycle for that test configuration. For PHEV powertrains, precondition the battery and then complete all back to back tests for each test configuration according to 40 CFR 1066.501 before moving to the next test configuration. You may send signals to the engine controller during the test, such as cycle road grade and vehicle speed, if that allows powertrain operation during the test to better represent real-world operation.
(j) Collect and measure emissions as described in 40 CFR part 1065. For hybrid powertrains with no plug-in capability, correct for the net energy change of the energy storage device as described in 40 CFR 1066.501. For PHEV powertrains, follow 40 CFR 1066.501 to determine End-of-Test for charge-depleting operation. You must get our approval in advance for your utility factor curve; we will approve it if you can show that you created it from sufficient in-use data of vehicles in the same application as the vehicles in which the PHEV powertrain will be installed.
(k) For each test point, validate the measured output speed with the corresponding reference values. If the range of reference speed is less than 10 percent of the mean reference speed, you need to meet only the standard error of estimate in Table 1 of this section. You may delete points when the vehicle is stopped. Apply cycle-validation criteria for each separate transient or highway cruise cycle based on the following parameters:
(l) [Reserved]
(m) Calculate mass of fuel consumed for all duty cycles except idle as described in 40 CFR 1036.540(d)(4).
(n) Determine the mass of fuel consumed at idle for the applicable duty cycles as follows:
(1) Measure fuel consumption with a fuel flow meter and report the mean fuel mass flow rate for each duty cycle as applicable,
(2) For measurements that do not involve measured fuel mass flow rate, calculate the fuel mass flow rate for each duty cycle,
(o) Use the results of powertrain testing to determine GEM inputs for the different simulated vehicle configurations as follows:
(1) Select fuel-consumption rates,
(2) Powertrain output speed per unit of vehicle speed. If the test is done with the dynamometer connected at the wheel hubs set
(3) Positive work,
(4) The following table illustrates the GEM data inputs corresponding to the different vehicle configurations:
(p) Correct the measured or calculated fuel mass,
(q) For each test run, record the engine speed and torque as defined in 40 CFR 1065.915(d)(5) with a minimum sampling frequency of 1 Hz. These engine speed and torque values represent a duty cycle that can be used for separate testing with an engine mounted on an engine dynamometer, such as for a selective enforcement audit as described in § 1037.301.
Section 1037.550 describes how to measure fuel consumption over specific duty cycles with an engine coupled to a transmission; § 1037.550(q) describes how to create equivalent duty cycles for repeating those same measurements with just the engine. This § 1037.551 describes how to perform this engine testing to simulate the powertrain test. These engine-based measurements may be used for confirmatory testing as described in § 1037.235, or for selective enforcement audits as described in § 1037.301, as long as the test engine's operation represents the engine operation observed in the powertrain test. If we use this approach for confirmatory testing, when making compliance determinations, we will consider the uncertainty associated with this approach relative to full powertrain testing. Use of this approach for engine SEAs is optional for engine manufacturers.
(a) Use the procedures of 40 CFR part 1065 to set up the engine, measure emissions, and record data. Measure individual parameters and emission constituents as described in this section. Measure NO
(b) Operate the engine over the applicable engine duty cycles corresponding to the vehicle cycles specified in § 1037.510(a)(2) for powertrain testing over the applicable vehicle simulations described in § 1037.550(h). Warm up the engine to prepare for the transient test or one of the highway cruise cycles by operating it one time over one of the simulations of the corresponding duty cycle. Warm up the engine to prepare for the idle test by operating it over a simulation of the 65-mi/hr highway cruise cycle for 600 seconds. Within 60 seconds after concluding the warm up cycle, start emission sampling while the engine operates over the duty cycle. You may perform any number of test runs directly in succession once the engine is warmed up. Perform cycle validation as described in 40 CFR 1065.514 for engine speed, torque, and power.
(c) Calculate the mass of fuel consumed as described in § 1037.550(m) and (n). Correct each measured value for the test fuel's mass-specific net energy content as described in 40 CFR 1036.530. Use these corrected values to determine whether the engine's emission levels conform to the declared fuel-consumption rates from the powertrain test.
This section describes the procedure for simulating a chassis test with a pre-transmission or post-transmission hybrid system for A to B testing of Phase 1 vehicles. These procedures may also be used to perform A to B testing with non-hybrid systems. See § 1037.550 for Phase 2 hybrid systems.
(a) Set up the engine according to 40 CFR 1065.110 to account for work inputs and outputs and accessory work.
(b) Collect CO
(c) Collect and measure emissions as described in 40 CFR part 1066. Calculate emission rates in grams per ton-mile without rounding. Determine values for
(d) Calculate the transmission output shaft's angular speed target for the driver model,
(e) Use speed control with a loop rate of at least 100 Hz to program the dynamometer to follow the test cycle, as follows:
(1) Calculate the transmission output shaft's angular speed target for the dynamometer,
(2) For each test, validate the measured transmission output shaft's speed with the corresponding reference values according to 40 CFR 1065.514(e). You may delete points when the vehicle is stopped. Perform the validation based on speed values at the transmission output shaft. For steady-state tests (55 mi/hr and 65 mi/hr cruise), apply cycle-validation criteria by treating the sampling periods from the two tests as a continuous sampling period. Perform this validation based on the following parameters:
(f) Send a brake signal when throttle position is equal to zero and vehicle speed is greater than the reference vehicle speed from the test cycle. Set a delay before changing the brake state to prevent the brake signal from dithering, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(g) The driver model should be designed to follow the cycle as closely as possible and must meet the requirements of § 1037.510 for steady-state testing and 40 CFR 1066.430(e) for transient testing. The driver model should be designed so that the brake and throttle are not applied at the same time.
(h) Correct for the net energy change of the energy storage device as described in 40 CFR 1066.501.
(i) Follow the provisions of § 1037.510 to weight the cycle results and § 1037.615 to calculate improvement factors and benefits for advanced technologies for Phase 1 vehicles.
This section describes a procedure for mapping axle efficiency through a determination of axle power loss.
(a) You may establish axle power loss maps based on testing any number of axle configurations within an axle family as specified in § 1037.232. You may share data across a family of axle configurations, as long as you test the axle configuration with the lowest efficiency from the axle family; this will generally involve testing the axle with the highest axle ratio. For vehicles with tandem drive axles, always test each drive axle separately. For tandem axles that can be disconnected, test both single-drive and tandem axle configurations. Alternatively, you may ask us to approve power loss maps for untested configurations that are analytically derived from tested configurations within the same family (see § 1037.235(h)).
(b) Prepare an axle assembly for testing as follows:
(1) Select an axle assembly with less than 500 hours of operation before testing. Assemble the axle in its housing, along with wheel ends and bearings.
(2) If you have a family of axle assemblies with different axle ratios, you may test multiple configurations using a common axle housing, wheel ends, and bearings.
(3) Install the axle on the dynamometer with an input shaft angle perpendicular to the axle.
(i) For axle assemblies with or without a locking main differential, test the axle using one of the following methods:
(A) Lock the main differential and test it with one electric motor on the input shaft and a second electric motor on the output side of the output shaft that has the speed-reduction gear attached to it.
(B) Test with the main differential unlocked and with one electric motor on the input shaft and electric motors on the output sides of each of the output shafts.
(ii) For drive-through tandem-axle setups, lock the longitudinal and inter-wheel differentials.
(4) Add gear oil according to the axle manufacturer's instructions. If the axle manufacturer specifies multiple gear oils, select the one with the highest viscosity at operating temperature. You may use a lower-viscosity gear oil if we approve that as critical emission-related maintenance under § 1037.125. Fill the gear oil to a level that represents in-use operation. You may use an external gear oil conditioning system, as long as it does not affect measured values.
(5) Install equipment for measuring the bulk temperature of the gear oil in the oil sump or a similar location.
(6) Break in the axle assembly using good engineering judgment. Maintain gear oil temperature at or below 100 °C throughout the break-in period.
(7) Drain the gear oil following the break-in procedure and repeat the filling procedure described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(c) Measure input and output speed and torque as described in 40 CFR 1065.210(b), except that you may use a magnetic or optical shaft-position detector with only one count per revolution. Use a speed-measurement system that meets an accuracy of
(d) The test matrix consists of output torque and wheel speed values meeting the following specifications:
(1) Output torque includes both loaded and unloaded operation. For measurement involving unloaded output torque, also called spin loss testing, the wheel end is not connected to the dynamometer and is left to rotate freely; in this condition the input torque (to maintain constant wheel speed) equals the power loss. Test axles at a range of output torque values, as follows:
(i) 0, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 N⋅m for single drive axle applications for tractors and for vocational Heavy HDV with a single drive axle.
(ii) 0, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 N⋅m for tractors, for vocational Heavy HDV with tandem drive axles, and for all vocational Light HDV or vocational Medium HDV.
(iii) You may exclude values that exceed your axle's maximum torque rating.
(2) Determine maximum wheel speed corresponding to a vehicle speed of 65 mi/hr based on the smallest tire (as determined using § 1037.520(c)(1)) that will be used with the axle. If you do not know the smallest tire size, you may use a default size of 650 r/mi. Use wheel rotational speeds for testing that include 50 r/min and speeds in 100 r/min increments that encompass the maximum wheel speed (150, 250, etc.).
(3) You may test the axle at additional speed and torque setpoints.
(e) Determine axle efficiency using the following procedure:
(1) Maintain ambient temperature between (15 and 35) °C throughout testing. Measure ambient temperature within 1.0 m of the axle assembly. Verify that critical axle settings (such as bearing preload, backlash, and oil sump level) are within specifications before and after testing.
(2) Maintain gear oil temperature at (81 to 83) °C. Measure gear oil temperature at the drain of the sump. You may use an external gear oil conditioning system, as long as it does not affect measured values.
(3) Use good engineering judgment to warm up the axle by operating it until the gear oil is within the specified temperature range.
(4) Stabilize operation at each point in the test matrix for at least 10 seconds, then measure the input torque, output torque, and wheel speed for at least 10 seconds, recording the mean values for all three parameters. Calculate power loss as described in paragraph (f) of this section based on torque and speed values at each test point.
(5) Perform the map sequence described in paragraph (e)(4) of this section three times. Remove torque from the input shaft and allow the axle to come to a full stop before each repeat measurement.
(6) You may need to perform additional testing based on a calculation of repeatability at a 95% confidence level. Make a separate repeatability calculation for the three data points at each operating condition in the test matrix. If the confidence limit is greater than 0.10% for loaded tests or greater than 0.05% for unloaded tests, perform another repeat of the axle power loss map and recalculate the repeatability for the whole set of test results. Continue testing until the repeatability is at or below the specified values for all operating conditions.
Calculate a confidence limit representing the repeatability in establishing a 95% confidence level using the following equation:
(7) Calculate mean input torque,
(f) Calculate the mean power loss,
(2) For each test calculate the mean power loss,
(g) Create a table showing the mean power loss,
This section describes a procedure for mapping transmission efficiency through a determination of transmission power loss.
(a) You may establish transmission power loss maps based on testing any number of transmission configurations within a transmission family as specified in § 1037.232. You may share data across any configurations within the family, as long as you test the transmission configuration with the lowest efficiency from the emission family. Alternatively, you may ask us to approve power loss maps for untested configurations that are analytically derived from tested configurations within the same family (see § 1037.235(h)).
(b) Prepare a transmission for testing as follows:
(1) Select a transmission with less than 500 hours of operation before testing.
(2) Mount the transmission to the dynamometer such that the geared shaft in the transmission is aligned with the input shaft from the dynamometer.
(3) Add transmission oil according to the transmission manufacturer's instructions. If the transmission manufacturer specifies multiple transmission oils, select the one with the highest viscosity at operating temperature. You may use a lower-viscosity transmission oil if we approve that as critical emission-related maintenance under § 1037.125. Fill the transmission oil to a level that represents in-use operation. You may use an external transmission oil conditioning system, as long as it does not affect measured values.
(4) Include any internal and external pumps for hydraulic fluid and lubricating oil in the test. Determine the work required to drive an external pump according to 40 CFR 1065.210.
(5) Install equipment for measuring the bulk temperature of the transmission oil in the oil sump or a similar location.
(6) If the transmission is equipped with a torque converter, lock it for all testing performed in this section.
(7) Break in the transmission using good engineering judgment. Maintain transmission oil temperature at (87 to 93) °C for automatic transmissions and transmissions having more than two friction clutches, and at (77 to 83) °C for all other transmissions. You may ask us to approve a different range of transmission oil temperatures if you have data showing that it better represents in-use operation.
(c) Measure input and output shaft speed and torque as described in 40 CFR 1065.210(b), except that you may use a magnetic or optical shaft-position detector with only one count per revolution. Use a-speed measurement system that meets an accuracy of ±0.05% of point. Use torque transducers that meet an accuracy requirement of ±0.2% of the transmission's maximum rated input torque or output torque for the selected gear ratio, for loaded test points, and ±0.1% of the transmission's maximum rated input torque for unloaded test points. Calibrate and verify measurement instruments according to 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C. Command speed and torque at a minimum of 10 Hz, and record all data, including bulk oil temperature, at a minimum of 1 Hz mean values.
(d) The test matrix consists of transmission input shaft speeds and torque setpoints meeting the following specifications for each gear tested:
(1) Include transmission input shaft speeds at the maximum rated input shaft speed, 600 r/min, and three equally spaced intermediate speeds. The intermediate speed points may be adjusted to the nearest 50 or 100 r/min.
(2) Include one loaded torque setpoint between 75% and 105% of the maximum transmission input torque and one unloaded (zero-torque) setpoint. You may test at any number of additional torque setpoints to improve accuracy. Note that GEM calculates power loss between tested or default values by linear interpolation.
(3) In the case of transmissions that automatically go into neutral when the vehicle is stopped, also perform tests at 600 r/min and 800 r/min with the transmission in neutral and the transmission output fixed at zero speed.
(e) Determine transmission torque loss using the following procedure:
(1) Maintain ambient temperature between (15 and 35) °C throughout testing. Measure ambient temperature within 1.0 m of the transmission.
(2) Maintain transmission oil temperature as described in paragraph (b)(7) of this section. You may use an external transmission oil conditioning system, as long as it does not affect measured values.
(3) Use good engineering judgment to warm up the transmission according to the transmission manufacturer's specifications.
(4) Perform unloaded transmission tests by disconnecting the transmission output shaft from the dynamometer and letting it rotate freely. If the transmission adjusts pump pressure based on whether the vehicle is moving or stopped, set up the transmission for unloaded tests to operate as if the vehicle is moving.
(5) For transmissions that have multiple configurations for a given gear ratio, such as dual-clutch transmissions that can pre-select an upshift or downshift, set the transmission to operate in the configuration with the greatest power loss. Alternatively, test in each configuration and use good engineering judgment to calculate a weighted power loss for each test point under this section based on field data that characterizes the degree of in-use operation in each configuration.
(6) Operate the transmission in the top gear at a selected torque setpoint with the input shaft speed at one of the speed setpoints for at least 10 seconds, then measure the speed and torque of the input and output shafts for at least 10 seconds. You may omit measurement of output shaft speeds if your transmission is configured is a way that does not allow slip. Calculate arithmetic mean values for all speed and torque values over each measurement period. Repeat this stabilization, measurement, and calculation for the other speed and torque setpoints from the test matrix in any sequence. Calculate power loss as described in paragraph (f) of this section based on torque and speed values at each test point.
(7) Repeat the procedure described in paragraph (e) for all gears, or for all gears down to a selected gear. GEM will use default values for any gears not tested.
(8) Perform the test sequence described in paragraphs (d)(6) and (7) of this section three times. You may do this repeat testing at any given test point before you perform measurements for the whole test matrix. Remove torque from the transmission input shaft and bring the transmission to a complete stop before each repeat measurement.
(9) You may need to perform additional testing based on a calculation of repeatability at a 95% confidence level. Make a separate repeatability calculation for the three data points at each operating condition in the test matrix. If the confidence limit is greater than 0.10% for loaded tests or greater than 0.05% for unloaded tests, perform another repeat of measurements at that operating condition and recalculate the repeatability for the whole set of test results. Continue testing until the repeatability is at or below the specified values for all operating conditions. Calculate a confidence limit representing the repeatability in establishing a 95% confidence level using the following equation:
(10) Calculate mean input shaft torque,
(f) Calculate the mean power loss,
(2) For each test calculate the mean power loss,
(3) For transmissions that are configured in a way that does not allow slip, you may calculate
(g) Create a table showing the mean power loss,
(a) Engine and vehicle manufacturers, as well as owners and operators of vehicles subject to the requirements of this part, and all other persons, must observe the provisions of this part, the applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, and the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act. The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 apply for heavy-duty vehicles as specified in that part, subject to the provisions:
(1) Except as specifically allowed by this part or 40 CFR part 1068, it is a violation of § 1068.101(a)(1) to introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor or vocational vehicle containing an engine not certified to the applicable requirements of this part and 40 CFR part 86. Further, it is a violation to introduce into U.S. commerce a Phase 1 tractor containing an engine not certified for use in tractors; or to introduce into U.S. commerce a vocational vehicle containing a light heavy-duty or medium heavy-duty engine not certified for use in vocational vehicles. These prohibitions apply especially to the vehicle manufacturer. Note that this paragraph (a)(1) allows the use of Heavy heavy-duty tractor engines in vocational vehicles.
(2) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.105(a) apply for vehicle manufacturers installing engines certified under 40 CFR part 1036 as further limited by this paragraph (a)(2). If new engine emission standards apply in a given model year, you may install normal inventories of engines from the preceding model year under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.105(a) through March 31 of that year without our approval; you may not install such engines after March 31 of that year unless we approve it in advance. Installing such engines after March 31 without our prior approval is considered to be prohibited stockpiling of engines. In a written request for our approval, you must describe how your circumstances led you and your engine supplier to have normal inventories of engines that were not used up in the specified time frame. We will approve your request for up to three additional months to install up to 50 engines under this paragraph (a)(2) if we determine that the excess inventory is a result of unforeseeable circumstances and should not be considered circumvention of emission standards. Note that 40 CFR 1068.105(a) allows vehicle manufacturers to use up only normal inventories of engines meeting less stringent standards; if, for example, a vehicle manufacturer's normal practice is to receive a shipment of engines every two weeks, it will deplete its potential to install previous-tier engines under this paragraph (a)(2) well before March 31 in the year that new standards apply.
(3) The exemption provisions of 40 CFR 1068.201 through 1068.230, 1068.240, and 1068.260 through 265 apply for heavy-duty motor vehicles. Other exemption provisions, which are specific to nonroad engines, do not apply for heavy-duty vehicles or heavy-duty engines.
(4) The tampering prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) applies for alternative fuel conversions as specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart F.
(5) The warranty-related prohibitions in section 203(a)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(4)) apply to manufacturers of new heavy-duty highway vehicles in addition to the prohibitions described in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(6). We may assess a civil penalty up to $44,539 for each engine or vehicle in violation.
(6) A vehicle manufacturer that completes assembly of a vehicle at two or more facilities may ask to use as the date of manufacture for that vehicle the date on which manufacturing is completed at the place of main assembly, consistent with provisions of 49 CFR 567.4. Note that such staged assembly is subject to the corresponding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.260. Include your request in your application for certification, along with a summary of your staged-assembly process. You may ask to apply this allowance to some or all of the vehicles in your vehicle family. Our approval is effective when we grant your certificate. We will not approve your request if we determine
(7) The provisions for selective enforcement audits apply as described in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E, and subpart D of this part.
(b) Vehicles exempted from the applicable standards of 40 CFR part 86 other than glider vehicles are exempt from the standards of this part without request. Similarly, vehicles other than glider vehicles are exempt without request if the installed engine is exempted from the applicable standards in 40 CFR part 86.
(c) The prohibitions of 40 CFR 1068.101 apply for vehicles subject to the requirements of this part. The actions prohibited under this provision include the introduction into U.S. commerce of a complete or incomplete vehicle subject to the standards of this part where the vehicle is not covered by a valid certificate of conformity or exemption.
(d) The emergency vehicle field modification provisions of 40 CFR 85.1716 apply with respect to the standards of this part.
(e) Under § 1037.801, certain vehicles are considered to be new vehicles when they are imported into the United States, even if they have previously been used outside the country. Independent Commercial Importers may use the provisions of 40 CFR part 85, subpart P, and 40 CFR 85.1706(b) to receive a certificate of conformity for engines and vehicles meeting all the requirements of 40 CFR part 1036 and this part 1037.
(f) Standards apply to multi-fuel vehicles as described for engines in 40 CFR 1036.601(d).
(a)
(1) All-terrain motor vehicles with portal axles (
(2) Amphibious vehicles.
(3) Vehicles with maximum speed at or below 45 miles per hour. If your vehicle is speed-limited to meet this specification by reducing maximum speed below what is otherwise possible, this speed limitation must be programmed into the engine or vehicle's electronic control module in a way that is tamper-proof. If your vehicles are not inherently limited to a maximum speed at or below 45 miles per hour, they may qualify under this paragraph (a)(3) only if we approve your design to limit maximum speed as being tamper-proof in advance.
(4) Through model year 2027, vehicles with a hybrid powertrain in which the engine provides energy for the Rechargeable Energy Storage System.
(b)
(1) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number.
(2) List the vehicle models for which you used this exemption in the previous year and identify the engine manufacturer and engine model for each vehicle model. Also identify the total number of vehicles produced in the previous year.
(c)
(d)
(1) Vehicles qualifying under paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section are subject to evaporative emission standards of § 1037.103, but are exempt from the other requirements of this part, except as specified in this section and in § 1037.601. These vehicles must include a label as specified in § 1037.135(a) with the information from § 1037.135(c)(1) and (2) and the following statement: “THIS VEHICLE IS EXEMPT FROM GREENHOUSE GAS STANDARDS UNDER 40 CFR 1037.605.”
(2) Hybrid vehicles using the provisions of this section remain subject to the vehicle standards and all other requirements of this part 1037. For example, you may need to use GEM in conjunction with powertrain testing to demonstrate compliance with emission standards under subpart B of this part.
(a) You may ask us to apply the provisions of this section for CO
(b) The provisions of this section may be applied as either an improvement factor or as a separate credit, consistent with good engineering judgment. Note that the term “credit” in this section describes an additive adjustment to emission rates and is not equivalent to an emission credit in the ABT program of subpart H of this part. We recommend that you base your credit/adjustment on A to B testing of pairs of vehicles differing only with respect to the technology in question.
(1) Calculate improvement factors as the ratio of in-use emissions with the technology divided by the in-use emissions without the technology. Use the improvement-factor approach where good engineering judgment indicates that the actual benefit will be proportional to emissions measured
(2) Calculate separate credits (g/ton-mile) based on the difference between the in-use emission rate with the technology and the in-use emission rate without the technology. Subtract this value from your GEM result and use this adjusted value to determine your FEL. Use the separate-credit approach where good engineering judgment indicates that the actual benefit will not be proportional to emissions measured over the test procedures specified in this part.
(3) We may require you to discount or otherwise adjust your improvement factor or credit to account for uncertainty or other relevant factors.
(c) You may perform A to B testing by measuring emissions from the vehicles during chassis testing or from in-use on-road testing. You may also ask to use modified powertrain testing. If you use on-road testing, we recommend that you test according to SAE J1321, Fuel Consumption Test Procedure—Type II, revised February 2012, or SAE J1526, SAE Fuel Consumption Test Procedure (Engineering Method), Revised September 2015 (see § 1037.810 for information on availability of SAE standards), subject to the following provisions:
(1) The minimum route distance is 100 miles.
(2) The route selected must be representative in terms of grade. We will take into account published and relevant research in determining whether the grade is representative.
(3) Control vehicle speed over the route to be representative of the drive-cycle weighting adopted for each regulatory subcategory, as specified in § 1037.510(c), or apply a correction to account for the appropriate weighting. For example, if the route selected for an evaluation of a combination tractor with a sleeper cab contains only interstate driving at 65 mi/hr, the improvement factor would apply only to 86 percent of the weighted result.
(4) The ambient air temperature must be between (5 and 35) °C, unless the technology requires other temperatures for demonstration.
(5) We may allow you to use a Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS) device for measuring CO
(d) Send your request to the Designated Compliance Officer. We recommend that you do not begin collecting test data (for submission to EPA) before contacting us. For technologies for which the engine manufacturer could also claim credits (such as transmissions in certain circumstances), we may require you to include a letter from the engine manufacturer stating that it will not seek credits for the same technology. Your request must contain the following items:
(1) A detailed description of the off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO
(2) A list of the vehicle configurations that will be equipped with the technology.
(3) A detailed description and justification of the selected test vehicles.
(4) All testing and simulation data required under this section, plus any other data you have considered in your analysis. You may ask for our preliminary approval of your test plan under § 1037.210.
(5) A complete description of the methodology used to estimate the off-cycle benefit of the technology and all supporting data, including vehicle testing and in-use activity data. Also include a statement regarding your recommendation for applying the provisions of this section for the given technology as an improvement factor or a credit.
(6) An estimate of the off-cycle benefit by vehicle model, and the fleetwide benefit based on projected sales of vehicle models equipped with the technology.
(7) A demonstration of the in-use durability of the off-cycle technology, based on any available engineering analysis or durability testing data (either by testing components or whole vehicles).
(8) A recommended method for auditing production vehicles consistent with the intent of 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E. We may approve your recommended method or specify a different method.
(e) We may seek public comment on your request, consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 86.1866. However, we will generally not seek public comment on credits or adjustments based on A to B chassis testing performed according to the duty-cycle testing requirements of this part or in-use testing performed according to paragraph (c) of this section.
(f) We may approve an improvement factor or credit for any configuration that is properly represented by your testing.
(1) For model years before 2021, you may continue to use an approved improvement factor or credit for any appropriate vehicle families in future model years through 2020.
(2) For model years 2021 and later, you may not rely on an approval for model years before 2021. You must separately request our approval before applying an improvement factor or credit under this section for Phase 2 vehicles, even if we approved an improvement factor or credit for similar vehicle models before model year 2021. Note that Phase 2 approval may carry over for multiple years.
(g) You normally may not calculate off-cycle credits or improvement factors under this section for technologies represented by GEM, but we may allow you to do so by averaging multiple GEM runs for special technologies for which a single GEM run cannot accurately reflect in-use performance. For example, if you use an idle-reduction technology that is effective 80 percent of the time, we may allow you to run GEM with the technology active and with it inactive, and then apply an 80% weighting factor to calculate the off-cycle credit or improvement factor. You may need to perform testing to establish proper weighting factors or otherwise quantify the benefits of the special technologies.
(a) This section applies in Phase 1 for hybrid vehicles with regenerative braking, vehicles equipped with Rankine-cycle engines, electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles, and in Phase 2 through model year 2027 for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. You may not generate credits for Phase 1 engine technologies for which the engines generate credits under 40 CFR part 1036.
(b) Generate Phase 1 advanced-technology credits for vehicles other than electric vehicles as follows:
(1) Measure the effectiveness of the advanced system by chassis-testing a vehicle equipped with the advanced system and an equivalent conventional vehicle, or by testing the hybrid systems and the equivalent non-hybrid systems as described in § 1037.555. Test the vehicles as specified in subpart F of this part. For purposes of this paragraph (b), a conventional vehicle is considered to be equivalent if it has the same footprint (as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803), vehicle service class, aerodynamic drag, and other relevant factors not directly related to the hybrid powertrain. If you use § 1037.540 to quantify the benefits of a hybrid system for PTO operation, the conventional vehicle must have the same number of PTO circuits and have equivalent PTO power. If you do not produce an equivalent vehicle, you may create and test a prototype equivalent vehicle. The conventional vehicle is
(2) Calculate an improvement factor and g/ton-mile benefit using the following equations and parameters:
(i) Improvement Factor = [(Emission Rate A)−(Emission Rate B)]/(Emission Rate A).
(ii) g/ton-mile benefit = Improvement Factor × (GEM Result B).
(iii) Emission Rates A and B are the g/ton-mile CO
(3) If you apply an improvement factor to multiple vehicle configurations using the same advanced technology, use the vehicle configuration with the smallest potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the hybrid capability.
(4) Use the equations of § 1037.705 to convert the g/ton-mile benefit to emission credits (in Mg). Use the g/ton-mile benefit in place of the (Std-FEL) term.
(c) See § 1037.540 for special testing provisions related to Phase 1 vehicles equipped with hybrid power take-off units.
(d) For Phase 2 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and for fuel cells powered by any fuel other than hydrogen, calculate CO
(e) You may use an engineering analysis to calculate an improvement factor for fuel cell vehicles based on measured emissions from the fuel cell vehicle.
(f) For electric vehicles, calculate CO
(g) As specified in subpart H of this part, advanced-technology credits generated from Phase 1 vehicles under this section may be used under this part 1037 outside of the averaging set in which they were generated, or they may be used under 40 CFR 86.1819 or 40 CFR part 1036. Advanced-technology credits generated from Phase 2 vehicles are subject to all the averaging-set restrictions that apply to other emission credits.
(h) You may certify using both provisions of this section and the off-cycle technology provisions of § 1037.610, provided you do not double count emission benefits.
This section describes certain circumstances in which multiple manufacturers share responsibilities for vehicles they produce together. This section does not limit responsibilities that apply under the Act or these regulations for anyone meeting the definition of “manufacturer” in § 1037.801. Note that the definition of manufacturer is broad and can include persons not commercially considered to be manufacturers.
(a) The following provisions apply when there are multiple persons meeting the definition of manufacturer in § 1037.801:
(1) Each person meeting the definition of manufacturer must comply with the requirements of this part that apply to manufacturers. However, if one person complies with a specific requirement for a given vehicle, then all manufacturers are deemed to have complied with that specific requirement.
(2) We will apply the requirements of subparts C and D of this part to the manufacturer that obtains the certificate of conformity for the vehicle. Other manufacturers are required to comply with the requirements of subparts C and D of this part only when notified by us. In our notification, we will specify a reasonable time period in which you need to comply with the requirements identified in the notice. See § 1037.601 for the applicability of 40 CFR part 1068 to these other manufacturers and remanufacturers.
(b) The provisions of § 1037.621, including delegated assembly, apply for certifying manufacturers that rely on other manufacturers to finish assembly in a certified configuration. The provisions of § 1037.622 generally apply for manufacturers that ship vehicles subject to the requirements of this part to a certifying secondary vehicle manufacturer. The provisions of § 1037.622 also apply to the secondary vehicle manufacturer. If you hold the certificate of conformity for a vehicle only with respect to exhaust or evaporative emissions, and a different company holds the other certificate of conformity for that vehicle, the provisions of § 1037.621 apply with respect to the certified configuration as described in your application for certification, and the provisions of § 1037.622 apply with respect to the certified configuration as described in the other manufacturer's application for certification.
(c) Manufacturers of aerodynamic devices may perform the aerodynamic testing described in § 1037.526 to quantify
(d) Component manufacturers (such as tire manufacturers) providing test data to certifying vehicle manufacturers are responsible as follows for test components and emission test results provided to vehicle manufacturers for the purpose of certification under this part:
(1) Such test results are deemed under § 1037.825 to be submissions to EPA. This means that you may be subject to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001 if you knowingly submit false test results to the certifying manufacturer.
(2) You may not cause a vehicle manufacturer to violate the regulations by rendering inaccurate emission test results you provide (or emission test results from testing of test components you provide) to the vehicle manufacturer (see 40 CFR 1068.101(c)).
(3) Your provision of test components and/or emission test results to vehicle manufacturers for the purpose of certifying under this part are deemed to be an agreement to provide components to EPA for confirmatory testing under § 1037.235.
(e) Component manufacturers may contractually agree to process emission warranty claims on behalf of the certifying manufacturer with respect to those components, as follows:
(1) Your fulfillment of the warranty requirements of this part is deemed to fulfill the vehicle manufacturer's warranty obligations under this part with respect to components covered by your warranty.
(2) You may not cause a vehicle manufacturer to violate the regulations by failing to fulfill the emission warranty requirements that you contractually agreed to fulfill (see 40 CFR 1068.101(c)).
(f) We may require component manufacturers to provide information or take other actions under 42 U.S.C. 7542. For example, we may require component manufacturers to test components they produce.
(a) This section describes provisions that allow certificate holders to sell or ship vehicles that are missing certain
(b) You do not need an exemption to ship a vehicle that does not include installation or assembly of certain emission-related components if those components are shipped along with the vehicle. For example, you may generally ship fuel tanks and aerodynamic devices along with vehicles rather than installing them on the vehicle before shipment. We may require you to describe how you plan to use this provision.
(c) You may ask us at the time of certification for an exemption to allow you to ship your vehicles without emission-related components. If we allow this, you must provide emission-related installation instructions as specified in § 1037.130. You must follow delegated-assembly requirements in 40 CFR 1068.261 if you rely on secondary vehicle manufacturers to install certain technologies or components as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. For other technologies or components, we may specify conditions that we determine are needed to ensure that shipping the vehicle without such components will not result in the vehicle being operated outside of its certified configuration; this may include a requirement to comply with the delegated-assembly provisions in paragraph (d) of this section. We may consider your past performance when we specify the conditions that apply.
(d) Delegated-assembly provisions apply as specified in this paragraph (d) if the certifying vehicle manufacturer relies on a secondary vehicle manufacturer to procure and install auxiliary power units, aerodynamic devices, hybrid components (for powertrain or power take-off), or natural gas fuel tanks. These provisions do not apply for other systems or components, such as air conditioning lines and fittings, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Apply the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.261, with the following exceptions and clarifications:
(1) Understand references to “engines” to refer to vehicles.
(2) Understand references to “aftertreatment components” to refer to any relevant emission-related components under this paragraph (d).
(3) Understand “equipment manufacturers” to be secondary vehicle manufacturers.
(4) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.261(b), (c)(7), (d), and (e) do not apply. Accordingly, the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.261(c) apply regardless of pricing arrangements.
(e) Secondary vehicle manufacturers must follow the engine manufacturer's emission-related installation instructions. Not meeting the manufacturer's emission-related installation instructions is a violation of one or more of the prohibitions of § 1068.101. We may also require secondary vehicle manufacturers to recall defective vehicles under 40 CFR 1068.505 if we determine that their manufacturing practices caused vehicles to not conform to the regulations. Secondary vehicle manufacturers may be required to meet additional requirements if the certifying vehicle manufacturer delegates final assembly of emission controls as described in paragraph (d) of this section.
(f) Except as allowed by § 1037.622, the provisions of this section apply to manufacturers for glider kits they produce. Note that under § 1037.620, glider kit manufacturers are generally presumed to be responsible (in whole or in part) for compliance with respect to vehicles produced from their glider kits, even if a secondary vehicle manufacturer holds the certificate under § 1037.622.
(g) We may allow certifying vehicle manufacturers to authorize dealers or distributors to reconfigure vehicles after the vehicles have been introduced into commerce if they have not yet been delivered to the ultimate purchaser as follows:
(1) This allowance is limited to changes from one certified configuration to another, as noted in the following examples:
(i) If your vehicle family includes certified configurations with different axle ratios, you may authorize changing from one certified axle ratio to another.
(ii) You may authorize adding a certified APU to a tractor.
(2) Your final ABT report must accurately describe the vehicle's certified configuration as delivered to the ultimate purchaser. This means that the allowance no longer applies after you submit the final ABT report.
(3) The vehicle label must accurately reflect the final vehicle configuration.
(4) You must keep records to document modifications under this paragraph (g).
(5) Dealers and distributors must keep a record of your authorizing instructions. Dealers and distributors that fail to follow your instructions or otherwise make unauthorized changes may be committing a tampering violation as described in 40 CFR 1068.105(b).
This section specifies how manufacturers may introduce partially complete vehicles into U.S. commerce (or in the case of certain custom vehicles, introduce complete vehicles into U.S. commerce for modification by a small manufacturer). The provisions of this section are generally not intended for trailers, but they may apply in unusual circumstances, such as when a secondary vehicle manufacturer will modify a trailer in a way that makes it exempt. The provisions of this section are intended to accommodate normal business practices without compromising the effectiveness of certified emission controls. You may not use the provisions of this section to circumvent the intent of this part. For vehicles subject to both exhaust GHG and evaporative standards, the provisions of this part apply separately for each certificate.
(a) The provisions of this section allow manufacturers to ship partially complete vehicles to secondary vehicle manufacturers or otherwise introduce them into U.S. commerce in the following circumstances:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b) The provisions of this paragraph (b) generally apply where the secondary vehicle manufacturer has substantial control over the design and assembly of emission controls. They also apply where a secondary vehicle manufacturer qualifies for a permanent exemption. In unusual circumstances we may allow other secondary vehicle manufacturers to use these provisions. In determining whether a manufacturer has substantial control over the design and assembly of emission controls, we would consider the degree to which the secondary vehicle manufacturer would be able to ensure that the engine and vehicle will conform to the regulations in their final configurations.
(1) A secondary vehicle manufacturer may finish assembly of partially complete vehicles in the following cases:
(i) It obtains a vehicle that is not fully assembled with the intent to manufacture a complete vehicle in a certified or exempted configuration. For example, this would apply where a glider vehicle assembler holds a certificate that allows the assembler to produce certified glider vehicles from glider kits.
(ii) It obtains a vehicle with the intent to modify it to a certified configuration before it reaches the ultimate purchaser. For example, this may apply for converting a gasoline-fueled vehicle to operate on natural gas under the terms of a valid certificate.
(2) Manufacturers may introduce partially complete vehicles into U.S. commerce as described in this paragraph (b) if they have a written request for such vehicles from a secondary vehicle manufacturer that will finish the vehicle assembly and has certified the vehicle (or the vehicle has been exempted or excluded from the requirements of this part). The written request must include a statement that the secondary vehicle manufacturer has a certificate of conformity (or exemption/exclusion) for the vehicle and identify a valid vehicle family name associated with each vehicle model ordered (or the basis for an exemption/exclusion). The original vehicle manufacturer must apply a removable label meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 1068.45(b) that identifies the corporate name of the original manufacturer and states that the vehicle is exempt under the provisions of § 1037.622. The name of the certifying manufacturer must also be on the label or, alternatively, on the bill of lading that accompanies the vehicles during shipment. The original manufacturer may not apply a permanent emission control information label identifying the vehicle's eventual status as a certified vehicle. Note that an exemption allowing a glider assembler to install an exempt engine does not necessarily exempt the vehicle from the requirements of this part.
(3) If you are the secondary vehicle manufacturer and you will hold the certificate, you must include the following information in your application for certification:
(i) Identify the original manufacturer of the partially complete vehicle or of the complete vehicle you will modify.
(ii) Describe briefly how and where final assembly will be completed. Specify how you have the ability to ensure that the vehicles will conform to the regulations in their final configuration. (
(iii) State unconditionally that you will not distribute the vehicles without conforming to all applicable regulations.
(4) If you are a secondary vehicle manufacturer and you are already a certificate holder for other families, you may receive shipment of partially complete vehicles after you apply for a certificate of conformity but before the certificate's effective date. This exemption allows the original manufacturer to ship vehicles after you have applied for a certificate of conformity. Manufacturers may introduce partially complete vehicles into U.S. commerce as described in this paragraph (b)(4) if they have a written request for such vehicles from a secondary vehicle manufacturer stating that the application for certification has been submitted (instead of the information we specify in paragraph (b)(2) of this section). We may set additional conditions under this paragraph (b)(4) to prevent circumvention of regulatory requirements.
(5) The provisions of this section also apply for shipping partially complete vehicles if the vehicle is covered by a valid exemption and there is no valid family name that could be used to represent the vehicle model. Unless we approve otherwise in advance, you may do this only when shipping engines to secondary vehicle manufacturers that are certificate holders. In this case, the secondary vehicle manufacturer must identify the regulatory cite identifying the applicable exemption instead of a valid family name when ordering engines from the original vehicle manufacturer.
(6) Both original and secondary vehicle manufacturers must keep the records described in this section for at least five years, including the written request for exempted vehicles and the bill of lading for each shipment (if applicable). The written request is deemed to be a submission to EPA.
(7) These provisions are intended only to allow secondary vehicle manufacturers to obtain or transport vehicles in the specific circumstances identified in this section so any exemption under this section expires when the vehicle reaches the point of final assembly identified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(8) For purposes of this section, an allowance to introduce partially complete vehicles into U.S. commerce includes a conditional allowance to sell, introduce, or deliver such vehicles into commerce in the United States or import them into the United States. It does not include a general allowance to offer such vehicles for sale because this exemption is intended to apply only for cases in which the certificate holder already has an arrangement to purchase the vehicles from the original manufacturer. This exemption does not allow the original manufacturer to subsequently offer the vehicles for sale to a different manufacturer who will hold the certificate unless that second manufacturer has also complied with the requirements of this part. The exemption does not apply for any individual vehicles that are not labeled as specified in this section or which are shipped to someone who is not a certificate holder.
(9) We may suspend, revoke, or void an exemption under this section, as follows:
(i) We may suspend or revoke your exemption if you fail to meet the requirements of this section. We may suspend or revoke an exemption related to a specific secondary vehicle manufacturer if that manufacturer sells vehicles that are in not in a certified configuration in violation of the regulations. We may disallow this exemption for future shipments to the affected secondary vehicle manufacturer or set additional conditions to ensure that vehicles will be assembled in the certified configuration.
(ii) We may void an exemption for all the affected vehicles if you intentionally
(iii) The exemption is void for a vehicle that is shipped to a company that is not a certificate holder or for a vehicle that is shipped to a secondary vehicle manufacturer that is not in compliance with the requirements of this section.
(iv) The secondary vehicle manufacturer may be liable for penalties for causing a prohibited act where the exemption is voided due to actions on the part of the secondary vehicle manufacturer.
(c) Provide instructions along with partially complete vehicles including all information necessary to ensure that an engine will be installed in its certified configuration.
(d) Small manufacturers that build custom sleeper cabs or natural gas-fueled tractors may modify complete or incomplete vehicles certified as tractors, subject to the provisions of this paragraph (d). Such businesses are secondary vehicle manufacturers.
(1) Secondary vehicle manufacturers may not modify the vehicle body in front of the b-pillar or increase the effective frontal area of the certified configuration including consideration of the frontal area of the standard trailer. For high-roof custom sleeper tractors, this would generally mean that no part of the added sleeper compartment may extend beyond 102 inches wide or 162 inches high (measured from the ground), which are the dimensions of the standard trailer for high-roof tractors under this part. Note that these dimensions have a tolerance of ±2 inches.
(2) The certifying manufacturer may have responsibilities for the vehicle under this section, as follows:
(i) If the vehicle being modified is a complete tractor in a certified configuration, the certifying manufacturer has no additional responsibilities for the vehicle under this section.
(ii) If the vehicle being modified is partially complete only because it lacks body components to the rear of the b-pillar (but is otherwise a complete tractor in a certified configuration), the certifying manufacturer has no additional responsibilities for the vehicle under this section.
(iii) If the vehicle being modified is an incomplete tractor not in a certified configuration, the certifying manufacturer must comply with the provisions of § 1037.621 for the vehicle.
(3) The secondary vehicle manufacturer must add a permanent supplemental label to the vehicle near the original manufacturer's emission control information label. On the label identify your corporate name and include the statement: “THIS TRACTOR WAS MODIFIED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.622.”
(4) See § 1037.150 for additional interim options that may apply.
(5) The provisions of this paragraph (d) may apply separately for vehicle GHG and evaporative emission standards.
(6) Modifications under this paragraph (d) do not violate 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1).
(a)
(1) This allowance is intended only for vehicles that do not typically operate at highway speeds, or would otherwise not benefit from efficiency improvements designed for line-haul tractors. This allowance is limited to the following vehicle and application types:
(i) Low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery, such as those that deliver bottled beverages to retail stores.
(ii) Tractors intended for off-road operation (including mixed service operation that does not qualify for an exemption under § 1037.631), such as those with reinforced frames and increased ground clearance. This includes drayage tractors.
(iii) Model year 2020 and earlier tractors with a gross combination weight rating (GCWR) at or above 120,000 pounds. Note that Phase 2 tractors meeting the definition of “heavy-haul” in § 1037.801 must be certified to the heavy-haul standards in §§ 1037.106 or 1037.670.
(2) Where we determine that a manufacturer is not applying this allowance in good faith, we may require the manufacturer to obtain preliminary approval before using this allowance.
(b)
(1) The vehicle must fully conform to all requirements applicable to vocational vehicles under this part.
(2) Vehicles reclassified under this section must be certified as a separate vehicle family. However, they remain part of the vocational regulatory subcategory and averaging set that applies for their service class.
(3) You must include the following additional statement on the vehicle's emission control information label under § 1037.135: “THIS VEHICLE WAS CERTIFIED AS A VOCATIONAL TRACTOR UNDER 40 CFR 1037.630.”
(4) You must keep records for three years to document your basis for believing the vehicles will be used as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Include in your application for certification a brief description of your basis.
(c)
(d)
(1) The vehicles are required to comply with the requirements of § 1037.631 instead of the requirements that would otherwise apply to vocational vehicles. Vehicles complying with the requirements of § 1037.631 and using an engine certified to the standards of 40 CFR part 1036 are deemed to fully conform to all requirements applicable to vocational vehicles under this part.
(2) The vehicles must be labeled as specified under § 1037.631 instead of as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
This section provides an exemption from the greenhouse gas standards of this part for certain vocational vehicles (including certain vocational tractors) that are intended to be used extensively in off-road environments such as forests, oil fields, and construction sites. This section does not exempt engines used in vocational vehicles from the standards of 40 CFR part 86 or part 1036. Note that you may not include these exempted vehicles in any credit calculations under this part.
(a)
(1) The vehicle must have affixed components designed to work inherently in an off-road environment (such as hazardous material equipment or off-road drill equipment) or be designed to operate at low speeds such that it is unsuitable for normal highway operation.
(2) The vehicle must meet one of the following criteria:
(i) Have an axle that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) at or above 29,000 pounds.
(ii) Have a speed attainable in 2.0 miles of not more than 33 mi/hr.
(iii) Have a speed attainable in 2.0 miles of not more than 45 mi/hr, an unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating, and no capacity to carry occupants other than the driver and operating crew.
(iv) Have a maximum speed at or below 54 mi/hr. You may consider the vehicle to be appropriately speed-limited if engine speed at 54 mi/hr is at or above 95 percent of the engine's maximum test speed in the highest available gear. You may alternatively limit vehicle speed by programming the engine or vehicle's electronic control module in a way that is tamper-proof.
(b)
(c)
(2) You must also keep records of the individual exempted vehicles you produce, including the vehicle identification number and a description of the vehicle configuration.
(3) Within 90 days after the end of each model year, you must send to the Designated Compliance Officer a report with the following information:
(i) A description of each exempted vehicle configuration, including an explanation of why it qualifies for this exemption.
(ii) The number of vehicles exempted for each vehicle configuration.
(d)
Except as specified in § 1037.150, the requirements of this section apply beginning January 1, 2017.
(a) Vehicles produced from glider kits and other glider vehicles are subject to the same standards as other new vehicles, including the applicable vehicle standards described in Subpart B of this part. Note that this requirement for the vehicle generally applies even if the engine meets the criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this section. For engines originally produced before 2017, if you are unable to obtain a fuel map for an engine you may ask to use a default map, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(b) Section 1037.601(a)(1) disallows the introduction into U.S. commerce of a new tractor or vocational vehicle (including a vehicle assembled from a glider kit) unless it has an engine that is certified to the applicable standards in 40 CFR parts 86 and 1036. Except as specified otherwise in this part, the standards apply for engines used in glider vehicles as follows:
(1) The engine must meet the GHG standards of 40 CFR part 1036 that apply for the engine model year corresponding to the vehicle's date of manufacture. For example, for a vehicle with a 2024 date of manufacture, the engine must meet the GHG standards that apply for model year 2024.
(2) The engine must meet the criteria pollutant standards of 40 CFR part 86 that apply for the engine model year corresponding to the vehicle's date of manufacture.
(3) The engine may be from an earlier model year if the standards were identical to the currently applicable engine standards.
(4) Note that alternate standards or requirements may apply under § 1037.150.
(c) The engine standards identified in paragraph (b) of this section do not apply for certain engines when used in glider kits. These engines remain subject to the standards to which they were previously certified.
(1) The allowance in this paragraph (c) applies only for following engines:
(i) Certified engines still within their original useful life in terms of both miles and years. Glider vehicles produced using engines meeting this criterion are exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if the glider vehicle configuration is identical to a configuration previously certified to the requirements of this part 1037 for a model year the same as or later than the model year of the engine.
(ii) Certified engines of any age with less than 100,000 miles of engine operation. This is intended for specialty vehicles (such as fire trucks) that have very low usage rates. These vehicles are exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, provided the completed vehicle is returned to the owner of the engine in a configuration equivalent to that of the donor vehicle.
(iii) Certified engines less than three years old with any number of accumulated miles of engine operation. Vehicles using these engines must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) For remanufactured engines, these eligibility criteria apply based on the original date of manufacture rather than the date of remanufacture. For example, an engine originally manufactured in 2003 that is remanufactured in 2012 after 350,000 miles, then accumulates an additional 150,000 miles before being installed in a model year 2020 glider would be considered to be 17 years old and to have accumulated 500,000 miles.
(3) The provisions of this paragraph (c) apply only where you can show that one or more criteria have been met. For example, to apply the criterion of paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii), you must be able prove the number of miles the engine has accumulated.
(d) All engines used in glider vehicles (including remanufactured engines) must be in a certified configuration and properly labeled. This requirement applies equally to any engine covered by this section. Depending on the model year of the engine (and other applicable provisions of this section), it may be permissible for the engine to remain in its original certified configuration or another configuration of the same original model year. However, it may be necessary to modify the engine to a newer certified configuration.
(e) The following additional provisions apply:
(1) The Clean Air Act definition of “manufacturer” includes anyone who assembles motor vehicles, including entities that install engines in or otherwise complete assembly of glider kits.
(2) Vehicle manufacturers (including assemblers) producing glider vehicles must comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in § 1037.250.
(3) Manufacturers of glider kits providing glider kits for the purpose of allowing another manufacturer to assemble vehicles under this section are subject to the provisions of §§ 1037.620 through 1037.622, as applicable. For
This section specifies provisions that apply for vehicle speed limiters (VSLs) that you model under § 1037.520. This does not apply for VSLs that you do not model under § 1037.520. (e) This section is written to apply for tractors; however, you may use good engineering judgment to apply equivalent adjustments for Phase 2 vocational vehicles with vehicle speed limiters.
(a)
(b)
(1) Default speed limit means the speed limit that normally applies for the vehicle, except as follows:
(i) The default speed limit for adjustable VSLs must represent the speed limit that applies when the VSL is adjusted to its highest setting under paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) For VSLs with soft tops, the default speed does not include speeds possible only during soft-top operation.
(iii) For expiring VSLs, the default does not include speeds that are possible only after expiration.
(2) Soft-top speed limit means the highest speed limit that applies during soft-top operation.
(3) Maximum soft-top duration means the maximum amount of time that a vehicle could operate above the default speed limit.
(4) Certified VSL means a VSL configuration that applies when a vehicle is new and until it expires.
(5) Expiration point means the mileage at which a vehicle's certified VSL expires (or the point at which tamper protections expire).
(6) Effective speed limit has the meaning given in paragraph (d) of this section.
(c)
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, any adjustments that can be made to the engine, vehicle, or their controls that change the VSL's actual speed limit are considered to be adjustable operating parameters. Compliance is based on the vehicle being adjusted to the highest speed limit within this range.
(2) The following adjustments are not adjustable parameters:
(i) Adjustments made only to account for changing tire size or final drive ratio.
(ii) Adjustments protected by encrypted controls or passwords.
(iii) Adjustments possible only after the VSL's expiration point.
(d)
(2) For VSLs with soft tops and/or expiration points, the effective speed limit is calculated as specified in this paragraph (d)(2), which is based on 10 hours of operation per day (394 miles per day for day cabs and 551 miles per day for sleeper cabs). Note that this calculation assumes that a fraction of this operation is speed-limited (3.9 hours and 252 miles for day cabs, and 7.3 hours and 474 miles for sleeper cabs). Use the following equation to calculate the effective speed limit, rounded to the nearest 0.1 mi/hr:
Section 1037.225 describes how to change the FEL for a vehicle family during the model year. This section, which describes how you may ask us to increase a vehicle family's FEL after the end of the model year, is intended to address circumstances in which it is in the public interest to apply a higher in-use FEL based on forfeiting an appropriate number of emission credits. For example, this may be appropriate where we determine that recalling vehicles would not significantly reduce in-use emissions. We will generally not allow this option where we determine the credits being forfeited would likely have expired.
(a) You may ask us to increase a vehicle family's FEL after the end of the model year if you believe some of your in-use vehicles exceed the CO
(b) If we approve your request under this section, you must apply emission credits to cover the increased FEL for all affected vehicles. Apply the emission credits as part of your credit demonstration for the current production year. Include the appropriate calculations in your final report under § 1037.730.
(c) Submit your request to the Designated Compliance Officer. Include the following in your request:
(1) Identify the names of each vehicle family that is the subject of your request. Include separate family names for different model years
(2) Describe why your request does not apply for similar vehicle models or additional model years, as applicable.
(3) Identify the FEL that applied during the model year for each configuration and recommend replacement FELs for in-use vehicles; include a supporting rationale to describe how you determined the recommended replacement FELs.
(4) Describe whether the needed emission credits will come from averaging, banking, or trading.
(d) If we approve your request, we will identify one or more replacement FELs, as follows:
(1) Where your vehicle family includes more than one sub-family with
(2) Without regard to the number of sub-families in your certified vehicle family, we may specify one or more new sub-families with higher FELs than you included in your final ABT report. We may apply these higher FELs as in-use FELs for your vehicles. For example, if your vehicle family included three sub-families, with FELs of 200 g/ton-mile, 210 g/ton-mile, and 220 g/ton-mile, we may specify a new 230 g/ton-mile sub-family.
(3) Our selected values for the replacement FEL will reflect our best judgment to accurately reflect the actual in-use performance of your vehicles, consistent with the testing provisions specified in this part.
(4) We may apply the higher FELs to other vehicle families from the same or different model years to the extent they used equivalent emission controls. We may include any appropriate conditions with our approval.
(e) If we order a recall for a vehicle family under 40 CFR 1068.505, we will no longer approve a replacement FEL under this section for any of your vehicles from that vehicle family, or from any other vehicle family that relies on equivalent emission controls.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) It is generally allowable to remove tractor roof fairings after the end of the vehicle's useful life if the vehicle will no longer be used primarily to pull box vans.
(2) Other fairings may be removed after the end of the vehicle's useful life if the vehicle will no longer be used significantly on highways with a vehicle speed of 55 miles per hour or higher.
(d)
(1) No person may disable a vehicle speed limiter prior to its expiration point.
(2) No person may remove aerodynamic fairings from tractors that are used primarily to pull box vans on highways.
This section specifies requirements that apply for idle-reduction technologies modeled under § 1037.520. It does not apply for idle-reduction technologies you do not model under § 1037.520.
(a)
(1)
(i) The transmission is set to park, or the transmission is in neutral with the parking brake engaged. This is “parked idle.”
(ii) The operator has not reset the system timer within the specified threshold inactivity period by changing the position of the accelerator, brake, or clutch pedal; or by resetting the system timer with some other mechanism we approve.
(iii)You may identify systems as “tamper-resistant” if you make no provision for vehicle owners, dealers, or other service outlets to adjust the threshold inactivity period.
(iv) For Phase 2 tractors, you may identify AES systems as “adjustable” if, before delivering to the ultimate purchaser, you enable authorized dealers to modify the vehicle in a way that disables the AES system or makes the threshold inactivity period longer than 300 seconds. However, the vehicle may not be delivered to the ultimate purchaser with the AES system disabled or the threshold inactivity period set longer than 300 seconds. You may allow dealers or repair facilities to make such modifications; this might involve password protection for electronic controls, or special tools that only you provide. Any dealers making any modifications before delivery to the ultimate purchaser must notify you, and you must account for such modifications in your production and ABT reports after the end of the model year. Dealers failing to provide prompt notification are in violation of the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). Dealer notifications are deemed to be submissions to EPA. Note that these adjustments may not be made if the AES system was not “adjustable” when first delivered to the ultimate purchaser.
(v) For vocational vehicles, you may use the provisions of § 1037.610 to apply for an appropriate partial emission reduction for AES systems you identify as “adjustable.”
(2)
(3)
(b)
(1) For AES systems on tractors, the system may delay shutdown—
(i) While an exhaust emission control device is regenerating. The period considered to be regeneration for purposes of this allowance must be consistent with good engineering judgment and may differ in length from the period considered to be regeneration for other purposes. For example, in some cases it may be appropriate to include a cool down period for this purpose but not for infrequent regeneration adjustment factors.
(ii) If necessary while servicing the vehicle, provided the deactivation of the AES system is accomplished using a diagnostic scan tool. The system must be automatically reactivated when the engine is shut down for more than 60 minutes.
(iii) If the vehicle's main battery state-of-charge is not sufficient to allow the main engine to be restarted.
(iv) If the vehicle's transmission, fuel, oil, or engine coolant temperature is too low or too high according to the manufacturer's specifications for protecting against system damage. This allows the engine to continue operating until it is in a predefined temperature range, within which the shutdown sequence of paragraph (a) of this section would resume.
(v) While the vehicle's main engine is operating in power take-off (PTO) mode. For purposes of this paragraph (b), an engine is considered to be in PTO mode when a switch or setting designating PTO mode is enabled.
(vi) If external ambient conditions prevent managing cabin temperatures for the driver's safety.
(2) For AES systems on vocational vehicles, the system may limit activation—
(i) If any condition specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section applies.
(ii) If internal cab temperatures are too hot or too cold for the driver's safety.
(3) For neutral idle, the system may delay shifting the transmission to neutral—
(i) For the PTO conditions specified in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For stop-start, the system may limit activation—
(i) For any of the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(ii) When air brake pressure is too low according to the manufacturer's specifications for maintaining vehicle-braking capability.
(iii) When the transmission is in reverse gear.
(iv) When recent vehicle speeds indicate an abnormally high shutdown and restart frequency, such as with congested driving. For example, a vehicle not exceeding 10 mi/hr for the previous 300 seconds or since the most recent engine start would be a proper basis for overriding engine shutdown. You may also design this override to protect against system damage or malfunction of safety systems.
(v) When the vehicle detects that a system or component is worn or malfunctioning in a way that could reasonably prevent the engine from restarting, such as low battery voltage.
(c)
(2) For AES systems designed to limit idling to a specific number of hours less than 1,800 hours over any 12-month period, calculate an adjusted AES input using the following equation, rounded to the nearest 0.1 g/ton-mile: AES Input = 5 g CO
(d)
(1) Accelerator, brake, and clutch pedals, with respect to resetting the idle timer. Parameters associated with other timer reset mechanisms we approve are also not adjustable parameters.
(2) Bypass parameters allowed for vehicle service under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3) Parameters that are adjustable only after the expiration point.
(e)
Manufacturers with annual U.S.-directed production volumes of greater than 20,000 tractors must perform testing as described in this section. Tractors may be new or used.
(a) The following test requirements apply for model years 2021 and later:
(1) Each calendar year, select for testing three sleeper cabs and two day cabs certified to Phase 1 or Phase 2 standards. If we do not identify certain vehicle configurations for your testing, select models that you project to be among your 12 highest-selling vehicle configurations for the given year.
(2) Set up the tractors on a chassis dynamometer and operate them over all applicable duty cycles from § 1037.510(a). You may use emission-measurement systems meeting the specifications of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J. Calculate coefficients for the road-load force equation as described in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 11 of SAE J2263 (both incorporated by reference in § 1037.810). Use standard payload. Measure emissions of NO
(b) Send us an annual report with your test results for each duty cycle and the corresponding GEM results. Send the report by the next October 1 after the year we select the vehicles for testing, or a later date that we approve. We may make your test data publicly available.
(c) We may approve your request to perform alternative testing that will provide equivalent or better information compared to the specified testing. We may also direct you to do less testing than we specify in this section.
(d) GHG standards do not apply with respect to testing under this section. Note however that NTE standards apply for any qualifying operation that occurs during the testing in the same way that it would during any other in-use testing.
(a) You may certify tractors at or above 120,000 pounds GCWR to the following CO
(b) Determine subcategories as described in § 1037.230 for tractors that are not heavy-haul tractors. For example, the subcategory for tractors that would otherwise be considered Class 8 low-roof day cabs would be Heavy Class 8 Low-Roof Day Cabs.
(c) Except for the CO
(d) The optional emission standards in this section are intended primarily for tractors that will be exported; however, you may include any tractors certified under this section in your emission credit calculation under § 1037.705 if they are part of your U.S.-directed production volume.
(a) You may average, bank, and trade emission credits for purposes of certification as described in this subpart and in subpart B of this part to show compliance with the standards of §§ 1037.105 through 1037.107. Note that §§ 1037.105(h) and 1037.107 specify standards involving limited or no use of emission credits under this subpart. Participation in this program is voluntary.
(b) The definitions of subpart I of this part apply to this subpart in addition to the following definitions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(c) Emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set, except as specified in § 1037.740.
(d) You may not use emission credits generated under this subpart to offset any emissions that exceed an FEL or standard, except as allowed by § 1037.645.
(e) You may use either of the following approaches to retire or forego emission credits:
(1) You may trade emission credits generated from any number of your vehicles to the vehicle purchasers or other parties to retire the credits. Identify any such credits in the reports described in § 1037.730. Vehicles must comply with the applicable FELs even if you donate or sell the corresponding emission credits under this paragraph (e). Those credits may no longer be used by anyone to demonstrate compliance with any EPA emission standards.
(2) You may certify a family using an FEL below the emission standard as described in this part and choose not to generate emission credits for that family. If you do this, you do not need to calculate emission credits for those families and you do not need to submit or keep the associated records described in this subpart for that family.
(f) Emission credits may be used in the model year they are generated. Where we allow it, surplus emission credits may be banked for future model years. Surplus emission credits may sometimes be used for past model years, as described in § 1037.745.
(g) You may increase or decrease an FEL during the model year by amending your application for certification under § 1037.225. The new FEL may apply only to vehicles you have not already introduced into commerce.
(h) See § 1037.740 for special credit provisions that apply for credits generated under 40 CFR 86.1819(k)(7), 40 CFR 1036.615, or § 1037.615.
(i) Unless the regulations explicitly allow it, you may not calculate credits more than once for any emission reduction. For example, if you generate CO
(j) You may use emission credits generated under the Phase 1 standards when certifying vehicles to Phase 2 standards. No credit adjustments are required other than corrections for different useful lives.
(a) The provisions of this section apply separately for calculating emission credits for each pollutant.
(b) For each participating family or subfamily, calculate positive or negative emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable emission standard. Calculate positive emission credits for a family or subfamily that has an FEL below the standard. Calculate negative emission credits for a family or subfamily that has an FEL above the standard. Sum your positive and negative credits for the model year before rounding. Round the sum of emission credits to the nearest megagram (Mg), using consistent units with the following equation:
(c) As described in § 1037.730, compliance with the requirements of this subpart is determined at the end of the model year based on actual U.S.-
(1) Vehicles that you do not certify to the CO
(2) Exported vehicles.
(3) Vehicles not subject to the requirements of this part, such as those excluded under § 1037.5.
(4) Any other vehicles, where we indicate elsewhere in this part 1037 that they are not to be included in the calculations of this subpart.
(a) Averaging is the exchange of emission credits among your vehicle families. You may average emission credits only within the same averaging set, except as specified in § 1037.740.
(b) You may certify one or more vehicle families (or subfamilies) to an FEL above the applicable standard, subject to any applicable FEL caps and other provisions in subpart B of this part, if you show in your application for certification that your projected balance of all emission-credit transactions in that model year is greater than or equal to zero or that a negative balance is allowed under § 1037.745.
(c) If you certify a vehicle family to an FEL that exceeds the otherwise applicable standard, you must obtain enough emission credits to offset the vehicle family's deficit by the due date for the final report required in § 1037.730. The emission credits used to address the deficit may come from your other vehicle families that generate emission credits in the same model year (or from later model years as specified in § 1037.745), from emission credits you have banked from previous model years, or from emission credits generated in the same or previous model years that you obtained through trading. Note that the option for using banked or traded credits does not apply for trailers.
(a) Banking is the retention of surplus emission credits by the manufacturer generating the emission credits for use in future model years for averaging or trading. Note that § 1037.107 does not allow banking for trailers.
(b) You may designate any emission credits you plan to bank in the reports you submit under § 1037.730 as reserved credits. During the model year and before the due date for the final report, you may designate your reserved emission credits for averaging or trading.
(c) Reserved credits become actual emission credits when you submit your final report. However, we may revoke these emission credits if we are unable to verify them after reviewing your reports or auditing your records.
(d) Banked credits retain the designation of the averaging set in which they were generated.
(a) Trading is the exchange of emission credits between manufacturers, or the transfer of credits to another party to retire them. You may use traded emission credits for averaging, banking, or further trading transactions. Traded emission credits remain subject to the averaging-set restrictions based on the averaging set in which they were generated. Note that § 1037.107 does not allow trading for trailers.
(b) You may trade actual emission credits as described in this subpart. You may also trade reserved emission credits, but we may revoke these emission credits based on our review of your records or reports or those of the company with which you traded emission credits. You may trade banked credits within an averaging set to any certifying manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit balance results from a transaction, both the buyer and seller are liable, except in cases we deem to involve fraud. See § 1037.255(e) for cases involving fraud. We may void the certificates of all vehicle families participating in a trade that results in a manufacturer having a negative balance of emission credits. See § 1037.745.
(a) You must declare in your application for certification your intent to use the provisions of this subpart for each vehicle family that will be certified using the ABT program. You must also declare the FELs you select for the vehicle family or subfamily for each pollutant for which you are using the ABT program. Your FELs must comply with the specifications of subpart B of this part, including the FEL caps. FELs must be expressed to the same number of decimal places as the applicable standards.
(b) Include the following in your application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have a negative balance of emission credits for any averaging set when all emission credits are calculated at the end of the year; or a statement that you will have a negative balance of emission credits for one or more averaging sets but that it is allowed under § 1037.745.
(2) Calculations of projected emission credits (positive or negative) based on projected U.S.-directed production volumes. We may require you to include similar calculations from your other vehicle families to project your net credit balances for the model year. If you project negative emission credits for a family or subfamily, state the source of positive emission credits you expect to use to offset the negative emission credits.
(a) If any of your engine families are certified using the ABT provisions of this subpart, you must send an end-of-year report by March 31 following the end of the model year and a final report by September 30 following the end of the model year. We may waive the requirement to send an end-of-year report.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following information for each vehicle family participating in the ABT program:
(1) Vehicle-family and subfamily designations, and averaging set.
(2) The regulatory subcategory and emission standards that would otherwise apply to the vehicle family.
(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you change the FEL after the start of production, identify the date that you started using the new FEL and/or give the vehicle identification number for the first vehicle covered by the new FEL. In this case, identify each applicable FEL and calculate the positive or negative emission credits as specified in § 1037.225.
(4) The projected and actual U.S.-directed production volumes for the model year. If you changed an FEL during the model year, identify the actual U.S.-directed production volume associated with each FEL.
(5) Useful life.
(6) Calculated positive or negative emission credits for the whole vehicle family. Identify any emission credits that you traded, as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(7) If you have a negative credit balance for the averaging set in the given model year, specify whether the vehicle family (or certain subfamilies with the vehicle family) have a credit deficit for the year. Consider for example, a manufacturer with three vehicle families (“A”, “B”, and “C”) in a given averaging set. If family A generates enough credits to offset the negative credits of family B but not
(c) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following additional information:
(1) Show that your net balance of emission credits from all your participating vehicle families in each averaging set in the applicable model year is not negative, except as allowed under § 1037.745. Your credit tracking must account for the limitation on credit life under § 1037.740(c).
(2) State whether you will retain any emission credits for banking. If you choose to retire emission credits that would otherwise be eligible for banking, identify the families that generated the emission credits, including the number of emission credits from each family.
(3) State that the report's contents are accurate.
(4) Identify the technologies that make up the certified configuration associated with each vehicle identification number. You may identify this as a range of identification numbers for vehicles involving a single, identical certified configuration.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you must send us a report within 90 days after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) The averaging set corresponding to the vehicle families that generated emission credits for the trade, including the number of emission credits from each averaging set.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the emission credits, including the number of emission credits you intend to apply for each averaging set.
(e) Send your reports electronically to the Designated Compliance Officer using an approved information format. If you want to use a different format, send us a written request with justification for a waiver.
(f) Correct errors in your end-of-year or final report as follows:
(1) You may correct any errors in your end-of-year report when you prepare the final report, as long as you send us the final report by the time it is due.
(2) If you or we determine within 270 days after the end of the model year that errors mistakenly decreased your balance of emission credits, you may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of emission credits. You may not make these corrections for errors that are determined more than 270 days after the end of the model year. If you report a negative balance of emission credits, we may disallow corrections under this paragraph (f)(2).
(3) If you or we determine any time that errors mistakenly increased your balance of emission credits, you must correct the errors and recalculate the balance of emission credits.
(a) You must organize and maintain your records as described in this section.
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight years after the due date for the end-of-year report. You may not use emission credits for any vehicles if you do not keep all the records required under this section. You must therefore keep these records to continue to bank valid credits.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we require in §§ 1037.725 and 1037.730.
(d) Keep records of the vehicle identification number for each vehicle you produce. You may identify these numbers as a range. If you change the FEL after the start of production, identify the date you started using each FEL and the range of vehicle identification numbers associated with each FEL. You must also identify the purchaser and destination for each vehicle you produce to the extent this information is available.
(e) We may require you to keep additional records or to send us relevant information not required by this section in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
The following restrictions apply for using emission credits:
(a)
(1) Light HDV.
(2) Medium HDV.
(3) Heavy HDV.
(4) Long trailers.
(5) Short trailers.
(6) Note that other separate averaging sets also apply for emission credits not related to this part. For example, vehicles certified to the greenhouse gas standards of 40 CFR 86.1819 comprise a single averaging set. Separate averaging sets also apply for engines under 40 CFR part 1036, including engines used in vehicles subject to this subpart.
(b)
(1) The maximum amount of credits you may bring into the following service class groups is 60,000 Mg per model year:
(i) Spark-ignition engines, light heavy-duty compression-ignition engines, and light heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging set listed in paragraphs (a)(1) of this section and the averaging set listed in 40 CFR 1036.740(a)(1) and (2).
(ii) Medium heavy-duty compression-ignition engines and medium heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 40 CFR 1036.740(a)(3).
(iii) Heavy heavy-duty compression-ignition engines and heavy heavy-duty vehicles. This group comprises the averaging sets listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and 40 CFR 1036.740(a)(4).
(2) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not limit the advanced-technology credits that can be used within a service class group if they were generated in that same service class group.
(c)
(d)
Except as allowed by this section, we may void the certificate of any vehicle
(a) Your certificate for a vehicle family for which you do not have sufficient CO
(b) You may not bank or trade away CO
(c) You may apply only surplus credits to your deficit. You may not apply credits to a deficit from an earlier model year if they were generated in a model year for which any of your vehicle families for that averaging set had an end-of-year credit deficit.
(d) You must notify us in writing how you plan to eliminate the credit deficit within the specified time frame. If we determine that your plan is unreasonable or unrealistic, we may deny an application for certification for a vehicle family if its FEL would increase your credit deficit. We may determine that your plan is unreasonable or unrealistic based on a consideration of past and projected use of specific technologies, the historical sales mix of your vehicle models, your commitment to limit production of higher-emission vehicles, and expected access to traded credits. We may also consider your plan unreasonable if your credit deficit increases from one model year to the next. We may require that you send us interim reports describing your progress toward resolving your credit deficit over the course of a model year.
(e) If you do not remedy the deficit with surplus credits within three model years, we may void your certificate for that vehicle family. Note that voiding a certificate applies
(f) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, the following actions are all considered to occur at the expiration of the deadline for offsetting a deficit as specified in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Failing to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate was issued relative to offsetting a deficit.
(3) Selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering into U.S. commerce, or importing vehicles that are found not to be covered by a certificate as a result of failing to offset a deficit.
(a) For each vehicle family participating in the ABT program, the certificate of conformity is conditioned upon full compliance with the provisions of this subpart during and after the model year. You are responsible to establish to our satisfaction that you fully comply with applicable requirements. We may void the certificate of conformity for a vehicle family if you fail to comply with any provisions of this subpart.
(b) You may certify your vehicle family or subfamily to an FEL above an applicable standard based on a projection that you will have enough emission credits to offset the deficit for the vehicle family. See § 1037.745 for provisions specifying what happens if you cannot show in your final report that you have enough actual emission credits to offset a deficit for any pollutant in a vehicle family.
(c) We may void the certificate of conformity for a vehicle family if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information we request. Note that failing to keep records, send reports, or give us information we request is also a violation of 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2).
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we void your certificate under this section (see § 1037.820).
After receipt of each manufacturer's final report as specified in § 1037.730 and completion of any verification testing required to validate the manufacturer's submitted final data, we will issue a report to the Department of Transportation with CO
The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the meaning the Act gives to them. The definitions follow:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(1) Where the certificate holder is an engine manufacturer that does not manufacture the chassis, the date of manufacture of the vehicle is based on the date assembly of the vehicle is completed.
(2) We may approve an alternate date of manufacture based on the date on which the certifying (or primary) manufacturer completes assembly at the place of main assembly, consistent with the provisions of § 1037.601 and 49 CFR 567.4.
(1) For compression-ignition engines,
(2) For spark-ignition engines,
(1) For multiplicative deterioration factors, the ratio of the highest emissions to emissions at the low-hour test point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors, the difference between the highest emissions and emissions at the low-hour test point.
(1) A vehicle that has been determined not to be a “motor vehicle” is excluded from this part.
(2) Certain vehicles are excluded from the requirements of this part under § 1037.5.
(3) Specific regulatory provisions of this part may exclude a vehicle generally subject to this part from one or more specific standards or requirements of this part.
(1) A new vehicle that is incomplete because it lacks an engine, transmission, and/or axle(s).
(2) Any other new equipment that is substantially similar to a complete motor vehicle and is intended to become a complete motor vehicle with a previously used engine (including a rebuilt or remanufactured engine). For example, incomplete heavy-duty tractor assemblies that are produced on the same assembly lines as complete tractors and that are made available to secondary vehicle manufacturers to complete assembly by installing used/remanufactured engines, transmissions and axles are glider kits.
(1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle; or
(2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(3) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use.
(1) For tractors and vocational vehicles with a date of manufacture on or after January 1, 2021, the vehicle's
(2) For trailers and for Phase 1 tractors and vocational vehicles with a date of manufacture before January 1, 2021,
(i) The manufacturer who holds the certificate of conformity for the vehicle must assign the model year based on the date when its manufacturing operations are completed relative to its annual model year period. In unusual circumstances where completion of your assembly is delayed, we may allow you to assign a model year one year earlier, provided it does not affect which regulatory requirements will apply.
(ii) Unless a vehicle is being shipped to a secondary vehicle manufacturer that will hold the certificate of conformity, the model year must be assigned prior to introduction of the vehicle into U.S. commerce. The certifying manufacturer must redesignate the model year if it does not complete its manufacturing operations within the originally identified model year. A vehicle introduced into U.S. commerce without a model year is deemed to have a model year equal to the calendar year of its introduction into U.S. commerce unless the certifying manufacturer assigns a later date.
(1) A motor vehicle for which the ultimate purchaser has never received the equitable or legal title is a
(2) An imported heavy-duty motor vehicle originally produced after the 1969 model year is a
(1) Low-roof means relating to a vehicle with a roof height of 120 inches or less.
(2) Mid-roof means relating to a vehicle with a roof height of 121 to 147 inches.
(3) High-roof means relating to a vehicle with a roof height of 148 inches or more.
(1) For vocational vehicles:
(i) 2.85 tons for Light HDV.
(ii) 5.6 tons for Medium HDV.
(iii) 7.5 tons for Heavy HDV.
(2) For tractors:
(i) 12.5 tons for Class 7.
(ii) 19 tons for Class 8, other than heavy-haul tractors.
(iii) 43 tons for heavy-haul tractors.
(3) For trailers:
(i) 10 tons for short box vans.
(ii) 19 tons for other trailers.
(1) Box vans are trailers with enclosed cargo space that is permanently attached to the chassis, with fixed sides, nose, and roof. Tank trailers are not box vans.
(2) Box vans with self-contained HVAC systems are refrigerated vans. Note that this includes systems that provide cooling, heating, or both. All other box vans are dry vans.
(3) Trailers that are not box vans are non-box trailers. Note that the standards for non-box trailers in this part 1037 apply only to flatbed trailers, tank trailers, and container chassis.
(4) Box vans with length at or below 50.0 feet are short box vans. Other box vans are long box vans.
(5) The following types of equipment are not trailers for purposes of this part 1037:
(i) Containers that are not permanently mounted on chassis.
(ii) Dollies used to connect tandem trailers.
(1) The following equipment are vehicles:
(i) A piece of equipment that is intended for self-propelled use on highways becomes a vehicle when it includes at least an engine, a transmission, and a frame. (Note: For purposes of this definition, any electrical, mechanical, and/or hydraulic devices attached to engines for the purpose of powering wheels are considered to be transmissions.)
(ii) A piece of equipment that is intended for self-propelled use on highways becomes a vehicle when it
(iii) Trailers. A trailer becomes a vehicle when it has a frame with one or more axles attached.
(2) Vehicles other than trailers may be complete or incomplete vehicles as follows:
(i) A
(ii) An
(iii) The primary use of the terms “complete vehicle” and “incomplete vehicle” are to distinguish whether a vehicle is complete when it is first sold as a vehicle.
(iv) You may ask us to allow you to certify a vehicle as incomplete if you manufacture the engines and sell the unassembled chassis components, as long as you do not produce and sell the body components necessary to complete the vehicle.
The procedures in this part generally follow either the International System of Units (SI) or the United States customary units, as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811 (incorporated by reference in § 1037.810). See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific provisions related to these conventions. This section summarizes the way we use symbols, units of measure, and other abbreviations.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must publish a document in the
(b) International Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, (41) 22749 0111,
(1) ISO 28580:2009(E) “Passenger car, truck and bus tyres—Methods of measuring rolling resistance—Single point test and correlation of measurement results”, First Edition, July 1, 2009, (“ISO 28580”), IBR approved for § 1037.520(c).
(2) [Reserved]
(c) U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105,
(1) Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM), Version 2.0.1, September 2012 (“GEM version 2.0.1”), IBR approved for § 1037.520. The computer code for this model is available as noted in paragraph (a) of this section. A working version of this software is also available for download at
(2) Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM) Phase 2, Version 3.0, July 2016; IBR approved for § 1037.520. The computer code for this model is available as noted in paragraph (a) of this section. A working version of this software is also available for download
(d) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, (301) 975-6478, or
(1) NIST Special Publication 811, Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), 2008 Edition, March 2008, IBR approved for § 1037.805.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, (877) 606-7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 776-4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada),
(1) SAE J1025, Test Procedures for Measuring Truck Tire Revolutions Per Kilometer/Mile, Stabilized August 2012, (“SAE J1025”), IBR approved for § 1037.520(c).
(2) SAE J1252, SAE Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses, Revised July 2012, (“SAE J1252”), IBR approved for §§ 1037.525(b) and 1037.530(a).
(3) SAE J1263, Road Load Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation Using Coastdown Techniques, revised March 2010, (“SAE J1263”), IBR approved for §§ 1037.528 introductory text, (a), (b), (c), (e), and (h) and 1037.665(a).
(4) SAE J1594, Vehicle Aerodynamics Terminology, Revised July 2010, (“SAE J1594”), IBR approved for § 1037.530(d).
(5) SAE J2071, Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles—Open Throat Wind Tunnel Adjustment, Revised June 1994, (“SAE J2071”), IBR approved for § 1037.530(b).
(6) SAE J2263, Road Load Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry and Coastdown Techniques, Revised December 2008, (“SAE J2263”), IBR approved for §§ 1037.528 introductory text, (a), (b), (d), and (f) and 1037.665(a).
(7) SAE J2343, Recommended Practice for LNG Medium and Heavy-Duty Powered Vehicles, Revised July 2008, (“SAE J2343”), IBR approved for § 1037.103(e).
(8) SAE J2452, Stepwise Coastdown Methodology for Measuring Tire Rolling Resistance, Revised June 1999, (“SAE J2452”), IBR approved for § 1037.528(h).
(9) SAE J2966, Guidelines for Aerodynamic Assessment of Medium and Heavy Commercial Ground Vehicles Using Computational Fluid Dynamics, Issued September 2013, (“SAE J2966”), IBR approved for § 1037.532(a).
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider confidential.
(a) You may request a hearing under certain circumstances, as described elsewhere in this part. To do this, you must file a written request, including a description of your objection and any supporting data, within 30 days after we make a decision.
(b) For a hearing you request under the provisions of this part, we will approve your request if we find that your request raises a substantial factual issue.
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we will use the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G.
(a) This part includes various requirements to submit and record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store required records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available for eight years after you send an associated application for certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do not support an application for certification. You may not rely on anyone else to meet recordkeeping requirements on your behalf unless we specifically authorize it. We may review these records at any time. You must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may require you to submit written records in an electronic format.
(b) The regulations in § 1037.255 and 40 CFR 1068.25 and 1068.101 describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information. This includes information not related to certification. Failing to properly report information and keep the records we specify violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may involve civil or criminal penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1037.801).
(d) Any written information we require you to send to or receive from another company is deemed to be a required record under this section. Such records are also deemed to be submissions to EPA. Keep these records for eight years unless the regulations specify a different period. We may require you to send us these records whether or not you are a certificate holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq), the Office of Management and Budget approves the reporting and recordkeeping specified in the applicable regulations. The following items illustrate the kind of reporting and recordkeeping we require for vehicles regulated under this part:
(1) We specify the following requirements related to vehicle certification in this part 1037:
(i) In § 1036.150 we include various reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to interim provisions.
(ii) In subpart C of this part we identify a wide range of information required to certify vehicles.
(iii) In subpart G of this part we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various special compliance provisions.
(iv) In § 1037.725, 1037.730, and 1037.735 we specify certain records related to averaging, banking, and trading.
(2) We specify the following requirements related to testing in 40 CFR part 1066:
(i) In 40 CFR 1066.2 we give an overview of principles for reporting information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1066.25 we establish basic guidelines for storing test information.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1066.695 we identify the specific information and data items to record when measuring emissions.
(3) We specify the following requirements related to the general compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068:
(i) In 40 CFR 1068.5 we establish a process for evaluating good engineering judgment related to testing and certification.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1068.25 we describe general provisions related to sending and keeping information.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1068.27 we require manufacturers to make engines and vehicles available for our testing or inspection if we make such a request.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1068.105 we require vehicle manufacturers to keep certain records related to duplicate labels from engine manufacturers.
(v) In 40 CFR 1068.120 we specify recordkeeping related to rebuilding engines.
(vi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various exemptions.
(vii) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart D, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to importing engines and vehicles.
(viii) In 40 CFR 1068.450 and 1068.455 we specify certain records
(ix) In 40 CFR 1068.501 we specify certain records related to investigating and reporting emission-related defects.
(x) In 40 CFR 1068.525 and 1068.530 we specify certain records related to recalling nonconforming engines and vehicles.
(xi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, we specify certain records for requesting a hearing.
This appendix identifies abbreviations for emission control information labels, as required under § 1037.135.
The following table identifies a grade profile for operating vehicles over the highway cruise cycles specified in subpart F of this part. Determine intermediate values by linear interpolation.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
The regulations in this part 1039 contain provisions that affect both manufacturers and others. However, the requirements of this part are generally addressed to the manufacturer. The term “you” generally means the manufacturer, as defined in § 1039.801, especially for issues related to certification. Note that for engines that become new after being placed into service (such as engines converted from highway or stationary use), the requirements that normally apply for manufacturers of freshly manufactured engines apply to the importer or any other entity we allow to obtain a certificate of conformity.
This part does not apply to certain nonroad engines, as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Locomotive engines produced under the provisions of 40 CFR 1033.625.
(e)
Unless we specify otherwise, send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1039.801). See § 1039.825 for additional reporting and recordkeeping provisions.
(f)
(1) Alcohol-fueled engines: THCE emissions.
(2) Gaseous-fueled engines: Nonmethane-nonethane hydrocarbon emissions.
(3) Other engines: NMHC emissions.
(e) * * *
(3) You may use NO
(g) * * *
(5) You may certify engines under this paragraph (g) in any model year provided for in Table 1 of this section without regard to whether or not the engine family's FEL is at or below the otherwise applicable FEL cap. For example, a 200 kW engine certified to the NO
(i)
(b) * * *
(2) Present test data to show that equipment using your engines meets the evaporative emission standards we specify in this section if you do not use design-based certification under 40 CFR 1048.245.
(a) Engines equipped with SCR systems using a reductant other than the engine's fuel must have a diagnostic system that monitors reductant quality and tank levels and alert operators to the need to refill the reductant tank before it is empty, or to replace the reductant if it does not meet your concentration specifications. Unless we approve other alerts, use a warning lamp or an audible alarm. You do not need to separately monitor reductant quality if your system uses input from an exhaust NO
(b) You may equip your engine with other diagnostic features. If you do, they must be designed to allow us to read and interpret the codes. Note that § 1039.205 requires you to provide us any information needed to read, record, and interpret all the information broadcast by an engine's onboard computers and electronic control units.
(b)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For EGR-related filters and coolers, DEF filters, crankcase ventilation valves and filters, and fuel injector tips (cleaning only), the minimum interval is 1,500 hours.
(3) * * *
(i) For EGR-related filters and coolers, DEF filters, crankcase ventilation valves and filters, and fuel injector tips (cleaning only), the minimum interval is 1,500 hours.
(4) For particulate traps, trap oxidizers, and components related to either of these, scheduled maintenance may include cleaning or repair at the intervals specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, as applicable. Scheduled maintenance may include a shorter interval for cleaning or repair and may also include adjustment or replacement, but only if we approve it. We will approve your request if you provide the maintenance free of charge and clearly state this in your maintenance instructions, and you provide us additional information as needed to convince us that the maintenance will occur.
(c)
(e)
(f)
(b) * * *
(4) Describe any necessary steps for installing the diagnostic system described in § 1039.110.
(5) Describe how your certification is limited for any type of application. For example, if your engines are certified only for constant-speed operation, tell
(b) At the time of manufacture, affix a permanent and legible label identifying each engine. The label must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(c) * * *
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. You may identify another company and use its trademark instead of yours if you comply with the branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(d) You may add information to the emission control information label as follows:
(1) You may identify other emission standards that the engine meets or does not meet (such as international standards), as long as this does not cause you to omit any of the information described in paragraphs (c)(5) through (10) of this section. You may add the information about the other emission standards to the statement we specify, or you may include it in a separate statement.
(2) You may add other information to ensure that the engine will be properly maintained and used.
(3) You may add appropriate features to prevent counterfeit labels. For example, you may include the engine's unique identification number on the label.
(a) You must send us a separate application for a certificate of conformity for each engine family. A certificate of conformity is valid for new production from the indicated effective date until the end of the model year for which it is issued, which may not extend beyond December 31 of that year. No new certificate will be issued after December 31 of the model year. You may amend your application for certification after the end of the model year in certain circumstances as described in §§ 1039.220 and 1039.225. You must renew your certification annually for any engines you continue to produce.
(g) We may require you to deliver your test engines to a facility we designate for our testing (see § 1039.235(c)). Alternatively, you may choose to deliver another engine that is identical in all material respects to the test engine, or another engine that we determine can appropriately serve as an emission-data engine for the engine family.
(r) * * *
(1) Report all valid test results involving measurement of pollutants for which emission standards apply. Also indicate whether there are test results from invalid tests or from any other tests of the emission-data engine, whether or not they were conducted according to the test procedures of subpart F of this part. We may require you to report these additional test results. We may ask you to send other information to confirm that your tests were valid under the requirements of this part and 40 CFR part 1065.
(bb) For imported engines or equipment, identify the following:
(1) Describe your normal practice for importing engines. For example, this may include identifying the names and addresses of any agents you have authorized to import your engines.
(2) For engines below 560 kW, identify a test facility in the United States where you can test your engines if we select them for testing under a selective enforcement audit, as specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart E.
(b) * * *
(4) Include any other information needed to make your application correct and complete.
(g) You may produce engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine configuration during the model year under paragraph (d) of this section. Similarly, you may modify in-use engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine configuration at any time under paragraph (d) of this section. Modifying a new or in-use engine to be in a certified configuration does not violate the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1), as long as this does not involve changing to a certified configuration with a higher family emission limit.
(b) * * *
(1) The combustion cycle and fuel. However, you do not need to separate dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines into separate engine families.
(a) Select an emission-data engine from each engine family for testing. Select the engine configuration with the highest volume of fuel injected per cylinder per combustion cycle at the point of maximum torque—unless good engineering judgment indicates that a different engine configuration is more likely to exceed (or have emissions nearer to) an applicable emission standard or FEL. If two or more engines have the same fueling rate at maximum torque, select the one with the highest fueling rate at rated speed. In making this selection, consider all factors expected to affect emission-control performance and compliance with the standards, including emission levels of all exhaust constituents, especially NO
(b) Test your emission-data engines using the procedures and equipment
(c) We may perform confirmatory testing by measuring emissions from any of your emission-data engines or other engines from the engine family, as follows:
(4) Before we test one of your engines, we may calibrate it within normal production tolerances for anything we do not consider an adjustable parameter. For example, this would apply for an engine parameter that is subject to production variability because it is adjustable during production, but is not considered an adjustable parameter (as defined in § 1039.801) because it is permanently sealed. For parameters that relate to a level of performance that is itself subject to a specified range (such as maximum power output), we will generally perform any calibration under this paragraph (c)(4) in a way that keeps performance within the specified range.
(d) * * *
(1) The engine family from the previous model year differs from the current engine family only with respect to model year, items identified in § 1039.225(a), or other characteristics unrelated to emissions. We may waive this criterion for differences we determine not to be relevant.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) To compare emission levels from the emission-data engine with the applicable emission standards, apply deterioration factors to the measured emission levels for each pollutant. Section 1039.245 specifies how to test your engine to develop deterioration factors that represent the deterioration expected in emissions over your engines' full useful life. Your deterioration factors must take into account any available data from in-use testing with similar engines. Small-volume engine manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that we establish. Apply deterioration factors as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(d) Determine the official emission result for each pollutant to at least one more decimal place than the applicable standard. Apply the deterioration factor to the official emission result, as described in paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each emission-data engine. In the case of NO
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) All your emission tests, including the date and purpose of each test and documentation of test parameters as specified in part 40 CFR part 1065.
(c) Keep required data from emission tests and all other information specified in this section for eight years after we issue your certificate. If you use the same emission data or other information for a later model year, the eight-year
(c) * * *
(2) Submit false or incomplete information (paragraph (e) of this section applies if this is fraudulent). This includes doing anything after submission of your application to render any of the submitted information false or incomplete.
(4) Deny us from completing authorized activities (see 40 CFR 1068.20). This includes a failure to provide reasonable assistance.
(d) We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information as required under this part or the Act. Note that these are also violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally submitted false or incomplete information. This includes rendering submitted information false or incomplete after submission.
(a) Use the equipment and procedures for compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to determine whether engines meet the duty-cycle emission standards in subpart B of this part. Measure the emissions of all the exhaust constituents subject to emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Measure CO
(e) The following provisions apply for engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events that may occur during testing:
(1) Adjust measured emissions to account for aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration as described in § 1039.525.
(2) If your engine family includes engines with one or more emergency AECDs approved under § 1039.115(g)(4) or (5), do not consider additional regenerations resulting from those AECDs when developing adjustments to measured values under this paragraph (e).
(3) Invalidate a smoke test if active regeneration starts to occur during the test.
(f) You may disable any AECDs that have been approved solely for emergency equipment applications under § 1039.115(g)(4). Note that the emission standards do not apply when any of these AECDs are active.
(g) You may use special or alternate procedures to the extent we allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(h) This subpart is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we perform testing to determine if your engines meet emission standards.
(b) * * *
(2) Use the 6-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal cycle described in paragraph (b) of Appendix II of this part for variable-speed engines below 19 kW. You may instead use the 8-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal cycle described in paragraph (c) of Appendix II of this part if some engines from your engine family will be used in applications that do not involve governing to maintain engine operation around rated speed.
(a)
For engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events that may occur during testing, take one of the following approaches to account for the emission impact of regeneration:
(a) You may use the calculation methodology described in 40 CFR 1065.680 to adjust measured emission results. Do this by developing an upward adjustment factor and a downward adjustment factor for each pollutant based on measured emission data and observed regeneration frequency as follows:
(1) Adjustment factors should generally apply to an entire engine family, but you may develop separate adjustment factors for different configurations within an engine family. Use the adjustment factors from this section for all testing for the engine family.
(2) You may use carryover or carry-across data to establish adjustment factors for an engine family as described in § 1039.235, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(3) For engines that are required to certify to both transient and steady-state duty cycles, calculate a separate adjustment factor for steady-state and transient operation.
(b) You may ask us to approve an alternate methodology to account for regeneration events. We will generally limit approval to cases where your engines use aftertreatment technology with extremely infrequent regeneration and you are unable to apply the provisions of this section.
(c) You may choose to make no adjustments to measured emission results if you determine that regeneration does not significantly affect emission levels for an engine family (or configuration) or if it is not practical to identify when regeneration occurs. If you choose not to make adjustments under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, your engines must meet emission standards for all testing, without regard to regeneration.
(a) Engine and equipment manufacturers, as well as owners, operators, and rebuilders of engines subject to the requirements of this part,
(b) Subpart C of this part describes how to test and certify dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines. Some multi-fuel engines may not fit either of those defined terms. For such engines, we will determine whether it is most appropriate to treat them as single-fuel engines, dual-fuel engines, or flexible-fuel engines based on the range of possible and expected fuel mixtures. For example, an engine might burn natural gas but initiate combustion with a pilot injection of diesel fuel. If the engine is designed to operate with a single fueling algorithm (
(b)
(d) * * *
(5) You must add a permanent supplemental label to the engine in a position where it will remain clearly visible after installation in the equipment. In the supplemental label, do the following:
(i) Include the heading: “NONROAD ENGINE EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION”.
(ii) Include your full corporate name and trademark. You may identify another company and use its trademark instead of yours if you comply with the branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(iii) State: “THIS ENGINE WAS ADAPTED FOR NONROAD USE WITHOUT AFFECTING ITS EMISSION CONTROLS. THE EMISSION-CONTROL SYSTEM DEPENDS ON THE USE OF FUEL MEETING SPECIFICATIONS THAT APPLY FOR MOTOR-VEHICLE APPLICATIONS. OPERATING THE ENGINE ON OTHER FUELS MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.”
(iv) State the date you finished modifying the engine (month and year), if applicable.
(8) Send the Designated Compliance Officer written notification describing your plans before using the provisions of this section. In addition, by February 28 of each calendar year (or less often if we tell you), send the Designated Compliance Oficer a signed letter with all the following information:
(i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number.
(ii) List the engine or equipment models for which you used this exemption in the previous year and describe your basis for meeting the sales restrictions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(iii) State: “We prepared each listed [engine or equipment] model for nonroad application without making any changes that could increase its certified emission levels, as described in 40 CFR 1039.605.”
(d) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Include your full corporate name and trademark. You may identify another company and use its trademark instead of yours if you comply with the branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(7) Send the Designated Compliance Officer written notification describing your plans before using the provisions of this section. In addition, by February 28 of each calendar year (or less often if we tell you), send the Designated Compliance Officer a signed letter with all the following information:
(i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number.
(ii) List the equipment models for which you used this exemption in the previous year and describe your basis for meeting the sales restrictions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(iii) State: “We prepared each listed engine or equipment model for nonroad application without making any changes that could increase its certified emission levels, as described in 40 CFR 1039.610.”
(a) This section describes emission standards and certification requirements for auxiliary power units (APU) installed on highway tractors subject to standards under 40 CFR 1037.106 starting in model year 2024.
(b) You may apply for a certificate of conformity under this section if you manufacture APUs, or if you install emission control hardware to meet the standard in this section.
(c) Exhaust emissions may not exceed a PM standard of 0.02 g/kW-hr when tested using the steady-state test procedures described in subpart F of this part for the duty cycles specified in § 1039.505(b)(1). Your APUs must meet the exhaust emission standards of this section over the engine's useful life as specified in § 1039.101(g). These emission standards also apply for testing with production and in-use APUs.
(d) The APU is deemed to have a valid certificate of conformity under this section if the engine manufacturer certifies the engine under 40 CFR part 1039 with a family emission limit of 0.02 g/kW-hr or less.
(e) The APU may draw power from the installed engine to regenerate a particulate filter, but you must not make any other changes to the certified engine that could reasonably be expected to increase its emissions of any pollutant.
(f) Sections 1039.115, 1039.120, 1039.125, and 1039.130 apply for APUs as written. You must exercise due diligence in ensuring that your system will not adversely affect safety or otherwise violate the prohibition of § 1039.115(f).
(g) All your APUs are considered to be part of a single emission family; however, you may subdivide your APUs into multiple emission families if you show the expected emission characteristics are different during the useful life.
(h) Testing requirements apply for certification as follows:
(1) Select an emission-data APU representing a worst-case condition for PM emissions. Measure emissions from the test engine with the APU installed according to your specifications.
(2) We may require you to provide an engineering analysis showing that the performance of your emission controls will not deteriorate during the useful life with proper maintenance. If we determine that your emission controls are likely to deteriorate during the useful life, we may require you to develop and apply deterioration factors consistent with good engineering judgment.
(3) Collect emission data and round to the nearest 0.01 g/kW-hr for comparing to the standard. Calculate full-life emissions as described in § 1039.240(d) if you need to apply a deterioration factor.
(4) You may ask to use emission data from a previous production period instead of doing new tests as described in § 1039.235(d).
(5) Additional testing provisions apply as described in § 1039.235(c), (e), and (f).
(i) Your APU certificate is valid for any engine certified under this part 1039, as long as the engine has a maximum engine power no more than 10 percent greater than the maximum engine power of the engine used for certification testing under this section.
(j) The following provisions apply for determining whether your APU complies with the requirements of this section:
(1) For purposes of certification, your emission family is considered in compliance with the emission standards of this section if all emission-data APUs representing that family have test results showing compliance with the standards.
(2) Your engine family is deemed not to comply if any emission-data APU representing that family for certification has test results showing a full-life emission level above the PM standard.
(k) At the time of manufacture, affix a permanent and legible label identifying each APU. This applies even if the engine manufacturer certifies a compliant engine as described in paragraph (d) of this section. The label must meet the specifications described in 40 CFR 1068.45(a). The label must—
(1) Include the heading “EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION”.
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark.
(3) State: “THIS APU ENGINE COMPLIES WITH 40 CFR 1039.699.”
(l) [Reserved]
(m) See §§ 1039.201, 1039.210, 1039.220, 1039.225, 1039.250, and 1039.255 for general requirements related to obtaining a certificate of conformity. A certificate issued under this section may apply for a production period lasting up to five years. Include the following information in your application for certification, unless we ask you to include less information:
(1) Describe the emission family's specifications and other basic parameters of the APU's design and emission controls. List each distinguishable configuration in the emission family. For each APU configuration, list the maximum engine power for which the APU is designed to operate.
(2) Explain how the emission control system operates. Identify the part number of each component you describe.
(3) Describe the engines you selected for testing and the reasons for selecting them.
(4) Describe the test equipment and procedures that you used. Also describe any special or alternate test procedures you used.
(5) Describe how you operated the emission-data APU before testing, including any operation to break in the APU or otherwise stabilize emission levels. Describe any scheduled maintenance you did.
(6) List the specifications of the test fuel to show that it falls within the required ranges we specify in 40 CFR part 1065.
(7) Include the maintenance and warranty instructions you will provide (see §§ 1039.120 and 1039.125).
(8) Describe your emission control information label.
(9) Identify the emission family's deterioration factors and describe how you developed them, or summarize your analysis describing why you don't expect performance of emission controls to deteriorate. Present any emission test data you used for this.
(10) State that you operated your emission-data APU as described in the application (including the test procedures, test parameters, and test fuels) to show you meet the requirements of this part.
(11) Present emission data for PM.
(12) Report all test results, including those from invalid tests, whether or not they were conducted according to the test procedures of subpart F of this part. We may ask you to send other information to confirm that your tests were valid under the requirements of this part and 40 CFR part 1065.
(13) Describe any adjustable operating parameters as described in § 1039.205(s).
(14) Unconditionally certify that all the APUs in the emission family comply with the requirements of this part, other referenced parts of the CFR, and the Clean Air Act.
(15) Provide additional information if we say we need it to evaluate your application.
(16) Name an agent for service located in the United States. Service on this agent constitutes service on you or any of your officers or employees for any action by EPA or otherwise by the United States related to the requirements of this part.
(n) If a highway tractor manufacturer violates 40 CFR 1037.106(g) by installing an APU from you that is not properly certified and labeled, you are presumed to have caused the violation (see 40 CFR 1068.101(c)).
(h) You may use either of the following approaches to retire or forego emission credits:
(1) You may retire emission credits generated from any number of your engines. This may be considered donating emission credits to the environment. Identify any such credits in the reports described in § 1039.730. Engines must comply with the applicable FELs even if you donate or sell the corresponding emission credits under this paragraph (h). Those credits may no longer be used by anyone to demonstrate compliance with any EPA emission standards.
(2) You may certify a family using an FEL below the emission standard as described in this part and choose not to generate emission credits for that family. If you do this, you do not need to calculate emission credits for those families and you do not need to submit or keep the associated records described in this subpart for that family.
(b) For each participating family, calculate positive or negative emission credits relative to the otherwise applicable emission standard. Calculate positive emission credits for a family that has an FEL below the standard. Calculate negative emission credits for a family that has an FEL above the standard. Sum your positive and negative credits for the model year before rounding. Round the sum of emission credits to the nearest kilogram (kg), using consistent units throughout the following equation:
(c) As described in § 1039.730, compliance with the requirements of this subpart is determined at the end of the model year based on actual U.S.-directed production volumes. Do not include any of the following engines to calculate emission credits:
(1) Engines with a permanent exemption under subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR part 1068.
(c) If you certify an engine family to an FEL that exceeds the otherwise applicable standard, you must obtain enough emission credits to offset the engine family's deficit by the due date for the final report required in § 1039.730. The emission credits used to address the deficit may come from your other engine families that generate emission credits in the same model year, from emission credits you have banked from previous model years, or from emission credits generated in the same or previous model years that you obtained through trading.
(b) * * *
(2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (positive or negative) based on projected production volumes. We may require you to include similar calculations from your other engine families to demonstrate that you will be able to avoid negative credit balances for the model year. If you project negative emission credits for a family, state the source of positive emission credits you expect to use to offset the negative emission credits.
(b) * * *
(1) Engine-family designation and averaging set.
(4) The projected and actual U.S.-directed production volumes for the model year. If you changed an FEL during the model year, identify the actual U.S.-directed production volume associated with each FEL.
(c) * * *
(2) State whether you will retain any emission credits for banking. If you choose to retire emission credits that would otherwise be eligible for banking, identify the engine families that generated the emission credits, including the number of emission credits from each family.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you must send us a report within 90 days after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) The averaging set corresponding to the engine families that generated emission credits for the trade, including the number of emission credits from each averaging set.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the emission credits, including the number of emission credits you intend to apply for each averaging set.
(a) You must organize and maintain your records as described in this section.
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight years after the due date for the end-of-year report. You may not use emission credits for any engines if you do not keep all the records required under this section. You must therefore keep these records to continue to bank valid credits.
(a)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) * * *
(i) Calendar year of production.
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider confidential.
(a) This part includes various requirements to submit and record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store required records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available for eight years after you send an associated application for certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do not support an application for certification. You are expected to keep your own copy of required records rather than relying on someone else to keep records on your behalf. We may review these records at any time. You must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may require you to submit written records in an electronic format.
(b) The regulations in § 1039.255, 40 CFR 1068.25, and 40 CFR 1068.101 describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information. This includes information not related to certification. Failing to properly report information and keep the records we specify violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may involve civil or criminal penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1039.801).
(d) Any written information we require you to send to or receive from another company is deemed to be a required record under this section. Such records are also deemed to be submissions to EPA. We may require you to send us these records whether or not you are a certificate holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq), the Office of Management and Budget approves the reporting and recordkeeping specified in the applicable regulations. The following items illustrate the kind of reporting and recordkeeping we require for engines and equipment regulated under this part:
(1) We specify the following requirements related to engine certification in this part 1039:
(i) In § 1039.20 we require engine manufacturers to label stationary engines that do not meet the standards in this part.
(ii) In § 1039.135 we require engine manufacturers to keep certain records related to duplicate labels sent to equipment manufacturers.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) In subpart C of this part we identify a wide range of information required to certify engines.
(v) [Reserved]
(vi) In subpart G of this part we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various special compliance provisions. For example, equipment manufacturers must submit reports and keep records related to the flexibility provisions in § 1039.625.
(vii) In § 1039.725, 1039.730, and 1039.735 we specify certain records related to averaging, banking, and trading.
(2) We specify the following requirements related to testing in 40 CFR part 1065:
(i) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an overview of principles for reporting information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we specify information needs for establishing various changes to published test procedures.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish basic guidelines for storing test information.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify the specific information and data items to record when measuring emissions.
(3) We specify the following requirements related to the general compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068:
(i) In 40 CFR 1068.5 we establish a process for evaluating good engineering judgment related to testing and certification.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1068.25 we describe general provisions related to sending and keeping information.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1068.27 we require manufacturers to make engines available for our testing or inspection if we make such a request.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1068.105 we require equipment manufacturers to keep certain records related to duplicate labels from engine manufacturers.
(v) In 40 CFR 1068.120 we specify recordkeeping related to rebuilding engines.
(vi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various exemptions.
(vii) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart D, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to importing engines.
(viii) In 40 CFR 1068.450 and 1068.455 we specify certain records
(ix) In 40 CFR 1068.501 we specify certain records related to investigating and reporting emission-related defects.
(x) In 40 CFR 1068.525 and 1068.530 we specify certain records related to recalling nonconforming engines.
(xi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, we specify certain records for requesting a hearing.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(a) The emission standards of this part 1042 for freshly manufactured engines apply for new marine engines starting with the model years noted in the following table:
(c) Freshly manufactured engines with maximum engine power at or above 37 kW and originally manufactured and certified before the model years identified in Table 1 to this section are subject to emission standards and requirements of 40 CFR part 94. The provisions of this part 1042 do not apply for such engines certified under 40 CFR part 94, except as follows beginning June 29, 2010:
The regulations in this part 1042 contain provisions that affect both engine manufacturers and others. However, the requirements of this part, other than those of subpart I of this part, are generally addressed to the engine manufacturer for freshly manufactured marine engines or other certificate holders. The term “you” generally means the engine manufacturer, as defined in § 1042.901, especially for issues related to certification (including production-line testing, reporting, etc.). Note that for engines that become new after being placed into service (such as engines converted from highway or stationary use, or engines installed on vessels that are reflagged to become U.S. vessels), the requirements that normally apply for manufacturers of freshly manufactured engines apply to the importer or any other entity we allow to obtain a certificate of conformity.
Unless we specify otherwise, send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1042.901). See § 1042.925 for additional reporting and recordkeeping provisions.
(a)
(1) Measure emissions using the test procedures described in subpart F of this part.
(2) The following CO emission standards in this paragraph (a)(2) apply starting with the applicable model year identified in § 1042.1:
(i) 8.0 g/kW-hr for engines below 8 kW.
(ii) 6.6 g/kW-hr for engines at or above 8 kW and below 19 kW.
(iii) 5.5 g/kW-hr for engines at or above 19 kW and below 37 kW.
(iv) 5.0 g/kW-hr for engines at or above 37 kW.
(3) Except as described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section, the Tier 3 standards for PM and NO
(4) For Tier 3 engines at or above 19 kW and below 75 kW with displacement below 0.9 L/cyl, you may alternatively certify some or all of your engine families to a PM emission standard of 0.20 g/kW-hr and a NO
(5) Starting with the 2014 model year, recreational marine engines at or above 3700 kW (with any displacement) must be certified under this part 1042 to the Tier 3 standards specified in this section for 3.5 to 7.0 L/cyl recreational marine engines.
(6) Interim Tier 4 p.m. standards apply for 2014 and 2015 model year engines between 2000 and 3700 kW as specified in this paragraph (a)(6). These engines are considered to be Tier 4 engines.
(i) For Category 1 engines, the Tier 3 p.m. standards from Table 1 to this section continue to apply. PM FELs for these engines may not be higher than the applicable Tier 2 p.m. standards specified in Appendix I of this part.
(ii) For Category 2 engines with per-cylinder displacement below 15.0 liters, the Tier 3 p.m. standards from Table 2 to this section continue to apply. PM FELs for these engines may not be higher than 0.27 g/kW-hr.
(iii) For Category 2 engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 15.0 liters, the PM standard is 0.34 g/kW-hr for engines at or above 2000 kW and below 3300 kW, and 0.27 g/kW-hr for engines at or above 3300 kW and below 3700 kW. PM FELs for these engines may not be higher than 0.50 g/kW-hr.
(7) Except as described in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, the Tier 4 standards for PM, NO
(8) The following optional provisions apply for complying with the Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards specified in paragraphs (a)(3) through (7) of this section:
(i) You may use NO
(ii) For engines below 1000 kW, you may delay complying with the Tier 4 standards in the 2017 model year for up to nine months, but you must comply no later than October 1, 2017.
(iii) For engines at or above 3700 kW, you may delay complying with the Tier 4 standards in the 2016 model year for up to twelve months, but you must comply no later than December 31, 2016.
(iv) For Category 2 engines at or above 1400 kW, you may alternatively comply with the Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards specified in Table 4 of this section instead of the NO
(b)
(1) FELs for Tier 3 engines may not be higher than the applicable Tier 2 standards specified in Appendix I of this part.
(2) FELs for Tier 4 engines may not be higher than the applicable Tier 3 standards specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3) The following FEL caps apply for engines at or above 3700 kW that are not subject to Tier 3 standards under paragraph (a)(3) of this section:
(i) FELs may not be higher than the applicable Tier 1 NO
(ii) FELs may not be higher than the applicable Tier 2 NO
(c)
(1) Use the following equation to determine the NTE standards:
(ii) Round each NTE standard to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard.
(2) Determine the applicable NTE zone and subzones as described in § 1042.515. Determine NTE multipliers for specific zones and subzones and pollutants as follows:
(i) For marine engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(1), except for variable-speed propulsion marine engines used with controllable-pitch propellers or with electrically coupled propellers, apply the following NTE multipliers:
(A) Subzone 1: 1.2 for Tier 3 NO
(B) Subzone 1: 1.5 for Tier 4 standards and Tier 3 p.m. and CO standards.
(C) Subzone 2: 1.5 for Tier 4 NO
(D) Subzone 2: 1.9 for PM and CO standards.
(ii) For recreational marine engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(2), except for variable-speed marine engines used with controllable-pitch propellers or with electrically coupled propellers, apply the following NTE multipliers:
(A) Subzone 1: 1.2 for Tier 3 NO
(B) Subzone 1: 1.5 for Tier 3 p.m. and CO standards.
(C) Subzones 2 and 3: 1.5 for Tier 3 NO
(D) Subzones 2 and 3: 1.9 for PM and CO standards.
(iii) For variable-speed marine engines used with controllable-pitch propellers or with electrically coupled propellers that are certified using the duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(1), (2), or (3), apply the following NTE multipliers:
(A) Subzone 1: 1.2 for Tier 3 NO
(B) Subzone 1: 1.5 for Tier 4 standards and Tier 3 p.m. and CO standards.
(C) Subzone 2: 1.5 for Tier 4 NO
(D) Subzone 2: 1.9 for PM and CO standards. However, there is no NTE standard in Subzone 2b for PM emissions if the engine family's applicable standard for PM is at or above 0.07 g/kW-hr.
(iv) For constant-speed engines certified using a duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(3) or (4), apply the following NTE multipliers:
(A) Subzone 1: 1.2 for Tier 3 NO
(B) Subzone 1: 1.5 for Tier 4 standards and Tier 3 p.m. and CO standards.
(C) Subzone 2: 1.5 for Tier 4 NO
(D) Subzone 2: 1.9 for PM and CO standards. However, there is no NTE standard for PM emissions if the engine family's applicable standard for PM is at or above 0.07 g/kW-hr.
(v) For variable-speed auxiliary marine engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(5)(ii) or (iii):
(A) Subzone 1: 1.2 for Tier 3 NO
(B) Subzone 1: 1.5 for Tier 4 standards and Tier 3 p.m. and CO standards.
(C) Subzone 2: 1.2 for Tier 3 NO
(D) Subzone 2: 1.5 for Tier 4 standards and Tier 3 p.m. and CO standards. However, there is no NTE standard for PM emissions if the engine family's applicable standard for PM is at or above 0.07 g/kW-hr.
(3) The NTE standards apply to your engines whenever they operate within the NTE zone for an NTE sampling period of at least thirty seconds, during which only a single operator demand set point may be selected. Engine operation during a change in operator demand is excluded from any NTE sampling period. There is no maximum NTE sampling period.
(4) Collect emission data for determining compliance with the NTE standards using the procedures described in subpart F of this part.
(5) You may ask us to accept as compliant an engine that does not fully meet specific requirements under the applicable NTE standards where such deficiencies are necessary for safety.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Gaseous-fueled engines must comply with HC standards based on nonmethane-nonethane hydrocarbon emissions.
(a) * * *
(2) NO
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) The diagnostic system must monitor reductant quality and tank levels and alert operators to the need to refill the reductant tank before it is empty, or to replace the reductant if it does not meet your concentration specifications. Unless we approve other alerts, use a malfunction-indicator light (MIL) and an audible alarm. You do not need to separately monitor reductant quality if your system uses input from an exhaust NO
(d) For Category 3 engines equipped with on-off NO
(b)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For EGR-related filters and coolers, DEF filters, crankcase ventilation valves and filters, and fuel injector tips (cleaning only), the minimum interval is 1,500 hours.
(3) * * *
(i) For EGR-related filters and coolers, DEF filters, crankcase ventilation valves and filters, and fuel injector tips (cleaning only), the minimum interval is 1,500 hours.
(c)
(e)
(f)
(b) Make sure these instructions have the following information:
(1) Include the heading: “Emission-related installation instructions”.
(2) State: “Failing to follow these instructions when installing a certified engine in a vessel violates federal law (40 CFR 1068.105(b)), subject to fines or other penalties as described in the Clean Air Act.”
(3) Describe the instructions needed to properly install the exhaust system and any other components. Include instructions consistent with the requirements of § 1042.205(u).
(4) Describe any necessary steps for installing the diagnostic system described in § 1042.110.
(5) Describe how your certification is limited for any type of application. . For example, if your engines are certified only for constant-speed operation, tell vessel manufacturers not to install the engines in variable-speed applications or modify the governor.
(6) Describe any other instructions to make sure the installed engine will operate according to design specifications in your application for certification. This may include, for example, instructions for installing aftertreatment devices when installing the engines.
(7) State: “If you install the engine in a way that makes the engine's emission control information label hard to read during normal engine maintenance, you must place a duplicate label on the vessel, as described in 40 CFR 1068.105.”
(8) Describe any vessel labeling requirements specified in § 1042.135.
(b) At the time of manufacture, affix a permanent and legible label identifying each engine. The label must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(c) The label must—
(1) Include the heading “EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION”.
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark. You may identify another company and use its trademark instead of yours if you comply with the branding provisions of 40 CFR 1068.45.
(3) Include EPA's standardized designation for the engine family (and subfamily, where applicable).
(4) Identify all the emission standards that apply to the engine (or FELs, if applicable). If you do not declare an FEL under subpart H of this part, you may alternatively state the engine's category, displacement (in liters or L/cyl), maximum engine power (in kW), and power density (in kW/L) as needed to determine the emission standards for the engine family. You may specify displacement, maximum engine power, or power density as a range consistent with the ranges listed in § 1042.101. See § 1042.140 for descriptions of how to specify per-cylinder displacement, maximum engine power, and power density.
(5) State the date of manufacture [DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR]; however, you may omit this from the label if you stamp, engrave, or otherwise permanently identify it elsewhere on the engine, in which case you must also describe in your application for certification where you will identify the date on the engine.
(6) Identify the application(s) for which the engine family is certified (such as constant-speed auxiliary, variable-speed propulsion engines used with fixed-pitch propellers, etc.). If the engine is certified as a recreational engine, state: “INSTALLING THIS RECREATIONAL ENGINE IN A COMMERCIAL VESSEL OR USING THE VESSEL FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES MAY VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY (40 CFR 1042.601).”
(7) For engines using sulfur-sensitive technologies, state: “ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL ONLY”.
(8) State the useful life for your engine family if the applicable useful life is based on the provisions of § 1042.101(e)(2) or (3), or § 1042.104(d)(2).
(9) Identify the emission control system. Use terms and abbreviations as described in 40 CFR 1068.45. You may omit this information from the label if there is not enough room for it and you put it in the owners manual instead.
(10) State: “THIS MARINE ENGINE COMPLIES WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR [MODEL YEAR].”
(11) For a Category 1 or Category 2 engine that can be modified to operate on residual fuel, but has not been certified to meet the standards on such a fuel, include the statement: “THIS ENGINE IS CERTIFIED FOR OPERATION ONLY WITH DIESEL FUEL. MODIFYING THE ENGINE TO OPERATE ON RESIDUAL OR INTERMEDIATE FUEL MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTIES.”
(12) For an engine equipped with on-off emission controls as allowed by § 1042.115, include the statement: “THIS ENGINE IS CERTIFIED WITH ON-OFF EMISSION CONTROLS. OPERATION OF THE ENGINE CONTRARY TO 40 CFR 1042.115(g) IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTIES.”
(13) For engines intended for installation on domestic or public vessels, include the following statement: “THIS ENGINE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL MARINE REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL VESSELS UNLESS IT IS ALSO COVERED BY AN EIAPP CERTIFICATE.”
(d) * * *
(1) You may identify other emission standards that the engine meets or does not meet (such as international standards), as long as this does not cause you to omit any of the information described in paragraphs (c)(5) through (9) of this section. You may add the information about the other emission standards to the statement we specify, or you may include it in a separate statement.
(e) For engines using sulfur-sensitive technologies, create a separate label with the statement: “ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL ONLY”. Permanently attach this label to the vessel near the fuel inlet or, if you do not manufacture the vessel, take one of the following steps to ensure that the vessel will be properly labeled:
(e) Throughout this part, references to a specific power value for an engine are based on maximum engine power. For example, the group of engines with maximum engine power below 600 kW may be referred to as engines below 600 kW.
(a) You must send us a separate application for a certificate of conformity for each engine family. A certificate of conformity is valid for new production from the indicated effective date until the end of the model year for which it is issued, which may not extend beyond December 31 of that year. No certificate will be issued after December 31 of the model year. You may amend your application for certification after the end of the model year in certain circumstances as described in §§ 1042.220 and 1042.225. You must renew your certification annually for any engines you continue to produce.
(g) We may require you to deliver your test engines to a facility we designate for our testing (see § 1042.235(c)). Alternatively, you may choose to deliver another engine that is identical in all material respects to the test engine, or another engine that we determine can appropriately serve as an emission-data engine for the engine family.
(g) List the specifications of the test fuel (or mixture of test fuels) to show that they fall within the required ranges we specify in 40 CFR part 1065.
(o) Present emission data for HC, NO
(r) * * *
(1) Report all valid test results involving measurement of pollutants for which emission standards apply. Also indicate whether there are test results from invalid tests or from any other tests of the emission-data engine, whether or not they were conducted according to the test procedures of subpart F of this part. We may require you to report these additional test results. We may ask you to send other information to confirm that your tests were valid under the requirements of this part and 40 CFR part 1065.
(bb) * * *
(1) Describe your normal practice for importing engines. For example, this may include identifying the names and addresses of any agents you have authorized to import your engines.
(b) * * *
(4) Include any other information needed to make your application correct and complete.
(g) You may produce engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine configuration during the model year under paragraph (d) of this section. Similarly, you may modify in-use engines as described in your amended application for certification and consider those engines to be in a certified configuration if we approve a new or modified engine configuration at any time under paragraph (d) of this section. Modifying a new or in-use engine to be in a certified configuration does not violate the tampering prohibition of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1), as long as this does not involve changing to a certified configuration with a higher family emission limit.
(b) Test your emission-data engines using the procedures and equipment specified in subpart F of this part. In the case of dual-fuel engines, measure emissions when operating with each type of fuel for which you intend to certify the engine. In the case of flexible-fuel engines, measure emissions when operating with the fuel mixture that best represents in-use operation or is most likely to have the highest NO
(c) We may perform confirmatory testing by measuring emissions from any of your emission-data engines or other engines from the engine family, as follows:
(4) Before we test one of your engines, we may calibrate it within normal production tolerances for anything we do not consider an adjustable parameter. For example, this would apply for an engine parameter that is subject to production variability because it is adjustable during production, but is not considered an adjustable parameter (as defined in § 1042.901) because it is permanently sealed. For parameters that relate to a level of performance that is itself subject to a specified range (such as maximum power output), we will generally perform any calibration under this paragraph (c)(4) in a way that keeps performance within the specified range.
(d) * * *
(1) The engine family from the previous model year differs from the current engine family only with respect to model year, items identified in § 1042.225(a), or other characteristics unrelated to emissions. We may waive this criterion for differences we determine not to be relevant.
(c) * * *
(3)
(4)
(5)
(d) Determine the official emission result for each pollutant to at least one
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) All your emission tests, including the date and purpose of each test and documentation of test parameters as specified in part 40 CFR part 1065.
(c) Keep required data from emission tests and all other information specified in this section for eight years after we issue your certificate. If you use the same emission data or other information for a later model year, the eight-year period restarts with each year that you continue to rely on the information.
(c) * * *
(2) Submit false or incomplete information (paragraph (e) of this section applies if this is fraudulent). This includes doing anything after submission of your application to render any of the submitted information false or incomplete.
(d) We may void the certificate of conformity for an engine family if you fail to keep records, send reports, or give us information as required under this part or the Clean Air Act. Note that these are also violations of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2).
(e) We may void your certificate if we find that you intentionally submitted false or incomplete information. This includes rendering submitted information false or incomplete after submission.
(a) If you produce freshly manufactured marine engines that are subject to the requirements of this part, you must test them as described in this subpart, except as follows:
(a) You must test each Category 3 engine at the sea trial of the vessel in which it is installed or within the first 300 hours of operation, whichever occurs first. This may involve testing a fully assembled production engine before it is installed in the vessel. Since you must test each engine, the provisions of §§ 1042.310 and 1042.315(b) do not apply for Category 3 engines. If we determine that an engine failure under this subpart is caused by defective components or design deficiencies, we may revoke or suspend your certificate for the engine family as described in § 1042.340. If we determine that an engine failure under this subpart is caused only by incorrect assembly, we may suspend your certificate for the engine family as described in § 1042.325. If the engine fails, you may continue operating only to complete the sea trial and return to port. It is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) to operate the vessel further until you remedy the cause of failure. Each two-hour period of such operation constitutes a separate offense. A violation lasting less than two hours constitutes a single offense.
(a) Use the equipment and procedures for compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to determine whether engines meet the duty-cycle emission standards in §§ 1042.101 or 1042.104. Measure the emissions of all regulated pollutants as specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the applicable duty cycles specified in § 1042.505. The following exceptions from the 40 CFR part 1065 procedures apply:
(1) If you perform discrete-mode testing and use only one batch fuel measurement to determine your mean raw exhaust flow rate, you must target a constant sample flow rate over the mode. Verify proportional sampling as described in 40 CFR 1065.545 using the mean raw exhaust molar flow rate paired with each recorded sample flow rate.
(2) If you perform discrete‐mode testing, you may verify proportional sampling over the whole duty cycle instead of verifying proportional sampling for each discrete mode.
(d) Adjust measured emissions to account for aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration as described in § 1042.525.
(e) Duty-cycle testing is limited to atmospheric pressures between 91.000 and 103.325 kPa.
(f) You may use special or alternate procedures to the extent we allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(h) This subpart is addressed to you as a manufacturer, but it applies equally to anyone who does testing for you, and to us when we perform testing to determine if your engines meet emission standards.
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) Use the 8-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal cycle described in 40 CFR part 1039, Appendix II, paragraph (c) for variable-speed auxiliary engines with maximum engine power at or above 19 kW that are not propeller-law engines.
(f) * * *
(2) You may ask us to approve a Limited Testing Region (LTR). An LTR is a region of engine operation, within the applicable NTE zone, where you have demonstrated that your engine family operates for no more than 5.0
(4) You may exclude emission data based on catalytic aftertreatment temperatures as follows:
(i) For an engine equipped with a catalytic NO
(ii) For an engine equipped with an oxidizing catalytic aftertreatment system, exclude HC and CO emission data that is collected when the exhaust temperature at any time during the NTE event is less than 250 °C. Similarly, exclude PM emission data during operation involving exhaust temperature below 250 °C for an engine equipped with an oxidizing flow-through catalyst.
(iii) Measure exhaust temperature within 30 cm downstream of the last applicable catalytic aftertreatment device. Where there are parallel paths, use good engineering judgment to measure the temperature within 30 cm downstream of the last applicable catalytic aftertreatment device in the path with the greatest exhaust flow.
(g) Emission sampling is not valid for NTE testing if it includes any active regeneration, unless the emission averaging period includes the complete regeneration event(s) and the full period of engine operation until the start of the next regeneration event. This provision applies only for engines that send an electronic signal indicating the start of the regeneration event.
For engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events that may occur during testing, take one of the following approaches to account for the emission impact of regeneration, or use an alternate methodology that we approve for Category 3 engines:
(a) You may use the calculation methodology described in 40 CFR 1065.680 to adjust measured emission results. Do this by developing an upward adjustment factor and a downward adjustment factor for each pollutant based on measured emission data and observed regeneration frequency as follows:
(1) Adjustment factors should generally apply to an entire engine family, but you may develop separate adjustment factors for different configurations within an engine family. Use the adjustment factors from this section in all testing for the engine family.
(2) You may use carryover or carry-across data to establish adjustment factors for an engine family as described in § 1042.235, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(3) Determine the frequency of regeneration,
(4) Identify the value of
(b) You may ask us to approve an alternate methodology to account for regeneration events. We will generally limit approval to cases where your engines use aftertreatment technology with extremely infrequent regeneration and you are unable to apply the provisions of this section.
(c) You may choose to make no adjustments to measured emission results if you determine that regeneration does not significantly affect emission levels for an engine family (or configuration) or if it is not practical to identify when regeneration occurs. If you choose not to make adjustments under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, your engines must meet emission standards for all testing, without regard to regeneration.
(d) The provisions of § 1042.635 for the national security exemption apply in addition to the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.225.
(j) Subpart C of this part describes how to test and certify dual-fuel and flexible-fuel engines. Some multi-fuel engines may not fit either of those defined terms. For such engines, we will determine whether it is most appropriate to treat them as single-fuel engines, dual-fuel engines, or flexible-fuel engines based on the range of possible and expected fuel mixtures. For example, an engine might burn natural gas but initiate combustion with a pilot injection of diesel fuel. If the engine is designed to operate with a single fueling algorithm (
(e) * * *
(3) Send the Designated Compliance Officer written notification describing your plans before using the provisions of this section. In addition, by February 28 of each calendar year (or less often if we tell you), send the Designated Compliance Officer a signed letter with all the following information:
(i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number.
(ii) List the engine models for which you used this exemption in the previous year and describe your basis for meeting the sales restrictions of paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(iii) State: “We prepared each listed engine model for marine application without making any changes that could increase its certified emission levels, as described in 40 CFR 1042.605.”
(e) * * *
(2) Send the Designated Compliance Officer written notification describing your plans before using the provisions of this section. In addition, by February 28 of each calendar year (or less often if we tell you), send the Designated Compliance Officer a signed letter with all the following information:
(i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone number.
(ii) List the engine models for which you used this exemption in the previous year and describe your basis for meeting the sales restrictions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(iii) State: “We prepared each listed engine model for marine application without making any changes that could increase its certified emission levels, as described in 40 CFR 1042.610.”
(f) The vessel must be a vessel that is not classed or subject to Coast Guard inspections or surveys. Note that dockside examinations performed by the Coast Guard are not considered inspections (see 46 U.S.C. 3301 and 46 U.S.C. 4502).
Engines qualify for a national security exemption as described in 40 CFR 1068.225. This applies to both freshly manufactured and remanufactured engines.
(a)
(d)
(1) To be eligible for this exemption, the engine must meet all the following criteria.
(i) The engine must have an EIAPP certificate demonstrating compliance with the applicable NO
(ii) The engine may not be used for propulsion (except for emergency engines).
(iii) Engines certified to the Annex VI Tier III standards may be equipped with on-off NO
(2) You must notify the Designated Compliance Officer of your intent to use this exemption before you introduce engines into U.S. commerce, not later than the time that you apply for an EIAPP certificate for the engine under 40 CFR part 1043.
(3) The remanufactured engine requirements of subpart I of this part do not apply.
(4) If you introduce an engine into U.S. commerce under this paragraph (d), you must meet the labeling requirements in § 1042.135, but add the following statement instead of the compliance statement in § 1042.135(c)(10):
THIS ENGINE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CURRENT U.S. EPA EMISSION STANDARDS UNDER 40 CFR 1042.650 AND IS FOR USE SOLELY IN VESSELS WITH CATEGORY 3 PROPULSION ENGINES. INSTALLATION OR USE OF THIS ENGINE IN ANY OTHER APPLICATION MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY.
(5) The reporting requirements of § 1042.660 apply for engines exempted under this paragraph (d).
(b)
(b) For vessels equipped with SCR systems requiring the use of urea or other reductants, owners and operators must report to the Designated Enforcement Officer within 30 days any operation of such vessels without the appropriate reductant. This includes vessels with auxiliary engines certified to Annex VI standards under § 1042.650(d). Failure to comply with the requirements of this paragraph is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2). Note that such operation is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1).
(c) * * *
(1) The requirements of this paragraph (c)(1) apply only for Category 3 engines. All maintenance, repair, adjustment, and alteration of Category 3 engines subject to the provisions of this part performed by any owner, operator or other maintenance provider must be performed using good engineering judgment, in such a manner that the engine continues (after the maintenance, repair, adjustment or alteration) to meet the emission standards it was certified as meeting prior to the need for service. This includes but is not limited to complying with the maintenance
(d)
(j) NO
(k) You may use either of the following approaches to retire or forego emission credits:
(1) You may retire emission credits generated from any number of your engines. This may be considered donating emission credits to the environment. Identify any such credits in the reports described in § 1042.730. Engines must comply with the applicable FELs even if you donate or sell the corresponding emission credits under this paragraph (k). Those credits may no longer be used by anyone to demonstrate compliance with any EPA emission standards.
(2) You may certify a family using an FEL below the emission standard as described in this part and choose not to generate emission credits for that family. If you do this, you do not need to calculate emission credits for those families and you do not need to submit or keep the associated records described in this subpart for that family.
(c) As described in § 1042.730, compliance with the requirements of this subpart is determined at the end of the model year based on actual U.S.-directed production volumes. Do not include any of the following engines to calculate emission credits:
(1) Engines with a permanent exemption under subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR part 1068.
(2) Exported engines.
(3) Engines not subject to the requirements of this part, such as those excluded under § 1042.5.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Any other engines, where we indicate elsewhere in this part 1042 that they are not to be included in the calculations of this subpart.
(c) If you certify an engine family to an FEL that exceeds the otherwise applicable emission standard, you must obtain enough emission credits to offset the engine family's deficit by the due date for the final report required in § 1042.730. The emission credits used to address the deficit may come from your other engine families that generate emission credits in the same model year, from emission credits you have banked from previous model years, or from emission credits generated in the same or previous model years that you obtained through trading.
(b) * * *
(2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (positive or negative) based on projected production volumes. We may require you to include similar calculations from your other engine families to demonstrate that you will be able to avoid negative credit balances for the model year. If you project negative emission credits for a family, state the source of positive emission credits you expect to use to offset the negative emission credits.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports must include the following information for each engine family participating in the ABT program:
(1) Engine-family designation and averaging set.
(2) The emission standards that would otherwise apply to the engine family.
(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you change the FEL after the start of production, identify the date that you started using the new FEL and/or give the engine identification number for the first engine covered by the new FEL. In this case, identify each applicable FEL and calculate the positive or negative emission credits as specified in § 1042.225.
(4) The projected and actual U.S.-directed production volumes for the model year, as described in § 1042.705(c). If you changed an FEL during the model year, identify the actual U.S.-directed production volume associated with each FEL.
(5) Maximum engine power for each engine configuration, and the average engine power weighted by U.S.-directed production volumes for the engine family.
(6) Useful life.
(7) Calculated positive or negative emission credits for the whole engine family. Identify any emission credits that you traded, as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(c) * * *
(2) State whether you will retain any emission credits for banking. If you choose to retire emission credits that would otherwise be eligible for banking, identify the engine families that generated the emission credits, including the number of emission credits from each family.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you must send us a report within 90 days after the transaction, as follows:
(1) As the seller, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) The averaging set corresponding to the engine families that generated emission credits for the trade, including the number of emission credits from each averaging set.
(2) As the buyer, you must include the following information in your report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the emission credits, including the number of emission credits you intend to apply for each averaging set.
(a) You must organize and maintain your records as described in this section.
(b) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight years after the due date for the end-of-year report. You may not use emission credits for any engines if you do not keep all the records required under this section. You must therefore keep these records to continue to bank valid credits.
(c) Your engine is not subject to the standards of this subpart if we determine that no certified remanufacturing system is available for your engine as described in § 1042.815. For engines that are remanufactured during multiple events within a five-year period, you are not required to use a certified system until all of your engine's cylinders have been replaced after the system became available. For example, if you remanufacture your 16-cylinder engine by replacing four cylinders each January and a system becomes available for your engine June 1, 2010, your engine must be in a certified configuration when you replace four cylinders in January of 2014. At that point, all 16 cylinders would have been replaced after June 1, 2010.
(a) The labeling requirements of this paragraph (a) apply for remanufacturing that is subject to the standards of this subpart. At the time of remanufacture, affix a permanent and legible label identifying each engine. The label must be—
(1) Attached in one piece so it is not removable without being destroyed or defaced.
(2) Secured to a part of the engine needed for normal operation and not normally requiring replacement.
(3) Durable and readable for the engine's entire useful life.
(4) Written in English.
(b) The label required under paragraph (a) of this section must—
(1) Include the heading “EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION”.
(2) Include your full corporate name and trademark.
(3) Include EPA's standardized designation for the engine family.
(4) State the engine's category, displacement (in liters or L/cyl), maximum engine power (in kW), and power density (in kW/L) as needed to determine the emission standards for the engine family. You may specify displacement, maximum engine power, and power density as ranges consistent with the ranges listed in § 1042.101. See § 1042.140 for descriptions of how to specify per-cylinder displacement, maximum engine power, and power density.
(5) State: “THIS MARINE ENGINE MEETS THE STANDARDS OF 40 CFR PART 1042, SUBPART I, FOR [CALENDAR YEAR OF REMANUFACTURE].”
(c) For remanufactured engines that are subject to this subpart as described in § 1042.801(a), but are not subject to remanufacturing standards as allowed by § 1042.810 or § 1042.815, you may voluntarily add a label as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, except that the label must omit the standardized designation for the engine family and include the following alternative compliance statement: “THIS MARINE ENGINE IS NOT SUBJECT TO REMANUFACTURING STANDARDS UNDER 40 CFR PART 1042, SUBPART I, FOR [CALENDAR YEAR OF REMANUFACTURE].”
(d) You may add information to the emission control information label to identify other emission standards that the engine meets or does not meet (such as international standards). You may also add other information to ensure that the engine will be properly maintained and used.
(e) You may ask us to approve modified labeling requirements in this section if you show that it is necessary or appropriate. We will approve your request if your alternate label is consistent with the intent of the labeling requirements of this section.
(c) * * *
(1) Tier 0 locomotive systems may not be used for any Category 1 engines or Tier 1 or later Category 2 engines.
(c) Summarize the cost effectiveness analysis used to demonstrate your system will meet the availability criteria of § 1042.815. Identify the maximum allowable costs for vessel modifications to meet these criteria.
(o) Report all valid test results. Also indicate whether there are test results from invalid tests or from any other tests of the emission-data engine, whether or not they were conducted according to the test procedures of subpart F of this part. If you measure CO
This section describes exemption and hardship provisions that are available for owner/operators of engines subject to the provisions of this subpart.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) For in-use fuels,
(2) For testing,
(1) For freshly manufactured marine engines (see definition of “new marine engine,” paragraph (1)), model year means one of the following:
(i) Calendar year of production.
(ii) Your annual new model production period if it is different than the calendar year. This must include January 1 of the calendar year for which the model year is named. It may not begin before January 2 of the previous calendar year and it must end by December 31 of the named calendar year. For seasonal production periods not including January 1, model year means the calendar year in which the production occurs, unless you choose to certify the applicable engine family with the following model year. For example, if your production period is June 1, 2010 through November 30, 2010, your model year would be 2010 unless you choose to certify the engine family for model year 2011.
(2) For an engine that is converted to a marine engine after being certified and placed into service as a motor vehicle engine, a nonroad engine that is not a marine engine, or a stationary engine, model year means the calendar year in which the engine was originally produced. For an engine that is converted to a marine engine after being placed into service as a motor vehicle engine, a nonroad engine that is not a marine engine, or a stationary engine without having been certified, model year means the calendar year in which the engine becomes a new marine engine. (See definition of “new marine engine,” paragraph (2)).
(3) For an uncertified marine engine excluded under § 1042.5 that is later subject to this part 1042 as a result of being installed in a different vessel, model year means the calendar year in which the engine was installed in the non-excluded vessel. For a marine engine excluded under § 1042.5 that is later subject to this part 1042 as a result of reflagging the vessel, model year means the calendar year in which the engine was originally manufactured. For a marine engine that become new under paragraph (7) of the definition of “new marine engine,” model year means the calendar year in which the engine was originally manufactured. (See definition of “new marine engine,” paragraphs (3) and (7).)
(4) For engines that do not meet the definition of “freshly manufactured” but are installed in new vessels, model year means the calendar year in which the engine is installed in the new vessel (see definition of “new marine engine,” paragraph (4)).
(5) For remanufactured engines, model year means the calendar year in which the remanufacture takes place.
(6) For imported engines:
(i) For imported engines described in paragraph (6)(i) of the definition of “new marine engine,”
(ii) For imported engines described in paragraph (6)(ii) of the definition of “new marine engine,”
(iii) For imported engines described in paragraph (6)(iii) of the definition of “new marine engine,”
(iv) For imported engines described in paragraph (6)(iv) of the definition of “new marine engine,”
(7) [Reserved]
(8) For freshly manufactured vessels, model year means the calendar year in which the keel is laid or the vessel is at a similar stage of construction. For vessels that become new under paragraph (2) or (3) of the definition of “new vessel” (as a result of modifications), model year means the calendar year in which the modifications physically begin.
The following symbols, acronyms, and abbreviations apply to this part:
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must publish a document in the
(b) The International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, or
(1) MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, Third Edition, 2013, and NO
(i) Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Third Edition, 2013 (“2008 Annex VI”); IBR approved for § 1042.901.
(ii) NO
(iii) Annex 12, Resolution MEPC.251(66) from the Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its Sixty-Sixth Session, April 25, 2014. This document describes new and revised provisions that are considered to be part of Annex VI and NO
(2) [Reserved]
The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 apply for information you consider confidential.
(a) This part includes various requirements to submit and record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store required records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available for eight years after you send an associated application for certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do not support an application for certification. You are expected to keep your own copy of required records rather than relying on someone else to keep records on your behalf. We may review these records at any time. You must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may require you to submit written records in an electronic format.
(b) The regulations in § 1042.255, 40 CFR 1068.25, and 40 CFR 1068.101 describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information. This includes information not related to certification. Failing to properly report information and keep the records we specify violates 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(2), which may involve civil or criminal penalties.
(c) Send all reports and requests for approval to the Designated Compliance Officer (see § 1042.801).
(d) Any written information we require you to send to or receive from another company is deemed to be a required record under this section. Such records are also deemed to be submissions to EPA. We may require you to send us these records whether or not you are a certificate holder.
(e) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq), the Office of Management and Budget approves the reporting and recordkeeping specified in the applicable regulations. The following items illustrate the kind of reporting and recordkeeping we require for engines and vessels regulated under this part:
(1) We specify the following requirements related to engine certification in this part 1042:
(i) In § 1042.135 we require engine manufacturers to keep certain records related to duplicate labels sent to vessel manufacturers.
(ii) In § 1042.145 we include various reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to interim provisions.
(iii) In subpart C of this part we identify a wide range of information required to certify engines.
(iv) In §§ 1042.345 and 1042.350 we specify certain records related to production-line testing.
(v) In subpart G of this part we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various special compliance provisions.
(vi) In §§ 1042.725, 1042.730, and 1042.735 we specify certain records related to averaging, banking, and trading.
(vii) In subpart I of this part we specify certain records related to meeting requirements for remanufactured engines.
(2) We specify the following requirements related to testing in 40 CFR part 1065:
(i) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an overview of principles for reporting information.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we specify information needs for establishing various changes to published test procedures.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish basic guidelines for storing test information.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify the specific information and data items to record when measuring emissions.
(3) We specify the following requirements related to the general compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068:
(i) In 40 CFR 1068.5 we establish a process for evaluating good engineering judgment related to testing and certification.
(ii) In 40 CFR 1068.25 we describe general provisions related to sending and keeping information.
(iii) In 40 CFR 1068.27 we require manufacturers to make engines available for our testing or inspection if we make such a request.
(iv) In 40 CFR 1068.105 we require vessel manufacturers to keep certain records related to duplicate labels from engine manufacturers.
(v) In 40 CFR 1068.120 we specify recordkeeping related to rebuilding engines.
(vi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to various exemptions.
(vii) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart D, we identify several reporting and recordkeeping items for making demonstrations and getting approval related to importing engines.
(viii) In 40 CFR 1068.450 and 1068.455 we specify certain records related to testing production-line engines in a selective enforcement audit.
(ix) In 40 CFR 1068.501 we specify certain records related to investigating and reporting emission-related defects.
(x) In 40 CFR 1068.525 and 1068.530 we specify certain records related to recalling nonconforming engines.
(xi) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, we specify certain records for requesting a hearing.
(a) The following duty cycles apply as specified in § 1042.505(b)(1):
(1) The following duty cycle applies for discrete-mode testing:
(2) The following duty cycle applies for ramped-modal testing:
(b) The following duty cycles apply as specified in § 1042.505(b)(2):
(1) The following duty cycle applies for discrete-mode testing:
(2) The following duty cycle applies for ramped-modal testing:
(c) The following duty cycles apply as specified in § 1042.505(b)(3):
(1) The following duty cycle applies for discrete-mode testing:
(2) The following duty cycle applies for ramped-modal testing:
(a) The following definitions apply for this Appendix III:
(1)
(2)
(b) Figure 1 of this Appendix illustrates the default NTE zone for marine engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(1), except for variable-speed propulsion marine engines used with controllable-pitch propellers or with electrically coupled propellers, as follows:
(1) Subzone 1 is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power ÷ 100 > 0.7 · (percent speed ÷ 100)
(ii) Percent power ÷ 100 ≤ (percent speed ÷ 90)
(iii) Percent power ÷ 100 ≥ 3.0 · (1−percent speed ÷ 100).
(2) Subzone 2 is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power ÷ 100 ≥ 0.7 · (percent speed ÷ 100)
(ii) Percent power ÷ 100 ≤ (percent speed ÷ 90)
(iii) Percent power ÷ 100 < 3.0 · (1−percent speed ÷ 100).
(iv) Percent speed ÷ 100 ≥ 0.7.
(3) Note that the line separating Subzone 1 and Subzone 2 includes the following endpoints:
(i) Percent speed = 78.9 percent; Percent power = 63.2 percent.
(ii) Percent speed = 84.6 percent; Percent power = 46.1 percent.
(c) Figure 2 of this Appendix illustrates the default NTE zone for recreational marine engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(2), except for variable-speed marine engines used with controllable-pitch propellers or with electrically coupled propellers, as follows:
(1) Subzone 1 is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power ÷ 100 ≥ 0.7 · (percent speed ÷ 100)
(ii) Percent power ÷ 100 ≤ (percent speed ÷ 90)
(iii) Percent power ÷ 100 ≥ 3.0 · (1−percent speed ÷ 100).
(iv) Percent power ≤ 95 percent.
(2) Subzone 2 is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power ÷ 100 ≥ 0.7 · (percent speed ÷ 100)
(ii) Percent power ÷ 100 ≤ (percent speed ÷ 90)
(iii) Percent power ÷ 100 < 3.0 · (1−percent speed ÷ 100).
(iv) Percent speed ≥ 70 percent.
(3) Subzone 3 is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power ÷ 100 ≤ (percent speed ÷ 90)
(ii) Percent power > 95 percent.
(4) Note that the line separating Subzone 1 and Subzone 3 includes a point at Percent speed = 88.7 percent and Percent power = 95.0 percent. See paragraph (b)(3) of this appendix regarding the line separating Subzone 1 and Subzone 2.
(d) Figure 3 of this Appendix illustrates the default NTE zone for variable-speed marine engines used with controllable-pitch propellers or with electrically coupled propellers that are certified using the duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(1), (2), or (3), as follows:
(1) Subzone 1 is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power ÷ 100 ≥ 0.7 · (percent speed ÷ 100)
(ii) Percent power ÷ 100 ≥ 3.0 · (1−percent speed ÷ 100).
(iii) Percent speed ≥ 78.9 percent.
(2) Subzone 2a is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power ÷ 100 ≥ 0.7 · (percent speed ÷ 100)
(ii) Percent speed ≥70 percent.
(iii) Percent speed <78.9 percent, for Percent power >63.3 percent.
(iv) Percent power ÷ 100 <3.0 · (1−percent speed ÷ 100), for Percent speed ≥78.9 percent.
(3) Subzone 2b is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) The line formed by connecting the following two points on a plot of speed-vs.-power:
(A) Percent speed = 70 percent; Percent power = 28.7 percent.
(B) Percent power = 40 percent; Speed = governed speed.
(ii) Percent power ÷ 100 < 0.7 · (percent speed ÷ 100)
(4) Note that the line separating Subzone 1 and Subzone 2a includes the following endpoints:
(i) Percent speed = 78.9 percent; Percent power = 63.3 percent.
(ii) Percent speed = 84.6 percent; Percent power = 46.1 percent.
(e) Figure 4 of this Appendix illustrates the default NTE zone for constant-speed engines certified using a duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)(3) or (4), as follows:
(1) Subzone 1 is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power ≥70 percent.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) Subzone 2 is defined by the following boundaries:
(i) Percent power <70 percent.
(ii) Percent power ≥40 percent.
(f) Figure 5 of this Appendix illustrates the default NTE zone for variable-speed auxiliary marine engines certified using the duty cycle specified in § 1042.505(b)5)(ii) or (iii), as follows:
(1) The default NTE zone is defined by the boundaries specified in 40 CFR 86.1370(b)(1), (2), and (4).
(2) A special PM subzone is defined in 40 CFR 1039.515(b).
33 U.S.C. 1901-1912.
(a) Except as specified otherwise in this part, NO
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must publish a document in the
(b) The International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, or
(1) MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, Third Edition, 2013, and NO
(i) Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Third Edition, 2013 (“2008 Annex VI”); IBR approved for §§ 1043.1 introductory text, 1043.20, 1043.30(f), 1043.60(c), and 1043.70(a).
(ii) NO
(iii) Annex 12, Resolution MEPC.251(66) from the Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its Sixty-Sixth Session, April 25, 2014. This document describes new and revised provisions that are considered to be part of Annex VI and NO
(2) [Reserved]
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Whether the unrepresentative aspect of the procedures affects your ability to show compliance with the applicable emission standards.
(a) * * *
(2) Hydrocarbon, HC, which may be expressed in the following ways:
(i) Total hydrocarbon, THC.
(ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbon, NMHC, which results from subtracting methane, CH
(iii) Nonmethane-nonethane hydrocarbon, NMNEHC, which results from subtracting methane, CH
(iv) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, THCE, which results from adjusting THC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
(v) Nonmethane hydrocarbon-equivalent, NMHCE, which results from adjusting NMHC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
(d) * * *
(2)
(3)
Your test system must be able to update data, record data and control systems related to operator demand, the dynamometer, sampling equipment, and measurement instruments. Set up the measurement and recording equipment to avoid aliasing by ensuring that the sampling frequency is at least double that of the signal you are measuring, consistent with good engineering judgment; this may require increasing the sampling rate or filtering the signal. Use data acquisition and control systems that can record at the specified minimum frequencies, as follows:
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Condition the flow of diesel exhaust fluid as needed to prevent wakes, eddies, circulating flows, or flow pulsations from affecting the accuracy or repeatability of the meter. You may accomplish this by using a sufficient length of straight tubing (such as a length equal to at least 10 pipe diameters) or by using specially designed tubing bends, straightening fins, or pneumatic pulsation dampeners to establish a steady and predictable velocity profile upstream of the meter. Condition the flow as needed to prevent any gas bubbles in the fluid from affecting the flow meter.
(2) Account for any fluid that bypasses the engine or returns from the engine to the fluid storage tank.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) The interference gases for CH
(2) The interference gases for C
(3) The interference gases for other measured hydrocarbon species are CO
(a)
(b) * * *
(2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer. Use appropriate analytical procedures for interpretation of infrared spectra. For example, EPA Test Method 320 (see
The following table summarizes the required and recommended calibrations and verifications described in this subpart and indicates when these have to be performed:
(e)
(f) * * *
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section to record data at a minimum of six restrictor positions ranging from the wide open restrictor position to the minimum expected pressure at the PDP inlet or the maximum expected differential (outlet minus inlet) pressure across the PDP during testing.
(13) During emission testing ensure that the PDP is not operated either below the lowest inlet pressure point or above the highest differential pressure point in the calibration data.
(g)
(1) Connect the system as shown in Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Verify that any leaks between the calibration flow meter and the SSV are less than 0.3% of the total flow at the highest restriction.
(3) Start the blower downstream of the SSV.
(4) While the SSV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the SSV inlet within ±2% of the mean absolute inlet temperature,
(5) Set the variable restrictor or variable-speed blower to a flow rate greater than the greatest flow rate expected during testing. You may not extrapolate flow rates beyond calibrated values, so we recommend that you make sure the Reynolds number,
(6) Operate the SSV for at least 3 min to stabilize the system. Continue operating the SSV and record the mean of at least 30 seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter
(ii) Optionally, the mean dewpoint of the calibration air,
(iii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet,
(iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet,
(v) The mean static differential pressure between the static pressure at the venturi inlet and the static pressure at the venturi throat, Δ
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the blower speed to decrease the flow rate.
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (g)(6) and (7) of this section to record data at a minimum of ten flow rates.
(9) Determine an equation to quantify
(10) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (
(11) Use the SSV only between the minimum and maximum calibrated
(12) Use the equations in § 1065.642 to determine SSV flow during a test.
(h)
(1) Connect the system as shown in Figure 1 of this section.
(2) Verify that any leaks between the calibration flow meter and the CFV are less than 0.3% of the total flow at the highest restriction.
(3) Start the blower downstream of the CFV.
(4) While the CFV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the CFV inlet
(5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide-open position. Instead of a variable restrictor, you may alternately vary the pressure downstream of the CFV by varying blower speed or by introducing a controlled leak. Note that some blowers have limitations on nonloaded conditions.
(6) Operate the CFV for at least 3 min to stabilize the system. Continue operating the CFV and record the mean values of at least 30 seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter,
(ii) The mean dewpoint of the calibration air,
(iii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet,
(iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet,
(v) The mean static differential pressure between the CFV inlet and the CFV outlet, Δ
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the downstream pressure to decrease the differential pressure across the CFV,
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (f)(6) and (7) of this section to record mean data at a minimum of ten restrictor positions, such that you test the fullest practical range of Δ
(9) Determine
(10) Use
(11) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (
(12) If your CVS is configured to operate more than one CFV at a time in parallel, calibrate your CVS by one of the following:
(i) Calibrate every combination of CFVs according to this section and § 1065.640. Refer to § 1065.642 for instructions on calculating flow rates for this option.
(ii) Calibrate each CFV according to this section and § 1065.640. Refer to § 1065.642 for instructions on calculating flow rates for this option.
(c) * * *
(3) Select a C
(d) * * *
(2) Supply span gas to the analyzer span port and record the measured value.
(4) Verify that the measured overflow span gas concentration is within ±0.5% of the concentration measured in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. A measured value lower than expected indicates a leak, but a value higher than expected may indicate a problem with the span gas or the analyzer itself. A measured value higher than expected does not indicate a leak.
(e) * * *
(3) Turn off the sample pumps and seal the system. Measure and record the absolute pressure of the trapped gas and optionally the system absolute temperature. Wait long enough for any transients to settle and long enough for a leak at 0.5% to have caused a pressure change of at least 10 times the resolution of the pressure transducer, then again record the pressure and optionally temperature.
(4) Calculate the leak flow rate based on an assumed value of zero for pumped-down bag volumes and based on known values for the sample system volume, the initial and final pressures, optional temperatures, and elapsed time. Using the calculations specified in § 1065.644, verify that the vacuum-decay leak flow rate is less than 0.5% of the system's normal in-use flow rate.
(a) * * *
(3) If you determine NMNEHC by subtracting from measured THC, determine the ethane (C
(d)
(7) Introduce the CH
(f)
(d) * * *
(9) Divide the mean C
(e) * * *
(10) Divide the mean C
(f) * * *
(9) Divide the mean C
(14) Divide the mean CH
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(d) * * *
(11) Calculate the actual NO concentration at the gas divider's outlet,
(b)
(b)
(c)
(2) You may use an automated procedure to verify balance performance. For example most balances have internal weights for automatically verifying balance performance.
(c)
(4) For engines with an electric hybrid system, map the negative torque required to motor the engine and absorb any power delivered from the RESS by repeating paragraph (g)(2) of this section with minimum operator demand, stopping the sweep to discharge the RESS when the absolute instantaneous power measured from the RESS drops below the expected maximum absolute power from the RESS by more than 2% of total system maximum power (including engine motoring and RESS power) as determined from mapping the negative torque.
(d) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) For constant-speed engines subject only to steady-state testing, you may perform an engine map by using a series of discrete torques. Select at least five evenly spaced torque setpoints from no-load to 80% of the manufacturer-declared test torque or to a torque derived from your published maximum power level if the declared test torque is unavailable. Starting at the 80% torque point, select setpoints in 2.5% or smaller intervals, stopping at the endpoint torque. The endpoint torque is defined as the first discrete mapped torque value greater than the torque at maximum observed power where the engine outputs 90% of the maximum observed power; or the torque when engine stall has been determined using good engineering judgment (
(iii) For any isochronous governed (0% speed droop) constant-speed engine, you may map the engine with two points as described in this paragraph (d)(5)(iii). After stabilizing at the no-load governed speed in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, record the mean feedback speed and torque. Continue to operate the engine with the governor or simulated governor controlling engine speed using operator demand, and control the dynamometer to target a speed of 99.5% of the recorded mean no-load governed speed. Allow speed and torque to stabilize. Record the mean feedback speed and torque. Record the target speed. The absolute value of the speed error (the mean feedback speed minus the target speed) must be no greater than 0.1% of the recorded mean no-load governed speed. From this series of two mean feedback speed and torque values, use linear interpolation to determine intermediate values. Use this series of two mean feedback speeds and torques to generate a power map as described in paragraph (e) of this section. Note that the measured maximum test torque as determined in § 1065.610 (b)(1) will be the mean feedback torque recorded on the second point.
(a) Determine minimum dilution ratio based on molar flow data. This involves determination of at least two of the following three quantities: raw exhaust flow (or previously diluted flow), dilution air flow, and dilute exhaust flow. You may determine the raw exhaust flow rate based on the measured intake air or fuel flow rate and the raw exhaust chemical balance terms as given in § 1065.655(f). You may determine the raw exhaust flow rate based on the measured intake air and dilute exhaust molar flow rates and the dilute exhaust chemical balance terms as given in § 1065.655(g). You may alternatively estimate the molar raw exhaust flow rate based on intake air, fuel rate measurements, and fuel properties, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(f) * * *
(2) Use good engineering judgment to determine if substitution weighing is necessary to show that an engine meets the applicable standard. You may follow the substitution weighing procedure in paragraph (j) of this section, or you may develop your own procedure.
(j) Substitution weighing involves measurement of a reference weight before and after each weighing of the PM sampling medium (
(3) Select and weigh a substitution weight that meets the requirements for calibration weights found in § 1065.790. The substitution weight must also have the same density as the weight you use to span the microbalance, and be similar in mass to an unused sample medium (
(4) Record the stable balance reading, then remove the substitution weight.
(5) Weigh an unused sample medium (
(6) Reweigh the substitution weight and record the stable balance reading.
(7) Calculate the arithmetic mean of the two substitution-weight readings that you recorded immediately before and after weighing the unused sample. Subtract that mean value from the unused sample reading, then add the true mass of the substitution weight as stated on the substitution-weight certificate. Record this result. This is the unused sample's tare weight without correcting for buoyancy.
(f) * * *
(1) For an unpaired
(2) For a paired
(j)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Determine the lowest and highest engine speeds corresponding to 98% of
(iii) Determine the engine speed corresponding to maximum power,
(vi) Determine the lowest and highest engine speeds corresponding to the value calculated in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, using linear interpolation as appropriate. Calculate
(2) For engines with a high-speed governor that will be subject to a reference duty cycle that specifies normalized speeds greater than 100%, calculate an alternate maximum test speed,
(b)
(1) For constant speed engines mapped using the methods in § 1065.510(d)(5)(i) or (ii), determine
(i) Determine maximum power,
(ii) Determine the lowest and highest engine speeds corresponding to 98% of
(iii) Determine the engine speed corresponding to maximum power,
(iv) Transform the map into a normalized power-versus-speed map by dividing power terms by
(v) Determine the maximum value for the sum of the squares from the map and multiply that value by 0.98.
(vi) Determine the lowest and highest engine speeds corresponding to the value calculated in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, using linear interpolation as appropriate. Calculate
(vii) The measured
(2) For constant-speed engines using the two-point mapping method in § 1065.510(d)(5)(iii), you may follow paragraph (a)(1) of this section to determine the measured
(3) Transform normalized torques to reference torques according to paragraph (d) of this section by using the measured maximum test torque determined according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section—or use your declared maximum test torque, as allowed in § 1065.510.
(c) * * *
(1)
(2)
(a)
(b)
(1) Calculate PDP volume pumped per revolution,
(2) Calculate a PDP slip correction factor,
(3) Perform a least-squares regression of
(4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section for every speed that you run your PDP.
(5) The following table illustrates a range of typical values for different PDP speeds:
(6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the appropriate regression equation from this paragraph (b) to calculate flow rate during emission testing as described in § 1065.642.
(c)
(1) Calculate molar flow rate,
(2) Using the data collected in § 1065.340, calculate
(3) Determine
(i) For CFV flow meters only, determine
(ii) For any CFV or SSV flow meter, you may use the following equation to calculate
(4) Calculate
(i) For SSV systems only, calculate
(ii) For CFV systems only, calculate
(5) You may apply any of the following simplifying assumptions or develop other values as appropriate for your test configuration, consistent with good engineering judgment:
(i) For raw exhaust, diluted exhaust, and dilution air, you may assume that the gas mixture behaves as an ideal gas:
(ii) For raw exhaust, you may assume
(iii) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume
(iv) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume the molar mass of the mixture,
(v) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume a constant molar mass of the mixture,
You may assume this, using good engineering judgment, if you sufficiently control the amount of water in calibration air and in dilution air or if you remove sufficient water from both calibration air and dilution air. The following table gives examples of permissible ranges of dilution air dewpoint versus calibration air dewpoint:
(6) The following example illustrates the use of the governing equations to calculate
(d)
(1) Calculate the Reynolds number,
Where, using the Sutherland three-coefficient viscosity model:
(2) Create an equation for
(3) Perform a least-squares regression analysis to determine the best-fit coefficients for the equation and calculate
(4) If the equation meets the criterion of
(5) If the equation does not meet the specified statistical criterion, you may use good engineering judgment to omit calibration data points; however you must use at least seven calibration data points to demonstrate that you meet the criterion. For example, this may involve narrowing the range of flow rates for a better curve fit.
(6) Take corrective action if the equation does not meet the specified statistical criterion even after omitting calibration data points. For example, select another mathematical expression for the
(7) Once you have an equation that meets the specified statistical criterion, you may use the equation only for the corresponding range of
(e) * * *
(3) If the standard deviation of all the
This section describes the equations for calculating molar flow rates from various flow meters. After you calibrate a flow meter according to § 1065.640, use the calculations described in this section to calculate flow during an emission test.
(a)
(2) Calculate
(b)
Using Eq. 1065.640-7,
Using Eq. 1065.640-6,
Using Eq. 1065.640-5,
(c)
(1) To calculate
(2) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or a combination of venturis, you may use its respective mean,
(c)
Using Eq. 1065.645-1,
(d)
Using Eq. 1065.645-1,
(c) * * *
(6)
(e) * * *
(2) To calculate an engine's mean steady-state total power,
(f) * * *
(2)
(4)
The following example shows how to calculate mass of emissions using proportional values:
Using Eq. 1065.650-5,
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Use the following equation if you calculate brake-specific emissions over test intervals based on the ratio of mass rate to power as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) A value proportional to total work,
(2) Raw exhaust molar flow rate either from measured intake air molar flow rate or from fuel mass flow rate as described in paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) Raw exhaust molar flow rate from measured intake air molar flow rate and dilute exhaust molar flow rate, as described in paragraph (g) of this section.
(4) The amount of water in a raw or diluted exhaust flow, χ
(5) The calculated total dilution air flow when you do not measure dilution air flow to correct for background emissions as described in § 1065.667(c) and (d).
(c)
(3) Use the following symbols and subscripts in the equations for performing the chemical balance calculations in this paragraph (c):
(d)
(e)
(1) For liquid fuels, use the default values for α, β, γ, and δ in Table 1 of this section or determine mass fractions of liquid fuels for calculation of α, β, γ, and δ as follows:
(i) Determine the carbon and hydrogen mass fractions according to ASTM D5291 (incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010). When using ASTM D5291 to determine carbon and hydrogen mass fractions of gasoline (with or without blended ethanol), use good engineering judgment to adapt the method as appropriate. This may include consulting with the instrument manufacturer on how to test high-volatility fuels. Allow the weight of volatile fuel samples to stabilize for 20 minutes before starting the analysis; if the weight still drifts after 20 minutes, prepare a new sample. Retest the sample if the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen mass fractions do not add up to a total mass of 100 ±0.5%; if you do not measure oxygen, you may assume it has a zero concentration for this specification.
(ii) Determine oxygen mass fraction of gasoline (with or without blended ethanol) according to ASTM D5599 (incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010). For all other liquid fuels, determine the oxygen mass fraction using good engineering judgment.
(iii) Determine the nitrogen mass fraction according to ASTM D4629 or ASTM D5762 (incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010) for all liquid fuels. Select the correct method based on the expected nitrogen content.
(iv) Determine the sulfur mass fraction according to subpart H of this part.
(2) For gaseous fuels and diesel exhaust fluid, use the default values for α, β, γ, and δ in Table 1 of this section, or use good engineering judgment to determine those values based on measurement.
(3) For nonconstant fuel mixtures, you must account for the varying proportions of the different fuels. This generally applies for dual-fuel engines, but it also applies if diesel exhaust fluid is injected in a way that is not strictly proportional to fuel flow. Account for these varying concentrations either with a batch measurement that provides averaged values to represent the test interval, or by analyzing data from continuous mass rate measurements. Application of average values from a batch measurement generally applies to situations where one fluid is a minor component of the total fuel mixture, for example dual-fuel engines with diesel pilot injection, where the diesel pilot fuel mass is less than 5% of the total fuel mass and diesel exhaust fluid injection; consistent with good engineering judgment.
(4) Calculate
(f) * * *
(3)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) For the NMHC determination described in paragraph (b) of this section, correct
(3) For the NMNEHC determination described in paragraph (c) of this section, correct
(4) For the CH
(b) * * *
(3) For a GC-FID or FTIR, calculate
(4) For an FTIR, calculate
(c)
(1) If the content of your test fuel contains less than 0.010 mol/mol of ethane, you may omit the calculation of NMNEHC concentrations and calculate the mass of NMNEHC as described in § 1065.650(c)(6).
(2) For a GC-FID or FTIR, calculate
(3) For an FTIR, calculate
(d)
(1) For nonmethane cutters, calculate
(i) Use the following equation for penetration fractions determined using an NMC configuration as outlined in § 1065.365(d):
(ii) For penetration fractions determined using an NMC configuration as outlined in § 1065.365(e), use the following equation:
(iii) For penetration fractions determined using an NMC configuration as outlined in § 1065.365(f), use the following equation:
(2) For a GC-FID or FTIR,
(e)
(a) If you measured an oxygenated hydrocarbon's mass concentration, first calculate its molar concentration in the exhaust sample stream from which the sample was taken (raw or diluted exhaust), and convert this into a C
(b) If we require you to determine nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent (NMHCE), use the following equation:
(c) You may determine the total flow of dilution air by subtracting the calculated raw exhaust molar flow as described in § 1065.655(g) from the measured dilute exhaust flow. This may be done by totaling continuous calculations or by using batch results.
(d) Calculate quench as follows:
This section describes how to calculate and apply emission adjustment factors for engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events that may occur during testing. These adjustment factors are typically calculated based on measurements conducted for the purposes of engine certification, and then used to adjust the results of testing related to demonstrating compliance with emission standards. For this section, “regeneration” means an intended event during which emission levels change while the system restores aftertreatment performance. For example, exhaust gas temperatures may increase temporarily to remove sulfur from adsorbers or to oxidize accumulated particulate matter in a trap. Also, “infrequent” refers to regeneration events that are expected to occur on average less than once over a transient or ramped-modal duty cycle, or on average less than once per mode in a discrete-mode test.
(a) Apply adjustment factors based on whether there is active regeneration during a test segment. The test segment may be a test interval or a full duty cycle, as described in paragraph (b) of this section. For engines subject to standards over more than one duty cycle, you must develop adjustment factors under this section for each separate duty cycle. You must be able to identify active regeneration in a way that is readily apparent during all testing. All adjustment factors for regeneration are additive.
(1) If active regeneration does not occur during a test segment, apply an upward adjustment factor,
(2) If active regeneration occurs or starts to occur during a test segment, apply a downward adjustment factor,
(3) Note that emissions for a given pollutant may be lower during regeneration, in which case
(4) Calculate the average emission factor,
(5) The frequency of regeneration,
(6) Use good engineering judgment to determine
(i) For engines that are programmed to regenerate after a specific time interval, you may determine the duration of a regeneration event and the time between regeneration events based on the engine's design parameters. For other engines, determine these values based on measurements from in-use operation or from running repetitive duty cycles in a laboratory.
(ii) For engines subject to standards over multiple duty cycles, such as for transient and steady-state testing, apply this same calculation to determine a value of
(iii) Consider an example for an engine that is designed to regenerate its PM filter 500 minutes after the end of the last regeneration event, with the regeneration event lasting 30 minutes. If the RMC takes 28 minutes,
(b) Develop adjustment factors for different types of testing as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Determine the frequency of regeneration,
(ii) Treat cold-start testing and hot-start testing together as a single test segment for adjusting measured emission results under this section. Apply the adjustment factor to the composite emission result.
(iii) You may apply the adjustment factor only to the hot-start test result if your aftertreatment technology does not regenerate during cold operation as represented by the cold-start transient duty cycle. If we ask for it, you must demonstrate this by engineering analysis or by test data.
(c) If an engine has multiple regeneration strategies, determine and apply adjustment factors under this section separately for each type of regeneration.
(c)
(a) Use commercially available diesel exhaust fluid that represents the product that will be used in your in-use engines.
(b) Diesel exhaust fluid for testing must generally conform to the specifications referenced in the definition of “diesel exhaust fluid” in § 1065.1001. Use marine-grade diesel exhaust fluid only for marine engines.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(xii) CH
(xiii) CH
The added and revised definitions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(f) * * *
(2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar masses of chemical species:
(b)
(1) ASTM D86-12, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, approved December 1, 2012 (“ASTM D86”), IBR approved for §§ 1065.703(b) and 1065.710(b) and (c).
(2) ASTM D93-13, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, approved July 15, 2013 (“ASTM D93”), IBR approved for § 1065.703(b).
(3) ASTM D130-12, Standard Test Method for Corrosiveness to Copper from Petroleum Products by Copper Strip Test, approved November 1, 2012 (“ASTM D130”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(4) ASTM D381-12, Standard Test Method for Gum Content in Fuels by Jet Evaporation, approved April 15, 2012 (“ASTM D381”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(5) ASTM D445-12, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity), approved April 15, 2012 (“ASTM D445”), IBR approved for § 1065.703(b).
(6) ASTM D525-12a, Standard Test Method for Oxidation Stability of Gasoline (Induction Period Method), approved September 1, 2012 (“ASTM D525”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(7) ASTM D613-13, Standard Test Method for Cetane Number of Diesel Fuel Oil, approved December 1, 2013 (“ASTM D613”), IBR approved for § 1065.703(b).
(8) ASTM D910-13a, Standard Specification for Aviation Gasolines, approved December 1, 2013 (“ASTM D910”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(9) ASTM D975-13a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, approved December 1, 2013 (“ASTM D975”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(10) ASTM D1267-12, Standard Test Method for Gage Vapor Pressure of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases (LP-Gas Method), approved November 1, 2012 (“ASTM D1267”), IBR approved for § 1065.720(a).
(11) ASTM D1319-13, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, approved May 1, 2013 (“ASTM D1319”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(c).
(12) ASTM D1655-13a, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels, approved December 1, 2013 (“ASTM D1655”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(13) ASTM D1837-11, Standard Test Method for Volatility of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, approved October 1, 2011 (“ASTM D1837”), IBR approved for § 1065.720(a).
(14) ASTM D1838-12a, Standard Test Method for Copper Strip Corrosion by Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, approved December 1, 2012 (“ASTM D1838”), IBR approved for § 1065.720(a).
(15) ASTM D1945-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, approved January 1, 2010 (“ASTM D1945”), IBR approved for § 1065.715(a).
(16) ASTM D2158-11, Standard Test Method for Residues in Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, approved January 1, 2011 (“ASTM D2158”), IBR approved for § 1065.720(a).
(17) ASTM D2163-07, Standard Test Method for Determination of Hydrocarbons in Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases and Propane/Propene Mixtures by Gas Chromatography, approved December 1, 2007 (“ASTM D2163”), IBR approved for § 1065.720(a).
(18) ASTM D2598-12, Standard Practice for Calculation of Certain Physical Properties of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases from Compositional Analysis, approved November 1, 2012 (“ASTM D2598”), IBR approved for § 1065.720(a).
(19) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, approved February 15, 2010 (“ASTM D2622”), IBR approved for §§ 1065.703(b) and 1065.710(b) and (c).
(20) ASTM D2699-13b, Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved October 1, 2013 (“ASTM D2699”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(21) ASTM D2700-13b, Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved October 1, 2013 (“ASTM D2700”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(22) ASTM D2713-13, Standard Test Method for Dryness of Propane (Valve Freeze Method), approved October 1, 2013 (“ASTM D2713”), IBR approved for § 1065.720(a).
(23) ASTM D2784-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Liquefied Petroleum Gases (Oxy-Hydrogen Burner or Lamp), approved January 1, 2011 (“ASTM D2784”), IBR approved for § 1065.720(a).
(24) ASTM D2880-13b, Standard Specification for Gas Turbine Fuel Oils, approved November 15, 2013 (“ASTM D2880”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(25) ASTM D2986-95a, Standard Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay Media by the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test, approved September 10, 1995 (“ASTM D2986”), IBR approved for § 1065.170(c). (Note: This standard was withdrawn by ASTM.)
(26) ASTM D3231-13, Standard Test Method for Phosphorus in Gasoline, approved June 15, 2013 (“ASTM D3231”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b) and (c).
(27) ASTM D3237-12, Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline By Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, approved June 1, 2012 (“ASTM D3237”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b) and (c).
(28) ASTM D4052-11, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter, approved October 15, 2011 (“ASTM D4052”), IBR approved for § 1065.703(b).
(29) ASTM D4629-12, Standard Test Method for Trace Nitrogen in Liquid Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Syringe/Inlet Oxidative Combustion and Chemiluminescence Detection, approved April 15, 2012 (“ASTM D4629”), IBR approved for § 1065.655(e).
(30) ASTM D4814-13b, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved December 1, 2013 (“ASTM D4814”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(31) ASTM D4815-13, Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C
(32) ASTM D5186-03 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Determination of the Aromatic Content and Polynuclear Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuels and Aviation Turbine Fuels By Supercritical Fluid Chromatography, approved April 15, 2009 (“ASTM D5186”), IBR approved for § 1065.703(b).
(33) ASTM D5191-13, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method), approved December 1, 2013 (“ASTM D5191”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b) and (c).
(34) ASTM D5291-10, Standard Test Methods for Instrumental Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products and Lubricants, approved May 1, 2010 (“ASTM D5291”), IBR approved for § 1065.655(e).
(35) ASTM D5453-12, Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence, approved November 1, 2012 (“ASTM D5453”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(36) ASTM D5599-00 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection, approved October 1, 2010 (“ASTM D5599”), IBR approved for §§ 1065.655(e) and 1065.710(b).
(37) ASTM D5762-12 Standard Test Method for Nitrogen in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Boat-Inlet Chemiluminescence, approved April 15, 2012 (“ASTM D5762”), IBR approved for § 1065.655(e).
(38) ASTM D5769-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, approved May 1, 2010 (“ASTM D5769”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(39) ASTM D5797-13, Standard Specification for Fuel Methanol (M70- M85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, approved June 15, 2013 (“ASTM D5797”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(40) ASTM D5798-13a, Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, approved June 15, 2013 (“ASTM D5798”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(41) ASTM D6348-12
(42) ASTM D6550-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography, approved October 1, 2010 (“ASTM D6550”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(43) ASTM D6615-11a, Standard Specification for Jet B Wide-Cut Aviation Turbine Fuel, approved October 1, 2011 (“ASTM D6615”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(44) ASTM D6751-12, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, approved August 1, 2012 (“ASTM D6751”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f).
(45) ASTM D6985-04a, Standard Specification for Middle Distillate Fuel Oil—Military Marine Applications, approved November 1, 2004 (“ASTM D6985”), IBR approved for § 1065.701(f). (
(46) ASTM D7039-13, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline, Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel, Kerosine, Biodiesel, Biodiesel Blends, and Gasoline-Ethanol Blends by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, approved September 15, 2013 (“ASTM D7039”), IBR approved for § 1065.710(b).
(47) ASTM F1471-09, Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High- Efficiency Particulate Air Filter System, approved March 1, 2009 (“ASTM F1471”), IBR approved for § 1065.1001.
(e)
(1) ISO 2719:2002, Determination of flash point—Pensky-Martens closed cup method (“ISO 2719”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(2) ISO 3016:1994, Petroleum products—Determination of pour point (“ISO 3016”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(3) ISO 3104:1994/Cor 1:1997, Petroleum products—Transparent and opaque liquids—Determination of kinematic viscosity and calculation of dynamic viscosity (“ISO 3104”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(4) ISO 3675:1998, Crude petroleum and liquid petroleum products—Laboratory determination of density—Hydrometer method (“ISO 3675”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(5) ISO 3733:1999, Petroleum products and bituminous materials—Determination of water—Distillation method (“ISO 3733”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(6) ISO 6245:2001, Petroleum products—Determination of ash (“ISO 6245”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(7) ISO 8217:2012(E), Petroleum products—Fuels (class F)—Specifications of marine fuels, Fifth edition, August 15, 2012 (“ISO 8217”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(b) and (c).
(8) ISO 8754:2003, Petroleum products—Determination of sulfur content—Energy-dispersive X-ray Fluorescence spectrometry (“ISO 8754”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(9) ISO 10307-2(E):2009, Petroleum products—Total sediment in residual fuel oils—Part 2: Determination using standard procedures for ageing, Second Ed., February 1, 2009 (“ISO 10307”), as modified by ISO 10307-2:2009/Cor.1:2010(E), Technical Corrigendum 1, published May 15, 2010, IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(10) ISO 10370:1993/Cor 1:1996, Petroleum products—Determination of carbon residue—Micro method (“ISO 10370”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(11) ISO 10478:1994, Petroleum products—Determination of aluminium and silicon in fuel oils—Inductively coupled plasma emission and atomic absorption spectroscopy methods (“ISO 10478”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(12) ISO 12185:1996/Cor 1:2001, Crude petroleum and petroleum products—Determination of density—Oscillating U-tube method (“ISO 12185”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(13) ISO 14596:2007, Petroleum products—Determination of sulfur content—Wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (“ISO 14596”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(14) ISO 14597:1997, Petroleum products—Determination of vanadium and nickel content—Wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (“ISO 14597”), IBR approved for § 1065.705(c).
(15) ISO 14644-1:1999, Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments (“ISO 14644”), IBR approved for § 1065.190(b).
(a)
(c) * * *
(4) Use a hydrophobic sorbent in a sealed sorbent module. Note that this sorbent module is intended to be the final stage for collecting the SVOC sample and should be sized accordingly. We recommend sizing the module to hold 40 g of XAD-2 along with PUF plugs at either end of the module, noting that you may vary the mass of XAD used for testing based on the anticipated SVOC emission concentration and sample flow rate.
(a) * * *
(1) For capturing PM, we recommend using pure quartz filters with no binder if you are not analyzing separately for SVOCs in gas and particle phases. If you are analyzing separately, you must use polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters with PTFE support. Select the filter diameter to minimize filter change intervals, accounting for the expected PM emission rate, sample flow rate. Note that when repeating test cycles to increase sample mass, you may replace the filter without replacing the sorbent or otherwise disassembling the batch sampler. In those cases, include all filters in the extraction.
(2) For capturing gaseous SVOCs, utilize XAD-2 resin with or without PUF plugs. Note that two PUF plugs are typically used to contain the XAD-2 resin in the sorbent module.
(b)
(a) * * *
(1) Remove the PM filter, PUF plugs, and all the XAD-2 from the sampling system and store them at or below 5 °C until analysis.
(b) * * *
(4) After completing the initial extraction, remove the solvent and concentrate it to (4.0 ±0.5) ml using a Kuderna-Danish concentrator that includes a condenser such as a three-ball Snyder column with venting dimples and a graduated collection tube. Hold the water bath temperature at (75 to 80) °C. Using this concentrator will minimize evaporative loss of analytes with lower molecular weight.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(c) * * *
(2) You may use a road-speed modulated fan system meeting the specifications of this paragraph (c)(2) for anything other than SC03 and AC17 testing. Use a road-speed modulated fan that achieves a linear speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within ±3.0 mi/hr (±1.3 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mi/hr, and within ±6.5 mi/hr (±2.9 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed at higher vehicle speeds; however you may limit the fan's maximum linear speed to 70 mi/hr. We recommend that the cooling fan have a minimum opening of 0.2 m
(i) Verify the air flow velocity for fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mi/hr using an instrument that has an accuracy of ±2% of the measured air flow speed.
(iv) Verify that the uniformity of the fan's axial flow is constant across the discharge area within a tolerance of ±4.0
(v) Use a multi-axis flow meter or another method to verify that the fan's air flow perpendicular to the axial air flow is less than 15% of the axial air flow, consistent with good engineering judgment. Demonstrate this by comparing the perpendicular air flow velocity to the mean air flow velocities determined in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section at vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mi/hr.
(5) * * *
(i) Air flow volumes must be proportional to vehicle speed. Select a fan size that will produce a flow volume of approximately 45 m
(iii) Use a multi-axis flow meter or another method to verify that the fan's air flow perpendicular to the axial air flow is less than 10% of the axial air flow, consistent with good engineering judgment. Demonstrate this by comparing the perpendicular air flow velocity to the mean air flow velocities determined in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section at vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mi/hr.
(d)
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Minimize lengths of laboratory exhaust tubing. You may use a total length of laboratory exhaust tubing up to 4 m without needing to heat or insulate the tubing. However, you may use a total length of laboratory exhaust tubing up to 10 m, or up to 15 m for samples not involving PM measurement, if you insulate and/or heat the tubing to minimize the temperature difference between the exhaust gas and the whole tubing wall over the course of the emission test. The laboratory exhaust tubing starts at the end of the vehicle's tailpipe and ends at the first sample point or the first dilution point. The laboratory exhaust tubing may include flexible sections, but we recommend that you limit the amount of flexible tubing to the extent practicable. For multiple-tailpipe configurations where the tailpipes combine into a single flow path for emission sampling, the start of the laboratory exhaust tubing may be taken at the last joint where the exhaust flow first becomes a single, combined flow.
(ii) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, you may shorten the tailpipe up to the outlet of the last aftertreatment device or silencer, whichever is furthest downstream.
(vii) Electrically ground the entire exhaust system, with the exception of nonconductive flexible tubing, as allowed under paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) You may sample background PM from the dilution tunnel at any time before or after an emission test using the same sampling system used during the emission test. For this background sampling, the dilution tunnel blower must be turned on, the vehicle must be disconnected from the laboratory exhaust tubing, and the laboratory exhaust tubing must be capped. You may run this PM blank test in combination with the dilute exhaust flow verification (propane check) in 40 CFR 1065.341, as long as the exhaust tubing inlet to the CVS has a filter meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 1065.140(b)(3).
(iii) * * *
(C) You may use a higher target filter face velocity as specified in 40 CFR 1065.170(c)(1)(vi), up to 140 cm/s, if you need to increase filter loading for PM measurement.
(c) The following table summarizes the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
(d) * * *
(1) Raw exhaust static pressure control.
The revisions read as follows:
(e)
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter,
(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (f)(6) and (7) of this section to record data at a minimum of six restrictor positions ranging from the wide-open restrictor position to the minimum expected pressure at the PDP inlet or the maximum expected differential (outlet minus inlet) pressure across the PDP during testing.
(13) During emission testing ensure that the PDP is not operated either below the lowest inlet pressure point or above the highest differential pressure point in the calibration data.
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter,
(11) Use the SSV only between the minimum and maximum calibrated
(h)
(6) * * *
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter,
(7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the downstream pressure to decrease the differential pressure across the CFV,
(9) Determine
(10) Use
(d) * * *
(3) The load applied by the dynamometer simulates forces acting on the vehicle during normal driving according to the following equation:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Set the dynamometer to speed-control mode. Set the dynamometer speed to a value of approximately 4.5 m/s (10 mi/hr); record the output of the frequency counter after 10 seconds. Determine the roll speed,
(2) * * *
(i) Set the dynamometer to speed-control mode. Set the dynamometer speed to a speed value of approximately 4.5 m/s (10 mi/hr). Tune the stroboscope or photo tachometer until the signal matches the dynamometer roll speed. Record the frequency. Determine the roll speed,
(c)
(c) * * *
(1) Warm up the dynamometer according to the dynamometer manufacturer's instructions. Set the dynamometer's road-load inertia to zero, turning off any electrical simulation of road load and inertia so that the base inertia of the dynamometer is the only inertia present. Motor the rolls to 5 mi/hr. Apply a constant force to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 (mi/hr)/s. Measure the elapsed time to accelerate from 10 to 40 mi/hr, noting the corresponding speed and time points to the nearest 0.01 mi/hr and 0.01 s. Also determine mean force over the measurement interval.
(2) Starting from a steady roll speed of 45 mi/hr, apply a constant force to the roll to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mi/hr/s. Measure the elapsed time to decelerate from 40 to 10 mi/hr, noting the corresponding speed and time points to the nearest 0.01 mi/hr and 0.01 s. Also determine mean force over the measurement interval.
(5) Determine the base inertia,
(c) * * *
(3) Set the dynamometer inertia to the base inertia with the road-load coefficients A, B, and C set to 0. Set the dynamometer to speed-control mode with a target speed of 50 mi/hr or a higher speed recommended by the dynamometer manufacturer. Once the speed stabilizes at the target speed, switch the dynamometer from speed-control to torque-control and allow the roll to coast for 60 seconds. Record the initial and final speeds and the corresponding start and stop times. If friction compensation is executed perfectly, there will be no change in speed during the measurement interval.
(4) Calculate the power equivalent of friction compensation error,
(c)
(1) Set up start and stop frequencies specific to your dynamometer by identifying the roll-revolution frequency,
(2) Program the dynamometer to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mi/hr/s from 10 mi/hr to 40 mi/hr. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate for each run,
(3) Program the dynamometer to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 (mi/hr)/s from 40 mi/hr to 10 mi/hr. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate,
(4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section for additional acceleration and deceleration rates in 1 (mi/hr)/s increments up to and including one increment above the maximum acceleration rate expected during testing. Average the five repeat runs to calculate a mean acceleration rate,
(5) Compare each mean acceleration rate,
(d)
(1) Calculate the force setting,
(2) Set the dynamometer to road-load mode and program it with a calculated force to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 (mi/hr)/s from 10 mi/hr to 40 mi/hr. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate,
(3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (d)(2) of this section for additional acceleration and deceleration rates as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(4) Compare each mean acceleration rate,
(c) * * *
(2) With the dynamometer in coastdown mode, set the dynamometer inertia for the smallest vehicle weight that you expect to test and set A, B, and C road-load coefficients to values typical of those used during testing. Program the dynamometer to coast down over the dynamometer operational speed range (typically from a speed of 80 mi/hr through a minimum speed at or below 10 mi/hr). Perform at least one coastdown run over this speed range, collecting data over each 10 mi/hr interval.
(4) Determine the average coastdown force,
(6) Compare the mean value of the coastdown force measured for each speed interval and inertia setting,
(d) * * *
(1) For vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, the maximum allowable error,
(c) * * *
(1) With the dynamometer in coastdown mode, set the dynamometer inertia to the base inertia with the road-load coefficient A set to 20 lbf (or a force that results in a coastdown time of less than 10 minutes) and coefficients B and C set to 0. Program the dynamometer to coast down for one 10 mi/hr interval from 55 mi/hr down to 45 mi/hr. If your dynamometer is not capable of performing one discrete coastdown, then coast down with preset 10 mi/hr intervals that include a 55 mi/hr to 45 mi/hr interval.
Vehicle testing on a chassis dynamometer involves simulating the road-load force, which is the sum of forces acting on a vehicle from aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and other effects of friction. Determine dynamometer settings to simulate road-
(a) For motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, develop representative road-load coefficients to characterize each vehicle covered by a certificate of conformity. Calculate road-load coefficients by performing coastdown tests using the provisions of SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in § 1066.1010). This protocol establishes a procedure for determination of vehicle road load force for speeds between 115 and 15 km/hr (71.5 and 9.3 mi/hr); the final result is a model of road-load force (as a function of speed) during operation on a dry, level road under reference conditions of 20 °C, 98.21 kPa, no wind, no precipitation, and the transmission in neutral. You may use other methods that are equivalent to SAE J2263, such as equivalent test procedures or analytical modeling, to characterize road load using good engineering judgment. Determine dynamometer settings to simulate the road-load profile represented by these road-load target coefficients as described in § 1066.315. Supply representative road-load forces for each vehicle at speeds above 15 km/hr (9.3 mi/hr), and up to 115 km/hr (71.5 mi/hr), or the highest speed from the range of applicable duty cycles.
This section describes coastdown procedures that are unique to vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. These procedures are valid for calculating road-load coefficients for chassis and post-transmission powerpack testing. These procedures are also valid for calculating drag area (
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) We recommend that you do not perform coastdown testing on days for which winds are forecast to exceed 6.0 mi/hr.
(2) Operate the vehicle at a top speed above 70 mi/hr, or at its maximum achievable speed if it cannot reach 70 mi/hr. If a vehicle is equipped with a vehicle speed limiter that is set for a maximum speed below 70 mi/hr, you must disable the vehicle speed limiter. Start the test at or above 70 mi/hr, or at the vehicle's maximum achievable speed if it cannot reach 70 mi/hr. Collect data through a minimum speed at or below 15 mi/hr. Data analysis for valid coastdown runs must include the range of vehicle speeds specified in this paragraph (b)(2).
(6) All valid coastdown run times in each direction must be within 2.0 standard deviations of the mean of the valid coastdown run times (from the specified maximum speed down to 15 mi/hr) in that direction. Eliminate runs outside this range. After eliminating these runs you must have at least eight valid runs in each direction. You may use coastdown run times that do not meet these standard deviation requirements if we approve it in advance. In your request, describe why the vehicle is not able to meet the specified standard deviation requirements and propose an alternative set of requirements.
(7) * * *
(ii) Determine drag area,
(A) Measure vehicle speed at fixed intervals over the coastdown run (generally at 10 Hz), including speeds at or above 15 mi/hr and at or below the specified maximum speed. Establish the elevation corresponding to each interval as described in SAE J2263 if you need to incorporate the effects of road grade.
(B) Calculate the vehicle's effective mass,
(D) Plot the data from all the coastdown runs on a single plot of
(E) Calculate drag area,
(c) Record the vehicle's speed trace based on the time and speed data from the dynamometer at the recording frequencies given in Table 1 of § 1066.125. Record speed to at least the nearest 0.01 mi/hr and time to at least the nearest 0.1 s.
(h) Determine equivalent test weight as follows:
(e) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) For vehicles with manual transmission, shift gears in a way that represents reasonable shift patterns for in-use operation, considering vehicle speed, engine speed, and any other relevant variables. Disengage the clutch when the speed drops below 15 mi/hr, when engine roughness is evident, or when good engineering judgment indicates the engine is likely to stall. Manufacturers may recommend shift guidance in the owners manual that differs from the shift schedule used during testing, as long as both shift schedules are described in the application for certification; in this case, we may shift during testing as described in the owners manual.
(b) * * *
(1) The upper limit is 2.0 mi/hr higher than the highest point on the trace within 1.0 s of the given point in time.
(2) The lower limit is 2.0 mi/hr lower than the lowest point on the trace within 1.0 s of the given time.
(3) The same limits apply for vehicle operation without exhaust measurements, such as vehicle preconditioning and warm-up, except that the upper and lower limits for speed values are ±4.0 mi/hr. In addition, up to three occurrences of speed variations greater than the tolerance are acceptable for vehicle operation in which no exhaust emission standards apply, as long as they occur for less than 15 seconds on any occasion and are clearly documented as to the time and speed at that point of the driving schedule.
(c) Perform the following sequence of preliminary calculations to correct recorded concentration measurements before calculating mass emissions in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section:
(d) Calculate g/mile emission rates using the following equation unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise:
(e) Calculate the emission mass of each gaseous pollutant using the following equation:
(f) Calculation of the emission mass of PM,
(1) Except as otherwise specified in this paragraph (f), calculate
(2) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in § 1066.815(b)(4)(i) or (b)(4)(ii) (for constant volume samplers), calculate
(3) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in § 1066.815(b)(4)(ii) (for partial flow dilution systems), calculate
(4) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in § 1066.815(b)(5)(i) or (b)(5)(ii) (for constant volume samplers), calculate
(5) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in § 1066.815(b)(5)(ii) (for partial flow dilution systems), calculate
(g) This paragraph (g) describes how to correct flow and flow rates to standard reference conditions and provides an example for determining
(1) Correct flow and flow rates to standard reference conditions as needed using the following equation:
(2) The following example provides a determination of
Using Eq. 1066.605-8:
Using Eq. 1066.605-8:
Using Eq. 1066.605-8:
Using Eq. 1066.605-8:
(h) Calculate total flow volume over a test interval,
(1)
(i) We consider the following to be examples of varying flows that require a continuous multiplication of concentration times flow rate: raw exhaust, exhaust diluted with a constant flow rate of dilution air, and CVS dilution with a CVS flow meter that does not have an upstream heat exchanger or electronic flow control.
(ii) We consider the following to be examples of constant exhaust flows: CVS diluted exhaust with a CVS flow meter that has an upstream heat exchanger, an electronic flow control, or both.
(2)
(i)
Using Eq. 1066.605-11,
(ii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(a) * * *
(1) Calculate a humidity correction using a time-weighted mean value for ambient humidity over the test interval. Calculate absolute ambient humidity,
This section describes the calculations for calibrating various flow meters based on mass flow rates. Calibrate your flow meter according to 40 CFR 1065.640 instead if you calculate emissions based on molar flow rates.
(a) * * *
(1) Calculate PDP volume pumped per revolution,
(b)
(1) Calculate volume flow rate at standard reference conditions,
(2) * * *
(i) Using the data collected in § 1066.140, calculate
(iv) * * *
(A) For raw exhaust, diluted exhaust, and dilution air, you may assume that the gas mixture behaves as an ideal gas (
(D) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume the molar mass of the mixture,
(v) The following example illustrates the use of the governing equations to calculate
(vi) Calculate the Reynolds number,
Where, using the Sutherland three-coefficient viscosity model:
(vii) Calculate
(xiii) Once you have an equation that meets the specified statistical criterion, you may use the equation only for the corresponding range of
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Calculate an individual
(ii) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the
(iii) If the standard deviation of all the
This section describes the equations for calculating flow rates from various flow meters. After you calibrate a flow meter according to § 1066.625, use the calculations described in this section to calculate flow during an emission test. Calculate flow according to 40 CFR 1065.642 instead if you calculate emissions based on molar flow rates.
(a)
(2) Calculate
(b)
(c)
(1) To calculate
(2) [Reserved]
(a) Determine NMOG by independently measuring alcohols and carbonyls as described in 40 CFR 1065.805 and 1065.845. Use good engineering judgment to determine which alcohols and carbonyls you need to measure. This would typically require you to measure all alcohols and carbonyls that you expect to contribute 1% or more of total NMOG. Calculate the mass of NMOG in the exhaust,
(c) For gasoline containing less than 25% ethanol by volume, you may calculate NMOG from measured NMHC emissions as follows:
(f) Vehicle information as applicable, including identification number, model year, applicable emission standards (including bin standards or family emission limits, as applicable), vehicle model, vehicle class, test group, durability group, engine family, evaporative/refueling emission family, basic engine description (including displacement, number of cylinders, turbocharger/supercharger used, and catalyst type), fuel system (type of fuel injection and fuel tank capacity and location), engine code, GVWR, applicable test weight, inertia weight class, actual curb weight at zero miles, actual road load at 50 mi/hr, transmission class and configuration, axle ratio, odometer reading, idle rpm, and measured drive wheel tire pressure.
(a) * * *
(5) Adjust the dynamometer to simulate vehicle operation on the road at −7 °C as described in § 1066.305(b).
(d) * * *
(3) You may start the preconditioning drive once the fuel in the fuel tank reaches (−12.6 to −1.4) °C. Precondition the vehicle as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) measures the emission effects from aggressive driving and operation with the vehicle's air conditioner. The SFTP is based on a composite of three different test elements. In addition to the FTP, vehicles generally operate over the US06 and SC03 driving schedules as specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, respectively. In the case of heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, SFTP testing involves additional driving over the Hot LA-92 driving schedule as specified in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR part 86, Appendix I, instead of the US06 driving schedule. Note that the US06 driving schedule represents about 8.0 miles of relatively aggressive driving; the SC03 driving schedule represents about 3.6 miles of urban driving with the air conditioner operating; and the hot portion of the LA-92 driving schedule represents about 9.8 miles of relatively aggressive driving for commercial trucks. See § 1066.830.
(3) The Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) is specified in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 600. Note that the HFET represents about 10.2 miles of rural and freeway driving with an average speed of 48.6 mi/hr and a maximum speed of 60.0 mi/hr. See § 1066.840.
(c) For FTP, SFTP, New York City Cycle, HFET, and LA-92 testing, determine road-load forces for each test vehicle at speeds between 9.3 and 71.5 miles per hour. The road-load force must represent vehicle operation on a smooth, level road with no wind or calm winds, no precipitation, an ambient temperature of approximately 20 °C, and atmospheric pressure of 98.21 kPa. You may extrapolate road-load force for speeds below 9.3 mi/hr.
(b)
(4) You may collect PM on a single filter over the cold-start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of the hot-start UDDS using one of the following methods:
(i) Adjust your sampling system flow rate over the filter to weight the filter face velocity over the three intervals of the FTP based on weighting targets of 0.43 for bag 1, 1.0 for bag 2, and 0.57 for bag 3.
(ii) Maintain a constant sampling system flow rate over the filter for all three intervals of the FTP by increasing overall dilution ratios for bag 1 and bag 3. To do this, reduce the sample flow rate from the exhaust (or diluted exhaust) such that the value is reduced to 43% and 57%, respectively, of the bag 2 values. For constant-volume samplers, this requires that you decrease the dilute exhaust sampling rate from the CVS and compensate for that by increasing the amount of secondary dilution air.
(5) You may collect PM on a single filter over the cold-start UDDS and the full hot-start UDDS using one of the following methods:
(i) Adjust your sampling system flow rate over the filter to weight the filter face velocity based on weighting targets of 0.75 for the cold-start UDDS and 1.0 for the hot-start UDDS.
(ii) Maintain a constant sampling system flow rate over the filter for both the cold-start and hot-start UDDS by increasing the overall dilution ratio for the cold-start UDDS. To do this, reduce the sample flow rate from the exhaust (or diluted exhaust) such that the value is reduced to 75% of the hot-start UDDS value. For constant-volume samplers, this requires that you decrease the dilute exhaust sampling rate from the CVS and compensate for that by increasing the amount of secondary dilution air.
(c) Calculate the final composite PM test results as a mass-weighted value,
(1) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in § 1066.815(b)(1), (2), or (3):
(2) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in § 1066.815(b)(4):
(3) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in § 1066.815(b)(5):
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Check the uniformity of radiant energy intensity at least every 500 hours of emitter usage or every 6 months, whichever is sooner, and after any major modifications affecting the solar simulation. Determine uniformity by measuring radiant energy intensity using instruments that meet the specifications described in paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this section at each point of a 0.5 m grid over the vehicle's full footprint, including the edges of the footprint, at an elevation 1 m above the floor. Measured values of radiant energy intensity must be between (722 and 978) W/m
(d) * * *
(8) Use the following equation, or a different equation you develop based on good engineering judgment, to calculate the effective leak diameter,
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) SAE J1263, Road Load Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation Using Coastdown Techniques, revised March 2010, IBR approved for §§ 1066.301(b), 1066.305(a), and 1066.310(b).
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
(a) The provisions of this part apply to everyone with respect to the engine and equipment categories as described in this paragraph (a). They apply to everyone, including owners, operators, parts manufacturers, and persons performing maintenance. Where we identify an engine category, the provisions of this part also apply with respect to the equipment using such engines. This part 1068 applies to different engine and equipment categories as follows:
(1) This part 1068 applies to motor vehicles we regulate under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, to the extent and in the manner specified in 40 CFR parts 85 and 86.
(2) This part 1068 applies for heavy-duty motor vehicles we regulate under 40 CFR part 1037, subject to the provisions of 40 CFR parts 85 and 1037. This includes trailers. This part 1068 applies to other heavy-duty motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines to the extent and in the manner specified in 40 CFR parts 85, 86, and 1036.
(3) This part 1068 applies to highway motorcycles we regulate under 40 CFR part 86, subparts E and F, to the extent and in the manner specified in 40 CFR parts 85 and 86.
(4) This part 1068 applies to aircraft we regulate under 40 CFR part 87 to the extent and in the manner specified in 40 CFR part 87.
(5) This part 1068 applies for locomotives that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 1033. This part 1068 does not apply for locomotives or locomotive engines that were originally manufactured before July 7, 2008, and that have not been remanufactured on or after July 7, 2008.
(6) This part 1068 applies for land-based nonroad compression-ignition engines that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 1039. This part 1068 does not apply for engines certified under 40 CFR part 89.
(7) This part 1068 applies for stationary compression-ignition engines certified using the provisions of 40 CFR parts 89, 94, 1039, and 1042 as described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII.
(8) This part 1068 applies for marine compression-ignition engines that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 1042. This part 1068 does not apply for marine compression-ignition engines certified under 40 CFR part 94.
(9) This part 1068 applies for marine spark-ignition engines that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 1045. This part 1068 does not apply for marine spark-ignition engines certified under 40 CFR part 91.
(10) This part 1068 applies for large nonroad spark-ignition engines that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 1048.
(11) This part 1068 applies for stationary spark-ignition engines certified using the provisions of 40 CFR part 1048 or part 1054, as described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.
(12) This part 1068 applies for recreational engines and vehicles, including snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 1051.
(13) This part applies for small nonroad spark-ignition engines that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 1054. This part 1068 does not apply for nonroad spark-ignition engines certified under 40 CFR part 90.
(14) This part applies for fuel-system components installed in nonroad equipment powered by volatile liquid fuels that are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 1060.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Paragraph (a) of this section identifies the parts of the CFR that define emission standards and other requirements for particular types of engines and equipment. This part 1068 refers to each of these other parts generically as the “standard-setting part.” For example, 40 CFR part 1051 is always the standard-setting part for snowmobiles. Follow the provisions of the standard-setting part if they are different than any of the provisions in this part.
(d) Specific provisions in this part 1068 start to apply separate from the schedule for certifying engines/equipment to new emission standards, as follows:
(1) The provisions of §§ 1068.30 and 1068.310 apply for stationary spark-ignition engines built on or after January 1, 2004, and for stationary compression-ignition engines built on or after January 1, 2006.
(2) The provisions of §§ 1068.30 and 1068.235 apply for the types of nonroad engines/equipment listed in paragraph (a) of this section beginning January 1, 2004, if they are used solely for competition.
(3) The standard-setting part may specify how the provisions of this part 1068 apply for uncertified engines/equipment.
(a) Not all EPA employees may represent the Agency with respect to EPA decisions under this part or the standard-setting part. Only the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or an official to whom the Administrator has delegated specific authority may represent the Agency. For more information, ask for a copy of the relevant sections of the EPA Delegations Manual from the Designated Compliance Officer.
(a) As described in the standard-setting part, we may perform testing on your engines/equipment before we issue a certificate of conformity. This is generally known as confirmatory testing.
(b) If we request it, you must make a reasonable number of production-line engines or pieces of production-line
(c) If your emission-data engine/equipment or production engine/equipment requires special components for proper testing, you must promptly provide any such components to us if we ask for them.
The following definitions apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. All undefined terms have the meaning the Clean Air Act gives to them. The definitions follow:
(1) For determinations related to small manufacturer allowances or other small business provisions, these terms mean all entities considered to be affiliates with your entity under the Small Business Administration's regulations in 13 CFR 121.103.
(2) For all other provisions, these terms mean all of the following:
(i) Parent companies (as defined in this section).
(ii) Subsidiaries (as defined in this section).
(iii) Subsidiaries of your parent company.
(1) For engines, the date on which the crankshaft is installed in an engine block, with the following exceptions:
(i) For engines produced by secondary engine manufacturers under § 1068.262, date of manufacture means the date the engine is received from the original engine manufacturer. You may assign an earlier date up to 30 days before you received the engine, but not before the crankshaft was installed. You may not assign an earlier date if you cannot demonstrate the date the crankshaft was installed.
(ii) Manufacturers may assign a date of manufacture at a point in the assembly process later than the date otherwise specified under this definition. For example, a manufacturer may use the build date printed on the label or stamped on the engine as the date of manufacture.
(2) For equipment, the date on which the engine is installed, unless otherwise specified in the standard-setting part. Manufacturers may alternatively assign a date of manufacture later in the assembly process.
(1) For motor vehicles regulated under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S: Director, Light-Duty Vehicle Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
(2) For compression-ignition engines used in heavy-duty highway vehicles regulated under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, and 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037, and for nonroad and stationary compression-ignition engines or equipment regulated under 40 CFR parts 60, 1033, 1039, and 1042: Director, Diesel Engine Compliance Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
(3) Director, Gasoline Engine Compliance Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
(i) For spark-ignition engines used in heavy-duty highway vehicles regulated under 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, and 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037,
(ii) For highway motorcycles regulated under 40 CFR part 86, subpart E.
(iii) For nonroad and stationary spark-ignition engines or equipment regulated under 40 CFR parts 60, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, and 1060.
(1) A complete engine is a fully assembled engine in its final configuration. In the case of equipment-based standards, an engine is not considered complete until it is installed in the equipment, even if the engine itself is fully assembled.
(2) A partially complete engine is an engine that is not fully assembled or is not in its final configuration. Except where we specify otherwise in this part or the standard-setting part, partially complete engines are subject to the same standards and requirements as complete engines. The following would be considered examples of partially complete engines:
(i) An engine that is missing certain emission-related components.
(ii) A new engine that was originally assembled as a motor-vehicle engine that will be recalibrated for use as a nonroad engine.
(iii) A new engine that was originally assembled as a land-based engine that will be modified for use as a marine propulsion engine.
(iv) A short block consisting of a crankshaft and other engine components connected to the engine block, but missing the head assembly.
(v) A long block consisting of all engine components except the fuel system and an intake manifold.
(vi) In the case of equipment-based standards, a fully functioning engine that is not yet installed in the equipment. For example, a fully functioning engine that will be installed in an off-highway motorcycle or a locomotive is considered partially complete until it is installed in the equipment.
(1) Engine(s) when only engine-based standards apply.
(2) Engine(s) for testing issues when engine-based testing applies.
(3) Engine(s) and equipment when both engine-based and equipment-based standards apply.
(4) Equipment when only equipment-based standards apply.
(5) Equipment for testing issues when equipment-based testing applies.
(1) Any vehicle, vessel, or other type of equipment that is subject to the requirements of this part or that uses an engine that is subject to the requirements of this part. An installed engine is part of the equipment. Motor vehicle trailers are a type of equipment that is subject to the requirements of this part.
(2) Fuel-system components that are subject to an equipment-based standard under this chapter. Installed fuel-system components are also considered part of the engine/equipment to which they are attached.
(1) Except as discussed in paragraph (2) of this definition, a nonroad engine is an internal combustion engine that meets any of the following criteria:
(i) It is (or will be) used in or on a piece of equipment that is self-propelled or serves a dual purpose by both propelling itself and performing another function (such as garden tractors, off-highway mobile cranes and bulldozers).
(ii) It is (or will be) used in or on a piece of equipment that is intended to be propelled while performing its function (such as lawnmowers and string trimmers).
(iii) By itself or in or on a piece of equipment, it is portable or transportable, meaning designed to be and capable of being carried or moved from one location to another. Indicia of transportability include, but are not limited to, wheels, skids, carrying handles, dolly, trailer, or platform.
(2) An internal combustion engine is not a nonroad engine if it meets any of the following criteria:
(i) The engine is used to propel a motor vehicle, an aircraft, or equipment used solely for competition.
(ii) The engine is regulated under 40 CFR part 60, (or otherwise regulated by a federal New Source Performance Standard promulgated under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411)). Note that this criterion does not apply for engines meeting any of the criteria of paragraph (1) of this definition that are voluntarily certified under 40 CFR part 60.
(iii) The engine otherwise included in paragraph (1)(iii) of this definition remains or will remain at a location for more than 12 consecutive months or a shorter period of time for an engine located at a seasonal source. A location is any single site at a building, structure, facility, or installation. For any engine (or engines) that replaces an engine at a location and that is intended to perform the same or similar function as the engine replaced, include the time period
(1) For engine and equipment storage areas or facilities, times during which people other than custodians and security personnel are at work near, and can access, a storage area or facility.
(2) For other areas or facilities, times during which an assembly line operates or any of the following activities occurs:
(i) Testing, maintenance, or service accumulation.
(ii) Production or compilation of records.
(iii) Certification testing.
(iv) Translation of designs from the test stage to the production stage.
(v) Engine or equipment manufacture or assembly.
(1) Manufacturers controlled by the manufacturer of the base engine (or by an entity that also controls the manufacturer of the base engine) are not secondary engine manufacturers; rather, both entities are considered to be one manufacturer for purposes of this part.
(2) This definition applies equally to equipment manufacturers that modify engines. Also, equipment manufacturers that certify to equipment-based standards using engines produced by another company are deemed to be secondary engine manufacturers.
(3) Except as specified in paragraph (2) of this definition, companies importing complete engines into the United States are not secondary engine manufacturers regardless of the procedures and relationships between companies for assembling the engines.
(1) A company that qualifies under the standard-setting part for special provisions for small businesses or small-volume manufacturers.
(2) A company that qualifies as a small business under the regulations adopted by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR 121.201 if the standard-setting part does not establish such qualifying criteria.
This section specifies the provisions that apply when an engine previously used in a nonroad application is subsequently used in an application other than a nonroad application, or when an engine previously used in a stationary application (
(c) A stationary engine does not become a new nonroad engine if it is moved but continues to meet the criteria specified in paragraph (2)(iii) in the definition of “nonroad engine” in § 1068.30 in its new location. For example, a transportable engine that is used in a single specific location for 18 months and is later moved to a second specific location where it will remain for at least 12 months is considered to be a stationary engine in both locations. Note that for stationary engines that are neither portable nor transportable in actual use, the residence-time restrictions in the definition of “nonroad engine” generally do not apply.
This section explains how certain phrases and terms are used in 40 CFR parts 1000 through 1099, especially those used to clarify and explain regulatory provisions.
(a)
(1) A standard is a requirement established by regulation that limits the emissions of air pollutants. Examples of standards include numerical emission standards (such as 0.01 g/kW-hr) and design standards (such as a closed crankcase standard). Compliance with or conformance to a standard is a specific type of requirement, and in some cases a standard may be discussed as a requirement. Thus, a statement about the requirements of a part or section also applies with respect to the standards of the part or section.
(2) The regulations in subchapter U of this chapter apply other requirements in addition to standards. For example, manufacturers are required to keep records and provide reports to EPA.
(3) While requirements state what someone must do, prohibitions state what someone may not do. Prohibitions are often referred to as prohibited acts or prohibited actions. Most penalties apply for violations of prohibitions. A list of prohibitions may therefore include the failure to meet a requirement as a prohibited action.
(4) Allowances provide some form of relief from requirements. This may include provisions delaying implementation, establishing exemptions or test waivers, or creating alternative compliance options. Allowances may be conditional. For example, we may exempt you from certain requirements on the condition that you meet certain other requirements.
(5) The regulations in subchapter U of this chapter also include important provisions that are not standards, requirements, prohibitions, or allowances, such as definitions.
(6) Engines/equipment are generally considered “
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
The revisions read as follows:
(a) During the 12 months following the effective date of any change in the provisions of this part, you may ask to apply the previously applicable provisions. Note that the effective date is generally 30 or 60 days after publication in the
(e)
(g)
(h)
(1) You must have a contractual agreement with the other company that obligates that company to take the following steps:
(i) Meet the emission warranty requirements that apply under the standard-setting part. This may involve a separate agreement involving reimbursement of warranty-related expenses.
(ii) Report all warranty-related information to the certificate holder.
(2) In your application for certification, identify the company whose trademark you will use.
(3) You remain responsible for meeting all the requirements of this chapter, including warranty and defect-reporting provisions.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must publish a document in the
(b) SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, (724) 776-4841, or
(1) SAE J1930, Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, revised October 2008 (“SAE J1930”), IBR approved for § 1068.45(f).
(2) [Reserved]
This section specifies actions that are prohibited and the maximum civil penalties that we can assess for each violation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7522 and 7524. The maximum penalty values listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and in § 1068.125 apply as of August 1, 2016. As described in paragraph (h) of this section, these maximum penalty limits are different for earlier violations and they may be adjusted as set forth in 40 CFR part 19.
(a) * * *
(1)
(i) For purposes of this paragraph (a)(1), a valid certificate of conformity is one that applies for the same model year as the model year of the equipment (except as allowed by § 1068.105(a)), covers the appropriate category or subcategory of engines/equipment (such as locomotive or sterndrive/inboard Marine SI or nonhandheld Small SI), and conforms to all requirements specified for equipment in the standard-setting part. Engines/equipment are considered not covered by a certificate unless they are in a configuration described in the application for certification.
(ii) The prohibitions of this paragraph (a)(1) also apply for new engines you produce to replace an older engine in a piece of equipment, except that the engines may qualify for the replacement-engine exemption in § 1068.240.
(iii) The prohibitions of this paragraph (a)(1) also apply for new engines that will be installed in equipment subject to equipment-based standards, except that the engines may qualify for an exemption under § 1068.260(c) or § 1068.262.
(iv) Where the regulations specify that you are allowed to introduce engines/equipment into U.S. commerce without a certificate of conformity, you may take any of the otherwise prohibited actions specified in this paragraph (a)(1) with respect to those engines/equipment.
(2)
(3)
(b) * * *
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(h) The maximum penalty values listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section and in § 1068.125 apply as of August 1, 2016. Maximum penalty values for earlier violations are published in 40 CFR part 19. Maximum penalty limits may be adjusted after August 1, 2016 based on the Consumer Price Index. The specific regulatory provisions for changing the maximum penalties, published in 40 CFR part 19, reference the applicable U.S. Code citation on which the prohibited action
(a) Engines/equipment covered by a certificate of conformity are limited to those that are produced during the period specified in the certificate and conform to the specifications described in the certificate and the associated application for certification. For the purposes of this paragraph (a), “specifications” includes the emission control information label and any conditions or limitations identified by the manufacturer or EPA. For example, if the application for certification specifies certain engine configurations, the certificate does not cover any configurations that are not specified. We may ignore any information provided in the application that we determine is not relevant to a demonstration of compliance with applicable regulations, such as your projected production volumes in many cases.
(b) Unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise, determine the production period corresponding to each certificate of conformity as specified in this paragraph (b). In general, the production period is the manufacturer's annual production period identified as a model year.
(1) For engines/equipment subject to emission standards based on model years, the first day of the annual production period can be no earlier than January 2 of the calendar year preceding the year for which the model year is named, or the earliest date of manufacture for any engine/equipment in the engine family, whichever is later. The last day of the annual production period can be no later than December 31 of the calendar year for which the model year is named or the latest date of manufacture for any engine/equipment in the engine family, whichever is sooner. Note that this approach limits how you can designate a model year for your engines/equipment; however, it does not limit your ability to meet more stringent emission standards early where this is permitted in the regulation.
(2) For fuel-system components certified to evaporative emission standards based on production periods rather than model years, the production period is either the calendar year or a longer period we specify consistent with the manufacturer's normal production practices.
(c) A certificate of conformity will not cover engines/equipment you produce with a date of manufacture earlier than the date you submit the application for certification for the family. You may start to produce engines/equipment after you submit an application for certification and before the effective date of a certificate of conformity, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The engines/equipment must conform in all material respects to the engines/equipment described in your application. Note that if we require you to modify your application, you must ensure that all engines/equipment conform to the specifications of the modified application.
(2) The engines/equipment may not be sold, offered for sale, introduced into U.S. commerce, or delivered for introduction into U.S. commerce before the effective date of the certificate of conformity.
(3) You must notify us in your application for certification that you plan to use the provisions of this paragraph (c) and when you intend to start production. If the standard-setting part specifies mandatory testing for production-line engines, you must start testing as directed in the standard-setting part based on your actual start of production, even if that occurs before we approve your certification. You must also agree to give us full opportunity to inspect and/or test the engines/equipment during and after production. For example, we must have the opportunity to specify selective enforcement audits as allowed by the standard-setting part and the Clean Air Act as if the engines/equipment were produced after the effective date of the certificate.
(4) See § 1068.262 for special provisions that apply for secondary engine manufacturers receiving shipment of partially complete engines before the effective date of a certificate.
(d) The prohibition in § 1068.101(a)(1) against offering to sell engines/equipment without a valid certificate of conformity generally does not apply for engines/equipment that have not yet been produced. You may contractually agree to produce engines/equipment before obtaining the required certificate of conformity. This is intended to allow manufacturers of low-volume products to establish a sufficient market for engines/equipment before going through the effort to certify.
(e) Engines/equipment with a date of manufacture after December 31 of the calendar year for which a model year is named are not covered by the certificate of conformity for that model year. You must submit an application for a new certificate of conformity demonstrating compliance with applicable standards even if the engines/equipment are identical to those with a date of manufacture before December 31.
(f) The flexible approach to naming the annual production period described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is intended to allow you to introduce new products at any point during the year. This is based on the expectation that production periods generally run on consistent schedules from year to year. You may not use this flexibility to arrange your production periods such that you can avoid annual certification.
(g) An engine is generally assigned a model year based on its date of manufacture, which is typically based on the date the crankshaft is installed in the engine (see § 1068.30). You may not circumvent the provisions of § 1068.101(a)(1) by stockpiling engines with a date of manufacture before new or changed emission standards take effect by deviating from your normal production and inventory practices. (For purposes of this paragraph (g), normal production and inventory practices means those practices you typically use for similar families in years in which emission standards do not change. We may require you to provide us routine production and inventory records that document your normal practices for the preceding eight years.) For most engines you should plan to complete the assembly of an engine of a given model year into its certified configuration within the first week after the end of the model year if new emission standards start to apply in that model year. For special circumstances it may be appropriate for your normal business practice to involve more time. For engines with per-cylinder displacement below 2.5 liters, if new emission standards start to apply in a given year, we would consider an engine not to be covered by a certificate of conformity for the preceding model year if the engine is not assembled in a compliant configuration within 30 days after the end of the model year for that engine family. (
(h) This paragraph (h) describes the effect of suspending, revoking, or voiding a certificate of conformity. See the definitions of “suspend,” “revoke,” and “void” in § 1068.30. Engines/equipment produced at a time when the otherwise applicable certificate of conformity has been suspended or revoked are not covered by a certificate of conformity. Where a certificate of conformity is void, all engines/equipment produced under that certificate of conformity are not and were not covered by a certificate of conformity. In cases of suspension, engines/equipment will be covered by a certificate only if they are produced after the certificate is reinstated or a new certificate is issued. In cases of revocation and voiding, engines/equipment will be covered by a certificate only if they are produced after we issue a new certificate. 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1) and § 1068.101(a)(1) prohibit selling, offering for sale, introducing into commerce, delivering for introduction into commerce, and importing engines/equipment that are not covered by a certificate of conformity, and they prohibit anyone from causing another to violate these prohibitions.
(i) You may transfer a certificate to another entity only in the following cases:
(1) You may transfer a certificate to a parent company, including a parent company that purchases your company after we have issued your certificate.
(2) You may transfer a certificate to a subsidiary including a subsidiary you purchase after we have issued your certificate.
(3) You may transfer a certificate to a subsidiary of your parent company.
(a)
(c) * * *
(2) Permanently attach the duplicate label to your equipment by securing it to a part needed for normal operation and not normally requiring replacement. Make sure an average person can easily read it. Note that attaching an inaccurate duplicate label may be a violation of § 1068.101(b)(7).
(d)
(f) A rebuilt engine or other used engine may replace a certified engine in a piece of equipment only if the engine was built and/or rebuilt to a certified configuration meeting equivalent or more stringent emission standards. Note that a certified configuration would generally include more than one model year. A rebuilt engine being installed that is from the same model year or a newer model year than the engine being replaced meets this requirement. The following examples illustrate the provisions of this paragraph (f):
(1) In most cases, you may use a rebuilt Tier 2 engine to replace a Tier 1 engine or another Tier 2 engine.
(2) You may use a rebuilt Tier 1 engine to replace a Tier 2 engine if the two engines differ only with respect to model year or other characteristics unrelated to emissions since such engines would be considered to be in the same configuration. This may occur if the Tier 1 engine had emission levels
(3) You may use a rebuilt engine that originally met the Tier 1 standards without certification, as provided under § 1068.265, to replace a certified Tier 1 engine. This may occur for engines produced under a Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers such as that described in 40 CFR 1039.625.
(4) You may never replace a certified engine with an engine rebuilt to a configuration that does not meet EPA emission standards. Note that, for purposes of this paragraph (f)(4), a configuration is considered to meet EPA emission standards if it was previously certified or was otherwise shown to meet emission standards (see § 1068.265).
(5) The standard-setting part may apply further restrictions to situations involving installation of used engines to repower equipment. For example, see 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply for glider vehicles.
(b)
We may exempt new engines/equipment from some or all of the prohibited acts or requirements of this part under provisions described in this subpart. We may exempt nonroad engines/equipment already placed in service in the United States from the prohibition in § 1068.101(b)(1) if the exemption for nonroad engines/equipment used solely for competition applies (see § 1068.235). In addition, see § 1068.1 and the standard-setting parts to determine if other engines/equipment are excluded from some or all of the regulations in this chapter.
(a) This subpart identifies which engines/equipment qualify for exemptions and what information we need. We may require more information.
(c) If you use an exemption under this subpart, we may require you to add a permanent or removable label to your exempted engines/equipment. You may ask us to modify these labeling requirements if it is appropriate for your engine/equipment.
(e) If we approve your request for a testing exemption, we will send you a letter or a memorandum describing the basis and scope of the exemption. It will also include any necessary terms and conditions, which normally require you to do the following:
(1) Stay within the scope of the exemption.
(2) Create and maintain adequate records that we may inspect.
(3) Add a permanent label to all engines/equipment exempted under this section, consistent with § 1068.45, with at least the following items:
(i) The label heading “EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION”.
(ii) Your corporate name and trademark.
(iii) Engine displacement, family identification, and model year of the engine/equipment (as applicable), or whom to contact for further information.
(iv) The statement: “THIS [engine, equipment, vehicle, etc.] IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.210 OR 1068.215 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.”
(4) Tell us when the test program is finished.
(5) Tell us the final disposition of the engines/equipment.
(a) You are eligible for this exemption for manufacturer-owned engines/equipment only if you are a certificate holder. Any engine for which you meet all applicable requirements under this section is exempt without request.
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) The statement: “THIS [engine, equipment, vehicle, etc.] IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.210 OR 1068.215 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.”
(a) Anyone may request an exemption for display engines/equipment.
(b) Nonconforming display engines/equipment will be exempted if they are used only for displays in the interest of a business or the general public. This exemption does not apply to engines/equipment displayed for private use, private collections, or any other purpose we determine is inappropriate for a display exemption.
(c) You may operate the exempted engine/equipment, but only if we approve specific operation that is part of the display, or is necessary for the display (possibly including operation that is indirectly necessary for the display). We may consider any relevant factor in our approval process, including the extent of the operation, the overall emission impact, and whether the engine/equipment meets emission requirements of another country.
(d) You may sell or lease the exempted engine/equipment only with our advance approval.
(e) To use this exemption, you must add a permanent label to all engines/equipment exempted under this section, consistent with § 1068.45, with at least the following items:
(1) The label heading “EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION”.
(2) Your corporate name and trademark.
(3) Engine displacement, family identification, and model year of the engine/equipment (as applicable), or whom to contact for further information.
(4) The statement: “THIS [engine, equipment, vehicle, etc.] IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.220 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.”
(f) We may set other conditions for approval of this exemption.
The standards and requirements of the standard-setting part and the prohibitions in § 1068.101(a)(1) and (b) do not apply to engines exempted under this section.
(a) An engine/equipment is exempt without a request if it will be owned by an agency of the Federal Government responsible for national defense and it meets at least one of the following criteria:
(1) An engine is automatically exempt in cases where the equipment in which it will be installed has armor, permanently attached weaponry, or other substantial features typical of military combat. Similarly, equipment subject to equipment-based standards is automatically exempt if it has any of these same features.
(2) In the case of marine vessels with compression-ignition engines, an engine is automatically exempt if the vessel in which it will be installed has specialized electronic warfare systems, unique stealth performance requirements, or unique combat maneuverability requirements.
(3) Gas turbine engines installed in marine vessels are automatically exempt.
(4) An engine/equipment is automatically exempt if it would need sulfur-sensitive technology to comply with emission standards, and it is intended to be used in areas outside the United States where ultra low-sulfur fuel is unavailable.
(b) For the circumstances described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an engine/equipment is also exempt without a request if it will be used, but not owned, by an agency of the Federal Government responsible for national defense.
(c) Manufacturers may produce and ship engines/equipment under an automatic exemption as described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section if they receive a written request for such engines/equipment from the appropriate federal agency.
(d) Manufacturers may request a national security exemption for engines/equipment not meeting the conditions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section as long as the request is endorsed by an agency of the Federal Government responsible for national defense. In your request, explain why you need the exemption.
(e) Add a permanent label to all engines/equipment exempted under this section, consistent with § 1068.45, with at least the following items:
(1) The label heading “EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION”.
(2) Your corporate name and trademark.
(3) Engine displacement, family identification, and model year of the engine/equipment (as applicable), or whom to contact for further information.
(4) The statement: “THIS [engine, equipment, vehicle, etc.] HAS AN EXEMPTION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY UNDER 40 CFR 1068.225.”
(b) Engines/equipment exported to a country not covered by paragraph (a) of this section are exempt from the prohibited acts in this part without a request. If you produce exempt engines/equipment for export and any of them are sold or offered for sale to an ultimate purchaser in the United States, the exemption is automatically void for those engines/equipment, except as specified in § 1068.201(i). You may operate engines/equipment in the United States only as needed to prepare and deliver them for export.
(c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, label exempted engines/equipment (including shipping containers if the label on the engine/equipment will be obscured by the container) with a label showing that they are not certified for sale or use in the United States. This label may be permanent or removable. See § 1068.45 for provisions related to the use of removable labels and applying labels to containers without labeling individual engines/equipment. The label must include your corporate name and trademark and the following statement: “THIS [engine, equipment, vehicle, etc.] IS SOLELY FOR EXPORT AND IS THEREFORE EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.230 FROM U.S. EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.”
The following provisions apply for nonroad engines/equipment, but not for motor vehicles or for stationary applications:
(a) New nonroad engines/equipment you produce that are used solely for competition are excluded from emission standards. We may exempt (rather than exclude) new nonroad engines/equipment you produce that you intend to be used solely for competition, where we determine that such engines/equipment are unlikely to be used contrary to your intent. See the standard-setting parts for specific provisions where applicable. Note that the definitions in the standard-setting part may deem uncertified engines/equipment to be new upon importation.
(b) If you modify any nonroad engines/equipment after they have been placed into service in the United States so they will be used solely for competition, they are exempt without request. This exemption applies only to the prohibitions in § 1068.101(b)(1) and (2) and are valid only as long as the engine/equipment is used solely for competition. You may not use the provisions of this paragraph (b) to circumvent the requirements that apply to the sale of new competition engines under the standard-setting part.
(c) If you modify any nonroad engines/equipment under paragraph (b) of this section, you must destroy the original emission labels. If you loan, lease, sell, or give any of these engines/equipment to someone else, you must tell the new owner (or operator, if applicable) in writing that they may be used only for competition.
(b) * * *
(3) An old engine block replaced by a new engine exempted under this paragraph (b) may be reintroduced into U.S. commerce as part of an engine that meets either the current standards for new engines, the provisions for new replacement engines in this section, or another valid exemption. Otherwise, you must destroy the old engine block (or confirm that it has been destroyed), or export the engine block without its emission label.
(c) * * *
(1) You may produce a limited number of replacement engines under this paragraph (c) representing 0.5 percent of your annual production volumes for each category and subcategory of engines identified in Table 1 to this section (1.0 percent through 2013). Calculate this number by multiplying your annual U.S.-directed production volume by 0.005 (or 0.01
(3) Send the Designated Compliance Officer a report by September 30 of the year following any year in which you produced exempted replacement engines under this paragraph (c). In your report include the total number of replacement engines you produce under this paragraph (c) for each category or subcategory, as appropriate, and the corresponding total production volumes determined under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If you send us a report under this paragraph (c)(3), you must also include the total number of replacement engines you produced under paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of this section (including any replacement marine engines subject to reporting under 40 CFR 1042.615). Count exempt engines as tracked under paragraph (b) of this section only if you meet all the requirements and conditions that apply under paragraph (b) of this section by the due date for the annual report. You may include the information required under this paragraph (c)(3) in production reports required under the standard-setting part.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) If you do not qualify for using a removable label in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, you must add a permanent label in a readily visible location, though it may be obscured after installation in a piece of equipment. Include on the permanent label your corporate name and trademark, the engine's part number (or other identifying information), and the statement: “THIS REPLACEMENT ENGINE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.240. THIS ENGINE MAY NOT BE INSTALLED IN EQUIPMENT THAT IS MORE THAN 40 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.” If there is not enough space for this statement, you may alternatively add: “REPLACEMENT” or “SERVICE ENGINE.” For purposes of this paragraph (d)(2), engine part numbers permanently stamped or engraved on the engine are considered to be included on the label.
(e)
(g) * * *
(4) A statement describing the engine's status as an exempted engine:
(i) If the engine/equipment does not meet any emission standards, add the following statement: “THIS [engine, equipment, vehicle, etc.] IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.245 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.”
(ii) If the engines/equipment meet alternate emission standards as a condition of an exemption under this section, we may specify a different statement to identify the alternate emission standards.
The revisions read as follows:
(c) Send the Designated Compliance Officer a written request for an extension as soon as possible before you are in violation. In your request, show that all the following conditions and requirements apply:
(k) * * *
(4) A statement describing the engine's status as an exempted engine:
(i) If the engine/equipment does not meet any emission standards, add the following statement:“THIS [engine, equipment, vehicle, etc.] IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 1068.250 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.”
(ii) If the engine/equipment meets alternate emission standards as a condition of an exemption under this section, we may specify a different statement to identify the alternate emission standards.
(a)
Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, all new engines in the United States are presumed to be subject to the prohibitions of § 1068.101, which generally require that all new engines be in a certified configuration before being sold, offered for sale, or introduced or delivered into commerce in the United States or imported into the United States. All emission-related components generally need to be installed on an
(a) The provisions of this paragraph (a) apply for emission-related components that cannot practically be assembled before shipment because they depend on equipment design parameters.
(1) You do not need an exemption to ship an engine that does not include installation or assembly of certain emission-related components if those components are shipped along with the engine. For example, you may generally ship aftertreatment devices along with engines rather than installing them on the engine before shipment. We may require you to describe how you plan to use this provision.
(2) You may ask us at the time of certification for an exemption to allow you to ship your engines without emission-related components. If we allow this, we may specify conditions that we determine are needed to ensure that shipping the engine without such components will not result in the engine being operated outside of its certified configuration. You must identify unshipped parts by specific part numbers if they cannot be properly characterized by performance specification. For example, electronic control units, turbochargers, and EGR coolers must generally be identified by part number. Parts that we believe can be properly characterized by performance specification include air filters, noncatalyzed mufflers, and charge air coolers. See paragraph (d) of this section for additional provisions that apply in certain circumstances.
(b) You do not need an exemption to ship engines without specific components if they are not emission-related components identified in Appendix I of this part. For example, you may generally ship engines without the following parts:
(1) Radiators needed to cool the engine.
(2) Exhaust piping between the engine and an aftertreatment device, between two aftertreatment devices, or downstream of the last aftertreatment device.
(c) If you are a certificate holder, partially complete engines/equipment shipped between two of your facilities are exempt, subject to the provisions of this paragraph (c), as long as you maintain ownership and control of the engines/equipment until they reach their destination. We may also allow this where you do not maintain actual ownership and control of the engines/equipment (such as hiring a shipping company to transport the engines) but only if you demonstrate that the engines/equipment will be transported only according to your specifications. See § 1068.261(b) for the provisions that apply instead of this paragraph (c) for the special case of integrated manufacturers using the delegated-assembly exemption. Notify us of your intent to use this exemption in your application for certification, if applicable. Your exemption is effective when we grant your certificate. You may alternatively request an exemption in a separate submission; for example, this would be necessary if you will not be the certificate holder for the engines in question. We may require you to take specific steps to ensure that such engines/equipment are in a certified configuration before reaching the ultimate purchaser. Note that since this is a temporary exemption, it does not allow you to sell or otherwise distribute to ultimate purchasers an engine/equipment in an uncertified configuration with respect to exhaust emissions. Note also that the exempted engine/equipment remains new and subject to emission standards (see definition of “exempted” in § 1068.30) until its title is transferred to the ultimate purchaser or it otherwise ceases to be new.
(d) See § 1068.261 for delegated-assembly provisions in which certificate-holding manufacturers ship engines that are not yet equipped with certain emission-related components. See § 1068.262 for provisions related to manufacturers shipping partially complete engines for which a secondary engine manufacturer holds the certificate of conformity.
(e) Engines used in hobby vehicles are not presumed to be engines subject to the prohibitions of § 1068.101. Hobby vehicles are reduced-scale models of vehicles that are not capable of transporting a person. Some gas turbine engines are subject to the prohibitions of § 1068.101, but we do not presume that all gas turbine engines are subject to these prohibitions. Other engines that do not have a valid certificate of conformity or exemption when sold, offered for sale, or introduced or delivered into commerce in the United States or imported into the United States are presumed to be engines subject to the prohibitions of § 1068.101 unless we determine that such engines are excluded from the prohibitions of § 1068.101.
(f) While we presume that new non-hobby engines are subject to the prohibitions of § 1068.101, we may determine that a specific engine is not subject to these prohibitions based on information you provide or other information that is available to us. For example, the provisions of this part 1068 and the standard-setting parts provide for exemptions in certain circumstances. Also, some engines may be subject to separate prohibitions under subchapter C instead of the prohibitions of § 1068.101.
(a) Shipping an engine separately from an aftertreatment component that you have specified as part of its certified configuration will not be a violation of the prohibitions in § 1068.101(a)(1) subject to the provisions in this section. We may also require that you apply some or all of the provisions of this section for other components if we determine it is necessary to ensure that shipping the engine without such components will not result in the engine being operated outside of its certified configuration. In making this determination, we will consider the importance of the component for controlling emissions and the likelihood that equipment manufacturers will have an incentive to disregard your emission-related installation instructions based on any relevant factors, such as the cost of the component and any real or perceived expectation of a negative impact on engine or equipment performance.
This section specifies how manufacturers may introduce into U.S. commerce partially complete engines that have an exemption or a certificate of conformity held by a secondary engine manufacturer and are not yet in a certified configuration. See the standard-setting part to determine whether and how the provisions of this section apply. (Note: See § 1068.261 for provisions related to manufacturers introducing into U.S. commerce partially complete engines for which they hold the certificate of conformity.) This exemption is temporary as
(a) The provisions of this section generally apply where the secondary engine manufacturer has substantial control over the design and assembly of emission controls. In unusual circumstances we may allow other secondary engine manufacturers to use these provisions. In determining whether a manufacturer has substantial control over the design and assembly of emission controls, we would consider the degree to which the secondary engine manufacturer would be able to ensure that the engine will conform to the regulations in its final configuration. Such secondary engine manufacturers may finish assembly of partially complete engines in the following cases:
(1) You obtain an engine that is not fully assembled with the intent to manufacture a complete engine.
(2) You obtain an engine with the intent to modify it before it reaches the ultimate purchaser.
(3) You obtain an engine with the intent to install it in equipment that will be subject to equipment-based standards.
(b) Manufacturers may introduce into U.S. commerce partially complete engines as described in this section if they have a written request for such engines from a secondary engine manufacturer that has certified the engine and will finish the engine assembly. The written request must include a statement that the secondary engine manufacturer has a certificate of conformity for the engine and identify a valid engine family name associated with each engine model ordered (or the basis for an exemption if applicable, as specified in paragraph (e) of this section). The original engine manufacturer must apply a removable label meeting the requirements of § 1068.45 that identifies the corporate name of the original manufacturer and states that the engine is exempt under the provisions of § 1068.262. The name of the certifying manufacturer must also be on the label or, alternatively, on the bill of lading that accompanies the engines during shipment. The original engine manufacturer may not apply a permanent emission control information label identifying the engine's eventual status as a certified engine.
(c) If you are the secondary engine manufacturer and you will hold the certificate, you must include the following information in your application for certification:
(1) Identify the original engine manufacturer of the partially complete engine or of the complete engine you will modify.
(2) Describe briefly how and where final assembly will be completed. Specify how you have the ability to ensure that the engines will conform to the regulations in their final configuration. (Note: Paragraph (a) of this section prohibits using the provisions of this section unless you have substantial control over the design and assembly of emission controls.)
(3) State unconditionally that you will not distribute the engines without conforming to all applicable regulations.
(d) If you are a secondary engine manufacturer and you are already a certificate holder for other families, you may receive shipment of partially complete engines after you apply for a certificate of conformity but before the certificate's effective date. In this case, all the provisions of § 1068.103(c)(1) through (3) apply. This exemption allows the original manufacturer to ship engines after you have applied for a certificate of conformity. Manufacturers may introduce into U.S. commerce partially complete engines as described in this paragraph (d) if they have a written request for such engines from a secondary engine manufacturer stating that the application for certification has been submitted (instead of the information we specify in paragraph (b) of this section). We may set additional conditions under this paragraph (d) to prevent circumvention of regulatory requirements. Consistent with § 1068.103(c), we may also revoke an exemption under this paragraph (d) if we have reason to believe that the application for certification will not be approved or that the engines will otherwise not reach a certified configuration before reaching the ultimate purchaser. This may require that you export the engines.
(e) The provisions of this section also apply for shipping partially complete engines if the engine is covered by a valid exemption and there is no valid engine family name that could be used to represent the engine model. Unless we approve otherwise in advance, you may do this only when shipping engines to secondary engine manufacturers that are certificate holders. In this case, the secondary engine manufacturer must identify the regulatory cite identifying the applicable exemption instead of a valid engine family name when ordering engines from the original engine manufacturer.
(f) If secondary engine manufacturers determine after receiving an engine under this section that the engine will not be covered by a certificate or exemption as planned, they may ask us to allow for shipment of the engines back to the original engine manufacturer or to another secondary engine manufacturer. This might occur in the case of an incorrect shipment or excess inventory. We may modify the provisions of this section as appropriate to address these cases.
(g) Both original and secondary engine manufacturers must keep the records described in this section for at least five years, including the written request for engines and the bill of lading for each shipment (if applicable). The written request is deemed to be a submission to EPA and is thus subject to the reporting requirements of § 1068.101(a)(2).
(h) These provisions are intended only to allow secondary engine manufacturers to obtain or transport engines in the specific circumstances identified in this section so any exemption under this section expires when the engine reaches the point of final assembly identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(i) For purposes of this section, an allowance to introduce partially complete engines into U.S. commerce includes a conditional allowance to sell, introduce, or deliver such engines into commerce in the United States or import them into the United States. It does not include a general allowance to offer such partially complete engines for sale because this exemption is intended to apply only for cases in which the certificate holder already has an arrangement to purchase the engines from the original engine manufacturer. This exemption does not allow the original engine manufacturer to subsequently offer the engines for sale to a different manufacturer who will hold the certificate unless that second manufacturer has also complied with the requirements of this part. The exemption does not apply for any individual engines that are not labeled as specified in this section or which are shipped to someone who is not a certificate holder.
(j) We may suspend, revoke, or void an exemption under this section, as follows:
(1) We may suspend or revoke your exemption if you fail to meet the requirements of this section. We may suspend or revoke an exemption related to a specific secondary engine manufacturer if that manufacturer sells engines that are in not in a certified configuration in violation of the regulations. We may disallow this exemption for future shipments to the affected secondary engine manufacturer or set additional conditions to ensure that engines will be assembled in the certified configuration.
(2) We may void an exemption for all the affected engines if you intentionally submit false or incomplete information or fail to keep and provide to EPA the records required by this section.
(3) The exemption is void for an engine that is shipped to a company that is not a certificate holder or for an engine that is shipped to a secondary engine manufacturer that is not in compliance with the requirements of this section.
(4) The secondary engine manufacturer may be liable for causing a prohibited act if voiding the exemption is due to its own actions.
(k) No exemption is needed to import equipment that does not include an engine. No exemption from exhaust emission standards is available under this section for equipment subject to equipment-based standards if the engine has been installed.
(b) In general, engines/equipment that you import must be covered by a certificate of conformity unless they were built before emission standards started to apply. This subpart describes the limited cases where we allow importation of exempt or excluded engines/equipment. If an engine has an exemption from exhaust emission standards, this allows you to import the equipment under the same exemption.
(d) Complete the appropriate EPA declaration before importing any engines or equipment. These forms may be submitted and stored electronically and are available on the Internet at
(e) The standard-setting part may define uncertified engines/equipment to be “new” upon importation, whether or not they have already been placed into service. This may affect how the provisions of this subpart apply for your engines/equipment. (See the definition of “new” and other relevant terms in the standard-setting part.)
(b) * * *
(1) Give your name, address, and telephone number.
(2) Give the engine/equipment owner's name, address, and telephone number.
(a)
(i)
You may import engines/equipment under certain temporary exemptions, subject to the conditions in this section. We may ask U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a specific bond amount to make sure you comply with the requirements of this subpart. You may not sell or lease one of these engines/equipment while it is in the United States except as specified in this section or § 1068.201(i). You must eventually export the engine/equipment as we describe in this section unless it conforms to a certificate of conformity or it qualifies for one of the permanent exemptions in § 1068.315 or the standard-setting part.
(a)
(c)
(d)
(j) * * *
(5) Acknowledge that EPA enforcement officers may conduct inspections or testing as allowed under the Clean Air Act.
(b) This paragraph (b) applies for the importation of engines and equipment that have not been placed into service, where the importation occurs in any calendar year that is more than one year after the named model year of the engine or equipment when emission control requirements applying to current engines are different than for engines or equipment in the named model year, unless they are imported under special provisions for Independent Commercial Importers as allowed under the standard-setting part. Regardless of what other provisions of this subchapter U specify for the model year of the engine or equipment, such engines and equipment are deemed to have an applicable model year no more than one year earlier than the calendar year in which they are imported. For example, a new engine identified as a 2007 model-year product that is imported on January 31, 2010 will be treated as a 2009 model-year engine; the same engine will be treated as a 2010 model-year engine if it is imported any time in calendar year 2011.
(a) We may conduct or require you as a certificate holder to conduct emission tests on production engines/equipment in a selective enforcement audit. This requirement is independent of any requirement for you to routinely test production-line engines/equipment. Where there are multiple entities meeting the definition of manufacturer, we may require manufacturers other than the certificate holder to conduct or participate in the audit as necessary. For products subject to equipment-based standards, but tested using engine-based test procedures, this subpart applies to the engines and/or the equipment, as applicable. Otherwise this subpart applies to engines for products subject to engine-based standards and to equipment for products subject to equipment-based standards.
(b) If we send you a signed test order, you must follow its directions and the provisions of this subpart. We may tell you where to test the engines/equipment. This may be where you produce the engines/equipment or any other emission testing facility. You are responsible for all testing costs whether the testing is conducted at your facility or another facility.
(c) If we select one or more of your families for a selective enforcement audit, we will send the test order to the person who signed the application for certification or we will deliver it in person.
(d) If we do not select a testing facility, notify the Designated Compliance Officer within one working day of receiving the test order where you will test your engines/equipment.
(e) You must do everything we require in the audit without delay. We may suspend or revoke your certificate of conformity for the affected engine families if you do not fulfill your obligations under this subpart.
(a) * * *
(1) The family we have identified for testing. We may also specify individual configurations.
(c) Test at least two engines/equipment in each 24-hour period (including void tests). However, for engines with maximum engine power above 560 kW, you may test one engine per 24-hour period. If you request and justify it, we may approve a lower testing rate.
(d) For exhaust emissions, accumulate service on test engines/equipment at a minimum rate of 6 hours per engine or piece of equipment during each 24-hour period; however, service accumulation to stabilize an engine's emission levels may not take longer than eight days. The first 24-hour period for service accumulation begins when you finish preparing an engine or piece of equipment for testing. The minimum service accumulation rate does not apply on weekends or holidays. We may approve a longer stabilization period or a lower service accumulation rate if you request and justify it. We may require you to accumulate hours more rapidly than the minimum rate, as appropriate. Plan your service accumulation to allow testing at the rate specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Select operation for accumulating operating hours on your test engines/equipment to represent normal in-use operation for the family.
(b) Continue testing engines/equipment until you reach a pass decision for all pollutants or a fail decision for one pollutant, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(e) If you reach a pass decision for one pollutant, but need to continue testing for another pollutant, we will not use these later test results for the pollutant with the pass decision as part of the SEA.
(b) You may ask for a hearing relative to the suspended certificate of conformity for the failing engine/equipment as specified in subpart G of this part.
(c) You may ask for a hearing as described in subpart G of this part up to 15 days after we suspend the certificate for a family. If we agree that we used erroneous information in deciding to suspend the certificate before a hearing is held, we will reinstate the certificate.
(b) We may ask you to add information to your written report, so we can determine whether your new engines/equipment conform to the requirements of this subpart.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Any other component whose failure would commonly increase emissions of any regulated pollutant without significantly degrading engine/equipment performance.
(8) Send all reports required by this section to the Designated Compliance Officer.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) You receive any other information for which good engineering judgment would indicate the component or system may be defective, such as information from dealers, field-service personnel, equipment manufacturers, hotline complaints, in-use testing, or engine diagnostic systems.
(a) If we make a determination that a substantial number of properly maintained and used engines/equipment within a given class or category do not conform to the regulations of this chapter during their useful life, you must submit a plan to remedy the nonconformity of your engines/equipment. We will notify you of our determination in writing. Our notice will identify the class or category of engines/equipment affected and describe how we reached our conclusion. If this happens, you must meet the requirements and follow the instructions in this subpart. You must remedy at your expense all engines/equipment that experienced the nonconformity during the useful life in spite of being properly maintained and used, as described in § 1068.510(a)(7), regardless of their age or extent of service accumulation at the time of repair. You may not transfer this expense to a dealer (or equipment manufacturer for engine-based standards) through a franchise or other agreement.
(c) Unless we withdraw the determination of noncompliance, you must respond to it by sending a remedial plan to the Designated Compliance Officer. We will designate a date by which you must send us the remedial plan; the designated date will be no sooner than 45 days after we notify you, and no sooner than 30 days after a hearing.
(g) For purposes of recall, “owner” means someone who owns an engine or piece of equipment affected by a remedial plan.
(a) * * *
(6) How you will notify owners; include a copy of any notification letters.
(b) We may require you to add information if it is needed to evaluate your remedial plan.
(h) Begin notifying owners within 15 days after we approve your remedial plan. If we hold a hearing, but do not change our position about the noncompliance, you must begin notifying owners within 60 days after we complete the hearing unless we specify a later deadline.
(a) Attach a label to engines/equipment you repair under the remedial plan. At your discretion, you may label or mark engines/equipment you inspect but do not repair. Designate the specific recall campaign on the label.
(c) Identify the facility where you repaired or inspected the engine/equipment on the label, or keep records of this information for each vehicle and give it to us if we ask for it.
(b) We may require you to add information to your notice or to send more notices if we determine this is reasonable and necessary to ensure an effective recall.
We may review your records at any time so it is important that you keep required information readily available. Keep records associated with your recall campaign for five years after you send the last report we require under § 1068.525(b). Organize and maintain your records as described in this section.
The regulations of this chapter involve numerous provisions that may result in EPA making a decision or judgment that you may consider adverse to your interests and that either limits your business activities or requires you to pay penalties. As specified in the regulations in this chapter, this might involve an opportunity for an informal hearing or a formal hearing that follows specific procedures and is directed by a Presiding Officer. The regulations in this chapter generally specify when we would hold a hearing. In limited circumstances, we may grant a request for a hearing related to adverse decisions regarding regulatory provisions for which we do not specifically describe the possibility of asking for a hearing.
(a) If you request a hearing regarding our decision to assess administrative penalties under § 1068.125, we will hold a formal hearing according to the provisions of 40 CFR 22.1 through 22.32 and 22.34.
(b) For other issues where the regulation allows for a hearing in response to an adverse decision, you may request an informal hearing as described in § 1068.650. Sections 1068.610 through 1068.625 describe when and how to request an informal hearing under various circumstances.
(c) The time limits we specify are calendar days and include weekends and holidays, except that a deadline falling on a Saturday, Sunday, or a
(1) The postmarked date for items sent by U.S. mail must be on or before the specified date.
(2) The ship date for items sent from any location within the United States by commercial carriers must be on or before the specified date.
(3) Items sent by mail or courier from outside the United States must be received by the specified date.
(4) The time and date stamp on an email message must be at or before 5:00 p.m. on the specified date (in either the source or destination time zone).
(5) The time and date stamp on faxed pages must be at or before 5:00 p.m. on the specified date (in either the source or destination time zone).
(6) Hand-delivered items must be received by the appropriate personnel by 3:00 p.m. on the specified date.
(d) See the standard-setting part for additional information. If the standard-setting part specifies any provisions that are contrary to those described in this subpart, the provisions of the standard-setting part apply instead of those described in this subpart.
(a) You may request an informal hearing as described in § 1068.650 if you disagree with our decision to suspend, revoke, or void a certificate of conformity.
(b) If you request a hearing regarding the outcome of a testing regimen with established evaluation criteria, such as selective enforcement audits or routine production-line testing, we will hold a hearing limited to the following issues that are relevant to your circumstances:
(1) Whether tests were conducted in accordance with applicable regulations.
(2) Whether test equipment was properly calibrated and functioning.
(3) Whether specified sampling procedures were followed to select engines/equipment for testing.
(4) Whether there is a basis for determining that the problems identified do not apply for engines/equipment produced at plants other than the one from which engines/equipment were selected for testing.
(c) You must send your hearing request in writing to the Designated Compliance Officer no later than 30 days after we notify you of our decision to suspend, revoke, or void your certificate, or by some later deadline we specify. If the deadline passes, we may nevertheless grant you a hearing at our discretion.
(d) Your hearing request must include the following information:
(1) Identify the classes or categories of engines/equipment that will be the subject of the hearing.
(2) State briefly which issues you will raise at the hearing for each affected class or category of engines/equipment.
(3) Specify why you believe the hearing will conclude in your favor for each of the issues you will raise.
(4) Summarize the evidence supporting your position on each of the issues you will raise and include any supporting data.
(e) We will approve your request for an informal hearing if we find that your request raises a substantial factual issue in the decision we made that, if addressed differently, could alter the outcome of that decision.
(a) You may request an informal hearing as described in § 1068.650 if we deny your application for a certificate of conformity, if your certificate of conformity is automatically suspended under the regulations, or if you disagree with determinations we make as part of the certification process. For example, you might disagree with our determinations regarding adjustable parameters under § 1068.50 or regarding your good engineering judgment under § 1068.5.
(b) You must send your hearing request in writing to the Designated Compliance Officer no later than 30 days after we notify you of our decision, or by some later deadline we specify. If the specified deadline passes, we may nevertheless grant you a hearing at our discretion.
(c) Your hearing request must include the information specified in § 1068.610(d).
(d) We will approve your request for an informal hearing if we find that your request raises a substantial factual issue in the decision we made that, if addressed differently, could alter the outcome of that decision.
(a) You may request an informal hearing as described in § 1068.650 if you disagree with our decision to order a recall.
(b) You must send your hearing request in writing to the Designated Compliance Officer no later than 45 days after we notify you of our decision, or by some later deadline we specify. If the specified deadline passes, we may nevertheless grant you a hearing at our discretion.
(c) Your hearing request must include the information specified in § 1068.610(d).
(d) We will approve your request for an informal hearing if we find that your request raises a substantial factual issue in the decision we made that, if addressed differently, could alter the outcome of that decision.
(a) You may request an informal hearing as described in § 1068.650 if you disagree with our determination of compliance level or penalty calculation or both. The hearing will address only whether the compliance level or penalty was determined in accordance with the regulations.
(b) Send a request for a hearing in writing to the Designated Compliance Officer within the following time frame, as applicable:
(1) No later than 15 days after we notify you that we have approved a nonconformance penalty under this subpart if the compliance level is in the allowable range of nonconformity.
(2) No later than 15 days after completion of the Production Compliance Audit if the compliance level exceeds the upper limit.
(3) No later than 15 days after we notify you of an adverse decision for all other cases.
(c) If you miss the specified deadline in paragraph (b) of this section, we may nevertheless grant you a hearing at our discretion.
(d) Your hearing request must include the information specified in § 1068.610(d).
(e) We will approve your request for an informal hearing if we find that your request raises a substantial factual issue in the decision we made that, if addressed differently, could alter the outcome of that decision.
(a) The following provisions apply for arranging the hearing:
(1) After granting your request for an informal hearing, we will designate a Presiding Officer for the hearing.
(2) The Presiding Officer will select the time and place for the hearing. The hearing must be held as soon as practicable for all parties involved.
(3) The Presiding Officer may require that all argument and presentation of evidence be concluded by a certain date after commencement of the hearing.
(b) The Presiding Officer will establish a paper or electronic hearing
(1) All documents relating to the application for certification, including the certificate of conformity itself, if applicable.
(2) Your request for a hearing and the accompanying supporting data.
(3) Correspondence and other data relevant to the hearing.
(4) The Presiding Officer's written decision regarding the subject of the hearing, together with any accompanying material.
(c) You may appear in person or you may be represented by counsel or by any other representative you designate.
(d) The Presiding Officer may arrange for a prehearing conference, either in response to a request from any party or at his or her own discretion. The Presiding Officer will select the time and place for the prehearing conference. The Presiding Officer will summarize the results of the conference and include the written summary as part of the record. The prehearing conference may involve consideration of the following items:
(1) Simplification of the issues.
(2) Stipulations, admissions of fact, and the introduction of documents.
(3) Limitation of the number of expert witnesses.
(4) Possibility of reaching an agreement to resolve any or all of the issues in dispute.
(5) Any other matters that may aid in expeditiously and successfully concluding the hearing.
(e) Hearings will be conducted as follows:
(1) The Presiding Officer will conduct informal hearings in an orderly and expeditious manner. The parties may offer oral or written evidence; however, the Presiding Officer may exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or repetitious.
(2) Witnesses will not be required to testify under oath; however, the Presiding Officer must make clear that 18 U.S.C. 1001 specifies civil and criminal penalties for knowingly making false statements or representations or using false documents in any matter within the jurisdiction of EPA or any other department or agency of the United States.
(3) Any witness may be examined or cross-examined by the Presiding Officer, by you, or by any other parties.
(4) Written transcripts must be made for all hearings. Anyone may purchase copies of transcripts from the reporter.
(f) The Presiding Officer will make a final decision with written findings, conclusions and supporting rationale on all the substantial factual issues presented in the record. The findings, conclusions, and written decision must be provided to the parties and made a part of the record.
IV. Emission-related components also include any other part whose primary purpose is to reduce emissions or whose failure would commonly increase emissions without significantly degrading engine/equipment performance.
In consideration of the foregoing, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 322, 5 U.S.C. 552, 49 U.S.C. 30166, 49 U.S.C. 30167, 49 U.S.C. 32307, 49 U.S.C. 32505, 49 U.S.C. 32708, 49 U.S.C. 32910, 49 U.S.C. 33116, 49 U.S.C. 32901, 49 U.S.C. 32902, 49 U.S.C. 30101, 49 U.S.C. 32905, 49 U.S.C. 32906, and delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95, NHTSA amends 49 CFR chapter V as follows:
49 U.S.C. 32901; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
As used in this part:
(1) For passenger cars, light trucks and medium duty passenger vehicles, emergency vehicle has the meaning given in 49 U.S.C. 32902(e).
(2) For heavy-duty vehicles, emergency vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1037.801.
(1) Is an “incomplete vehicle” ' as defined in this subpart; or
(2) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(3) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the driver's seat; or
(4) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up truck box or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length or more. A covered box not readily accessible from the passenger compartment will be considered an open cargo area for purposes of this definition.
(1) For front seat volume, divide 1,728 into the product of the following SAE dimensions, measured in inches to the nearest 0.1 inches, and round the quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(i) H61-Effective head room—front.
(ii) W3-Shoulder room—front.
(iii) L34-Maximum effective leg room-accelerator.
(2) For the volume of seats to the rear of the front seat, divide 1,728 into the product of the following SAE dimensions, measured in inches to the nearest 0.1 inches, and rounded the quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(i) H63-Effective head room—second.
(ii) W4-Shoulder room—second.
(iii) L51-Minimum effective leg room—second.
(a) A heavy-duty vehicle is any commercial medium or heavy-duty on-highway vehicle or a work truck, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7) and (19). For the purpose of this section, heavy-duty vehicles are divided into four regulatory categories as follows:
(1) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans;
(2) Heavy-duty vocational vehicles;
(3) Truck tractors with a GVWR above 26,000 pounds; and
(4) Heavy-duty trailers.
(b) The heavy-duty vehicle classification does not include vehicles excluded as specified in 49 CFR 535.3.
(a) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are pickup trucks and vans with a gross vehicle weight rating between 8,501 pounds and 14,000 pounds (Class 2b through 3 vehicles) manufactured as complete vehicles by a single or final stage manufacturer or manufactured as incomplete vehicles as designated by a manufacturer. See references in 40 CFR 86.1801-12, 40 CFR 86.1819-17, 40 CFR 1037.150, and 49 CFR 535.5(a).
(b) Heavy duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR may be optionally certified as heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans and comply with fuel consumption standards in 49 CFR 535.5(a), if properly included in a test group with similar vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Fuel consumption standards apply to these vehicles as if they were Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles. The work factor for these vehicles may not be greater than the largest work factor that applies for vehicles in the test group that are at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR (see 40 CFR 86.1819-14).
(c) Incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may be optionally certified as heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans and comply with to the fuel consumption standards in 49 CFR 535.5(a).
(a) A trailer means a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying cargo and for being drawn by another motor vehicle as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. For the purpose of this part, heavy-duty trailers include only those trailers designed to be drawn by a truck tractor excluding non-box trailers other than flatbed trailer, tanker trailers and container chassis and those that are coupled to vehicles exclusively by pintle hooks or hitches instead of a fifth wheel. Heavy-duty trailers may be divided into different types and categories as follows:
(1) Box vans are trailers with enclosed cargo space that is permanently attached to the chassis, with fixed sides, nose, and roof. Tank trailers are not box vans.
(2) Box van with front-mounted HVAC systems are refrigerated vans. Note that this includes systems that provide cooling, heating, or both. All other box vans are dry vans.
(3) Trailers that are not box vans are non-box trailers. Note that the standards for non-box trailers in 49 CFR 535.5(e)(2) apply only to flatbed trailers, tank trailers, and container chassis.
(4) Box van with a length greater than 50 feet are long box vans. Other box vans are short box vans.
(5) The following types of equipment are not trailers:
(i) Containers that are not permanently mounted on chassis.
(ii) Dollies used to connect tandem trailers.
(iii) Equipment that serves similar purposes but are not intended to be pulled by a tractor.
(b) Heavy-duty trailers do not include trailers excluded in 49 CFR 535.3.
49 U.S.C. 32901; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(a) Vehicles and engines built by multiple manufacturers can share responsibility for complying with fuel consumption standards in 49 CFR part 535, by following the EPA requirements in 40 CFR 1037.620 and by sending a joint agreement between the parties to EPA and NHTSA before submitting any certificates of conformity for the applicable vehicles or engines in accordance with 40 CFR part 1036, subpart C, and 40 CFR part 1037, subpart C.
(1) Each joint agreement must—
(i) Define how each manufacturer shares responsibility for the planned vehicles or engines.
(ii) Specify which manufacturer(s) will be responsible for the EPA certificates of conformity;
(iii) Describe the planned vehicles and engines in terms of the model types, production volumes, and model years (if known);
(iv) Describe which manufacturer(s) have engineering and design control and sale distribution ownership over the vehicles and/or engines; and
(v) Include signatures from all parties involved in the shared corporate relationship.
(2) After defining the shared relationship between the manufacturers, any contractual changes must be
(3) Multiple manufacturers must designate the same shared responsibility for complying with fuel consumption standards as selected for GHG standards unless otherwise allowed by EPA and NHTSA.
(b) NHTSA and EPA reserve the right to reject the joint agreement.
49 U.S.C. 32902 and 30101; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
This part establishes fuel consumption standards pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32902(k) for work trucks and commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles, including trailers (hereafter referenced as heavy-duty vehicles), and engines manufactured for sale in the United States. This part establishes a credit program manufacturers may use to comply with standards and requirements for manufacturers to provide reports to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding their efforts to reduce the fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles and engines.
The purpose of this part is to reduce the fuel consumption of new heavy-duty vehicles and engines by establishing maximum levels for fuel consumption standards while providing a flexible credit program to assist manufacturers in complying with standards.
(a) This part applies to manufacturers that produce complete and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles as defined in 49 CFR part 523, and to the manufacturers of all heavy-duty engines manufactured for use in the applicable vehicles for each given model year.
(b) This part also applies to alterers, final stage manufacturers, and intermediate manufacturers producing vehicles and engines or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment under special conditions. Manufacturers comply with this part by following the special conditions in 40 CFR 1037.620, 1037.621, and 1037.622 in which EPA allows manufacturer to:
(1) Share responsibility for the vehicles they produce. Manufacturers sharing responsibility for complying with emissions and fuel consumption standards must submit to the agencies a joint agreement as specified in 49 CFR 534.8(a);
(2) Have certificate holders sell or ship vehicles that are missing certain emission-related components to be installed by secondary vehicle manufacturers;
(3) Ship partially complete vehicles to secondary manufacturers;
(4) Build electric vehicles; and
(5) Build alternative fueled vehicles from all types of heavy duty engine conversions. The conversion manufacturer must:
(i) Install alternative fuel conversion systems into vehicles acquired from vehicle manufacturers prior to first retail sale or prior to the vehicle's introduction into interstate commerce.
(ii) Be designated by the vehicle manufacturer and EPA to be the certificate holder.
(iii) Omit alternative fueled vehicles from compliance with vehicle fuel consumption standards, if—
(A) Excluded from EPA emissions standards; and
(B) A reasonable technical basis exist that the modified vehicle continues to meet emissions and fuel consumption vehicle standards.
(c) Vehicle and engine manufacturers that must comply with this part include manufacturers required to have approved certificates of conformity from EPA as specified in 40 CFR parts 86, 1036, and 1037.
(d) The following heavy-duty vehicles and engines are excluded from the requirements of this part:
(1) Vehicles and engines manufactured prior to January 1, 2014, unless certified early under NHTSA's voluntary provisions in § 535.5.
(2) Medium-duty passenger vehicles and other vehicles subject to the light-duty corporate average fuel economy standards in 49 CFR parts 531 and 533.
(3) Recreational vehicles, including motor homes manufactured before January 1, 2021, except those produced by manufacturers voluntarily complying with NHTSA's early vocational standards for model years 2013 through 2020.
(4) Aircraft vehicles meeting the definition of “motor vehicle”. For example, this would include certain convertible aircraft that can be adjusted to operate on public roads.
(5) Heavy-duty trailers as defined in 49 CFR 523.10 meeting one or more of the following criteria are excluded from trailer standards in § 535.5(e):
(i) Trailers with four or more axles and trailers less than 35 feet long with three axles (
(ii) Trailers intended for temporary or permanent residence, office space, or other work space, such as campers, mobile homes, and carnival trailers.
(iii) Trailers with a gap of at least 120 inches between adjacent axle centerlines. In the case of adjustable axle spacing, this refers to the closest possible axle positioning.
(iv) Trailers built before January 1, 2021, except those trailers built by manufacturers after January 1, 2018, and voluntarily complying with NHTSA's early trailer standards for model years 2018 through 2020.
(v) Note that the definition of “heavy-duty trailer” in 49 CFR 523.10 excludes equipment that serves similar purposes but are not intended to be pulled by a tractor. This exclusion applies to such equipment whether or not they are known commercially as trailers. For example, any equipment pulled by a heavy-duty vehicle with a pintle hook or hitch instead of a fifth wheel does not qualify as a trailer under this part.
(6) Engines installed in heavy-duty vehicles that are not used to propel vehicles. Note, this includes engines used to indirectly propel vehicles (such as electrical generator engines that power to batteries for propulsion).
(7) The provisions of this part do not apply to engines that are not internal combustion engines. For example, the provisions of this part do not apply to fuel cells. Note that gas turbine engines are internal combustion engines.
(e) The following heavy-duty vehicles and engines are exempted from the requirements of this part:
(1)
(2)
(ii) For Phase 2, fuel consumption standards apply on a delayed schedule for manufacturers meeting the small business criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201 and in 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(5), 40 CFR 1036.150, and 40 CFR 1037.150. Qualifying manufacturers of truck tractors, vocational vehicles, heavy duty pickups and vans, and engines are not subject to the fuel consumption standards for vehicles built before January 1, 2022 and engines (such as those engines built by small alternative fuel engine converters) with a date of manufacturer on or after November 14, 2011 and before January 1, 2022. Qualifying manufacturers may choose to voluntarily comply early.
(iii) Small business manufacturers producing vehicles and engines that run on any fuel other than gasoline, E85, or diesel fuel meeting the criteria specified in 13 CFR 121.201 and in 40 CFR 86.1819-14(k)(5), 40 CFR 1036.150, and 40 CFR 1037.150 may delay complying with every new mandatory standard under this part by one model year.
(3)
(4)
(f) For model year 2021 and later, vocational vehicle manufacturers building custom chassis vehicles (
(g) The fuel consumption standards in some cases apply differently for spark-ignition and compression-ignition engines or vehicles as specified in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037. Engine requirements are similarly differentiated by engine type and by primary intended service class, as described in 40 CFR 1036.140.
(h) NHTSA may exclude or exempt vehicles and engines under special conditions allowed by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1039, and 1068. Manufacturers should consult the agencies if uncertain how to apply any EPA provision under the NHTSA fuel consumption program. It is recommend that manufacturers seek clarification before producing a vehicle. Upon notification by EPA of a fraudulent use of an exemption, NHTSA reserves that right to suspend or revoke any exemption or exclusion.
(i) In cases where there are differences between the application of this part and the corresponding EPA program regarding whether a vehicle is regulated or not (such as due to differences in applicability resulting from differing agency definitions, etc.), manufacturers should contact the agencies to identify these vehicles and assess the applicability of the agencies' standards. The agencies will provide guidance on how the vehicles can comply. Manufacturers are required to identify these vehicles in their final reports submitted in accordance with § 535.8.
The terms manufacture and manufacturer are used as defined in section 501 of the Act and the terms commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on highway vehicle, fuel and work truck are used as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901. See 49 CFR 523.2 for general definitions related to NHTSA's fuel efficiency programs.
(1) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
(2) Light heavy-duty (LHD) vehicles.
(3) Medium heavy-duty (MHD) vehicles.
(4) Heavy heavy-duty (HHD) vehicles.
(5) Light heavy-duty engines subject to compression-ignition standards.
(6) Medium heavy-duty engines subject to compression-ignition standards.
(7) Heavy heavy-duty engines subject to compression-ignition standards.
(8) Engines subject to spark-ignition standards.
(9) Long trailers.
(10) Short trailers.
(11) Vehicle types certifying to optional custom chassis standards as specified in § 535.5(b)(6) form separate averaging sets for each vehicle type as specified in § 535.7(c).
(1)
(2)
(1) Where the certificate holder is an engine manufacturer that does not manufacture the complete or incomplete vehicle, the date of manufacture of the vehicle is based on the date assembly of the vehicle is completed.
(2) EPA and NHTSA may approve an alternate date of manufacture based on the date on which the certifying (or primary) vehicle manufacturer completes assembly at the place of main assembly, consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 1037.601 and 49 CFR 567.4.
(3) A vehicle manufacturer that completes assembly of a vehicle at two or more facilities may ask to use as the month and year of manufacture, for that vehicle, the month and year in which manufacturing is completed at the place of main assembly, consistent with provisions of 49 CFR 567.4, as the model year. Note that such staged assembly is subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.260(c). NHTSA's allowance of this provision is effective when EPA approves the manufacturer's certificates of conformity for these vehicles.
(1) For tractors and vocational vehicles with a date of manufacture on or after January 1, 2021, the vehicle's
(2) For trailers and for Phase 1 tractors and vocational vehicles with a date of manufacture before January 1, 2021,
(i) The manufacturer who holds the certificate of conformity for the vehicle must assign the model year based on the date when its manufacturing operations are completed relative to its annual model year period. In unusual circumstances where completion of your assembly is delayed, we may allow you to assign a model year one year earlier, provided it does not affect which regulatory requirements will apply.
(ii) Unless a vehicle is being shipped to a secondary manufacturer that will hold the certificate of conformity, the model year must be assigned prior to introduction of the vehicle into U.S. commerce. The certifying manufacturer must redesignate the model year if it does not complete its manufacturing operations within the originally identified model year. A vehicle introduced into U.S. commerce without a model year is deemed to have a model year equal to the calendar year of its introduction into U.S. commerce unless the certifying manufacturer assigns a later date.
(1) Divide compression-ignition engines into primary intended service classes based on the following engine and vehicle characteristics:
(i) Light heavy-duty “LHD” engines usually are not designed for rebuild and do not have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in this group might include any heavy-duty vehicle built from a light-duty truck chassis, van trucks, multi-stop vans, and some straight trucks with a single rear axle. Typical applications would include personal transportation, light-load commercial delivery, passenger service, agriculture, and construction. The GVWR of these vehicles is normally below 19,500 pounds.
(ii) Medium heavy-duty “MHD” engines may be designed for rebuild and may have cylinder liners. Vehicle body types in this group would typically include school buses, straight trucks with single rear axles, city tractors, and a variety of special purpose vehicles such as small dump trucks, and refuse trucks. Typical applications would include commercial short haul and intra-city delivery and pickup. Engines in this group are normally used in vehicles whose GVWR ranges from 19,500 to 33,000 pounds.
(iii) Heavy heavy-duty “HHD” engines are designed for multiple rebuilds and have cylinder liners. Vehicles in this group are normally tractors, trucks, straight trucks with dual rear axles, and buses used in inter-city, long-haul applications. These vehicles normally exceed 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(2) Divide spark-ignition engines into primary intended service classes as follows:
(i) Spark-ignition engines that are best characterized by paragraph (1)(i) or (ii) of this definition are in a separate “spark-ignition” primary intended service class.
(ii) Spark-ignition engines that are best characterized by paragraph (1)(iii) of this definition share a primary intended service class with compression-ignition heavy heavy-duty engines. Gasoline-fueled engines are presumed not to be characterized by paragraph (1)(iii) of this definition; for example, vehicle manufacturers may install some number of gasoline-fueled engines in Class 8 trucks without causing the engine manufacturer to consider those to be heavy heavy-duty engines.
(iii) References to “spark-ignition standards” in this part relate only to the spark-ignition engines identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. References to “compression-ignition standards” in this part relate to compression-ignition engines, to spark-ignition engines optionally certified to standards that apply to compression-ignition engines, and to all engines identified under paragraph (b)(2) of this section as heavy heavy-duty engines.
(1) Heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans.
(2) Vocational vehicle subcategories have 18 separate vehicle service classes as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below and include vocational tractors. Table 1 includes vehicles complying with Phase 1 standards. Phase 2 vehicles are included in Table 2 which have separate subcategories to account for engine characteristics, GVWR, and the selection of duty cycle for vocational vehicles as specified in 40 CFR 1037.510; vehicles may additionally fall into one of the subcategories defined by the custom-chassis standards in § 535.5(b)(6) and 40 1037.105(h). Manufacturers using the alternate standards in § 535.5(b)(6) and 40 CFR 1037.105(h) should treat each vehicle type as a separate vehicle subcategory.
(3) Tractor subcategories are shown in Table 3 below for Phase 1 and 2. Table 3 includes 10 separate subcategories for tractors complying with Phase 1 and 2 standards. The heavy-haul tractor subcategory only applies for Phase 2.
(4) Trailer subcategories are shown in Table 4 of this section for the Phase 2 program. Trailers do not comply under the Phase 1 program. Table 4 includes 10 separate subcategories for trailers, which are only subject to Phase 2 only standards.
(5) Engine subcategories are shown for each primary intended service class in Table 5 below. Table 5 includes 6 separate subcategories for engines which are the same for Phase 1 and 2 standards.
(1) Low-roof means a vehicle with a roof height of 120 inches or less.
(2) Mid-roof means a vehicle with a roof height between 121 and 147 inches.
(3) High-roof means a vehicle with a roof height of 148 inches or more.
(1) Spark-ignition engines, light heavy-duty compression-ignition engines, light heavy-duty vocational vehicles and heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
(2) Medium heavy-duty compression-ignition engines and medium heavy-duty vocational vehicles and tractors.
(3) Heavy heavy-duty compression-ignition engines and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles and tractors.
(1) For vocational vehicles:
(i) 2.85 tons for light heavy-duty vehicles.
(ii) 5.6 tons for medium heavy-duty vehicles.
(iii) 7.5 tons for heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles.
(2) For tractors:
(i) 12.5 tons for Class 7.
(ii) 19 tons for Class 8.
(iii) 43 tons for heavy-haul tractors.
(3) For trailers:
(i) 10 tons for short box vans.
(ii) 19 tons for other trailers.
(1) Phase 1 and Phase 2 tractors are divided based on GVWR into Class 7 tractors and Class 8 tractors. Where provisions apply to both tractors and vocational vehicles, Class 7 tractors are considered medium heavy-duty “MHD” vehicles and Class 8 tractors are considered heavy heavy-duty “HHD” vehicles.
(2) Phase 1 vocational vehicles are divided based on GVWR. Light heavy-duty “LHD” vehicles includes Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles; medium heavy-duty “MHD” vehicles includes Class 6 and Class 7 vehicles; and heavy heavy-duty “HHD” vehicles includes Class 8 vehicles.
(3) Phase 2 vocational vehicles with spark-ignition engines are divided based on GVWR. Light heavy-duty “LHD” vehicles includes Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles, and medium heavy-duty “MHD” vehicles includes Class 6 through Class 8 vehicles.
(4) Phase 2 vocational vehicles with compression-ignition engines are divided as follows:
(i) Class 2b through Class 5 vehicles are considered light heavy-duty “LHD” vehicles.
(ii) Class 6 through 8 vehicles are considered heavy heavy-duty “HHD” vehicles if the installed engine's primary intended service class is heavy heavy-duty (see 40 CFR 1036.140). All other Class 6 through Class 8 vehicles are considered medium heavy-duty “MHD” vehicles.
(5) In certain circumstances, manufacturers may certify vehicles to standards that apply for a different vehicle service class such as allowed in § 535.5(b)(6) and (c)(7). If manufacturers optionally certify vehicles to different standards, those vehicles are subject to all the regulatory requirements as if the standards were mandatory.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(A) The first alternative allows manufacturers to determine a fixed fuel consumption standard that is constant over the model years; and
(B) The second alternative allows manufacturers to determine standards that are phased-in gradually each year.
(ii) Calculate the subconfiguration target standards as specified in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii), using the appropriate coefficients from Table 6 choosing between the alternatives in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section. For electric or fuel cell heavy-duty vehicles, use compression-ignition vehicle coefficients “c” and “d” and for hybrid (including plug-in hybrid), dedicated and dual-fueled vehicles, use coefficients “c” and “d” appropriate for the engine type used. Round each standard to the nearest 0.001 gallons per 100 miles and specify all weights in pounds rounded to the nearest pound. Calculate the subconfiguration target standards using the following equation:
(3)
(A) A manufacturer may group together subconfigurations that have the same test weight (ETW), GVWR, and GCWR. Calculate work factor and target value assuming a curb weight equal to two times ETW minus GVWR.
(B) A manufacturer may group together other subconfigurations if it uses the lowest target value calculated for any of the subconfigurations.
(ii) For Phase 1, manufacturers must select an alternative for subconfiguration target standards at the same time they submit the model year 2016 pre-model year Report, specified in § 535.8. Once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer must continue to comply with the same alternative for subsequent model years.
(4)
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its intent to voluntarily comply with fuel consumption standards at the same time it submits a Pre-Model Report, prior to the compliance model year beginning as specified in § 535.8; and, once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer must continue to comply for each subsequent model year for all the vehicles and engines it manufactures in each regulatory category for a given model year.
(iii) Calculate separate subconfiguration target standards for compression-ignition and spark-ignition vehicles for model years 2013 through 2015 using the equation in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, substituting the appropriate values for the coefficients in the following table as appropriate:
(iv) Calculate the fleet average fuel consumption standards for model years 2013 through 2015 using the equation in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(5)
(6)
(i) For fuel consumption compliance, manufacturers may certify any complete or cab-complete spark-ignition vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 26,000 pounds GVWR to the fuel consumption standards of this section.
(ii) Manufacturers may apply the provisions of this section to cab-complete vehicles based on a complete sister vehicle. In unusual circumstances, manufacturers may ask the agencies to apply these provisions to Class 2b or Class 3 incomplete vehicles that do not meet the definition of cab-complete.
(A) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(6)(iii) of this section, for purposes of this section, a complete sister vehicle is a complete vehicle of the same vehicle configuration as the cab-complete vehicle. A manufacturer may not apply the provisions of this paragraph (6) to any vehicle configuration that has a four-wheel rear axle if the complete sister vehicle has a two-wheel rear axle.
(B) Calculate the target value for the fleet-average fuel consumption standard under paragraph (a)(3) of this section based on the work factor value that applies for the complete sister vehicle.
(C) Test these cab-complete vehicles using the same equivalent test weight and other dynamometer settings that apply for the complete vehicle from which you used the work factor value (the complete sister vehicle). For fuel consumption certification, manufacturers may submit the test data from that complete sister vehicle instead of performing the test on the cab-complete vehicle.
(D) Manufacturers are not required to produce the complete sister vehicle for sale to use the provisions of this paragraph (a)(6)(ii). This means the complete sister vehicle may be a carryover vehicle from a prior model year or a vehicle created solely for the purpose of testing.
(iii) For fuel consumption purposes, if a cab-complete vehicle is not of the same vehicle configuration as a complete sister vehicle due only to certain factors unrelated to coastdown performance, manufacturers may use the road-load coefficients from the complete sister vehicle for certification testing of the cab-complete vehicle, but it may not use fuel consumption data from the complete sister vehicle for certifying the cab-complete vehicle.
(7)
(i) For 2020 and earlier model years, the maximum allowable U.S.-directed production volume of engines manufacturers may sell under this paragraph (7) in any given model year is ten percent of the total U.S-directed production volume of engines of that design that the manufacturer produces for heavy-duty applications for that model year, including engines it produces for complete vehicles, cab-complete vehicles, and other incomplete vehicles. The total number of engines a manufacturer may certify under this paragraph (7), of all engine designs, may not exceed 15,000 in any model year. Engines produced in excess of either of these limits are not covered by your certificate. For example, a manufacturer produces 80,000 complete model year 2017 Class 2b pickup trucks with a certain engine and 10,000 incomplete model year 2017 Class 3 vehicles with that same engine, and the manufacturer did not apply the provisions of this paragraph (a)(7) to any other engine designs, it may produce up to 10,000 engines of that design for sale as loose engines under this paragraph (a)(7). If a manufacturer produced 11,000 engines of that design for sale as loose engines, the last 1,000 of them that it produced in that model year 2017 would be considered uncertified.
(ii) For model years 2021 through 2023, the U.S.-directed production volume of engines manufacturers sell under this paragraph (a)(7) in any given model year may not exceed 10,000 units. This paragraph (a)(7) does not apply for engines certified to the standards of paragraph (d) of this section and 40 CFR 1036.108.
(iii) Vehicles using engines certified under this paragraph (a)(7) are subject to the fuel consumption and emission standards of paragraph (b) of this section and 40 CFR 1037.105 and engine standards in 40 CFR 1036.150(j).
(iv) For certification purposes, engines are deemed to have a fuel consumption target values and test result equal to the fuel consumption target value and test result for the complete vehicle in the applicable test group with the highest equivalent test weight, except as specified in paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(B) of this section. Manufacturers use these values to calculate target values and the fleet-average fuel consumption rate. Where there are multiple complete vehicles with the same highest equivalent test weight, select the fuel consumption target value and test result as follows:
(A) If one or more of the fuel consumption test results exceed the applicable target value, use the fuel consumption target value and test result of the vehicle that exceeds its target value by the greatest amount.
(B) If none of the fuel consumption test results exceed the applicable target value, select the highest target value and set the test result equal to it. This means that the manufacturer may not generate fuel consumption credits from vehicles certified under this paragraph (a)(7).
(8)
(9)
(10)
(i) 120,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for Class 2b through Class 3 heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans certified to Phase 1 standards.
(ii) 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever comes first, for Class 2b through Class 3 heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans certified to Phase 2 standards.
(iii) For Phase 1 credits that you calculate based on a useful life of 120,000 miles, multiply any banked credits that you carry forward for use into the Phase 2 program by 1.25. For Phase 1 credit deficits that you generate based on a useful life of 120,000 miles multiply the credit deficit by 1.25 if offsetting the shortfall with Phase 2 credits.
(11)
(b)
(1)
(i) For model years 2016 to 2020, the heavy-duty vocational vehicle category is subdivided by GVWR into three regulatory subcategories as defined in § 535.4, each with its own assigned standard.
(ii) For model years 2021 and later, the heavy-duty vocational vehicle category is subdivided into 15 regulatory subcategories depending upon whether vehicles are equipped with a compression or spark-ignition engine, as defined in § 535.4. Standards also differ based upon vehicle service class and intended vehicle duty cycles. See 40 CFR 1037.140 and 1037.150(z).
(iii) For purposes of certifying vehicles to fuel consumption standards, manufacturers must divide their product lines in each regulatory subcategory into vehicle families that have similar emissions and fuel consumption features, as specified by EPA in 40 CFR 1037.230. These families will be subject to the applicable standards. Each vehicle family is limited to a single model year.
(A) Vocational vehicles including custom chassis vehicles must use qualified automatic tire inflation systems or tire pressure monitoring systems for wheels on all axles.
(B) Tire pressure monitoring systems must use low pressure warning and malfunction telltales in clear view of the driver as specified in S4.3 and S4.4 of 49 CFR 571.138.
(2)
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its intent to voluntarily comply with fuel consumption standards and identify its plans to comply before it submits its first application for a certificate of conformity for the respective model year as specified in § 535.8; and, once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer must continue to comply for each subsequent model year for all the vehicles and engines it manufacturers in each regulatory category for a given model year.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(i) Manufacturers may generate or use fuel consumption credits for averaging to demonstrate compliance with the alternative standards as described in § 535.7(c). This requires that manufacturers specify a Family Emission Limit (FEL) for fuel consumption for each vehicle subfamily. The FEL may not be less than the result of emission modeling as described in this paragraph (b). These FELs serve as the fuel consumption standards for the vehicle subfamily instead of the standards specified in this paragraph (b)(6). Manufacturers may only use fuel consumption credits for vehicles certified to the optional standards in this paragraph (b)(6) as specified in § 535.7(c)(6) through (8) and you may not bank or trade fuel consumption credits from any vehicles certified under this paragraph (b)(6).
(ii) For purposes of this paragraph (b)(6), each separate vehicle type identified in Table 10 of this section is in a separate averaging set.
(iii) For purposes of emission and fuel consumption modeling under 40 CFR 1037.520, consider motor homes and coach buses to be subject to the Regional duty cycle, and consider all other vehicles to be subject to the Urban duty cycle.
(iv) Emergency vehicles are deemed to comply with the standards of this paragraph (6) if manufacturers use tires with TRRL at or below 8.4 kg/ton (8.7 g/ton for model years 2021 through 2026).
(v) Concrete mixers are deemed to comply with the standards of this paragraph (6) if manufacturers use tires with TRRL at or below 7.1 kg/ton (7.6 g/ton for model years 2021 through 2026).
(vi) Motor homes are deemed to comply with the standards of this paragraph (b)(6) if manufacturers use the following technologies:
(A) Tires with TRRL at or below 6.0 kg/ton (6.7 g/ton for model years 2021 through 2026).
(B) Automatic tire inflation systems or tire pressure monitoring systems with wheels on all axles.
(C) Tire pressure monitoring systems must use low pressure warning and malfunction telltales in clear view of the driver as specified in S4.3 and S4.4 of 49 CFR 571.138.
(vii) Small business manufacturers using the alternative standards for custom chassis vehicles under this paragraph (b)(6) may use fuel consumption credits subject to the unique provisions in § 535.7(a)(9).
(7)
(8)
(i) If a manufacturer certifies all its vehicles from a given vehicle service class in a given model year to the standards and useful life that applies for a heavier vehicle service class, it may generate credits as appropriate for the heavier service class.
(ii) Class 8 hybrid vehicles with light or medium heavy-duty engines may be certified to compression-ignition standards for the Heavy HDV service class. A manufacturer may generate and use credits as allowed for the Heavy HDV service class.
(iii) Except as specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, a manufacturer may not generate credits with the vehicle. If you include lighter vehicles in a subfamily of heavier vehicles with an FEL below the standard, exclude the production volume of lighter vehicles from the credit calculation. Conversely, if a manufacturer includes lighter vehicles in a subfamily with an FEL above the standard, it must include the production volume of lighter vehicles in the credit calculation.
(9)
(i)
(A) The vehicle must have affixed components designed to work inherently in an off-road environment (such as hazardous material equipment or off-road drill equipment) or be designed to operate at low speeds such that it is unsuitable for normal highway operation.
(B) The vehicle must meet one of the following criteria:
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(B) A manufacturers must also keep records of the individual exempted vehicles you produce, including the vehicle identification number and a description of the vehicle configuration.
(C) Within 90 days after the end of each model year, manufacturers must send to EPA a report as specified in § 535.8(g)(7) and EPA will make the report available to NHTSA.
(v)
(B) In situations where a manufacturer would normally ask for a preliminary approval subject to paragraph (b)(9)(iii) of this section but introduces its vehicle into U.S. commerce without seeking approval first from the agencies, those vehicles violate compliance with the fuel consumption standards of this part and the EPA provisions under 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
(C) If at any time, the agencies find new information that contradicts a manufacturer's use of the off-road exemption of this part, the manufacturers vehicles will be determined to be non-compliant with the regulations of this part and the manufacturer may be liable for civil penalties.
(10)
(i) 110,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vocational LHD vehicles certified to Phase 1 standards.
(ii) 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever comes first, for vocational LHD vehicles certified to Phase 2 standards.
(iii) 185,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vocational MHD vehicles for Phase 1 and 2.
(iv) 435,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vocational HHD vehicles for Phase 1 and 2.
(v) For Phase 1 credits calculated based on a useful life of 110,000 miles, multiply any banked credits carried forward for use into the Phase 2 program by 1.36. For Phase 1 credit deficits generated based on a useful life of 110,000 miles multiply the credit deficit by 1.36, if offsetting the shortfall with Phase 2 credits.
(11)
(12)
(13)
(c)
(1)
(i) Based on the roof height and the design of the cab, the truck tractor category is divided into subcategories as described in § 535.4. The standards that apply to each regulatory subcategory are shown in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, each with its own assigned standard.
(ii) For purposes of certifying vehicles to fuel consumption standards, manufacturers must divide their product lines in each regulatory subcategory into vehicles subfamilies that have similar emissions and fuel consumption features, as specified by EPA in 40 CFR 1037.230, and these subfamilies will be subject to the applicable standards. Each vehicle subfamily is limited to a single model year.
(iii) Standards for truck tractor engines are given in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2)
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its intent to voluntarily comply with fuel consumption standards and identify its plans to comply before it submits its first application for a certificate of conformity for the respective model year as specified in § 535.8; and, once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer must continue to comply for each subsequent model year for all the vehicles and engines it manufacturers in each regulatory category for a given model year.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(i) A manufacturer may optionally certify 4x2 tractors with heavy heavy-duty engines to the standards and useful life for Class 8 tractors, with no restriction on generating or using fuel consumption credits within the Class 8 averaging set.
(ii) A manufacturer may optionally certify a Class 7 tractor to the standards and useful life applicable to Class 8 tractors. Credit provisions apply as follows:
(A) If a manufacturer certifies all of its Class 7 tractors to Class 8 standards, it may use these Heavy HDV credits without restriction.
(B) This paragraph (c)(7)(ii)(B) applies if a manufacturer certifies some Class 7 tractors to Class 8 standards under this paragraph (c)(7)(ii) but not all of them. If a manufacturer includes Class 7 tractors in a subfamily of Class 8 tractors with an FEL below the standard, exclude the production volume of Class 7 tractors from the credit calculation. Conversely, if a manufacturer includes Class 7 tractors in a subfamily of Class 8 tractors with an FEL above the standard, it must include the production volume of Class 7 tractors in the credit calculation.
(8)
(i) For a Phase 1 vehicle model that straddles a roof-height, cab type, or GVWR division, manufacturers can include all the vehicles in the same vehicle family if it certifies the vehicle family to the more stringent standard. For roof height, the manufacturer must certify to the taller roof standard. For cab-type and GVWR, the manufacturers must certify to the numerically lower standard.
(ii) For a Phase 2 vehicle model that includes a range of GVWR values that straddle weight classes, manufacturers may include all the vehicles in the same vehicle family if it certifies the vehicle family to the numerically lower fuel consumption standard from the affected service classes. Vehicles that are optionally certified to a more stringent standard under this paragraph are subject to useful-life and all other provisions corresponding to the weight class with the numerically lower fuel consumption standard. For a Phase 2 tractor model that includes a range of roof heights that straddle subcategories, a manufacturer may include all the vehicles in the same vehicle family if it certifies the vehicle family to the appropriate subcategory as follows:
(A) A manufacturer may certify mid-roof tractors as high-roof tractors, but it may not certify high-roof tractors as mid-roof tractors.
(B) For tractor families straddling the low-roof/mid-roof division, a manufacturer may certify the family based on the primary roof-height as long as no more than 10 percent of the tractors are certified to the otherwise inapplicable subcategory. For example, if 95 percent of the tractors in the family are less than 120 inches tall, and the other 5 percent are 122 inches tall, a manufacturer may certify the tractors as a single family in the low-roof subcategory.
(C) Determine the appropriate aerodynamic bin number based on the actual roof height if the C
(9)
(10)
(11)
(i) 185,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles at or below 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(ii) 435,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for vehicles above 33,000 pounds GVWR.
(12)
(i) The original low- or mid-roof tractor must be covered by a valid certificate of conformity by EPA.
(ii) The modifications may not increase the frontal area of the tractor beyond the frontal area of the equivalent high-roof tractor with the corresponding standard trailer. If a manufacturer cannot use the original manufacturer's roof fairing for the high-roof tractor, use good engineering judgment to achieve similar or better aerodynamic performance.
(iii) The agencies may require that these manufacturers submit annual production reports as described in § 535.8 and 40 CFR 1037.250 indicating the original roof height for requalified vehicles.
(13)
(d)
(1)
(i) The heavy-duty engine regulatory category is divided into six regulatory subcategories, five compression-ignition subcategories and one spark-ignition subcategory, as shown in Table 14 of this section.
(ii) Separate standards exist for engine families manufactured for use in heavy-
(iii) For purposes of certifying engines to fuel consumption standards, manufacturers must divide their product lines in each regulatory subcategory into engine families. Fuel consumption standards apply each model year to the same engine families used to comply with EPA standards in 40 CFR 1036.108 and 40 CFR 1037.230. An engine family is designated under the EPA program based upon testing specified in 40 CFR part 1036, subpart F, and the engine family's primary intended service class. Each engine family manufactured for use in a heavy-duty tractor or vocational vehicle must be certified to the primary intended service class that it is designed for in accordance with 40 CFR 1036.108 and 1036.140.
(2)
(ii) A manufacturer must declare its intent to voluntarily comply with fuel consumption standards and identify its plans to comply before it submits its first application for a certificate of conformity for the respective model year as specified in § 535.8; and, once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer must continue to comply for each subsequent model year for all the vehicles and engines it manufacturers in each regulatory category for a given model year.
(3)
(4)
(i) Manufacturers entering the voluntary program in model years 2014 through 2016, may choose to certify compression-ignition engine families unable to meet standards provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section to the alternative fuel consumption standards of this paragraph (d)(4).
(ii) Manufacturers may not certify engines to these alternate standards if they are part of an averaging set in which they carry a balance of banked credits. For purposes of this section, manufacturers are deemed to carry credits in an averaging set if they carry credits from advance technology that are allowed to be used in that averaging set in accordance with § 535.7(d)(12).
(iii) The emission standards of this section are determined as specified by EPA in 40 CFR 1036.620(a) through (c) and should be converted to equivalent fuel consumption values.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(i) 120,000 miles or 11 years, whichever comes first, for CI and SI LHD engines certified to Phase 1 standards.
(ii) 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever comes first, for CI and SI LHD and spark-ignition engines certified to Phase 2 standards.
(iii) 185,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for CI MHD engines certified to Phase 1 and for Phase 2.
(iv) 435,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, for CI HHD engines certified to Phase 1 and for Phase 2.
(v) For Phase 1 credits that manufacturers calculate based on a useful life of 110,000 miles, multiply any banked credits that it carries forward for use into the Phase 2 program by 1.36. For Phase 1 credit deficits that manufacturers generate based on a useful life of 110,000 miles multiply the credit deficit by 1.36, if offsetting the shortfall with Phase 2 credits.
(10)
(11)
(A) 5.2849 gallons per 100 hp-hr for MHD vocational vehicle engines.
(B) 4.5874 gallons per 100 hp-hr for MHD tractor engines.
(C) 4.9705 gallons per 100 hp-hr for HHD vocational vehicle engines.
(D) 4.3418 gallons per 100 hp-hr for HHD tractor engines.
(ii) The primary standard in paragraph (d)(3) applies for all manufacturers in model year 2027 and later years.
(iii) Manufacturers may apply these provisions separately for medium heavy-duty engines and heavy heavy-duty engines. This election applies to all engines in each segment. For example, if a manufacturer elects this alternate option for its medium heavy-duty engines, all of the manufacturer's medium heavy-duty vocational and tractor engines must comply. Engine fuel consumption credits generated under § 535.7(d) for manufacturers complying early with the model year 2021 standards follow the temporary extended credit life allowance in § 535.7(d)(9).
(12)
(e)
(1)
(i) For trailers 35 feet or longer, a manufacturer may designate as “non-aero box vans” those box vans that have a rear lift gate or rear hinged ramp, and at least one of the following side features: Side lift gate, side-mounted pull-out platform, steps for side-door access, a drop-deck design, or belly boxes that occupy at least half the length of both sides of the trailer between the centerline of the landing gear and the leading edge of the front wheels. For trailers less than 35 feet long, manufacturers may designate as “non-aero box vans” any refrigerated box vans with at least one of the side features identified for longer trailers.
(ii) A manufacturer may designate as “partial-aero box vans” those box vans that have at least one of the side features identified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. Long box vans may also qualify as partial-aero box vans if they have a rear lift gate or rear hinged ramp. Note that this paragraph (e)(1)(ii) does not apply for box vans designated as “non-aero box vans” under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) “Full-aero box vans” are box vans that are not designated as non-aero box vans or partial-aero box vans under this paragraph (e)(1).
(iv) Fuel consumption standards apply for full-aero box vans as specified in the following table:
(v) Fuel consumption standards apply for partial-aero box vans as specified in the following table:
(2)
(ii) Non-aero box vans and non-box vans must meet the following standards:
(A) Trailers must use automatic tire inflation systems or tire pressure monitoring systems with wheels on all axles. Tire pressure monitoring systems must use low pressure warning and malfunction telltales in clear view of the driver as specified in S4.3 and S4.4 of 49 CFR 571.138.
(B) Non-box trailers must use tires with a TRRL at or below 5.1 kg/tonne. Through model year 2020, non-box trailers may instead use tires with a TRRL at or below 6.0 kg/tonne.
(C) Non-aero box vans must use tires with a TRRL at or below 4.7 kg/tonne. Through model year 2020, non-aero box vans may instead use tires with a TRRL at or below 5.1 kg/tonne.
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(i) Standards for long trailers are more stringent than standards for short trailers.
(ii) Standards for long dry box vans are more stringent than standards for short refrigerated box vans.
(iii) Standards for non-aero box vans are more stringent than standards for non-box trailers.
(8)
This part describes the measurement and calculation procedures manufacturers use to determine annual fuel consumption performance results. Manufacturers use the fuel consumption results determined in this part for calculating credit balances specified in § 535.7 and then determine whether they comply with standards as specified in § 535.10. Manufacturers must use EPA emissions test results for deriving NHTSA's fuel consumption performance rates. Consequently, manufacturers conducting testing for certification or annual demonstration testing and providing CO
(a)
(1) For the Phase 1 program, if the manufacturer's fleet includes conventional vehicles (gasoline, diesel and alternative fueled vehicles) and advanced technology vehicles (hybrids with powertrain designs that include energy storage systems, vehicles with waste heat recovery, electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles), it may divide its fleet into two separate fleets each with its own separate fleet average fuel consumption performance rate. For Phase 2, manufacturers may calculate their fleet average fuel consumption rates for a conventional fleet and separate advanced technology vehicle fleets. Advanced technology vehicle fleets should be separated into plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles.
(2) Vehicles in each fleet should be selected and divided into test groups or subconfigurations according to EPA in 40 CFR 86.1819-14(d).
(3) Use the EPA CO
(i) Use CO
(ii) Use CO
(iii) All electric vehicles are deemed to have zero emissions of CO
(iv) Use CO
(v) Use CO
(vi) Manufacturers can choose to analytically derive CO
(4) Calculate equivalent fuel consumption results for all test groups, in gallons per 100 miles, from CO
(i) Calculate the equivalent fuel consumption test group results as follows for compression-ignition vehicles and alternative fuel compression-ignition vehicles. CO
(ii) Calculate the equivalent fuel consumption test group results as follows for spark-ignition vehicles and alternative fuel spark-ignition vehicles. CO
(5) Calculate the fleet average fuel consumption result, in gallons per 100 miles, from the equivalent fuel consumption test group results and round the fuel consumption result to the nearest 0.001 gallon per 100 miles. Calculate the fleet average fuel consumption result using the following equation.
(6) Compare the fleet average fuel consumption standard to the fleet average fuel consumption performance. The fleet average fuel consumption performance must be less than or equal to the fleet fuel consumption standard to comply with standards in § 535.5(a).
(b)
(1) Select vehicles and vehicle family configurations to test as specified in 40 CFR 1037.230 for vehicles that make up each of the manufacturer's regulatory subcategories of vocational vehicles and tractors. For the Phase 2 program, select powertrain, axle and transmission families in accordance with 40 CFR 1037.231 and 1037.232.
(2) Follow the EPA testing requirements in 40 CFR 1037.230 and 1037.501 to derive inputs for the Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM).
(3) Enter inputs into GEM, in accordance with 40 CFR 1037.520, to derive the emissions and fuel consumption performance results for all vehicles (conventional, alternative fueled and advanced technology vehicles).
(4) For Phase 1 and 2, all of the following GEM inputs apply for vocational vehicles and other tractor regulatory subcategories, as follows:
(i) Model year and regulatory subcategory (see § 535.3 and 40 CFR 1037.230).
(ii) Coefficient of aerodynamic drag or drag area, as described in 40 CFR 1037.520(b) (tractors only for Phase 1).
(iii) Steer and drive tire rolling resistance, as described in 40 CFR 1037.520(c).
(iv) Vehicle speed limit, as described in 40 CFR 1037.520(d) (tractors only).
(v) Vehicle weight reduction, as described in 40 CFR 1037.520(e) (tractors only for Phase 1).
(vi) Automatic engine shutdown systems, as described in 40 CFR 1037.660 (only for Phase 1 Class 8 sleeper cabs). For Phase 1, enter a GEM input value of 5.0 g/ton-mile, or an adjusted value as specified in 40 CFR 1037.660.
(5) For Phase 2 vehicles, the GEM inputs described in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section continue to apply. Note that the provisions related to vehicle speed limiters and automatic engine shutdown systems are available for vocational vehicles in Phase 2. The additional GEM inputs that apply for vocational vehicles and other tractor regulatory subcategories for demonstrating compliance with Phase 2 standards are as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(A) Transmission make, model and type;
(B) Drive axle configuration;
(C) Drive axle ratio,
(D) GEM inputs associated with powertrain testing include powertrain family, transmission calibration identifier, test data from 40 CFR 1037.550, and the powertrain test configuration (dynamometer connected to transmission output or wheel hub).
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(A) Intelligent controls
(B) Accessory load
(C) Tire-pressure systems
(D) Extended-idle reduction
(E) Additional GEM inputs may apply as follows:
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(6) In unusual circumstances, manufacturers may ask EPA to use weighted average results of multiple GEM runs to represent special technologies for which no single GEM run can accurately reflect.
(7) From the GEM results, select the CO
(c) [Reserved]
(d)
(1) Manufacturers must select emission-data engines representing the tested configuration of each engine family specified in 40 CFR part 86 and 40 CFR 1036.235 for engines in heavy-duty truck tractors and vocational vehicles that make up each of the manufacture's regulatory subcategories.
(2) Standards in § 535.5(d) apply to the CO
(i) Use the CO
(ii) Use the CO
(iii) Use the CO
(iv) All electric vehicles are deemed to have zero emissions of CO
(3) Use the CO
(i) If a manufacturer certifies an engine family for use both as a vocational engine and as a tractor engine, the manufacturer must split the family into two separate subfamilies in accordance with 40 CFR 1036.230. The manufacturer may assign the numbers and configurations of engines within the respective subfamilies at any time prior to the submission of the end-of-year report required by 40 CFR 1036.730 and § 535.8. The manufacturer must track into which type of vehicle each engine is installed, although EPA may allow the manufacturer to use statistical methods to determine this for a fraction of its engines.
(ii) The following engines are excluded from the engine families used to determine fuel consumption FCL values and the benefit for these engines is determined as an advanced technology credit under the ABT provisions provided in § 535.7(e); these provisions apply only for the Phase 1 program:
(A) Engines certified as hybrid engines or power packs.
(B) Engines certified as hybrid engines designed with PTO capability and that are sold with the engine coupled to a transmission.
(C) Engines with Rankine cycle waste heat recovery.
(4) Manufacturers generating CO
(5) Calculate equivalent fuel consumption values from the emissions CO
(i) Calculate equivalent fuel consumption FCL values for compression-ignition engines and alternative fuel compression-ignition engines. CO
(ii) Calculate equivalent fuel consumption FCL values for spark-ignition engines and alternative fuel spark-ignition engines. CO
(iii) Manufacturers may carryover fuel consumption data from a previous model year if allowed to carry over emissions data for EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 1036.235.
(iv) If a manufacturer uses an alternate test procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and subsequently the data is rejected by EPA, NHTSA will also reject the data.
(e)
(1) Select trailer family configurations that make up each of the manufacturer's regulatory subcategories of heavy-duty trailers in 40 CFR 1037.230 and § 535.4.
(2) Obtain preliminary approvals for trailer aerodynamic devices from EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 1037.150.
(3) For manufacturers voluntarily complying in model years 2018 through 2020, and for trailers complying with mandatory standards in model years 2021 and later, determine the CO
(4) From the equation results, use the CO
(i) For families containing multiple subfamilies, identify the FELs for each subfamily.
(ii) Calculate equivalent fuel consumption FEL values for trailer families. CO
(a)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(2)
(i) A credit surplus occurs when the net sum of the manufacturer's generated credits for engines or vehicle families or fleets within an averaging set is positive (a zero credit balance is when the sum equals zero).
(ii) A credit deficit occurs when the net sum of the manufacturer's generated credits for engines or vehicle families or fleets within an averaging set is negative.
(iii) Positive credits, other than advanced technology credits, generated and calculated within an averaging set may only be used to offset negative credits within the same averaging set.
(iv) Manufacturers may certify one or more vehicle families (or subfamilies) to an FEL above the applicable fuel consumption standard, subject to any applicable FEL caps and other provisions allowed by EPA in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037, if the manufacturer shows in its application for certification to EPA that its projected balance of all FCC transactions in that model year is greater than or equal to zero or that a negative balance is allowed by EPA under 40 CFR 1036.745 and 1037.745.
(v) If a manufacturer certifies a vehicle family to an FEL that exceeds the otherwise applicable standard, it must obtain enough FCC to offset the vehicle family's deficit by the due date of its final report required in § 535.8. The emission credits used to address the deficit may come from other vehicle families that generate FCCs in the same model year (or from the next three subsequent model years), from banked FCCs from previous model years, or from FCCs generated in the same or previous model years that it obtained through trading. Note that the option for using banked or traded credits does not apply for trailers.
(vi) Manufacturers may certify a vehicle or engine family using an FEL (as described in § 535.6) below the fuel consumption standard (as described in § 535.5) and choose not to generate conventional fuel consumption credits for that family. Manufacturers do not need to calculate fuel consumption credits for those families and do not need to submit or keep the associated records described in § 535.8 for these families. Manufacturers participating in NHTSA's FCC program must provide reports as specified in § 535.8.
(3)
(i) Surplus credits may be banked by the manufacturer for use in future model years, or traded, given the restriction that the credits have an expiration date of five model years after the year in which the credits are generated. For example, banked credits earned in model year 2014 may be utilized through model year 2019. Surplus credits will become banked credits unless a manufacturer contacts NHTSA to expire its credits.
(ii) Surplus credits become earned or usable banked FCCs when the manufacturer's final report is approved by both agencies. However, the agencies may revoke these FCCs at any time if they are unable to verify them after reviewing the manufacturer's reports or auditing its records.
(iii) Banked FCC retain the designation from the averaging set and model year in which they were generated.
(iv) Banked credits retain the designation of the averaging set in which they were generated.
(v) Trailer manufacturers generating credits in paragraph (e) of this section may not bank credits except to resolve credit deficits in the same model year or from up to three prior model years.
(4)
(i) Manufacturers may only trade banked credits to other manufacturers to use for compliance with fuel consumption standards. Traded FCCs, other than advanced technology credits, may be used only within the averaging set in which they were generated. Manufacturers may only trade credits to other entities for the purpose of expiring credits.
(ii) Advanced technology credits can be traded across different averaging sets.
(iii) The agencies may revoke traded FCCs at any time if they are unable to verify them after reviewing the manufacturer's reports or auditing its records.
(iv) If a negative FCC balance results from a transaction, both the buyer and seller are liable, except in cases the agencies deem to involve fraud. See § 535.9 for cases involving fraud. EPA also may void the certificates of all vehicle families participating in a trade that results in a manufacturer having a negative balance of emission credits. See 40 CFR 1037.745.
(v) Trailer manufacturers generating credits in paragraph (e) of this section starting in model year 2027 may not bank or trade credits. These manufacturers may only use credits for the purpose of averaging.
(vi) Manufacturers with deficits or projecting deficits before or during a production model year may not trade credits until its available credits exceed the deficit. Manufacturers with a deficit may not trade credits if the deadline to offset that credit deficit has passed.
(5)
(6)
(A) Detailed calculations of projected emission and fuel consumption credits (positive or negative) based on projected U.S.-directed production volumes. The agencies may require a manufacturer to include similar calculations from its other engine or vehicle families to project its net credit balances for the model year. If a manufacturer projects negative emission and/or fuel consumption credits for a family, it must state the source of positive emission and/or fuel consumption credits it expects to use to offset the negative credits demonstrating how it plans to resolve any credit deficits that might occur for a model year within a period of up to three model years after that deficit has occurred.
(B) Actual emissions and fuel consumption credit balances, credit transactions, and credit trades.
(ii) Manufacturers are required to provide updated credit plans after receiving their final verified reports from EPA and NHTSA after the end of each model year.
(iii) The agencies may determine that a manufacturer's plan is unreasonable or unrealistic based on a consideration of past and projected use of specific technologies, the historical sales mix of its vehicle models, subsequent failure to follow any submitted plans, and limited expected access to traded credits.
(iv) The agencies may also consider the plan unreasonable if the manufacturer's credit deficit increases from one model year to the next. The agencies may require that the manufacturers must send interim reports describing its progress toward resolving its credit deficit over the course of a model year.
(v) If NHTSA determines that a manufacturers plan is unreasonable or unrealistic, the manufacturer is deemed as not comply with fuel consumption standards as specified in § 535.10(c) and the manufacturer may be liable for civil penalties.
(7)
(8)
(i) Fuel consumption credits a manufacturer generates for light and medium heavy-duty vocational vehicles in model years 2018 through 2021 may be used through model year 2027, instead of being limited to a five-year credit life as specified in this part.
(ii) The manufacturer may use the off-cycle provisions of paragraph (f) of this section to apply technologies to Phase 1 vehicles as follows:
(A) A manufacturer may apply an improvement factor of 0.988 for tractors and vocational vehicles with automatic tire inflation systems on all axles.
(B) For vocational vehicles with automatic engine shutdown systems that conform with 40 CFR 1037.660, a manufacturer may apply an improvement factor of 0.95.
(C) For vocational vehicles with stop-start systems that conform with 40 CFR 1037.660, a manufacturer may apply an improvement factor of 0.92.
(D) For vocational vehicles with neutral-idle systems conforming with 40 CFR 1037.660, manufacturers may apply an improvement factor of 0.98. Manufacturers may adjust this improvement factor if we approve a partial reduction under 40 CFR 1037.660(a)(2); for example, if the manufacturer's design reduces fuel consumption by half as much as shifting to neutral, it may apply an improvement factor of 0.99.
(9)
(i) Small manufacturers may certify their vehicles instead of relying on the exemption of § 535.3.
(ii) Use Phase 1 GEM to determine a fuel consumption level for vehicle, then multiply this value by the engine's FCL for fuel consumption and divide by the engine's applicable fuel consumption standard.
(iii) Use the value determined in paragraph (ii) in the credit equation specified in part (c) of this section in place of the term (Std − FEL).
(iv) The following provisions apply uniquely to small businesses under the custom-chassis standards of § 535.5(b)(6):
(A) Manufacturers may use fuel consumption credits generated under paragraph (c) of this section, including banked or traded credits from any averaging set. Such credits remain subject to other limitations that apply under this part.
(B) Manufacturers may produce up to 200 drayage tractors in a given model year to the standards described in § 535.5(b)(6) for “other buses”. Treat these drayage tractors as being in their own averaging set.
(10)
(b)
(2) Adjust the fuel consumption performance of subconfigurations with advanced technology for determining the fleet average actual fuel consumption value as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and 40 CFR 86.1819-14(d)(7). Advanced technology vehicles can be separated in a different fleet for the purpose of applying credit incentives as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(3) Adjust the fuel consumption performance for subconfigurations with innovative technology. A manufacturer is eligible to increase the fuel consumption performance of heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans in accordance with procedures established by EPA set forth in 40 CFR part 600. The eligibility of a manufacturer to increase its fuel consumption performance through use of an off-cycle technology requires an application request made to EPA and NHTSA in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1869-12 and an approval granted by the agencies. For off-cycle technologies that are covered under 40 CFR 86.1869-12, NHTSA will collaborate with EPA regarding NHTSA's evaluation of the specific off-cycle technology to ensure its impact on fuel consumption and the suitability of using the off-cycle technology to adjust fuel consumption performance. NHTSA will provide its views on the suitability of the technology for that purpose to EPA. NHTSA will apply the criteria in section (f) of this section in granting or denying off-cycle requests.
(4) Fuel consumption credits may be generated for vehicles certified in model year 2013 to the model year 2014 standards in § 535.5(a). If a manufacturer chooses to generate CO
(5) Calculate the averaging set credit value by summing together the fleet credits for conventional and advanced technology vehicles including any adjustments for innovative technologies. Manufacturers may sum conventional and innovative technology credits before adding any advanced technology credits in each averaging set.
(6) For credits that manufacturers calculate based on a useful life of 120,000 miles, multiply any banked credits carried forward for use in model year 2021 and later by 1.25. For credit deficits that a manufacturer calculates based on a useful life of 120,000 miles and that it offsets with credits originally earned in model year 2021 and later, it multiplies the credit deficit by 1.25.
(c)
Vehicle Family FCC (gallons) = (Std − FEL) × (Payload) × (Volume) × (UL) × (10
(i) Calculate the value of credits generated in a model year for each family or subfamily consisting of vehicles with advanced technology vehicles in each averaging set using the equation above and the guidelines provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. Manufacturers may generate credits for advanced technology vehicles using incentives specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(ii) Calculate the value of credits generated in a model year for each family or subfamily consisting of vehicles with off-cycle technology vehicles in each averaging set using the equation above and the guidelines provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(2) Manufacturers must sum all negative and positive credits for each vehicle family within each applicable averaging set to obtain the total credit balance for the model year before rounding. The sum of fuel consumptions credits must be rounded to the nearest gallon. Calculate the total credits generated in a model year for each averaging set using the following equation:
(3) Manufacturers can sum conventional and innovative technology credits before adding any advanced technology credits in each averaging set.
(4) If a manufacturer chooses to generate CO
(i) Fuel consumption credits may be generated for vehicles certified in model year 2013 to the model year 2014 standards in § 535.5(b) and (c). To do so, a manufacturer must certify its entire U.S.-directed production volume of vehicles. The same production volume restrictions specified in 40 CFR 1037.150(a)(1) relating to when test groups are certified apply to the NHTSA early credit provisions. Credits are calculated as specified in paragraph (c)(11) of this section relative to the standards that would apply for model year 2014. Surplus credits generated under this paragraph (c)(4) may be increased by a factor of 1.5 for determining total available credits for banking or trading. For example, if a manufacturer has 10 gallons of surplus credits for model year 2013, it may bank 15 gallons of credits. Credit deficits for an averaging set prior to model year 2014 do not carry over to model year 2014. These credits may be used to show compliance with the standards of this part for 2014 and later model years. Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA program they must stay in the program for all of the optional model years and remain standardized with the same implementation approach being followed to meet the EPA CO
(ii) A tractor manufacturer may generate fuel consumption credits for the number of additional SmartWay designated tractors (relative to its MY 2012 production), provided that credits are not generated for those vehicles under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section. Calculate credits for each regulatory sub-category relative to the standard that would apply in model year 2014 using the equations in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Use a production volume equal to the number of verified model year 2013 SmartWay tractors minus the number of verified model year 2012 SmartWay tractors. A manufacturer may bank credits equal to the surplus credits generated under this paragraph multiplied by 1.50. A manufacturer's 2012 and 2013 model years must be equivalent in length. Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA program they must stay in the program for all of the optional model years and remain standardized with the same implementation approach being followed to meet the EPA CO
(5) If a manufacturer generates credits from vehicles certified for advanced technology in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a multiplier of 1.5 can be used, but this multiplier cannot be used on the same credits for which the early credit multiplier is used.
(6) For model years 2012 and later, manufacturers may generate or use fuel consumption credits for averaging to demonstrate compliance with the alternative standards as described in § 535.5(b)(6) of this part. Manufacturers can specify a Family Emission Limit (FEL) for fuel consumption for each vehicle subfamily. The FEL may not be less than the result of emissions and fuel consumption modeling as described in 40 CFR 1037.520 and § 535.6. These FELs serve as the fuel consumption standards for the vehicle subfamily instead of the standards specified in this § 535.5(b)(6). Manufacturers may not use averaging for motor homes, coach buses, emergency vehicles or concrete mixers meeting standards under § 535.5(b)(5).
(7) Manufacturers may not use averaging for vehicles meeting standards § 535.5(b)(6)(iv) through (vi), and manufacturers may not use fuel consumption credits for banking or trading for any vehicles certified under § 535.5(b)(6).
(8) Manufacturers certifying any vehicles under § 535.5(b)(6) must consider each separate vehicle type (or group of vehicle types) as a separate averaging set.
(d)
(i) Calculate the value of credits generated in a model year for each family or subfamily consisting of engines with advanced technology vehicles in each averaging set using the equation above and the guidelines provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. Manufacturers may generate credits for advanced technology vehicles using incentives specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(ii) Calculate the value of credits generated in a model year for each family or subfamily consisting of engines with off-cycle technology vehicles in each averaging set using the equation above and the guidelines provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(2) Manufacturers shall sum all negative and positive credits for each engine family within the applicable averaging set to obtain the total credit balance for the model year before rounding. The sum of fuel consumptions credits should be rounded to the nearest gallon.
Calculate the total credits generated in a model year for each averaging set using the following equation:
(3) The provisions of this section apply to manufacturers utilizing the compression-ignition engine voluntary alternate standard provisions specified in § 535.5(d)(4) as follows:
(i) Manufacturers may not certify engines to the alternate standards if they are part of an averaging set in which they carry a balance of banked credits. For purposes of this section, manufacturers are deemed to carry credits in an averaging set if they carry credits from advance technology that are allowed to be used in that averaging set.
(ii) Manufacturers may not bank fuel consumption credits for any engine
(iii) Note that the provisions of paragraph (d)(10) of this section apply with respect to credit deficits generated while utilizing alternate standards.
(4) Where a manufacturer has chosen to comply with the EPA alternative compression-ignition engine phase-in standard provisions in 40 CFR 1036.150(e), and has optionally decided to follow the same path under the NHTSA fuel consumption program, it must certify all of its model year 2013 compression-ignition engines within a given averaging set to the applicable alternative standards in § 535.5(d)(5). Engines certified to these standards are not eligible for early credits under paragraph (d)(14) of this section. Credits are calculated using the same equation provided in paragraph (d)(11) of this section.
(5) If a manufacturer chooses to generate early CO
(6) Manufacturers may generate fuel consumption credits from an engine family subject to spark-ignition standards for exchanging with other engine families only if the engines in the family are gasoline-fueled.
(7) Engine credits generated for compression-ignition engines in the 2020 and earlier model years may be used in model year 2021 and later only if the credit-generating engines were certified to the tractor standards in § 535.5(d) and 40 CFR 1036.108. Manufacturers may otherwise use fuel consumption credits generated in one model year without adjustment for certifying vehicles in a later model year, even if fuel consumption standards are different.
(8) Engine families manufacturers certify with a nonconformance penalty under 40 CFR part 86, subpart L, and may not generate fuel consumption credits.
(9)
(i) If a manufacturer is eligible to certify all of its model year 2020 engines within the averaging set to the tractor and vocational vehicle engine standards in § 535.5(d)(11) and the requirements applicable to model year 2021 engines, the banked and traded fuel consumption credits generated for model year 2018 through 2024 engines may be used through model year 2030 as specified in paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this section or through a five-year credit life, whichever is later.
(ii) Banked and traded fuel consumption credits generated under this paragraph (d)(9) for model year 2018 through 2024 engines may be used through model year 2030 with the extended credit life values shown in the table:
(e)
(2) Calculate the fuel consumption credits in a model year for each participating family or subfamily consisting of full aero box trailers (vehicles) in each averaging set (as defined in § 535.4) using the equation in this section. Each designated vehicle family or subfamily has a “family emissions limit” (FEL) which is compared to the associated regulatory subcategory standard. An FEL that falls below the regulatory subcategory standard creates “positive credits,” while fuel consumption level of a family group above the standard creates a “negative credits.” The value of credits generated for each family or subfamily in a model year is calculated as follows and must be rounded to nearest whole number:
(3) Trailer manufacturers may not generate advanced technology credits.
(4) Manufacturers shall sum all negative and positive credits for each vehicle family within the applicable averaging set to obtain the total credit balance for the model year before rounding. Calculate the total credits generated in a model year for each averaging set using the following equation:
(5) Trailer manufacturers may not bank credits within an averaging set but surplus fuel consumption credits from a given model year may be used to offset deficits from earlier model years.
(f)
(A)
(B)
(
(
(
(
(
(C)
(
(
(
(D)
(ii) There are no separate credit allowances for advanced technology vehicles in the Phase 2 program. Instead, vehicle families containing plug-in battery electric hybrids, all-electric, and fuel cell vehicles certifying to Phase 2 vocational and tractor standards may multiply credits by a multiplier of:
(A) 3.5 times for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles;
(B) 4.5 times for all-electric vehicles; and
(C) 5.5 times for fuel cell vehicles.
(D) Incentivized credits for vehicles equipped with advanced technologies maintain the same credit flexibilities and restrictions as conventional credits specified in paragraph (a) of this section during the Phase 2 program.
(E) For vocational vehicles and tractors subject to Phase 2 standards, create separate vehicle families if there is a credit multiplier for advanced technology; group those vehicles together in a vehicle family if they use the same multiplier.
(F) For Phase 2 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and for fuel cells powered by any fuel other than hydrogen, calculate fuel consumption credits using an FEL based on equivalent emission measurements from powertrain testing. Phase 2 advanced-technology credits do not apply for hybrid vehicles that have no plug-in capability.
(2)
(i) For model years 2013 through 2020, manufacturers may generate innovative technology credits for introducing technologies that were not in-common use for heavy-duty tractor, vocational vehicles or engines before model year 2010 and that are not reflected in the EPA specified test procedures. Upon identification and joint approval with EPA, NHTSA will allow equivalent fuel consumption credits into its program to those allowed by EPA for manufacturers seeking to obtain innovative technology credits in
(A) The technology has a direct impact upon reducing fuel consumption performance; and
(B) The manufacturer has provided sufficient information to make sound engineering judgments on the impact of the technology in reducing fuel consumption performance.
(ii) For model years 2021 and later, manufacturers may generate off-cycle technology credits for introducing technologies that are not reflected in the EPA specified test procedures. Upon identification and joint approval with EPA, NHTSA will allow equivalent fuel consumption credits into its program to those allowed by EPA for manufacturers seeking to obtain innovative technology credits in a given model year. Such credits must remain within the same regulatory subcategory in which the credits were generated. NHTSA will adopt fuel consumption credits depending upon whether—
(A) The technology meets paragraph (f)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
(B) For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, manufacturers using the 5-cycle test to quantify the benefit of a technology are not required to obtain approval from the agencies to generate results.
(iii) The following provisions apply to all innovative and off-cycle technologies:
(A) Technologies found to be defective, or identified as a part of NHTSA's safety defects program, and technologies that are not performing as intended will have the values of approved off-cycle credits removed from the manufacturer's credit balance.
(B) Approval granted for innovative and off-cycle technology credits under NHTSA's fuel efficiency program does not affect or relieve the obligation to comply with the Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301), including the “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122), and all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued thereunder (FMVSSs) (49 CFR part 571). In order to generate off-cycle or innovative technology credits manufacturers must state—
(
(
(C) Manufacturers requesting approval for innovative technology credits are required to provide documentation in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1869-12, 1036.610, and 1037.610.
(D) Credits will be accepted on a one-for-one basis expressed in terms of gallons in comparison to those approved by EPA.
(E) For the heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the average fuel consumption will be calculated as a separate credit amount (rounded to the nearest whole number) using the following equation:
(F) NHTSA will not approve innovative technology credits for technology that is related to crash-avoidance technologies, safety critical systems or systems affecting safety-critical functions, or technologies designed for the purpose of reducing the frequency of vehicle crashes.
(iv) Manufacturers normally may not calculate off-cycle credits or improvement factors under this section for technologies represented by GEM, but the agencies may allow a manufacturer to do so by averaging multiple GEM runs for special technologies for which a single GEM run cannot accurately reflect in-use performance. For example, if a manufacturer use an idle-reduction technology that is effective 80 percent of the time, the agencies may allow a manufacturer to run GEM with the technology active and with it inactive, and then apply an 80% weighting factor to calculate the off-cycle credit or improvement factor. A may need to perform testing to establish proper weighting factors or otherwise quantify the benefits of the special technologies.
(v) A manufacturer may apply the off-cycle provisions of this paragraph (2) and 40 CFR 1037.610 to trailers as early as model year 2018 as follows:
(A) A manufacturer may account for weight reduction based on measured values instead of using the weight reductions specified in 40 CFR 1037.515. Quantify the weight reduction by measuring the weight of a trailer in a certified configuration and comparing it to the weight of an equivalent trailer without weight-reduction technologies. This qualifies as A to B testing this part. Use good engineering judgment to select an equivalent trailer representing a baseline configuration. Use the calculated weight reduction in the equation specified in 40 CFR 1037.515 to calculate the trailer's CO
(B) If a manufacturer's off-cycle technology reduces emissions and fuel consumption in a way that is proportional to measured rates as described in 40 CFR 1037.610(b)(1), multiply the trailer's CO
(C) If a manufacturer's off-cycle technology does not yield emission and fuel consumption reductions that are proportional to measured rates, as described in 40 CFR 1037.610(b)(2), calculate an adjusted CO
(vi)
(A) For model years before 2021, manufacturers may continue to use an approved improvement factor or credit for any appropriate engine or vehicle family in future model years through 2020.
(B) For model years 2021 and later, manufacturers may not rely on an approval for model years before 2021. Manufacturers must separately request the agencies approval before applying an improvement factor or credit under this section for 2021 and later engines and vehicle, even if the agencies approve the improvement factor or credit for similar engine and vehicle models before model year 2021.
(C) The following restrictions also apply to manufacturers seeking to continue to carryover the improvement factor (not the credit value) if—
(
(
(
(
(D) The documentation to carryover credits that would primarily justify the difference in fuel efficiency between real world and compliance protocols is the same for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliance protocols. The agencies must approve the justification. If the agencies do not approve the justification, the manufacturer must recertify.
(a)
(1) The information required by this part must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this section and must be based upon all the information and data available to the manufacturer 30 days before submitting information.
(2) Manufacturers must submit information electronically through the EPA database system as the single point of entry for all information required for this national program and both agencies will have access to the information. In special circumstances, data may not be able to be received electronically (
(3) Manufacturers providing incomplete reports missing any of the required information or providing untimely reports are considered as not complying with standards (
(4) Manufacturers certifying a vehicle or engine family using an FEL or FCL below the applicable fuel consumption standard as described in § 535.5 may choose not to generate fuel consumption credits for that family. In which case, the manufacturer is not required to submit reporting or keep the associated records described in this part for that family.
(5) Manufacturers must use good engineering judgment and provide comparable fuel consumption information to that of the information or data provided to EPA under 40 CFR 86.1865, 1036.250, 1036.730, 1036.825 1037.250, 1037.730, and 1037.825.
(6) Any information that must be sent directly to NHTSA. In instances in which EPA has not created an electronic pathway to receive the information, the information should be sent through an electronic portal identified by NHTSA or through the NHTSA CAFE database (
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) A list of each unique subconfiguration in the manufacturer's fleet describing the make and model designations, attribute based-values (
(ii) The emission and fuel consumption fleet average standard derived from the unique vehicle configurations;
(iii) The estimated vehicle configuration, test group and fleet production volumes;
(iv) The expected emissions and fuel consumption test group results and fleet average performance;
(v) If complying with MY 2013 fuel consumption standards, a statement must be provided declaring that the manufacturer is voluntarily choosing to comply early with the EPA and NHTSA programs. The manufacturers must also acknowledge that once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer will continue to comply with the fuel consumption standards for subsequent model years for all the vehicles it manufacturers in each regulatory category for a given model year;
(vi) If complying with MYs 2014, 2015 or 2016 fuel consumption standards, a statement must be provided declaring whether the manufacturer will use fixed or increasing standards in accordance with § 535.5(a). The manufacturer must also acknowledge that once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer must continue to comply with the same alternative for subsequent model years for all the vehicles it manufacturers in each regulatory category for a given model year;
(vii) If complying with MYs 2014 or 2015 fuel consumption standards, a statement must be provided declaring that the manufacturer is voluntarily choosing to comply with NHTSA's voluntary fuel consumption standards in accordance with § 535.5(a)(4). The manufacturers must also acknowledge that once selected, the decision cannot be reversed and the manufacturer will continue to comply with the fuel consumption standards for subsequent model years for all the vehicles it manufacturers in each regulatory category for a given model year;
(viii) The list of Class 2b and 3 incomplete vehicles (cab-complete or chassis complete vehicles) and the method used to certify these vehicles as complete pickups and vans identifying the most similar complete sister- or other complete vehicles used to derive the target standards and performance test results;
(ix) The list of Class 4 and 5 incomplete and complete vehicles and the method use to certify these vehicles as complete pickups and vans identifying the most similar complete or sister vehicles used to derive the target standards and performance test results;
(x) List of loose engines included in the heavy-duty pickup and van category
(xi) Copy of any notices a vehicle manufacturer sends to the engine manufacturer to notify the engine manufacturers that their engines are subject to emissions and fuel consumption standards and that it intends to use their engines in excluded vehicles;
(xii) A fuel consumption credit plan as specified § 535.7(a) identifying the manufacturers estimated credit balances, planned credit flexibilities (
(xiii) The supplemental information specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
NHTSA may also ask a manufacturer to provide additional information if necessary to verify compliance with the fuel consumption requirements of this section.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) Equivalent fuel consumption values for emissions CO
(ii) Equivalent fuel consumption values for emission CO
(iii) Equivalent fuel consumption values for emissions CO
(iv) Report modeling results for ten configurations in terms of CO
(v) Credit plans including the fuel consumption credit plan described in § 535.7(a).
(3)
(d)
(1)
(ii) For model year 2013 and later, heavy-duty vehicle and engine manufacturers complying with NHTSA voluntary and mandatory standards must submit final reports through the EPA database including both GHG emissions and fuel consumption information within 270 days after the end of the given model year and no later than September 30 of the next calendar year.
(iii) A manufacturer may ask NHTSA and EPA to extend the deadline of a final report by up to 30 days. A manufacturer unable to provide, and requesting to omit an emissions rate or fuel consumption value from a final report must obtain approval from the agencies prior to the submission deadline of its final report.
(iv) If a manufacturer expects differences in the information reported between the EOY and the final year report specified in 40 CFR 1036.730 and 1037.730, it must provide the most up-to-date fuel consumption projections in its final report and identify the information as preliminary.
(v) If the manufacturer cannot provide any of the required fuel consumption information, it must state the specific reason for the insufficiency and identify the additional testing needed or explain what analytical methods are believed by the manufacturer will be necessary to eliminate the insufficiency and certify that the results will be available for the final report.
(2)
(i) Engine and vehicle family designations and averaging sets.
(ii) Engine and vehicle regulatory subcategory and fuel consumption standards including any alternative standards used.
(iii) Engine and vehicle family FCLs and FELs in terms of fuel consumption.
(iv) Production volumes for engines and vehicles.
(v) A summary as specified in paragraph (g)(7) of this section describing the vocational vehicles and vocational tractors that were exempted as heavy-duty off-road vehicles. This applies to manufacturers participating
(vi) A summary describing any advanced or innovative technology engines or vehicles including alternative fueled vehicles that were produced for the model year identifying the approaches used to determinate compliance and the production volumes.
(vii) A list of each unique subconfiguration included in a manufacturer's fleet of heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans identifying the attribute based-values (GVWR, GCWR, Curb Weight, and drive configurations) and standards. This provision applies only to manufacturers producing heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
(viii) The fuel consumption fleet average standard derived from the unique vehicle configurations. This provision applies only to manufacturers producing heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
(ix) The subconfiguration and test group production volumes. This provision applies only to manufacturers producing heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
(x) The fuel consumption test group results and fleet average performance. This provision applies only to manufacturers producing heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
(xi) Manufacturers may correct errors in EOY and final reports as follows:
(A) Manufacturers may correct any errors in their end-of-year report when preparing the final report, as long as manufacturers send us the final report by the time it is due.
(B) If manufacturers or the agencies determine within 270 days after the end of the model year that errors mistakenly decreased he manufacturer's balance of fuel consumption credits, manufacturers may correct the errors and recalculate the balance of its fuel consumption credits. Manufacturers may not make any corrections for errors that are determined more than 270 days after the end of the model year. If manufacturers report a negative balance of fuel consumption credits, NHTSA may disallow corrections under this paragraph (d)(2)(xi)(B).
(C) If manufacturers or the agencies determine any time that errors mistakenly increased its balance of fuel consumption credits, manufacturers must correct the errors and recalculate the balance of fuel consumption credits.
(xii) Under limited conditions, NHTSA may also ask a manufacturer to provide additional information directly to the Administrator if necessary to verify the fuel consumption requirements of this regulation.
(e)
(f)
(1) The item is within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 32910(c);
(2) The disclosure of the information at issue would cause significant competitive damage;
(3) The period during which the item must be withheld to avoid that damage; and
(4) How earlier disclosure would result in that damage.
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(A) A description of each excluded vehicle configuration, including an explanation of why it qualifies for this exclusion.
(B) The number of vehicles excluded for each vehicle configuration.
(ii) A manufacturer having an off-road vehicle failing to meet the criteria under the agencies' off-road exclusions will be allowed to request an exclusion of such a vehicle from EPA and NHTSA. The approval will be granted through the certification process for the vehicle family and will be done in collaboration between EPA and NHTSA in accordance with the provisions in 40 CFR 1037.150, 1037.210, and 1037.631.
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(i) As the seller, the manufacturer must include the following information:
(A) The corporate names of the buyer and any brokers.
(B) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(C) The averaging set corresponding to the engine families that generated fuel consumption credits for the trade, including the number of fuel consumption credits from each averaging set.
(ii) As the buyer, the manufacturer or entity must include the following information in its report:
(A) The corporate names of the seller and any brokers.
(B) A copy of any contracts related to the trade.
(C) How the manufacturer or entity intends to use the fuel consumption credits, including the number of fuel consumption credits it intends to apply for each averaging set.
(D) A copy of the contract with signatures from both the buyer and the seller.
(12)
(13)
(i) If a manufacturer installs model year 2020 or earlier engines in the manufacturer's vehicles in calendar year 2020, include all those Phase 1 vehicles in its production and ABT reports related to model year 2020 compliance, although the agencies may require the manufacturer to identify these separately from vehicles produced in calendar year 2019.
(ii) If a manufacturer installs model year 2020 engines in its vehicles in calendar year 2021, submit production and ABT reports for those Phase 1 vehicles separate from the reports it submits for Phase 2 vehicles with model year 2021 engines.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(1) Manufacturers must organize and maintain records for NHTSA as described in this section. NHTSA in conjunction or separately from EPA may review a manufacturers records at any time.
(2) Keep the records required by this section for at least eight years after the due date for the end-of-year report. Manufacturers may not use fuel consumption credits for any engines if it does not keep all the records required under this section. Manufacturers must therefore keep these records to continue to bank valid credits. Store these records in any electronic format and on any media, as long as the manufacturer can promptly send the agencies organized records in English if the agencies ask for them. Manufacturers must keep these records readily available. NHTSA may review them at any time.
(3) Keep a copy of the reports required in § 535.8 and 40 CFR 1036.725,1036.730, 1037.725 and 1037.730.
(4) Keep records of the vehicles and engine identification number (usually the serial number) for each vehicle and
(5) The agencies may require manufacturers to keep additional records or to send relevant information not required by this section in accordance with each agency's authority.
(6) If collected separately and NHTSA finds that information is provided fraudulent or grossly negligent or otherwise provided in bad faith, the manufacturer may be liable to civil penalties in accordance with each agency's authority.
(a)
(i) NHTSA may conduct audits or verification testing prior to first sale throughout a given model year or after the model year in order to validate data received from manufacturers and will discuss any potential issues with EPA and the manufacturer. Audits may periodically be performed to confirm manufacturers credit balances or other credit transactions.
(ii) NHTSA may also conduct field inspections either at manufacturing plants or at new vehicle dealerships to validate data received from manufacturers. Field inspections will be carried out in order to validate the condition of vehicles, engines or technology prior to first commercial sale to verify each component's certified configuration as initially built. NHTSA reserves the right to conduct inspections at other locations but will target only those components for which a violation would apply to OEMs and not the fleets or vehicle owners. Compliance inspections could be carried out through a number of approaches including during safety inspections or during compliance safety testing.
(iii) NHTSA will conduct audits and inspections in the same manner and, when possible, in conjunction with EPA. NHTSA will also attempt to coordinate inspections with EPA and share results.
(iv) Documents collected under NHTSA safety authority may be used to support fuel efficiency audits and inspections.
(2) At the end of each model year NHTSA will confirm a manufacturer's fleet or family performance values against the applicable standards and, if a manufacturer uses a credit flexibility, the amount of credits in each averaging set. The averaging set balance is based upon the engines or vehicles performance above or below the applicable regulatory subcategory standards in each respective averaging set and any credits that are traded into or out of an averaging set during the model year.
(i) If the balance is positive, the manufacturer is designated as having a credit surplus.
(ii) If the balance is negative, the manufacturer is designated as having a credit deficit.
(iii) NHTSA will provide notification to each manufacturer confirming its credit balance(s) after the end of each model year directly or through EPA.
(3) Manufacturer are required to confirm the negative balance and submit a fuel consumption credit plan as specified in § 535.7(a) along with supporting documentation indicating how it will allocate existing credits or earn (providing information on future vehicles, engines or technologies), and/or acquire credits, or else be liable for a civil penalty as determined in paragraph (b) of this section. The manufacturer must submit the information within 60 days of receiving agency notification.
(4) Credit shortfall within an averaging set may be carried forward only three years, and if not offset by earned or traded credits, the manufacturer may be liable for a civil penalty as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(5) Credit allocation plans received from a manufacturer will be reviewed and approved by NHTSA. NHTSA will approve a credit allocation plan unless it determines that the proposed credits are unavailable or that it is unlikely that the plan will result in the manufacturer earning or acquiring sufficient credits to offset the subject credit shortfall. In the case where a manufacturer submits a plan to acquire future model year credits earned by another manufacturer, NHTSA will require a signed agreement by both manufacturers to initiate a review of the plan. If a plan is approved, NHTSA will revise the respective manufacturer's credit account accordingly by identifying which existing or traded credits are being used to address the credit shortfall, or by identifying the manufacturer's plan to earn future credits for addressing the respective credit shortfall. If a plan is rejected, NHTSA will notify the respective manufacturer and request a revised plan. The manufacturer must submit a revised plan within 14 days of receiving agency notification. The agency will provide a manufacturer one opportunity to submit a revised credit allocation plan before it initiates civil penalty proceedings.
(6) For purposes of this regulation, NHTSA will treat the use of future credits for compliance, as through a credit allocation plan, as a deferral of civil penalties for non-compliance with an applicable fuel consumption standard.
(7) If NHTSA receives and approves a manufacturer's credit allocation plan to earn future credits within the following three model years in order to comply with regulatory obligations, NHTSA will defer levying civil penalties for non-compliance until the date(s) when the manufacturer's approved plan indicates that credits will be earned or acquired to achieve compliance, and upon receiving confirmed CO
(8) In the event that NHTSA fails to receive or is unable to approve a plan for a non-compliant manufacturer due to insufficiency or untimeliness, NHTSA may initiate civil penalty proceedings.
(9) In the event that a manufacturer fails to report accurate fuel consumption data for vehicles or engines covered under this rule, noncompliance will be assumed until corrected by submission of the required data, and NHTSA may initiate civil penalty proceedings.
(10) If EPA suspends or revoke a certificate of conformity as specified in 40 CFR 1036.255 or 1037.255, and a manufacturer is unable to take a corrective action allowed by EPA, noncompliance will be assumed, and NHTSA may initiate civil penalty proceedings or revoke fuel consumption credits.
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii) The NHTSA Chief Counsel will review the report prepared by NHTSA Enforcement to determine if there is sufficient information to establish a likely violation.
(iii) If the Chief Counsel determines that a violation has likely occurred, the Chief Counsel may issue a Notice of Violation to the party.
(iv) If the Chief Counsel issues a Notice of Violation, he or she will prepare a case file with recommended actions. A record of any prior violations by the same party shall be forwarded with the case file.
(6)
(A) The name and address of the party;
(B) The alleged violation(s) and the applicable fuel consumption standard(s) violated;
(C) The amount of the proposed penalty and basis for that amount;
(D) The place to which, and the manner in which, payment is to be made;
(E) A statement that the party may decline the Notice of Violation and that if the Notice of Violation is declined within 30 days of the date shown on the Notice of Violation, the party has the right to a hearing, if requested within 30 days of the date shown on the Notice of Violation, prior to a final assessment of a penalty by a Hearing Officer; and
(F) A statement that failure to either pay the proposed penalty or to decline the Notice of Violation and request a hearing within 30 days of the date shown on the Notice of Violation will result in a finding of violation by default and that NHTSA will proceed with the civil penalty in the amount proposed on the Notice of Violation without processing the violation under the hearing procedures set forth in this subpart.
(ii) The Notice of Violation may be delivered to the party by—
(A) Mailing to the party (certified mail is not required);
(B) Use of an overnight or express courier service; or
(C) Facsimile transmission or electronic mail (with or without attachments) to the party or an employee of the party.
(iii) At any time after the Notice of Violation is issued, NHTSA and the party may agree to reach a compromise on the payment amount.
(iv) Once a penalty amount is paid in full, a finding of “resolved with payment” will be entered into the case file.
(v) If the party agrees to pay the proposed penalty, but has not made payment within 30 days of the date shown on the Notice of Violation, NHTSA will enter a finding of violation by default in the matter and NHTSA will proceed with the civil penalty in the amount proposed on the Notice of Violation without processing the violation under the hearing procedures set forth in this subpart.
(vi) If within 30 days of the date shown on the Notice of Violation a party fails to pay the proposed penalty on the Notice of Violation, and fails to request a hearing, then NHTSA will enter a finding of violation by default in the case file, and will assess the civil penalty in the amount set forth on the Notice of Violation without processing the violation under the hearing procedures set forth in this subpart.
(vii) NHTSA's order assessing the civil penalty following a party's default is a final agency action.
(7)
(ii) The Hearing Officer will be appointed by the NHTSA Administrator, and is solely responsible for the case referred to him or her. The Hearing Officer shall have no other responsibility, direct or supervisory, for the investigation of cases referred for the assessment of civil penalties. The Hearing Officer shall have no duties related to the light-duty fuel economy or medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency programs.
(iii) The Hearing Officer decides each case on the basis of the information before him or her.
(8)
(A) The date, time, and location of the hearing and whether the hearing will be conducted telephonically or at the DOT Headquarters building in Washington, DC;
(B) The right to be represented at all stages of the proceeding by counsel as set forth in paragraph (b)(9) of this section; and
(C) The right to a free copy of all written evidence in the case file.
(ii) On the request of a party, or at the Hearing Officer's direction, multiple proceedings may be consolidated if at any time it appears that such consolidation is necessary or desirable.
(9)
(10)
(ii) The Hearing Officer may transfer a case to another Hearing Officer at a party's request or at the Hearing Officer's direction.
(iii) A party is responsible for all fees and costs (including attorneys' fees and costs, and costs that may be associated with travel or accommodations) associated with attending a hearing.
(11)
(ii) The material in the case file pertinent to the issues to be determined by the Hearing Officer is presented by the Chief Counsel or his or her designee.
(iii) The Chief Counsel may supplement the case file with information prior to the hearing. A copy of such information will be provided to the party no later than three business days before the hearing.
(iv) At the close of the Chief Counsel's presentation of evidence, the party has the right to examine respond to and rebut material in the case file and other information presented by the Chief Counsel. In the case of witness testimony, both parties have the right of cross-examination.
(v) In receiving evidence, the Hearing Officer is not bound by strict rules of evidence. In evaluating the evidence presented, the Hearing Officer must give due consideration to the reliability and relevance of each item of evidence.
(vi) At the close of the party's presentation of evidence, the Hearing Officer may allow the introduction of rebuttal evidence that may be presented by the Chief Counsel.
(vii) The Hearing Officer may allow the party to respond to any rebuttal evidence submitted.
(viii) After the evidence in the case has been presented, the Chief Counsel and the party may present arguments on the issues in the case. The party may also request an opportunity to submit a written statement for consideration by the Hearing Officer and for further review. If granted, the Hearing Officer shall allow a reasonable time for submission of the statement and shall specify the date by which it must be received. If the statement is not received within the time prescribed, or within the limits of any extension of time granted by the Hearing Officer, it need not be considered by the Hearing Officer.
(ix) A verbatim transcript of the hearing will not normally be prepared. A party may, solely at its own expense, cause a verbatim transcript to be made. If a verbatim transcript is made, the party shall submit two copies to the Hearing Officer not later than 15 days after the hearing. The Hearing Officer shall include such transcript in the record.
(12)
(ii) If the Hearing Officer assesses civil penalties in excess of $1,000,000, the Hearing Officer's decision shall contain a statement advising the party of the right to an administrative appeal to the Administrator within a specified period of time. The party is advised that failure to submit an appeal within the prescribed time will bar its consideration and that failure to appeal on the basis of a particular issue will constitute a waiver of that issue in its appeal before the Administrator.
(iii) The filing of a timely and complete appeal to the Administrator of a Hearing Officer's order assessing a civil penalty shall suspend the operation of the Hearing Officer's penalty, which shall no longer be a final agency action.
(iv) There shall be no administrative appeals of civil penalties assessed by a Hearing Officer of less than $1,000,000.
(13)
(ii) The Administrator will review the decision of the Hearing Officer de novo, and may affirm the decision of the hearing officer and assess a civil penalty, or
(iii) The Administrator may—
(A) Modify a civil penalty;
(B) Rescind the Notice of Violation; or
(C) Remand the case back to the Hearing Officer for new or additional proceedings.
(iv) In the absence of a remand, the decision of the Administrator in an appeal is a final agency action.
(14)
(ii) The party must remit payment of any assessed civil penalty to NHTSA within 30 days after receipt of the Hearing Officer's order assessing civil penalties, or, in the case of an appeal to the Administrator, within 30 days after receipt of the Administrator's decision on the appeal.
(iii) The party must remit payment of any compromised civil penalty to NHTSA on the date and under such terms and conditions as agreed to by the party and NHTSA. Failure to pay may result in NHTSA entering a finding of violation by default and assessing a civil penalty in the amount proposed in the Notice of Violation without processing the violation under the hearing procedures set forth in this part.
(c)
(1) In general, if two manufacturers merge in any way, they must inform NHTSA how they plan to merge their credit accounts. NHTSA will subsequently assess corporate fuel consumption and compliance status of the merged fleet instead of the original separate fleets.
(2) If a manufacturer divides or divests itself of a portion of its automobile manufacturing business, it must inform NHTSA how it plans to divide the manufacturer's credit holdings into two or more accounts. NHTSA will subsequently distribute holdings as directed by the manufacturer, subject to provision for
(3) If a manufacturer is a successor to another manufacturer's business, it must inform NHTSA how it plans to allocate credits and resolve liabilities per 49 CFR part 534.
(a)
(2) Manufacturers may seek preliminary approvals as specified in 40 CFR 1036.210 and 40 CFR 1037.210 from EPA and NHTSA, if needed. Manufacturers may request to schedule pre-certification meetings with EPA and NHTSA prior to submitting approval requests for certificates of conformity to address any joint compliance issues and gain informal feedback from the agencies.
(3) The requirements and prohibitions required by EPA in special circumstances in accordance with 40 CFR 1037.601 and 40 CFR part 1068 apply to manufacturers for the purpose of complying with fuel consumption standards. Manufacturers should use good judgment when determining how EPA requirements apply in complying with the NHTSA program. Manufacturers may contact NHTSA and EPA for clarification about how these requirements apply to them.
(4) In circumstances in which EPA provides multiple compliance approaches manufacturers must choose the same compliance path to comply with NHTSA's fuel consumption standards that they choose to comply with EPA's greenhouse gas emission standards.
(5) Manufacturers may not introduce new vehicles into commerce without a certificate of conformity from EPA. Manufacturers must attest to several compliance standards in order to obtain a certificate of conformity. This includes stating comparable fuel consumption results for all required CO
(6) Manufacturers apply the fuel consumption standards specified in § 535.5 to vehicles, engines and components that represent production units and components for vehicle and engine families, sub-families and configurations consistent with the EPA specifications in 40 CFR 86.1819, 1036.230, and 1037.230.
(7) Only certain vehicles and engines are allowed to comply differently between the NHTSA and EPA programs as detailed in this section. These vehicles and engines must be identified by manufacturers in the ABT and production reports required in § 535.8.
(b)
(c)
(1) For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, the manufacturer's fleet average performance, as determined in § 535.6, is less than the fleet average standard; or
(2) For truck tractors, vocational vehicles, engines and box trailers the manufacturer's fuel consumption performance for each vehicle or engine family (or sub-family), as determined in § 535.6, is lower than the applicable regulatory subcategory standards in § 535.5.
(3) For non-box and non-aero trailers, a manufacturer is considered in compliance with fuel consumption standards if all trailers meet the specified standards in § 535.5(e)(1)(i).
(4) NHTSA will use the EPA final verified values as specified in 40 CFR 86.1819, 40 CFR 1036.755, and 1037.755 for making final determinations on whether vehicles and engines comply with fuel consumption standards.
(5) A manufacturer fails to comply with fuel consumption standards if its final reports are not provided in accordance with § 535.8 and 40 CFR 86.1865, 1036.730, and 1037.730. Manufacturers not providing complete or accurate final reports or any plans by the required deadlines do not comply with fuel consumption standards. A manufacturer that is unable to provide any emissions results along with comparable fuel consumption values must obtain permission for EPA to exclude the results prior to the deadline for submitting final reports.
(6) A manufacturer that would otherwise fail to directly comply with fuel consumption standards as described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section may use one or more of the credit flexibilities provided under the NHTSA averaging, banking and trading program, as specified in § 535.7, but must offset all credit deficits in its averaging sets to achieve compliance.
(7) A manufacturer failing to comply with the provisions specified in this part may be liable to pay civil penalties in accordance with § 535.9.
(8) A manufacturer may also be liable to pay civil penalties if found by EPA or NHTSA to have provided false information as identified through NHTSA or EPA enforcement audits or new vehicle verification testing as specified in § 535.9 and 40 CFR parts 86, 1036, and 1037.
49 U.S.C. 32901, 32905, and 32906; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
(a) The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile must have in order to be treated as a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) is 200 miles when operating on its nominal useable fuel tank capacity of the alternative fuel, except when the alternative fuel is electricity or compressed natural gas. Beginning model year 2016, a natural gas passenger automobile must have a minimum driving range of 150 miles when operating on its nominal useable fuel tank capacity of the alternative fuel to be treated as a dual fueled automobile, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c)(2).
(b) The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile using electricity as an alternative fuel must have in order to be treated as a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) is 7.5 miles on its nominal storage capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA urban test cycle and 10.2 miles on its nominal storage capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA highway test cycle.
Category | Regulatory Information | |
Collection | Federal Register | |
sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |